[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 83 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5955-S5958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          BALANCING THE BUDGET

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to express regret over what 
happened yesterday. Yesterday was a very significant day in America. We 
had an opportunity yesterday to pass a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. Of course, it did not work out. We fell short by a couple 
votes.
  It reminds me a little bit of last year when we fell short by one 
vote--one vote--one vote away from forcing fiscal discipline into two 
bodies that have expressed and shown and demonstrated no fiscal 
discipline over the past 40 years.
  This is not anything that is new. I can remember, Mr. President, back 
in the middle 1970's when there was an ad by, I think, the National 
Taxpayers Union. They had a nationwide ad. They were trying to express 
to the people of America how serious the debt was, and tried to give us 
an understanding as to what these dollars really mean. Because once you 
start getting past $1 million or $1 billion or $1 trillion, nobody 
really has any concept of what it is. Our debt right now, when you say 
$5 trillion, does not mean an awful lot.
  So back in the middle 1970's I can remember this very effective ad 
that they had. What they did at that time--the Empire State Building 
was a tall building--they took $100 bills, and they stacked them up 
until they finally reached the height of the Empire State Building. 
They said, ``That is $400 billion. That is our national debt.'' At that 
time we looked at it and said, ``You know, we can't go much beyond 
this. You start talking about the interest that is going to be 
necessary to pay on the national debt. Can we really afford it?'' 
Because when you make interest payments, you have to use revenue 
dollars that would otherwise go to defending our Nation or to paying 
for education and the environment and the other needs, structural needs 
that this Nation has in such abundance.
  So at that time, back in the 1970's, I remember so well someone who 
was in this body for quite a lengthy period of time. His name was Carl 
Curtis. He was a U.S. Senator from Nebraska. He was just a delightful 
gentleman.

[[Page S5956]]

  He came up with an idea. He came out to Oklahoma. I was in the 
Oklahoma State Senate at the time. He said, ``You know, we can't seem 
to get across to the people in the U.S. Senate how much the people at 
home want us to exercise fiscal discipline, how much they want us to 
balance the budget and quit borrowing more and more from future 
generations.''
  So to demonstrate this--this was his idea, not mine; Carl Curtis--he 
said, ``We're going to go out and get three-fourths of the States to 
pass resolutions that would preratify an amendment to the 
Constitution.'' As we all know, we have to get two-thirds of the vote 
of the House and the Senate; then it has to be ratified by three-
fourths of the States. ``So if we can show that there are three-fourths 
of the States who want to have a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, then that will give us the influence that we need to get 
it passed in the U.S. Senate.'' It sounded like a good idea.
  So he came out to Oklahoma. I remember so well we went around to--I 
remember one time at the Kay County Fair we made a presentation of 
this. These are just good, earthly people who are paying taxes and 
working for a living. And they all thought it was a great idea.
  So I introduced in the State Senate of Oklahoma back in 1974 a 
resolution to preratify the constitutional amendment. I remember that 
Anthony Kerrigan at that time--I think he is retired now, still resides 
in Washington--he wrote in a syndicated column that was all over the 
Nation, and the name of it was, ``A Voice in the Wilderness.'' He said, 
``Way out in Oklahoma is a State senator who has successfully passed 
the first resolution to preratify an amendment to the Constitution to 
balance the budget.'' That was over 20 years ago. This is not anything 
that is new.

