[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.
____________________