[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5819-S5830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I yield such time from the time of the Senator from 
Wyoming as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, as we listen to this critically 
important debate on the balanced budget amendment, we hear all of the 
different figures. The fact that $19,000 is owed by every man, woman, 
and child currently in America; the fact that we spend almost $300 
billion in interest on the debt--all of these numbers. But I have a 
hard time understanding this. How do you put that in perspective--how 
big is that--in the few moments that I am going to speak? Because I am 
going to make the formal part of my speech a part of the Record. But in 
the few moments that I am going to speak--that is 5 minutes--we will 
have $5.5 million in interest payments.
  So what does that equate to? That means that instead of paying that 
interest we could put 100 police officers on the street. It means that 
during those 5 minutes that I will be speaking we could instead use 
that $5.5 million to immunize more than 45,000 kids in America. It 
means that we could provide a year of Head Start for almost 1,500 kids 
in America. That is what we are consuming just in the few moments that 
I will be speaking.
  Today, as I walked over here, I saw all the Americans that are 
visiting this Nation's Capitol today. I think it is tremendous to see 
the citizens coming and seeing this Nation's Capitol. Just outside the 
door are the rich portraits that we have of George Washington and the 
Founding Fathers. We think about our history and what this country is 
founded upon. George Washington said in his farewell address to the 
Nation that he warned Congress to ``cherish public credit and to use it 
as sparingly as possible avoiding occasions of expense.'' And Thomas 
Jefferson, who believed so strongly in a balanced budget, said that it 
was so important ``as to place it among the fundamental principles of 
government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle 
posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.''
  Those are the principles upon which this Nation was founded.
  So how have we abided by those words? Are we paying our debts as we

[[Page S5820]]

go? No. The last time that we had a balanced budget in the United 
States of America I was 17 years old. I now am the father of a 17-year-
old daughter.
  It has been a generation since we have had a balanced budget. We do 
not have the discipline, so we need to make it part of the 
Constitution.
  Now I want to just step back, Mr. President, and address the big 
picture. Again, we mention all these numbers. But I just hope all 
Americans realize that while we try to get a two-thirds vote in the 
Senate of the United States, because it has passed in the House 
already, the balanced budget amendment, that does not mean we have 
accomplished a balanced budget for the country.
  That simply means Congress is saying we will now put the question to 
the 50 States of the Union because we are the United States of America. 
We are not the Federal Government of America, so we place that question 
before the 50 States so that the people of America can affirm whether 
or not they feel we should have a balanced budget amendment.
  It is hard for me to understand how this body can come to the 
conclusion that for some reason we must not ask that question of the 
American public. It is inconceivable especially when you look at the 
track record of how we have so poorly spent those finite resources, the 
dollars of the citizens of America, because it is not the Government's 
money. It is the people's money, and they should be brought into this 
process.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota has the floor. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to yield time to the Senator 
from Arkansas, [Mr. Bumpers] as soon as Senator Bumpers comes to the 
Chamber. Following that, I intend to make some remarks about this 
subject.
  I see Senator Hollings from South Carolina is in the Chamber. I 
listened intently to Senator Hollings and always enjoy his 
presentations. He knows this subject. As the former Chairman of the 
Budget Committee he has been involved in this subject for a long, long 
time. And I think if one looks at the record of Senator Hollings on 
taxing and spending issues, no one in this Chamber could credibly argue 
he does not want a balanced budget. No one has been a more vigorous 
fighter for a balanced budget in the Senate than Senator Hollings from 
South Carolina. The point Senator Hollings has made is there is a right 
way to do this and a wrong way to do this.
  This is a copy of the Constitution. This copy is a little small 
booklet, the kind that Senator Byrd, our distinguished colleague from 
West Virginia, carries with him. He is fond of saying this is his 
contract with America, the Constitution of the United States.
  This, incidentally, was written over 200 years ago by 55 men--55 
white men, to be exact--who convened in a small room in a place called 
Constitution Hall, the assembly room of Constitution Hall in 
Philadelphia, PA. Those 55 men spent the summer writing a Constitution 
for our country. I was selected to be one of 55 people who on the 200th 
birthday of the writing of the Constitution went back into the same 
room and held a celebration, a 200th birthday celebration of the 
writing of this remarkable document, the Constitution of the United 
States. And on the 200th anniversary, 55 of us went into that room, 55 
men, women, minorities--a wonderfully diverse group of Americans 
convened in that room.
  That little room up in Philadelphia has at the front of the room the 
chair where George Washington sat--yes, the very chair sat in by George 
Washington as he convened and chaired, presided over, the 
constitutional convention.
  If you read the accounts of the deliberations, Ben Franklin sat over 
on this side, Mason, Madison. Thomas Jefferson was not there; he was in 
Europe. But he contributed through his writings enormously to the Bill 
of Rights of the Constitution. But you could not help, while sitting in 
that room celebrating two centuries of the Constitution of the United 
States, you could not help getting some goose bumps about what all of 
this is about.

  This is the longest surviving, most successful democracy in the 
history of humankind. This democracy survives because the Constitution 
gives the power to the people. It is a country that belongs to the 
people.
  The Constitution starts:

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

  ``We the people.'' This is quite a remarkable document in the history 
of humankind.
  Some in this Chamber view this as a mere rough draft. We have had 
over 140 proposals in this Congress alone to change the U.S. 
Constitution. I do not see many people walking around here who look 
much like Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson. And I worry that this 
Congress on a dozen different initiatives believes it can improve on 
the work of our Founding Fathers, who created a document that provides 
timeless truths about how democracy can work to serve the interests of 
the people.
  I am going to talk about that in the context of this debate, a debate 
today about how to change, or whether to change, the Constitution in 
order to deal with this issue of deficits and fiscal policy. But before 
I begin that discussion, I want to call on my colleague from Arkansas, 
Senator Bumpers.
  Senator Bumpers, like a lot of Senators in this Chamber on both sides 
of the political aisle, is someone for whom I have deep respect. No one 
has served this country more honorably and provided better service in 
the cause of democracy than my colleague from Arkansas, Senator 
Bumpers. He not only is, I think, probably one of the best orators of 
the Senate in many decades; he is a person with a remarkable depth of 
knowledge about these budget issues. He sees where we have been, where 
we are heading, what is important, what we ought to be doing for the 
future of this country.
  So I am just delighted to yield whatever time he may consume. Let me 
yield 20 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. Bumpers].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Arkansas, 
[Mr. Bumpers], is recognized for up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first, I thank my distinguished friend 
from North Dakota for yielding. Second, I especially thank him for his 
very generous laudatory comments, all of which are true, of course, and 
to thank him for his very valiant, noble efforts in the cause of 
constitutional government.
  He made an observation which I have made many, many times but frankly 
across the Nation seems to fall on deaf ears, and that is we are the 
oldest democracy on Earth. Our Constitution, which should be sacred to 
all of us, is the oldest organic, existing law in the world, and yet 
many of my colleagues want to treat it as an unfinished, rough draft. 
Every time we have a politically popular thing crop up in this country, 
everyone wants to amend the Constitution. Without denigrating specific 
colleagues, nor really denigrating the Senate as a body, I do not know 
a single person in the Senate that I want to defer to instead of James 
Madison, defer to instead of Benjamin Franklin, defer to instead of 
John Adams or John Jay.
  Arthur Schlesinger, one of the preeminent historians of this country, 
has said, and I think with a great deal of acumen and accuracy, in 1787 
the greatest gathering of minds ever assembled under one roof met in 
Philadelphia to craft this document which we solemnly swear, when we 
are sworn into the Senate, we will support and defend--the Constitution 
of the United States.
  Is that a sacred, solemn oath we take, or is it something we do just 
for political reasons, because we have to, or because of legal reasons? 
I have heard it said in this body that 83 percent of the people in this 
country when asked, ``Would you favor a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget,'' 83 percent of the people say yes. What they do 
not tell you is that 83 percent of the people of this country also say 
they are contemptuous of politicians who have to look at a poll in 
order to find out what they think.

[[Page S5821]]

  The Senator from South Carolina, from Oregon, the rest of us, have a 
solemn duty to be educators as well as legislators. The people of my 
State did not all attend law school and study constitutional law. They 
have not all read ``The Federalist Papers.''
  I am chagrined, irritated, and angry because in this body we want a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We want a 
constitutional amendment to limit terms of Senators, as though the 
people of your State do not have enough sense to know who they want to 
vote for; or a constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning; a 
constitutional amendment that would require our children to recite 
certain prayers in school, and on and on it goes. This is just a snipe 
hunt. As a matter of fact, this amendment gives snipe hunting a bad 
name.
  What does this amendment do? Sam Nunn, our distinguished colleague 
from Georgia, when we considered this before, very thoughtfully added 
an amendment saying the courts will not have any jurisdiction over 
this. I am not sure we can legislatively make that decision here, but 
assume we can; that answers the question ``Will all Federal courts have 
jurisdiction?'' Under the Nunn amendment, they would not. But let us 
just assume that, as my good friend from South Carolina is wont to say 
very often in this Chamber, we pass a budget resolution to say this 
balances the budget, pat ourselves on the back, give ourselves the good 
Government award, head on home and tell the constituents how great we 
are.
  But, wait, some person that is aggrieved says, ``Look, that budget 
resolution is based on flawed assumptions about revenues and 
expenditures. You have it all out of kilter.'' Would he have a right to 
go to court and demand that Congress do this thing right, the way the 
people of this country told them to do it? I do not know the answer to 
that.
  Will the Congress be required to raise taxes and cut spending to 
achieve it? Can they do it all one way or the other? I suppose they 
could, but I am not at all sure. Numerous questions remain unanswered. 
How does this amendment force Congress to reach an agreement about 
which specific spending cuts or which tax hikes we should adopt?
  Finally, if you go to court, do you have standing? And what if the 
Supreme Court says this is a political question, which they often do 
where politicians are involved; where does that leave it? High and dry, 
just like we were last fall.
  Mr. President, I have listened to a good portion of this debate from 
my office on C-SPAN. I cannot believe people come to the floor and they 
say, ``I do not have the courage to make the tough choices, to vote for 
a balanced budget; therefore, please vote for this constitutional 
amendment so the courts or the law will make me do it.''
  Frankly, I do not want to get too strident or partisan about this, 
but if I were sitting on the other side of the aisle, that is exactly 
what I would be saying.
  In 1993, every Member in this body, every single Senator, had a 
chance to vote for a meaningful deficit reduction package. It has been 
said over and over, but it bears repeating, that when we adopted that 
package in, I think, August 1993, not one Republican could find it in 
his heart to vote to reduce the deficit by $500 billion. The Vice 
President sat in the Presiding Officer's chair and cast the tie-
breaking vote. Two-hundred and fifty billion dollars in tax increases, 
$250 billion in spending cuts. You cannot find a better way to start 
reducing the deficit. And OMB said, if you pass this, over the next 5 
years the deficit will be $500 billion less than it would otherwise be.