  In fact, it goes back even further than that. Thomas Jefferson was 
the one who came back from France and said if he had been here during 
that constructive process of the Constitution, he would have had 
something that would prohibit us from borrowing money, except in times 
of war. This is something that is not anything new.
  We heard in the discussion, in the debate in the last few days, over 
and over again by those who are fighting a balanced budget--not 
balanced budget amendment, but balanced budget. It is interesting that 
you never hear anyone on the stump campaigning for office, ``We want to 
spend more money. We do not want a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. We want to fiscally discipline ourselves. And it is our 
job to do it.'' Yet, when they come here there is so much influence 
here not to balance the budget, not to have fiscal discipline, they do 
not do it.
  We have heard these people over and over again on the floor saying, 
``We do not need a constitutional amendment because we were elected to 
do that.'' I say we have demonstrated clearly in both bodies of this 
Congress that we are incapable of doing it without something to force 
us to do what we ought to do voluntarily. We have demonstrated that so 
clearly that this is the only vehicle out there that I can think of 
that would do it.
  The argument has been made on this floor that the Governors and the 
States are lowering taxes and are boasting about the fact they are 
lowering taxes, and if we pass a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, we will have to have dramatic, draconian increases in 
State taxes to pay for the services that otherwise they would get from 
the Federal Government. That just is not true.
  There is a mentality, I know, in the White House that the only way to 
raise revenue is to raise taxes. I can remember a very articulate 
President of the United States who was a Democrat, John Kennedy, who 
said back in his administration, ``We have to raise more revenue; to do 
this, we are going to lower taxes to stimulate the economy.'' A lot of 
people do not realize, for each 1 percent of economic growth, that 
produces new revenues of $26 billion. If he can do this, this will 
allow him to raise more revenues. That is exactly what happened in the 
Kennedy administration. They reduced taxes and that increased revenue.
  Along in 1980 when President Reagan was elected, President Reagan 
said, ``We have to have more revenues and we have to use those revenues 
to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt and ultimately do something 
about debt, so we are going to cut taxes, marginal rates,'' and we went 
through, in the 1980's, the largest tax cuts in any 10-year-period in 
the history of America.
  The results are there. The total revenues that were generated to 
operate Government in 1980 were $517 billion. Then in 1990, the total 
revenues were $1.30 trillion--they doubled, exactly--between 1980 and 
1990. That was a period of time when we had the most dramatic cuts in 
our marginal rates. As far as the income tax is concerned, the total 
receipts in 1980 were $244 billion, and in 1990 $466 billion, almost 
doubling, at a time we reduced our rates.

  You might say, ``Well, wait a minute. We hear on the floor that 
during the Reagan years we had such dramatic increases in our 
deficit.'' Yes, we did, but that was not as a result of the fact that 
we were reducing taxes; that was the increase in revenues, the problem 
that we were spending more money here in the Senate and in the House. 
So while revenues went up, our spending went up exceeding that 
increase, and the deficits continue.
  Now, in hindsight, I say maybe the President at that time, President 
Reagan, should have vetoed a lot of those bills he did not veto. That 
is what the current President is getting by with now in vetoing all the 
things he ran on when he ran for President of the United States and 
what most of the Republicans who took over control of the U.S. Senate 
ran on in 1994.
  Speaking of President Reagan, I remember one of the greatest speeches 
of all time was called ``A Rendezvous With Destiny,'' way back in the 
middle 1960's. The speech that Ronald Reagan made, I remember a 
sentence he said. ``There is nothing closer to immortality on the face 
of this Earth than a Government agency once formed.'' That certainly 
has proven to be true. Once you form an agency to respond to a problem 
that is there, and the problem goes away, then the agency continues, 
and their political muscle expands. So there are problems that are out 
there that can be dealt with, but they cannot be dealt with unless we 
force ourselves to do something to discipline ourselves in this manner.
  There is one other problem that I think adds to this. A study was 
made--and I cannot document it, but I do have the document back in my 
office--over 98 percent of the people who come to visit their Senator 
or their House of Representatives Member are coming because they want 
to increase funding for some program. It might be for a problem. They 
might be a contractor; it might be a program that they feel in their 
hearts needs to be expanded.
  What do we hear, if we are here in Washington? We hear from the 
people who come in and say, ``We want to spend more money.'' That is 
one of the reasons I have been an advocate for term limitation for so 
many years.
  I made it a practice to commute. I still live back in my State of 
Oklahoma and I come up here during the time we work and we vote and we 
have committee meetings, and I go back so I am there virtually every 
weekend. When you do this, you talk to the people who are back home, 
that I sometimes get chastised for referring to as ``real people,'' 
implying there are not real people here. Really, those who come in and 
want something out of Government generally are people who are here for 
some particular cause--their cause or for a personal gain.
  The fact remains that over 98 percent of the people that come in are 
here for increased funding. That is something I meant to mention when 
they use the arguments that we will have to have draconian cuts in 
Government if we have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. 
That is not true.
  A study made by the Heritage Foundation--and I got it renewed only 
this week to see, is it true today--if we were to take all Government 
programs and not cut one Government program, entitlement programs and 
all the rest of them, and increase these programs with growth caps of 
1\1/2\ percent a year, we could balance the budget in 7 years and have 
the tax cuts that the Republicans want, the $500 tax credit per child, 
the tax decreases in capital gains in order to stimulate the economy. 
We could make the trust funds well again;

[[Page S5957]]

we could secure Social Security, Medicare--all of that, without cutting 
one program.