  Mr. President, that turned out to be grossly wrong. The figure now, 
according to OMB, is $846 billion.
  Bill Clinton, to his eternal credit, I do not care whether you like 
him or do not like him, but I can tell you one of the reasons he is 
going to be reelected President is because he did not sit around 
waiting for a constitutional amendment to do something. He submitted a 
package of deficit reduction proposals to this body and we adopted it 
without one single Republican vote.
  I inform my Republican friends who are all so enthusiastic about this 
amendment today, that deficit reduction package we adopted constitutes 
a reduction not of $500 billion, but $846 billion. So, my Republican 
friends, my question is this: Why not repeal it? You did not like it 
then. You are trying to kill the gas tax part of it now, which has to 
be the silliest thing I have ever heard. But I want to ask you, why not 
repeal it if it was that bad?
  We lost two of the finest U.S. Senators ever to sit in this body 
because they voted for that package, and their opponents took advantage 
of it and said, ``He is a taxer and spender.'' They lost their seats 
for doing the most courageous thing any Senator could do. People sit in 
their seats today who are spineless, who did not have the courage to 
vote for it.
  So I say to my Republican friends, repeal it and then tell us where 
are you going to find $846 billion, because that is what you have to 
find.
  When Bill Clinton ran for President he made a promise to the American 
people and I thought it was fair. It was a political promise, of 
course. Any promise a politician makes is political. But he said: You 
elect me President and in the first 4 years I will reduce the deficit 
by 50 percent. We were looking at a $290-billion-to-$300-billion 
deficit that year, 1993, which turned out to be $264 billion, and which 
has been going down every year.
  Because of that bill in 1993, the deficit this year is not going to 
be 50 percent of the projected $292 billion. The projection was that 
the deficit would be $292 billion in 1996. Current figures place the 
deficit at $125 billion, not a cut of 50 percent, a cut of almost 60 
percent.
  I can tell you, this fall, if I were President Clinton, I would keep 
a chart, about twice the size of these I am using, with me every minute 
of every day to show the American people why they should be dancing in 
the streets, because a few courageous Senators screwed up their nerve 
and did what they were supposed to do.
  What else does this constitutional amendment require? Nothing, in the 
year 2002.
  It gives the States 7 years to ratify it. We do not have to do 
anything for 7 years.
  You know, I think if I were a Republican, I would probably be taking 
the same tact they are. I would be so embarrassed about a lack of 
courage, a lack of responsibility in refusing to vote for something 
responsible, to bring the deficit down when the chance finally emerged.
  So, what is their solution? Well, I do not know what kind of a tax 
cut Senator Dole will propose. I have heard figures up to $600, $700 
billion. I do not know what it is going to be. But here is their method 
of balancing the budget: build a ballistic missile defense system which 
will cost American taxpayers $50 billion to $60 billion and deploy it 
by the year 2003.
  ``What kind of a system is that going to be?''
  The Republicans respond, ``Don't know. Don't have any technology yet, 
but we can start spending the $50 billion.''
  The people ask, ``Where's the money coming from without raising the 
deficit?''
  The Republicans reply, ``Don't know. Find it somewhere.''
  What else? The gas tax, repeal of that 4.3-cent gasoline tax we 
passed in 1993. It will accommodate the big sport utility vehicles and 
the vans and the big trucks. It will encourage people to drive more and 
further pollute the environment, as well as losing about $2 billion.
  The people want to know, ``Where is that $2 billion coming from?''
  Again, the Republican response is, ``Don't know.''
  What else? Airline ticket tax. We conveniently let that lapse on 
December 31 of this year, and we have already lost about $3 billion 
this year on the airline ticket tax.
  ``Why haven't we reinstated it?''
  ``Don't know.''
  What does it do? That loss of revenue raises the deficit by $3 
billion.
  What other proposals do the Republicans have for balancing the 
budget? Well, there is a $7 billion cut for small business. I can tell 
you, I yield to no one in my commitment to small business. I used to be 
a small businessman, and it was a struggle. I can tell you, they hurt 
me every time they raised the minimum wage. It did not hurt for very 
long. Back in those days, you had to do $250,000 a year in order to 
qualify,

[[Page S5822]]

and I was not doing that much business.
  So what are the Republicans going to do here? They propose $7 billion 
in additional tax cuts for small business. It is tough for anyone to 
vote against that.
  What else? Well, we are going to continue selling Federal lands that 
belong to the taxpayers for $2.50 or $5 an acre, beneath which lies 
billions and billions of dollars worth of gold; sell it to them for 
$2.50 or $5 an acre and not require them to pay the taxpayers 1 cent of 
royalty. This has been going on since 1872, and you cannot stop it. I 
know, because I have tried desperately for 7 years.
  It is shameless and unbelievable. Republicans who do not have a mine 
within 500 miles of their States vote to defend this practice for the 
benefit of the biggest mining companies in America.
  What else? Continue the shameless way we let our parks concessions. I 
urge my colleagues to listen to this story. Matsushita Electric Co. 
bought Universal. Universal, among other things, owned the Curry Co., 
which had the right to all the concessions in Yosemite, National Park. 
It is a beautiful, beautiful park. Everyone here has visited it.
  As you know, since the memory of man runneth not, as we lawyers like 
to say, the people who own the parks concessions in Yellowstone, 
Yosemite, and Grand Canyon took in around $500 million to $600 million 
a year in revenue, and they returned about $18 million to the 
Government.
  I say to my colleagues, when we go home and tell the chamber of 
commerce, ``Please reelect me, and if you do, I will treat your money 
just like it is my own,'' that we should consider this example. I want 
everyone in the U.S. Senate who would let a contract that produces for 
the person you contracted with $500 million to $600 million and you 
received $18 million to stand up. I want everyone in the U.S. Senate 
who would sell his land that had $11 billion worth of gold under it for 
$2.50 or $5 an acre and not receive a dime of royalty to stand up. I 
want all those Senators to stand up. You told the Chamber of Commerce 
you would treat their money and the public lands as if it were your 
own.

  Finally, Matsushita bought Universal. There was a hue and cry in this 
country about a Japanese company owning the concessions at Yosemite. 
And $100 million a year, I say to my colleagues, is what that one 
produces. And so the Japanese said, ``Look, we don't need all this 
flack. We'll just return it to you.''
  So the Parks Foundation said, ``Well, why don't we take it and we 
will relet the contract.''
  So they took it and they relet the contract and the company they 
selected last year returned $20 million to the U.S. Treasury, more than 
all the others combined have been returning, because we negotiated a 
decent contract. But if you tried to do that on all the national parks, 
we have a half a dozen on this side and about 50 on that side who will 
squeal like a pig under a gate: ``Oh, you can't do this, you can't do 
that, that's jobs in my State.''
  So we tried cutting taxes and balancing the budget in 1981, Mr. 
President. Do you know what we got out of it? We went from a $1 
trillion debt to a $3 trillion debt in 8 years. It was hogwash in the 
beginning and it still is. You cannot do it. We did not do it. You 
cannot cut taxes massively like we did in 1981 and hope to balance the 
budget. So what are we paying for? If we did not have to pay interest 
just on the debt that was accumulated in the 8 years of Ronald Reagan's 
Presidency--let me repeat this. I ask for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If we did not have to pay interest on just the increased 
deficit that was accumulated when Ronald Reagan was President, we would 
not be standing here debating today because we would have a nice 
healthy surplus.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Amen.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, ``thems the facts,'' and that is what 
brings us here today: using a constitutional amendment as a figleaf, a 
political ploy to keep from making the hard decisions just as they did 
in 1993, just as they will in 1996.
  Finally, I am not voting to tinker with what James Madison did 207 
years ago that has made us the strongest, longest living democracy in 
the world. I am not voting for something that nobody in this body can 
explain how it will work. It is nothing but utter chaos.
  I plead with my colleagues, don't snap on this one. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota controls 32 
minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas has spoken 
eloquently about this issue. I will try to add some to the debate.
  I began the discussion talking about the Constitution of the United 
States, the constitutional convention that produced the framework for 
our democracy.
  I will discuss what this attempt is here on the floor of the Senate. 
Is it an attempt to balance the budget, as is being alleged, or it is 
an attempt to simply change the Constitution? The reason I ask the 
question is there are plenty of people here in the Senate who seem to 
want to support every single proposed constitutional amendment that is 
offered. We have had thousands of proposed changes to this 
Constitution. We have changed it very, very rarely, and we have made it 
difficult to change.
  One reason for doing that, as the Senator from Arkansas suggests, is 
it is hard to see people walking in this Chamber who resemble in 
philosophy and in spirit Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison, or George 
Mason, or George Washington. So we have made it difficult to change 
this document.
  This country has taken on too much debt. That is clear. It is not the 
case, as some stand up daily in the Senate and say, ``Well, the 
American people must pay their bills every day. They don't have any 
debt.'' That is not the case. This country has $21 trillion in debt, 
$21 trillion in debt. There is just over $5 trillion is U.S. Government 
debt, over $4 trillion of consumer debt, and $4 trillion-plus, nearly 
$5 trillion of corporate debt, business debt. It totals $21 trillion in 
debt: mortgages for houses, lines of credit for businesses, Government 
debt, bonds, Federal debt. There is too much Federal debt. That is not 
being debated today.
  The Senator from Arkansas pointed out that in 1993 we had a vote here 
in this Chamber about debt and deficits. The Senator asked the 
question: Who is willing to stand up and cast a hard vote, a really 
tough vote to reduce the Federal deficit? Who is willing to cast an 
honest vote, a vote that says to the constituents, ``I'm standing here 
and I'm willing to cast a vote to cut Federal spending now; I'm willing 
to cast a vote to increase some taxes now because that must be done in 
order to reduce the Federal deficit?''
  It was not popular. The political and popular thing would have been 
to say, ``Well, if this is heavy lifting, if this is about really 
reducing the deficit, if this is about really increasing some taxes and 
really cutting some spending, count me out. I don't want to be part of 
anything that requires some political risk. Just count me out.''
  But there were a lot of people in this Chamber who said, ``Count me 
in. Let me stand up for that. This isn't about rhetoric or changing the 
Constitution. This is about reducing the Federal deficit.''
  Do you know that we passed that bill by one vote, as the Senator from 
Arkansas said? We did not get one vote from the other side of aisle, 
not even one by accident. You would think occasionally someone would 
make a mistake in this Chamber. We did not get one accidental vote in 
this Chamber. I understand that as well. We had the majority and we had 
the ability and the responsibility to advance the legislation.
  I said it before, and I will say it again, I am pleased I voted for 
that. It has substantially reduced the deficit. It is not easy to do. 
It is not popular to do. But it is the right thing to do.
  The job is far from over. We have to continue the effort.
  But I find it fascinating that folks come to this Chamber day after 
day, hold up the Constitution, and point their fingers across the aisle 
and say, ``We demand you support us to amend

[[Page S5823]]

the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced budget, and if you don't, 
you don't support balanced budgets.'' I find it fascinating that those 
same people come to the Chamber in the very next breath and say, ``By 
the way, we want to balance the budget, and we also want to build a new 
star wars program for $60 billion.'' The question is, how are you going 
to pay for it? They say, ``We don't know. We want to balance the 
budget, but we want to build star wars.''

  The majority leader was asked recently at a press conference when 
they said they wanted to build star wars--the question from the press 
was, ``Senator, how much do you think this is going to cost? And where 
is that money going to come from?''
  The answer from the majority leader of the Senate was, ``Well, I'll 
leave that up to the experts.'' Translated: ``I don't know. I don't 
care.'' Defend America, build a new star wars program. CBO says it will 
cost up to $60 billion just to build it, let alone operate it; $60 
billion just to build it, from the same people who come here and say 
they want to balance the budget. You ask, ``What is this going to 
cost?'' They say, ``I don't know. We'll leave it up to somebody else.''
  Can you imagine them shopping for a car. They look in a showroom and 
say, ``I want that yellow one.'' Someone says, ``Aren't you going to 
ask how much it costs?'' They say, ``I don't care. Leave it to the 
experts.'' They do not care about how much it costs. The same people 
that demand of us that we accept their prescription for the U.S. 
constitution because they say they want a balanced budget, those same 
people trot on the floor of the U.S. Senate with schemes to increase 
spending by up to $60 billion for a star wars program, schemes to enact 
all sorts of tax breaks, most of which will benefit the upper income 
people in this country, and then they tell us, ``Believe us. We really 
want a balanced budget.'' Nonsense.
  What they want to do is amend the Constitution. If they wanted a 
balanced budget, they have had plenty of opportunities. They could have 
voted with us in 1993 in a proposal that honestly does the things that 
balance the budget. It will not be the Constitution that balances the 
budget. It will be the acts of men and women in the Senate to deal with 
spending and revenue issues that will balance the budget.
  I will address a couple of issues that have been raised. Some say, 
``Well, this is the same amendment that has been voted on before. Some 
of you voted for it before and did not vote for it this time. What on 
Earth is going on?''
  There is a pretty fundamental difference between this and what was 
voted on before. We have voted on constitutional amendments before in 
the Senate. I have voted for a constitutional amendment. I voted 
against a constitutional amendment, as has the Senator from South 
Carolina. I voted for the constitutional amendment that says, let us 
balance the budget honestly and not misuse the Social Security trust 
funds to do it. I have voted against the constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget that would take into the Social Security trust funds 
a giant scoop and take the money and shovel it over here into the 
operating budget of the United States and misuse the money.
  How would you feel about a business, any business in your town or any 
town, that says, ``I'll tell you what. You're asking me about my 
financial performance this year. I'll tell you what. It's actually 
pretty good. I had to take my employees' pension money to bring it over 
on to the operating statement to make it income. I made it pretty good 
because I took my employees' pension fund. All in all, this year did I 
do pretty well? Yeah, I did, with the employees' pension funds being 
used.''
  Show me a businessperson who stands up and says that, and I will show 
you someone who is doing 2 years of hard tennis in a minimum security 
prison in this country. You cannot do that in this country. You cannot 
misuse pension funds.
  Interesting. I was on a television program last night that I shall 
not name: ``Crossfire.'' Mr. Novak asked the first question about the 
issue of the Social Security funds. And he says, as others have said, 
``Oh, that's a bunch of nonsense. What a hoax.'' Let us talk about the 
hoax.

  Lots of folks out there today are working, and working hard. They got 
up early, they went to work, they worked all day, and they finished. 
Maybe at the end of the day today they got a paycheck. They looked at 
that paycheck, and it shows that some money was taken out of that 
paycheck to put in the Social Security trust fund--it is called FICA 
taxes--put in the Social Security trust fund. The promise of the 
Federal Government is very simple--this is not rocket science--the 
promise of the Federal Government is, ``We'll take the money from your 
paycheck, and we promise you it goes into a trust fund--ergo the word 
``trust'' is used--and the trust fund will be used when we need it, 
when the baby-boom generation retires.''
  I said yesterday that my colleagues will remember what the baby 
boomers are--the war babies. The war babies were the largest baby crop 
in American history. I am told that when folks came back from the 
Second World War, there was an enormous outpouring of love and 
affection. As a result, we had the largest baby crop in America.
  When that largest baby crop in America retires after the turn of the 
century, we will have a maximum strain on the Social Security system. 
One of the sober things that was done in the 1980's in this Congress 
was to say, we will accrue more money in the Social Security trust 
funds each and every year in order to save for the time we will need it 
when the war babies retire.
  The result is this year $69 billion will come in in excess of what is 
needed this year in the Social Security system. That is forced national 
savings, to be available when the war babies hit the retirement rolls.
  Regrettably, the majority party says in their budgeting scheme--and I 
should say also it has happened under Democrats; and it is wrong under 
either party--that we want to use that money and use it as an offset to 
show it as revenue in order to balance the Federal budget. We are not 
going to have the trust fund; we are going to put it over here under 
operating revenues and use it to balance the Federal budget.
  Now, it is interesting. Senator Hollings changed the law and he 
prohibited them from actually putting in writing what they are doing. 
So the result is this. I have here the budget that was passed by the 
majority party that they claim was a balanced budget. It, of course, is 
not in balance.
  Here is a page from their budget resolution that they wrote--we did 
not write, they wrote. It says ``Deficits,'' in the year 2002: $108 
billion. Why would they put a bill on our desk that says ``Deficits,'' 
$108 billion in the year 2002, and stand up and crow that they balanced 
the budget? Why is that the case? Because they intend to use $108 
billion in trust fund money, almost all from the Social Security trust 
fund, in the year 2002 to show this as a zero balance.
  The Senator from South Carolina prevents them from doing that by law, 
so they cannot really put it in writing. All they can do is intend to 
do it. You misuse the money and put in writing that there is still a 
$108 billion deficit. I do not know how that goes over in your town, 
but I come from a town of 300 people and they tend to look at the fine 
print and they tend to understand what is happening. You cannot misuse 
the Social Security trust fund like that and claim you balance the 
budget by taking money out of trust funds. That is not the right thing 
to do.
  I have said that there have been three stages of denial on the floor 
of the Senate about this issue. I am still trying to figure out who 
claims to be right. Three Senators--and I will not name them--three 
separate Senators have stood up on different occasions and said the 
following three things. First, there is no Social Security trust fund. 
It does not exist. Second, there is a Social Security trust fund, and 
we are not misusing it. We promise. And third, there is a Social 
Security trust fund. We are misusing it. We promise to stop by the year 
2008. Those are the three stages of denial on the Social Security 
issue.
  I think the three of them ought to have a meeting with the rest of 
their caucus and figure out, which is it? Is there no trust fund? Are 
you not misusing it? Are you misusing it and promise to stop later?