  Realistically, that will not happen. We understand that, Mr. 
President, because when it gets down to it, there are programs that 
need to be cut and some that need to be increased by more than 1\1/2\ 
percent. If we had a resolution, if it could be structured, I have 
thought we might be smarter just to let every program grow by that 
percentage.
  When I have townhall meetings--and I have more than most because I am 
back in my State more than most Members are--and you have people coming 
in who are senior citizens, and you tell them, ``What if we were to put 
a cap on your Social Security of 1\1/2\ percent, if you knew that all 
other Government had to do the same thing?'' They all nod with approval 
and say ``yes.'' Their concern is they would have to take the hit and 
the veterans would not, or somebody else would not. I think all the 
American people want is to be treated equally. I guess the point I am 
trying to make here is, you do not have to have draconian cuts to have 
a balanced budget.
  Now, I do not want to use up too much time because there are others 
who want to speak during this period of time reserved by the 
distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, but I do want to 
address something. I was quite disturbed yesterday when the very 
distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky came to the floor. I was 
chastised for some of the comments that I made. One of the statements I 
made that offended him was that he implied I was saying that people say 
one thing at home and say something else in Washington.
  Let me read exactly what I said so that there can be no 
misunderstanding. I said this after I had read some quotes of various 
Senators who were strong supporters of a balanced budget amendment in 
1994 and turned around and spoke against it and voted against it this 
time.
  What I said was: ``So I think it is something that we need to look 
at, and I'm hoping that those individuals, as the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa, Mr. Grassley said, a lot of the Senators who are voting for 
this because they want to go the party line instead of voting with the 
people at home, better really stop and think about it before noon 
tomorrow,'' the day before yesterday, ``because the people at home are 
not going to forget,'' and I know that is true. People at home are not 
going to forget because the vast majority of the Democrats and the 
Republicans in America--approximately 80 percent--want a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution.

  So I did go back and read some quotes from individuals. One was from 
the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, who said, ``This 
constitutional amendment, no matter what one thinks of it, will add the 
pressure that we reconcile what we spend with what we raise.'' This was 
March 1, 1994. This time he was one of the most articulate Senators 
that was opposing the balanced budget amendment.
  Then the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, 
said, ``So let us debate, pass, and ratify the balanced budget 
amendment by writing a balanced budget amendment into the basic law of 
the land. We will compel Washington to do its job.'' I agree. That is 
what he said on March 1, 1994. This time he was one of the leaders in 
opposition to the balanced budget amendment.
  Then, of course, the one I have a great deal of respect for, the 
distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle from South Dakota, back 
in February 1994, said, ``Too much is at stake for us to settle for 
this tax. A balanced budget amendment will provide the fiscal 
discipline our Nation must have in order to meet the needs of the 
present generation without bankrupting those of the future.'' That was 
Senator Daschle in 1994. Of course, he led the opposition this time.
  So I hope that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky will 
understand the context in which I was saying this. I do not understand 
how somebody could be such a strong supporter in 1994 and then oppose 
the same thing in 1996.
  I have the two resolutions here. They are worded exactly the same--
not approximately the same, but exactly the same. Back in 1994 this was 
Senate Joint Resolution 41. All of these Senators were talking about 
how great this was and how we had to do it--I was applauding them for 
their courage--only to turn around and oppose this in 1996. What 
happened between 1994 and 1996? Nothing, except the debt has grown to 
over $5 trillion.
  So when the Senator from Kentucky came in--I had not quoted him, but 
I will now. He said this back on March 1, 1994. He said, ``I support 
the efforts of my friend and colleague from Illinois''--talking about 
Senator Simon, who is a very courageous guy, and one I complimented 
probably more than I have ever complimented anyone else on the floor 
yesterday. Senator Ford said, ``I support the efforts of my friend and 
colleague from Illinois to take on this persistent fiscal dishonesty. I 
hear so much about if 40-some-odd Governors can operate a balanced 
budget, why can't the Federal Government? I operated under it''--this 
is Senator Ford, who was a Governor of Kentucky--``and it worked. I 
think implementation of this amendment will work. I think we can make 
it work. I do not understand why it takes a brain surgeon to understand 
how you operate a budget the way the States do. This is an opportunity 
to pass a balanced budget amendment that will work and will give us a 
financially sound future, not only for ourselves but for our children 
and our grandchildren.''
  I was criticized yesterday because I said those individuals who 
opposed the balanced budget amendment--I am talking about those who 
voted against the balanced budget amendment--are people who are liberal 
in their philosophy, and there is nothing wrong with that. That is the 
``L'' word, and there is nothing wrong with it. Either you are liberal 
or conservative. It just means how much involvement we want the Federal 
Government to have in our lives. If we want more Government 
involvement, we have to raise taxes and pay more.