[[Page S5824]]

  Of course, we all understand the real answer. I was part of a group 
in 1983 that constructed the 1983 reform package for Social Security. 
It was one of the sober things we did in that decade. We decided to 
create savings in the Social Security system to be available when we 
need them at the turn of the century. Well, we will not have saved 
anything if we stay on this road. And we certainly will not have saved 
anything if we allow the majority party to convince enough people in 
the Senate to enshrine in the Constitution a requirement that the 
Social Security funds be used to balance the budget.
  Now, we have had, essentially, the same vote on similar documents on 
two different years. In 1994 Senator Simon, whom I admire greatly, who 
has been a proponent of this amendment, said on the floor of the 
Senate, ``We guarantee we are not going to use the Social Security 
trust funds.''
  I said to him that I happen to know that the constitutional amendment 
that you originally offered included a provision to prevent the use of 
Social Security trust funds. I said, ``Is that right?'' And he said 
yes. That was his original position, but he changed it because it had 
to be bipartisan and the other side would not accept that provision. He 
said: We will guarantee we will provide a statutory remedy to prevent 
the Social Security trust funds from being used. We had a vote. I 
thought that was fine. We will have a guarantee.
  The next year, in 1995, a similar resolution comes up, not identical, 
but similar. Instead of providing a guarantee that they will not use 
the Social Security trust funds, we had a vote that guaranteed they 
would use the Social Security trust funds and would enshrine that in 
the U.S. Constitution.
  What a charade. I would not vote for that in 100 years. What a total 
charade. Then people say, ``Well, it was the same.'' It was not the 
same. The difference between promising not to use it and guaranteeing 
you will use it is a difference of about a $600 billion misuse of 
Social Security trust funds.

  I want to finish these comments by talking just for a moment about 
something Abraham Lincoln said. When they were dedicating the 
battlefield cemetery at Gettysburg in November 1863, there were going 
to be two speakers. Of the two speakers they invited, one was Dr. 
Edward Everett, known to be one of the greatest orators of his day. He 
had been president of Harvard University. He had been a U.S. Senator, 
had been a Secretary of State, and was known to be one of the greatest 
orators of his time. He was invited to speak at this dedication of this 
battlefield cemetery. Of course, Abraham Lincoln was invited to speak 
at this battlefield cemetery dedication too.
  Dr. Edward Everett was introduced and he stood up, and the history 
book records he spoke 2\1/2\ hours. After 2\1/2\ hours he sat down. 
Then the President of the United States was recognized, and he spoke 
for 2 minutes. After he sat down and was on his way back to Washington, 
he wondered to his aide whether what he said would be long remembered. 
He felt Dr. Edward Everett, one of the great orators of his time, had 
spoken at great length for 2\1/2\ hours, and he had gotten up and given 
just a couple of minutes.
  Of course, the result of that day is that Lincoln's address, the 
Gettysburg Address, as brief as it was, has become perhaps the best 
known and most admired statement given in the history of our Nation. At 
the end of his statement, as brief as it was, was the following:

       The world will little note nor long remember what we say 
     here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for 
     us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished 
     work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly 
     advanced. It is rather for us to be dedicated to the great 
     task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we 
     take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the 
     last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve 
     that all these dead will not have died in vain; that this 
     nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and 
     that government of the people, by the people, and for the 
     people, shall not perish from the earth.

  This is truly government of, by, and for the people. This document, a 
document we debate today, a document that some propose we change now, 
this document provides the framework by which self-government works in 
America. This is not an idle debate. This is not a vote anyone dare 
take lightly.
  I stand with my colleagues today to say I stand second to no one in 
this country who believes that we need to set this country back on 
course, fix the things that are wrong, celebrate the things that are 
right, and believe in America's promise. But I will not be one of those 
who blithely follow the windsock, who need to know the direction of 
yesterday's poll or today's poll or tomorrow's poll to figure out what 
I shall do next in proposing changing America's basic document, the 
U.S. Constitution.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I was particularly taken by the 
observation of the Senator from North Dakota about the Gettysburg 
Address, because Dr. Edward Everett was considered the greatest orator 
in America. After he spoke for 2, 2\1/2\ hours on a very hot, steamy 
day, Lincoln found it very difficult to stand up and follow a man of 
such oratorical skills and national renown. On the train on the way 
back to Washington, he thought that he had been an abominable failure. 
He could not imagine people taking his words very seriously after that 
oration. Of course, the rest is history. But I just want to point out 
to the Senator from North Dakota that Garry Wills has written a great 
book, just on the Gettysburg Address, really more than I want to know 
about the Gettysburg Address, but it is a fabulous book which goes into 
great detail about the events of that day.
  I would like to share one final observation--and I know the Senator 
from North Dakota is as well acquainted with these figures as I am--
when you stop to consider that there have been 83 or 84 resolutions to 
amend the Constitution introduced in the U.S. Congress since January 
1995, 83 proposals by Members of this Congress to tinker with that 
sacred document. There have been 2,300 proposed constitutional 
amendments since I came to the Senate. They were like snowflakes 
falling when I began serving during the days of busing and the 
segregation fight was still raging. And since the Nation adopted the 
Constitution, 17,000 have been proposed. I say that to my distinguished 
colleague to simply point out the contempt with which so many of my 
colleagues hold that sacred document.

  Well, I have voted for one constitutional amendment since I came to 
the Senate 22 years ago. I regret that. But I can tell you, my record 
will be intact when the roll is called on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
California, Senator Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota and I thank the 
Chair.
  Mr. President, on May 23--13 days ago--there were three votes on 
budgets. There was one for the Republican budget, which received a 
party vote; there was one for the President's budget, which received a 
party vote; and there was one more on a budget put forward by the 
centrist coalition.
  Now, one of the things that became very clear in budget balancing in 
this body is that there are different points of view on both sides of 
the aisle. Republicans do not tend to support a Democratic budget, and 
Democrats do not tend to support a Republican budget. This was borne 
out.
  Well, for some 6 months, under the leadership of Senator Chafee and 
Senator Breaux, 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats sat down around a table 
and said, ``look, we know we have to balance the budget. How are we 
going to do it, and what does each party need to do?''
  Believe it or not, we produced a document that came five votes short 
of being adopted by this body. With five more votes, we would not have 
needed a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and we would 
have balanced the budget within 7 years. I believe it is still possible 
to do succeed.
  I support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I even 
sponsored one, with a number of my colleagues, last year. But, in my 
view, if Congress does not have the will to

[[Page S5825]]

actually balance the budget, it may, at some point, need castor oil. 
And that is all this amendment is. I heard people on the floor this 
morning make the statement that now is the time to bite the bullet. Now 
is the time to make the hard choices.
  Does this constitutional amendment restructure Medicare? No.
  Does it restructure Medicaid? No.
  Does it bring on welfare reform? No.
  Does it provide for ballistic missile defense? No.
  Does it have the tax increases to pay for one? No.
  Does it have a tax cut in it, which so many want? No.
  Does it solve any problem at all? No, it does not.
  It does one thing. It says that the people of three-quarters of the 
State legislatures will vote and decide whether there will be a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget by the year 2003.
  The bill before us today is the same bill rejected by this body last 
year. I voted against it then because I do not believe it is the right 
amendment for this country, and I will vote against it today for these 
same reasons.
  Let me give you a couple of these reasons. A constitutional amendment 
cannot possibly be ratified right now in time to do any good. It would 
take the 3-year period that I described. The Medicare trustees 
announced yesterday the Medicare trust fund will actually reach 
insolvency in 2001--a year earlier than originally projected. This is a 
loud and clear message--or should be--that we do not have the luxury of 
waiting any longer to balance the budget.
  Additionally, the amendment before us says that, for all time, the 
Social Security trust fund will be stolen to balance the budget. This 
body would send to the States a constitutional amendment that would 
utilize the Social Security trust fund, for all time, to balance the 
budget.
  I think it is painfully clear to all of us that there is no way to 
achieve the goal of balancing the budget in 7 years without using, to 
some degree, funds that really should, by law, be set aside for Social 
Security. Our earlier speakers, including Senator Dorgan, Senator 
Hollings, and others know it as well as anyone in this body. Every plan 
put forward to balance the budget this year includes Social Security 
funds to some degree or another.
  However, today we are considering a constitutional amendment. The 
amendment would permanently use Social Security trust funds to balance 
the budget. It allows absolutely no flexibility to protect the solvency 
of the trust fund for future generations who will depend on it. That is 
not right because, all during this period, Americans will be working 
and paying payroll taxes for their Social Security retirement. Workers 
will pay their 6.2-percent FICA tax to contribute to their retirement 
and employers will match that 6.2 percent. People have a right to know 
that this trust fund will be there when they retire.
  This amendment, by locking into the Constitution the requirement that 
Social Security funds are used to balance the Federal budget, in 
perpetuity, abrogates that contract with American taxpayers.
  Under this amendment, Social Security funds could wind up being used 
to pay for general governmental programs, just as Senator Dorgan 
spelled out. It is like taking the pension fund, if you operate a 
company, and putting it on your operating budget. You just would not do 
it.
  Furthermore, I mentioned earlier that this constitutional amendment 
would have to pass muster with three-fourths of the States. If you 
think the debate in Congress has been difficult on this issue for the 
last few years, just wait until the voters of 50 States, or the 
legislatures of 50 States, start debating the permanent inclusion of 
the Social Security trust funds in the Federal budget under this 
balanced budget amendment. I venture to say that the likelihood of its 
ratification is dim, at best.
  Well, what is the upshot of all of this? The upshot is that we have 
the vehicle to balance the budget, without altering the Constitution, 
and we should just do it.
  I want to read this list. This is the first time I have ever seen 
this in the time I have been here. Forty-six Members--22 Republicans 
and 24 Democrats--voted for a centrist budget. The Republican 
supporters are: Bennett, Brown, Campbell, Chafee, Coats, Cochran, 
Cohen, D'Amato, DeWine, Faircloth, Frist, Gorton, Gregg, Hatch, 
Hatfield, Jeffords, Kassebaum, Lugar, Santorum, Simpson, Snowe, and 
Specter.
  These 24 Democrats voted with the 22 Republicans: Akaka, Bingaman, 
Boxer, Bradley, Breaux, Bryan, Conrad, Feinstein, Graham, Inouye, 
Johnston, Kerrey, Kohl, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Moynihan, Murray, 
Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Reid, Robb, and Simon.
  With the centrist budget amendment, we were five votes short of 
achieving the tax cut Republicans wanted, and minimizing the cuts in 
vital programs that Democrats wanted. We came within five votes of 
achieving significant savings for a wide variety of Federal program. In 
Medicare, we made enough changes to assure the solvency of the trust 
fund until 2007, and made some necessary changes in part B, as well. We 
took steps to meet the needs of Medicaid, restructuring the program, 
and provide welfare reform while retaining a Federal safety net. We 
also adopted a balanced tax cut, for individuals and businesses, 
including education, capital gains reform, research and development tax 
credits--all put together in a package that both parties could buy 
into.
  I was really very disappointed that there were not five other Members 
of this body who could stand up and we could get the job done.
  I do not believe that a constitutional amendment, particularly one 
that includes the Social Security trust fund, is ever realistically 
going to be ratified by three-quarters of the States. There are enough 
people in this Nation who pay those FICA taxes who do not want to see 
their FICA taxes used for anything other than their retirement.
  Therefore, I respectfully submit to this body that the centrist 
coalition, which balances the budget in 7 years, uses the Congressional 
Budget Office numbers, does not make unnecessary and precipitously deep 
cuts in important programs, represents the Nation's best interests and 
is really the way to go.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has one-half minute remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. How much time is remaining to the Senator from South 
Carolina?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-seven minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield whatever time I have to the Senator from Oregon, 
and I believe the Senator from South Carolina would like to yield as 
well.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from South Carolina 
and North Dakota.
  Mr. President, colleagues, as of now everyone knows what is going to 
happen when the Senate votes on this measure. The script on this issue 
has been published. It is played, and it is almost like yesterday's 
news. There probably is more likelihood that Michael Jordan is not 
going to show up for the playoffs than there is going to be a surprise 
on this issue.
  I am here today to say that it does not have to be this way, my 
colleagues. I have introduced along with Senator Hollings, Senator 
Dorgan, and Senator Daschle a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget that is identical to the measure introduced by Senator Dole, 
save for one change. Our measure simply says that you cannot go out and 
raid the Social Security trust fund. You cannot go out and take $600 
billion, money that belongs to working people, to young people, to 
seniors, and use it to balance the budget.
  I call our effort--and it has really been led by Senator Hollings for 
all these years. I think that we are the straight bookkeeping crowd. We 
are the crowd that wants some truth in budgeting. We are the folks who 
are saying it is time to end this accounting fiction which has been 
perpetrated, as Senator Hollings has said, in direct contravention of 
section 13301 of the Budget Act.
  The Budget Act is clear. There is no ambiguity about it. It says that 
you cannot use Social Security funds to mask the overall Federal 
deficit. You cannot do it. Both political parties unfortunately have 
done it.

[[Page S5826]]

  So what we want to do in our straight bookkeeping kind of effort is 
to try to make sure in the interest of both the cause of balancing the 
budget and protecting the Social Security program that we do what the 
law requires, and we do what is in the public interest.
  I happen to think that, if you do it as we propose, what is going to 
happen is you are going to have to make tough choices on both the 
budget and Social Security more quickly.
  I have come from a round of town meetings--and I am sure all of our 
colleagues have--at home. One of the things I heard consistently is 
that lots of folks feel that the Congress has put off the tough 
choices--put them off until after the election, put them off for years. 
If you do what we propose, you bet you have to make some tough choices, 
and you have to make them earlier. Maybe we are going to have to say no 
to some pork barrel spending programs.
  I believe that if you wall off the Social Security program, as we 
propose, that you do not let the surplus be used for balancing the 
budget, and you are going to see when the Social Security stands, as it 
should, separate from the Federal budget that we have to make some 
changes there too. We have a Social Security advisory commission that 
is going to report fairly shortly. They have a number of 
recommendations. They are going to be tough for people to swallow. But 
let me say that at a time when more young people think that they are 
going to see Elvis than think they are going to get a Social Security 
check that we are going to have to make some tough choices with respect 
to Social Security.
  So with our proposal--by making sure that the overall deficit is 
tackled responsibly and tackled more quickly--by walling off the Social 
Security program, as the Congress intended in the Budget Act, we 
believe that the country will get the discipline and tough choices that 
are needed, and get them earlier.
  I want to announce also this afternoon that it is my intention, after 
further consultation with the minority leader, Senator Daschle, and 
Senator Dorgan, to ask unanimous consent after the Senate has voted on 
the measure of the majority leader--it is my desire and my intention--
to ask unanimous consent that our measure, a constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget without raiding Social Security, be considered 
immediately after the vote on the measure offered by the majority 
leader.
  I think it is time to talk about a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget that has some legs. I think that we have had enough 
of this exercise in failure. The script has been written. We do not 
have to conclude this debate with a debate that fails. We can conclude 
it in a manner that will bring us real truth in budgeting, will ensure 
that the books are kept, and will allow us to have a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget.
  So let me be clear on this. I and those that support this measure are 
willing to write into law that there would be a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. This is not a statute. This is a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. And it is identical to 
the measure offered by the majority leader save for one respect.
  It is my intent to ask unanimous consent to have that measure 
considered immediately after the vote on this measure offered by the 
majority leader. I hope that measure will be considered. I believe 
that, if it is considered, we will get a minimum of 70 votes on that 
particular measure.
  My source for that appraisal is that on February 10, 1995--Senator 
Hollings was here, I was not--but on February 10, 1995, on a measure 
that in effect recommitted a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget to committee to do exactly what Senator Hollings and I propose 
now--that particular measure got more than 80 votes.
  I would like to conclude my remarks in really a bipartisan kind of 
fashion by picking up on what the majority leader said early this week.
  The majority leader said early this week, ``If the President wants a 
balanced budget, we will have a balanced budget.'' I am here to say 
that, if the majority leader wants a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget, we will have a constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget. It is a measure that will get a minimum of 70 votes on this 
floor. It is a measure that will write into law a specific 
constitutional amendment to bring about the discipline the American 
people want, and it will be bipartisan. But it also will be one that 
will keep faith with our working people and with our seniors who are 
paying those whopper payroll taxes--15.3 percent between the worker and 
the employer. Millions of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they 
pay in income taxes. They want a balanced budget, but they do not think 
we ought to do it by raiding the Social Security Program. The measure 
we hope to get a recorded vote on after the measure proposed by the 
majority leader would give us a chance to meet the desires of the 
American people for a balanced budget but one that also ensures that 
their Social Security is protected.

  I thank my good friend from South Carolina for yielding me this time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator 
from Oregon. First, I will surprise him by thanking him for the 
telecommunications bill. I welcome him to the Senate and thank him for 
introducing a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget that does 
not move the Government's deficit over to the Social Security trust 
fund.
  But more particularly, with respect to the telecommunications bill, I 
wish to thank him for his work. We passed that bill by an overwhelming 
majority here in the House and in the Senate. It came out of the 
conference committee and we reconciled the differences--which was a 
very difficult job. And, just before Christmas the distinguished Vice 
President appeared on NBC News, where he was being interviewed, and 
proclaimed, ``We now have the information superhighway, and I got 
everything I want.''
  Well, that really put the Speaker of the House into a tizzy, and we, 
the conferees, were told that our telecommunications bill was dead. 
Between that time, some 10 days before Christmas, and the first week of 
February, Congressman Bliley and I had to hold the fort, but we worked 
in a bipartisan fashion. We did not change a single word.
  What really occurred is that our colleague, Senator Wyden, won the 
special election out in Oregon, causing the Speaker of the House to 
say, ``Heavens, we have to show we can do something.'' I said we have 
an overwhelming majority ready for the telecommunications bill in the 
House and in the Senate, and that is how we got it.
  So I think it ought to be stated for the record that the Senator from 
Oregon was instrumental in ensuring passage of the telecommunications 
bill. And perhaps tomorrow if the Republicans really want a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution, we will obtain one. All that is 
required is a specific language in section 7 of the resolution 
excluding Social Security funds from deficit calculations. The present 
language includes Social Security funds. So there is no argument about 
the form, the present language already has exceptions in section 7: 
``Total receipts shall include all receipts of the U.S. Government 
except those derived from borrowing.''
  That has been interpreted as borrowing from the public. But how about 
borrowing from yourself, borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. 
All they have to do is change ``from borrowing'' to ``from the public 
and Social Security trust fund.'' That is all we have to add. I and 
several Senators on this side of the aisle formally informed the 
distinguished majority leader in a letter last year that we would 
support a balanced budget amendment that protected Social Security. I 
waited all year long for a joint resolution that I could amend. We in 
the Senate are used to putting an amendment on anything so you can get 
a vote. But oh, no. A constitutional amendment can only be offered as 
an amendment to another joint resolution. So, I waited and then the 
flag burning joint resolution came up in December.