  Fortunately, for the people of America, they can get out of this 
environment that we are in right now and not just listen to what we 
say, but they can look and see how we perform. We are rated in every 
area by different rating organizations. If people are concerned about 
how we are on social issues, family issues, they can look at the 
Christian Coalition rating and see how we have voted. If they want to 
know how we are on regulations and business issues, they can look at 
the National Federation of Independent Business. They have a rating 
system, and they will tell you. You do not have to listen to us. They 
will tell you who is for less Government involvement in our lives.
  We are the most overregulated nation in the world. That is why we are 
not globally competitive. Look and see how we are rated. If you want to 
know who the conservatives are, do not listen to us. I have yet to hear 
anybody go out on a stump and say, ``Vote for me, I want to spend more 
money.'' They do not say that. So do not listen to us. Look and see how 
we are rated.
  The National Taxpayers Union uses ratings of A, B, C, D, or F. Those 
are the five ratings. Of those individuals--the 33 Democrats who voted 
last year against the balanced budget amendment--I am sure the same 
thing is true this year, but we have not had enough time to get the 
ratings--they were rated either a ``D'' or an ``F'' by the National 
Taxpayers Union. So they are liberals. I do not know why they are 
ashamed of being a liberal. I have yet to hear a conservative being 
embarrassed about being a conservative. But many liberals try to say, 
``I am moderate,'' or ``conservative.''
  Here is the last thing I was personally chastised for. Here is a 
photo of two little children, which I did not use last night. I used a 
photo of my newest grandson. These are my two other grandchildren. They 
are the same age and are children of two different sons. This is Maggie 
Inhofe, and this is Glade Inhofe. What I was getting across yesterday 
was that the balanced budget issue, and the deficits in this country, 
is not a fiscal issue; it is a moral issue. These are the faces of 
innocence, who did not do anything wrong. This is little Jase, who was 
born January 9. The day he was born, at the moment he took his first 
breath, he inherited a $19,000 personal debt as his share of the 
national debt. He did not do anything wrong. These kids were born 3 
years ago.
  So I think we need to look at the whole subject of a balanced budget

[[Page S5958]]

amendment as the only way we can discipline ourselves. We demonstrated 
that very clearly. Let us not think about what it is going to do to the 
people up here today. It is not going to affect us. It is the next 
generation that is going to have to pay for it.
  I suggest to you, Mr. President, that we did a great disservice 
yesterday to all of Americans, to future generations, when we passed up 
an opportunity to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. 
We are going to do it; it is just a matter of time. We may have to do 
it in the next legislature, or when there is another President in the 
White House. But we are going to do it, so that these guys right here 
are not going to have to pay for our extravagances. It is a moral 
issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I understand you will be relieved as 
the Presiding Officer in a moment. At that time, I will yield you up to 
10 minutes to speak on this question.
  Parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding that, under a unanimous 
consent, I will be controlling an hour from approximately 10 until 11 
o'clock, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator was to control the first hour of 
morning business.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to control the time from now until 11 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________