[[Page S5827]]

  And so I said I have an amendment. In fact, I had two. I had one 
constitutional amendment that would have allowed the Congress of the 
United States to control expenditures in Federal elections. It would 
have overturned the flawed decision of Buckley versus Valeo.
  My other amendment was a real balanced budget amendment that 
protected Social Security, identical to the balanced budget amendment 
that the Senator from Oregon will ask unanimous consent to consider 
tomorrow. I will be in there supporting the Senator, and I hope we can 
work it out. I hope it is not true that they want to pass up this 
opportunity, because it is right here.

  I am tired of the media saying the balanced budget amendment failed 
by one vote, when they know differently. That is technical reporting, 
because the truth of the matter is that they could easily have picked 
up at least five votes if they had agreed to add language excluding 
Social Security.
  So I will be working with the Senator, and I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Oregon on his leadership. I thank publicly, of course, the 
Senator from Arkansas, for coming to the floor. I also want to thank 
Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. He understands all these particular 
problems and issues, and he is the most eloquent, I know, in the Senate 
on all of them. He gives categorical leadership and very common-sense 
observations, and you can follow his rationale. I happen to agree with 
most of it all the time. The Senator from California, Senator 
Feinstein, has been a leader in trying to do something about a balanced 
budget.
  But let me go, Mr. President, to statements made earlier before I 
forget them. The distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, 
got right to the point saying, why don't we do something. She kept 
talking about generations in the future and everything else like that.
  We tried to do something, not pass it off in a 7-year passing of the 
buck. This constitutional amendment is really putting off the tough 
decisions. It is not biting the bullet or making any hard decisions. 
Heck, you can say anything in rhetoric, in language. But should know 
from hard experience that actions speak louder than words.
  I came in as a Governor of a State, where the budget I inherited was 
totally in the red. We had in the constitution of 1895, still do in the 
constitution of the State of South Carolina in 1895, ``thou budget 
shall be balanced.'' But that didn't mean anything. There a number of 
accounting gimmicks that they employ like borrowing and moving trust 
funds.
  And so at this particular point, Mr. President, I want to ask 
unanimous consent to list the 48 States with a balanced budget 
requirement, the type of requirement, whether it is constitutional or 
statutory. They are all supposed to be balanced at the end of year. The 
chart lists the balances in the general funds and in the transfer 
funds. So the States, even with the constitutional requirement, do not 
a balanced budget give.
  I can tell you here and now, if I say it once--I have the time, 
fortunately--I say it again: A constitutional amendment requiring a 
balanced budget does not a balanced budget give. They play the 
gamesmanship.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record, so we 
will have those documents in there to show the game that the States are 
playing.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    STATES WITH BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENTS                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Ending            
                                                                                  Balanced   general            
                                                                                   budget      fund     Transfer
                    State                             Type of requirement          for FY    balance    fund (in
                                                                                    1995       (in     millions)
                                                                                            millions)           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................  Constitutional..................          Y         54          0
Alaska.......................................  Statutory.......................          Y          0      2,136
Arizona......................................  Constitutional..................          Y        270        223
Arkansas.....................................  Statutory.......................          Y          0          0
California...................................  Constitutional..................          Y        683        313
Colorado.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        484        484
Connecticut..................................  Constitutional..................          Y         81          0
Delaware.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        374       79.1
Florida......................................  Constitutional..................          Y        129        282
Georgia......................................  Constitutional..................          Y        224        288
Hawaii.......................................  Constitutional..................          Y         90          0
Idaho........................................  Constitutional..................          Y          3         33
Illinois.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        331          0
Indiana......................................  Statutory.......................          Y        679        419
Iowa.........................................  Statutory.......................          Y        292        116
Kansas.......................................  Constitutional..................          Y        357          5
Kentucky.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        261        100
Louisiana....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        146          0
Maine........................................  Statutory.......................          Y          4         10
Maryland.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        133        286
Massachusetts................................  Constitutional..................          Y        179        425
Michigan.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y          0      1,003
Minnesota....................................  Statutory.......................          Y      1,057        500
Mississippi..................................  Statutory.......................          Y        115        268
Missouri.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        473         24
Montana......................................  Constitutional..................          Y         47         NA
Nebraska.....................................  Statutory.......................          Y        176         21
Nevada.......................................  Constitutional..................          Y        102        100
New Hampshire................................  Statutory.......................          Y          0         24
New Jersey...................................  Constitutional..................          Y        952      263.3
New Mexico...................................  Statutory.......................          Y          0         59
New York.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        158        157
North Carolina...............................  Constitutional..................          Y        892      423.6
North Dakota.................................  Statutory.......................          Y         31          0
Ohio.........................................  Constitutional..................          Y         70        828
Oklahoma.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        195         45
Oregon.......................................  Constitutional..................          Y        496         39
Pennsylvania.................................  Constitutional..................          Y        429         66
Rhode Island.................................  Statutory.......................          Y          5         45
South Carolina...............................  Constitutional..................          Y        589      164.8
South Dakota.................................  Constitutional..................          Y          0         11
Tennessee....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        138        101
Texas........................................  Constitutional..................          Y      1,852          9
Utah.........................................  Constitutional..................          Y         61         66
Virginia.....................................  Constitutional..................          Y         17         80
Washington...................................  Statutory.......................          Y        559          0
West Virginia................................  Constitutional..................          Y         64         64
Wisconsin....................................  Constitutional..................          Y        127       78.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:                                                                                                          
1. Vermont has no balanced budget requirement and reported a $15 million deficit.                               
2. Wyoming has no balanced budget requirement and reported a $26 million surplus.                               
3. 35 states have constitutional requirements; 13 States have statutory requirements.                           

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Senator Coats of Indiana said the amendment will 
enforce the discipline, force us to meet our responsibilities. Of 
course, that is not the case at all. On the contrary, I have been 
trying to do that. I tried freezing, I say to the Senator. He is nice 
to stay around so I have someone to talk to. Usually they just go ahead 
somewhere else. At least I can talk to C-Span. And now I see the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
  I want to read an article. I will not read the whole article, I will 
just read from this, referring to ``Ace in the Hole'' in the New 
Yorker, in the June 10 issue that has just come out. This is an 
article, ``Ace in the Hole,'' by John Cassidy. I commend it to my 
colleagues for their reading.

       Despite some suggestions to the contrary--notably by the 
     Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank--this year 
     cannot be compared with 1992, let alone 1980 or 1932. In the 
     first quarter of 1996, inflation-adjusted growth in national 
     output, which is the broadest index of economic performance, 
     2.3 per cent on an annualized basis; over the full course of 
     the Clinton Administration, such growth has averaged around 
     2.5 per cent a year. This record is about average for the 
     post-1973 era but well above the growth rate of 1.6 percent 
     eked out during the Bush Presidency. A number of other 
     measures also suggest that the economy is doing significantly 
     better than it was four years ago: two of the most widely 
     followed are the ``misery index,'' which is the rate of 
     inflation added to the rate of unemployment, and the size of 
     the federal budget deficit.
       At the moment, the unemployment rate is 5.4 per cent, and 
     the inflation rate is 2.9 per cent. Added together, these 
     numbers produce a misery index of 8.3, which is an extremely 
     low number. The last year it was lower was 1968, when the 
     unemployment rate was 3.6 per cent and the inflation rate 
     averaged 4.2 per cent. For much of the nineteen-seventies and 
     eighties, the misery index well into double digits. As 
     recently as 1992, it stood at 10.4.
       Perhaps the most important, and least heralded, achievement 
     of the Clinton Administration is the improvement it has 
     wrought in the national finances. According to the 
     Congressional Budget Office, the federal budget deficit for 
     the 1996 fiscal year, which began last October, will be about 
     $145 billion. This is a large number, but it is only half the 
     size of the deficit that the federal government recorded in 
     1992, which was $290 billion. And these raw numbers don't 
     tell the full story. In ranking budget deficits, economists 
     usually look at them in relation to the size of the economy. 
     Measured in this way, the federal deficit this year will be 
     about 1.9 per cent of the gross domestic product, according 
     to the C.B.O. This figure is down from 4.9 per cent in 1992; 
     indeed, it is the lowest such figure recorded since 1979, the 
     year before Ronald Reagan was elected, when the budget 
     deficit was just 1.7 percent of G.D.P.

  That takes us to our distinguished friend, Senator Muskie, who was 
chairman. We had a Democratic House and Senate. Senator Muskie was 
chairman of our Budget Committee, and I was right in there behind him. 
I took over in 1980. So we were working and had more or less succeeded, 
under President Carter, in reducing the deficit from what we had 
inherited from President Ford. However, in came President Reagan with 
Reaganomics and the fiscal disaster that we are now experiencing.
  I tried, during the early 1980's, what they called the Fritz freeze. 
They gave it a name because I was so intent. I said every Governor 
would come in and he would say let us just take spending the way it is 
now and let us just take this year's budget for next year. There would 
be no cuts, there would be no increases. That way we would save $50 
billion at the Federal level.
  We tried the freeze. We tried to hold the line. We could not get it 
done. I tried with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings.

[[Page S5828]]

 And then I came with a value-added tax in 1987. There is no question 
that I have been trying to head off annual deficits with about $180 
billion in revenues from a 5 percent VAT.
  I went to Darman in 1989, after we could not get it past the Budget 
Committee in 1987. In 1989, when President Bush took office, I met with 
Dick Darman. I had been a close friend of his father's, Mr. Morton 
Darman. We had a good, heart-to-heart talk.
  I said, ``By 1992, if President Bush doesn't get on top of this 
monster, it is growing so, he is going to need the Secret Service.'' I 
said that in a jocular fashion, but politically that is what happened 
to him. ``It's the Economy, Stupid.'' I will put in the chart. There 
have been intermittent figures, but the real deficit then was $403.6 
billion. That is without using those trust funds, $403. So we were up, 
up and away.
  I got a nice note from the President, President Bush, that he just 
did not think it was timely and he wanted to get himself more 
stabilized in office.
  Again, when President Clinton took office, I went. I will never 
forget the conference that we had. When I suggested a VAT for the 
deficit and the debt, President Clinton said, ``I got a call last night 
from Lane Kirkland. The AFL-CIO has its annual meeting at Bal Harbour, 
in Florida. He said that he would go along with a VAT for the deficit 
and the debt.'' And I said, ``Heavens above, Mr. President, that's who 
opposed me.''
  I came before the Finance Committee and testified for a value-added 
tax. I had the experts there and everything else to answer all the 
econometric issues and questions. It was the AFL that said, ``Wait a 
minute, this is regressive, regressive, a heavy burden, and everything 
else.'' Of course, every industrialized country has a value-added tax. 
Our competition in Europe has a VAT. You cannot be a member of the 
European Economic Community unless you have a value-added tax. Out in 
the Pacific rim, every country there has a value-added tax. In Korea, 
for example, it is 25 percent. So the competition is economically 
succeeding. They have 5 percent in Japan. They will be the largest 
economy, according to Eamon Fingleton in ``Blindside,'' by the year 
2000. They are presently a larger manufacturing nation than we are here 
in the United States.
  So I said it would solve our deficit in the balance of trade because 
it is rebatable at the bottom, at the border. So if you produce 
something here today in Washington, this desk and chair, for $500, you 
will pay all the corporate taxes, all the income taxes, all the sales 
taxes and everything else. If you ship it to Paris, France, they will 
add on a 17 percent VAT and sell it. But, if you produce that same 
chair and desk in Paris, France, they add a 17 percent value-added tax, 
a VAT at the time of manufacture, but when it leaves the port at Le 
Havre to come to Washington, DC, they subtract or rebate the 17 
percent.
  So you can see the tremendous advantage to move the industry 
offshore. We have been talking about slave labor, about child labor, 
about 27-cents-an-hour labor down. But let's talk about the advantage 
they have in Europe and in the Pacific rim where they employ value 
added taxes.
  I have introduced this legislation again in this Congress. That 
particular bill now, Mr. President, is S. 237. It is in the Finance 
Committee.
  When the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, says, 
``Let's do something now,'' let's go to the Finance Committee that the 
majority of the Republicans control. I will testify. We will get the 
expert witnesses, and we will get something done. We do not have to 
wait 7 years on States to find out whether or not we are going to meet 
our responsibilities.
  I really resent the idea of us like a crowd up in the grandstand 
hollering, ``We want a touchdown, we want a touchdown, we want a 
touchdown,'' when we are the team, we are on the field.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield just for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. It seems to me that what you are saying is this is just 
about budget discipline.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. This is about making tough choices, and you can make them 
in a variety of ways. I said the other day that I thought some of what 
was going on in this town was like a hot-fudge-sundae approach to 
dieting. You can have tax cuts, you can have new weapons systems and 
then somehow say the books are going to balance. It is like having six 
or seven hot fudge sundaes a day and still lose weight.
  I think what you offer in your important remarks is, this is about 
budget discipline, and you are going to suggest a variety of ways to do 
it.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. I thank the distinguished Senator. Let's make 
the record on the hot fudge sundae.
  At the present time, the Dole agenda--and I repeat this and I got 
into it this morning--was the repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. That is 
$30 billion. The missile defense system is $60 billion. The across-the-
board tax cuts, $600 billion.
  So that is what we are up against; $690 billion that is in the 
Presidential campaign and, whoopee, ``I have to get elected because I 
can cut the revenues another $690 billion. And, incidentally, I get 
another $600 billion from the Social Security trust fund.'' When the 
smoke has cleared, we are down well over a trillion bucks.
  What a charade. What a fraud. How can anybody be serious and stand up 
here? But they all have the same singsong. Let me go quickly, because 
we are going to run out of time.
  They all come in here with the same stock phrases--Thomas Jefferson, 
children and grandchildren, first balanced budget in 30 years, largest 
tax increase in history. The largest tax increase in history, one more 
time--I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``Fiddling 
with the Numbers,'' by Judy Mann.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the Washington Post]

                       Fiddling With the Numbers

                             (By Judy Mann)

       Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, the Republican meteor from New 
     Jersey, had the unusual honor for a first-term governor of 
     being asked to deliver her party's response to President 
     Clinton's State of the Union message last week.
       And she delivered a whopper of what can most kindly be 
     called a glaring inaccuracy.
       Sandwiched into her Republican sales pitch was the kind of 
     line that does serious political damage: Clinton, she 
     intoned, ``imposed the biggest tax increase in American 
     history.''
       And millions of Americans sat in front of their television 
     sets, perhaps believing that Clinton and the Democrat-
     controlled Congress had done a real number on them.
       The trouble is that this poster lady for tax cuts was not 
     letting any facts get in her way. But don't hold your breath 
     waiting for the talk show hosts to set the record straight.
       The biggest tax increase in history did not occur in the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The biggest tax 
     increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under 
     President Ronald Reagan.
       Here is how the two compare, according to Bill Gale, a 
     specialist on tax policy and senior fellow at the Brookings 
     Institution. The 1993 act raised taxes for the next 5 years 
     by a gross total of $268 billion, but with the expansion of 
     the earned income tax credit to more working poor families, 
     the net increase comes to $240.4 billion in 1993. The Tax 
     Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, by comparison, 
     increased taxes by a net of $217.5 billion over 5 years. 
     Nominally, then, it is true that the 1993 tax bill was the 
     biggest in history.
       But things don't work nominally. ``A dollar now is worth 
     less than a dollar was back then, so that a tax increase of, 
     say $10 billion in 1982 would be a tax increase of $15 
     billion now,'' says Gale. In fact, if you adjust for the 48 
     percent change in price level, the 1982 tax increase becomes 
     a $325.6 billion increase in 1993 dollars. And that makes it 
     the biggest tax increase in history by $85 billion.
       Moreover, says Gale, the population of the country 
     increased, so that, on a per person basis, the 1993 tax 
     increase is lower than the one in 1982, and the gross 
     domestic product increased over the decade, which means that 
     personal income rose. ``Once you adjust for price 
     translation, it's not the biggest, and when you account for 
     population and GDP, it gets even smaller.''
       He raises another point that makes this whole business of 
     tax policy just a bit more complex than the heroic tax 
     slashers would have us believe. ``The question is whether 
     [the 1993 tax increase] was a good idea or a bad idea, not 
     whether it was the biggest tax increase. Suppose it was the 
     biggest? I find it frustrating that the level of the debate 
     about stuff like this as carried on by politicians is 
     generally so low.''
       So was it a good idea? ``We needed to reduce the deficit,'' 
     he says, ``we still need to reduce the deficit. The bond 
     market responded positively. Interest rates fell. There may 
     be a longer term benefit in that it

[[Page S5829]]

     shows Congress and the president are capable of cutting the 
     deficit even without a balanced budget amendment.''
       Other long-term benefits, he says, are that ``more capital 
     is freed up for private investment, and ultimately that can 
     result in more productive and highly paid workers.''
       How bad was the hit for those few who did have to pay more 
     taxes? One tax attorney says that his increased taxes were 
     more than offset by savings he was able to generate by 
     refinancing the mortgage on his house at the lower interest 
     rates we've had as a result. The 1993 tax increase did 
     include a 4.3-cent-a-gallon rise in gasoline tax, which hits 
     the middle class. But most of us did not have to endure an 
     income tax increase. In 1992, the top tax rate was 31 percent 
     of the taxable income over $51,900 for single taxpayers and 
     $86,500 for married couples filing jointly. Two new tax 
     brackets were added in 1993: 36 percent for singles with 
     taxable incomes over $115,000 and married couples with 
     incomes over $140,000; and 39.6 percent for singles and 
     married couples with taxable incomes over $250,000.
       Not exactly your working poor or even your average family.
       The rising GOP stars are finding out that when they say or 
     do something stupid or mendacious, folks notice. The jury 
     ought to be out on Whitman's performance as governor until we 
     see the effects of supply side economics on New Jersey. But 
     in her first nationally televised performance as a 
     spokeswoman for her party, she should have known better than 
     to give the country only half the story. In the process, she 
     left a lot to be desired in one quality Americans are looking 
     for in politicians: honesty.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. So we know from all 
the quotes from the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and 
everything else that the largest tax increase was back in 1982 under 
the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Kansas.
  The first balanced budget in 30 years--I showed the two letters that 
we put in from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, June 
O'Neill. One day in October of last year on the present 1996 budget, 
she had a slight surplus, and then 2 days later when we reminded her of 
section 13301, she said it is a $105 billion deficit.
  The distinguished Senator from North Dakota did it in more dramatic 
terms. Here, again, my colleagues should look at this year's budget 
resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 57. Turn to page 5: Fiscal 
year 2002, deficits, $108.3 billion.
  Come on, how can you keep on saying the first balanced budget when 
the document itself shows a deficit. You talk about backloading. The 
President had a backloaded budget. Almost two-thirds of the cuts in 
that particular phony budget was to occur after the second Presidential 
election, the last 2 years. Two-thirds of it. It ought to be ashes in 
their mouths.
  So there they are with their first balanced budget in 30 years. All 
the children and grandchildren--come on, it is us.
  You can look at these particular charts and you can see at a glance, 
even with the President halving the deficit--and he is the only 
President who has--spending on interest costs continue to rise. The 
interest costs during the last 4 years has gone up $50 billion. That is 
just interest costs; that is spending on automatic pilot.
  We have increased these costs, forcing the American people to pay 
more and get less. We are getting hit now; I cannot fully fund women, 
infants, and children feeding and Head Start and title I for the 
disadvantaged and student loans and get the economy rebuilt, do the 
bridges, the highways, expand the airports, and strengthen our economy. 
I talked about that early this morning. Why can I not do it? Because my 
money is going to interest costs on the national debt.
  President Reagan promised a balanced budget in 1 year. He came in and 
said, ``Whoops, this problem is way worse. I'll do it in 3 years.'' 
But, Mr. President, instead he added almost $270 billion in forced 
spending for nothing.
  The interest cost on the national debt after 217 years of history in 
1981 was $74.8 billion. Let's call it $75 billion. Now it is projected 
at $344 billion.
  He has added almost $270 billion in unnecessary spending that we get 
nothing for. We cannot get funds for prisons or the environment. In 
fact, it just was pointed out, if he had done what he promised--and 
they all say ``President Clinton promised; President Clinton promised; 
President Clinton promised''--if Reagan had carried out his particular 
promises, what would we have done? We would be talking about a surplus 
around here.
  So the unmitigated gall of this crowd that comes aboard--the 
freshmen. It reminds me of a saying in the Navy during World War II, 
``When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.''
  And they come down and get their 2-hour session. I do not know if I 
have all the time to go down through, because I was making notes. We 
need to focus on the problem at hand. It is not Social Security which 
is presently in surplus. It is not Medicare that the distinguished 
majority leader saw fit to come in and talk about. Medicare is in 
surplus until 2001, they say, which is what it was when President 
Clinton came to office.
  So we have not gone backward. We had gotten it up to 2002 when 
Senator Exon and I voted for the 1993 $57 billion cut in Medicare. That 
is what we did in 1993.
  So we have been cutting spending and making progress. As Senator 
Hutchison says, we ought to really do something. They all come in with 
``children and grandchildren, children and grandchildren,'' that is on 
some silly pollster's chart; it is like parrots at a pet store. Then 
quoting Thomas Jefferson. Ha. They ought to quote Lyndon Baines 
Johnson. He was conscientious. He was being blamed for the Great 
Society, the War on Poverty, and the war in Vietnam.

  I pointed out how Senator Dole voted back in 1968 as a House Member 
for, what, a 10-percent surcharge on income tax for individuals and 
corporations, $6 billion in spending cuts, $200,000 in employees' cuts, 
extended excise taxes, and everything else. But we did it. We balanced 
the budget.
  We do not have to go to what Thomas Jefferson said and a 
constitutional amendment that puts off everything, passing the buck to 
the legislatures, and the people generally arguing again for another 7 
years with interest costs of $353 billion. I can tell you now the 
interest cost will be over $500 billion by the time they get their so-
called constitutional amendment if they can get it.
  Mr. President, right to the point, do not quote Jefferson on that. 
Quote Jefferson on what he said: If between a free press and a free 
government, I would choose the former. Jefferson's point was, you can 
have a free government, but unless you have a free press to keep the 
politicians honest, it is not going to stay free long. That is what is 
occurring. The free press has joined in the conspiracy with the 
politicians in making the news, getting polls, reporting ahead of time, 
making more news. You cannot get them to report the true deficits that 
we have, the true interest costs that we have, the true initiatives 
that we make and have made.
  There is the ``Balance the budget. Who stands for a balanced 
budget?'' when the only gentleman in this city that has done something 
about it, and cannot be blamed, is President William Jefferson Clinton. 
You can blame me. I have been here. I am in my 30th year. You can blame 
the Senator from Nebraska or some of the Senators that have been here 
before 1992.
  January 1993 is when President Clinton came to town. We are the ones 
who gave him the spending on automatic pilot, this horrendous debt, the 
horrendous interest costs. What does he do? He faces up to the task. He 
brings in his Vice President and he gets every Democrat to vote for 
$500 billion in spending cuts, increasing taxes on liquor, beer, 
cigarettes, and increasing taxes on gasoline, increasing taxes on 
Social Security.
  Who is really serious about Social Security? The Senator from 
Pennsylvania came here and said, ``You are trying to hide. You're 
trying to hide,'' he said, ``hide behind Social Security.'' Who is 
hiding? Old Joe Louis said, ``You can run, but you can't hide.'' The 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  We made it crystal clear. We have it written in the law. What you are 
trying to do is hide, in section 7, the repeal of that law. You are the 
one that is hiding. You are the one that wants to move the deficit from 
your political accounting in the Government over to the Social Security 
trust fund and decimate the program. That is exactly what has been 
going on.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 6 minutes.

[[Page S5830]]

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would gladly yield to the distinguished ranking 
member of our Budget Committee. I thought he was eloquent. I thought he 
made a masterful statement that was common sense. Out in the Midwest 
they think that way. I would be glad to yield to the distinguished 
Senator from Nebraska if he would like a little bit of time in the 
remaining few minutes I have.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I thank very much my great friend and colleague from South 
Carolina, whom I have admired ever since I came here 18 years ago. I 
served under him on the Budget Committee, and I served under him in his 
chairmanship of the Commerce Committee. We have worked together for so 
very long on the budget problems of the United States of America. But I 
simply say that I wish everybody who serves in Congress had his head 
screwed on as correctly as does the Senator from South Carolina.

  During all of this rancorous debate about who is to blame, I am 
reminded once again of that time--it must have been in 1979--when Jimmy 
Carter was President of the United States. I believe the Senator was on 
the Budget Committee and Senator Muskie served as chairman. I remember 
well the statement that the Senator made when the President of the 
United States called us down to the White House. The President was very 
alarmed by the fact that the deficit for that particular fiscal year 
was likely to go over $100 billion, and if we did not arrest what we 
were doing, we were going to exceed in the next year or two $1 
trillion--the horrible $1 trillion figure--on the national debt. I do 
not know what the interest on the debt was at that time, but obviously 
it was small compared to what we are now paying.
  So the Senator from South Carolina is accurate in explaining what he 
did with regard to the remarks that have been made on the floor of this 
Senate today.
  We are not here to find fault. We are here trying to solve a problem. 
But the problem we have been sinking into over the years goes back to 
the time when supply-side economics was ushered into this body, when 
Ronald Reagan became President of the United States.
  As the Senator from South Carolina just said, President Ronald 
Reagan, who is an honorable man, said when he came into office that he 
was going to balance the budget in 4 years. The facts of the matter 
were that the budget went out of balance in those 4 years faster than 
it has gone out of balance any time in the whole history of the United 
States of America.
  The facts of the matter are, while there has been so much criticism 
of the President of the United States today, it should be remembered 
and written indelibly, so it will not be forgotten, that under this 
President we have had 3 successive years of deficit reduction, from a 
figure of about a $300 billion shortfall in the budget each year, down 
to about $130 billion. That is what Bill Clinton has done.
  So Bill Clinton is the one who has accomplished reducing the deficit 
faster than any President, probably going back to Harry Truman or 
Lyndon Johnson. We still have a major problem on our hands. It goes 
back, and all of this crying and moaning today goes back to that period 
in the early 1980's when the United States of America was under $1 
trillion in national debt and was under $100 billion a year in the 
annual deficit.
  That rose appreciably. And as the Senator from South Carolina has 
said time and time again, if we had not run up those deficits that were 
run up under Ronald Reagan, the budget would be balanced today, would 
be in surplus today, and we would not have all the concerns that we do 
have about future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
  So I simply say that the reason I am not going to vote for the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, as I elaborated on to 
some extent earlier today, is the fact, Mr. President, that this is a 
sham. This is a political sham where the U.S. Senate is being used as a 
tool in the Presidential race. Unfortunately, that is not the way to 
run the Government and that certainly is not the way to run our budget. 
I do appreciate very much the Senator yielding me time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. According to the timekeeper, Senator Exon had 
2 minutes reserved for him; so using those 2 minutes, there would still 
be 2 minutes left.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield the balance of my 2 minutes to my 
friend from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  In the 2 minutes I will read from the daddy rabbit of Reaganomics 
where they start talking about growth now, David Stockman:

       The root problem goes back to the July 1981 frenzy of 
     excessive and imprudent tax cutting that shattered the 
     Nation's fiscal stability. A noisy faction of Republicans 
     have willfully denied this giant mistake for fiscal 
     governance and their own culpability in it ever since. 
     Instead, they have incessantly poisoned the political debate 
     with a mindless stream of antitax venom while pretending that 
     economic growth and spending cuts alone could cure the 
     deficit. It ought to be obvious by now that we can't grow our 
     way out.

  With the time left I see the distinguished colleague from Texas, the 
senior colleague from Texas. I know we will hear a lecture about who is 
in the wagon. It is the contention of the Senator from South Carolina 
that it is the Senators and Congressmen in this wagon. We have been in 
the wagon for 15 years, spending $270 billion for nothing, having a 
wonderful time, and now with this so-called balanced budget amendment 
we will get from a wagon into a limousine to ride around the 
countryside and tell them how we bit the bullet and something will 
happen two Presidential elections from now.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the senior Senator from Texas 2 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me say to my dear colleague from South Carolina that I 
do not want to talk about who is in the White House. I want to change 
who is in the White House. Today I want to talk about drought.

                          ____________________