[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 83 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5958-S5963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, in the last several days, as we have 
debated this very historic constitutional amendment, Thomas Jefferson 
has been quoted over and over because of his early recognition that 
there needed to be a constitutional provision for balancing the budget.
  I want to read one other quote that was sent to me by a Georgian, and 
then I will yield to the Senator from Idaho. This is what Thomas 
Jefferson said:

       Men, by their constitutions, are naturally divided into two 
     parties: One, those who fear and distrust the people, and 
     wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the 
     higher classes; two, those who identify themselves with the 
     people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as 
     the most honest and stable.

  This debate was on this point because we were, through our efforts to 
pass the balanced budget amendment, endeavoring to put to the people 
the question in the several States which would have had to ratify. 
Those opposed it, in my judgment, were fearful of turning the question 
over to the people of the country.
  How unfortunate, as you have just alluded, Mr. President, the Senator 
from Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Idaho up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Georgia for 
taking out this period of morning business to discuss and to continue 
the important debate that occurred on the floor of the Senate yesterday 
in relation to a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, who is now presiding, related his 
experience in the beginning of this movement that started in the mid 
1970's when Senators and Members of the Congress recognized that there 
was growing in this city an insidious appetite that was spawned by 
interest groups and citizens--that somehow the way you solved nearly 
all social problems in this country was to put government money at it, 
and that it was justifiable in doing so to deficit spending. We began 
to hear the clock of debt tick at that time--hundreds of thousands of 
dollars, and finally billions of dollars, as the Senator from Oklahoma 
spoke of.
  When I arrived here in the early 1980's we were still in the hundreds 
of billions of dollars, just breaking into the first trillion. It was 
in that period of time, in 1982, that the former Congressman from New 
York, Barber Conable, who had picked up the idea that had been started 
here by Senator Curtis, was retiring. He had heard me speak on the 
floor of the House. He knew I had done much of what the Senator from 
Oklahoma had done--had passed a resolution in my State of Idaho asking 
for a balanced budget amendment and that the Senate and the Congress of 
the United States should issue that report so that the States, under 
article V of the Constitution, could go through the ratifying process.
  Barber Conable came to me, and he said, ``Congressman Craig, I am 
leaving. Why don't you take this issue and work with it? Make it a 
national issue. Work with our other colleagues because some day the 
American people will recognize what is going on in Washington, and they 
will insist that it be stopped.''
  That was 1982. Myself and Charlie Stenholm, the Democrat Congressman 
from Texas, began to do exactly what the Senator from Oklahoma started 
in the mid 1970's in his State legislature. We began a national 
movement traveling to all of the States of the Nation, to those State 
legislatures, asking them to petition the Congress of the United 
States, because without that, without that extraordinary pressure from 
across the country, we did not believe the Congress would bow to the 
wishes of the people because the pressure from the interest groups, the 
pressure from a growing Government, would simply cause them to continue 
to deficit spend.

  That was a $1 trillion debt. That was 1982, and this is 1996. We now 
have a $5 trillion debt. Senator Curtis was right. Congressman Barber 
Conable was right. The National Taxpayers Union was right. Now the 
American people understand better than they have ever understood before 
that somehow this has to be stopped.
  Throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's you could always poll the 
American people and say, ``Should Government balance its budget?'' And 
the answer by 65 to 75 to 80 percent was, ``Yes, they should. We have 
to. We have to do it with our personal businesses and our personal home 
accounts, and the Government ought to do the same.'' But you could 
never get that high when you asked the question: ``Should there be a 
constitutional amendment requiring it?'' Because a lot of people did 
not think we ought to go the extraordinary route of using the organic 
act of our country to force our Government into compliance with the 
wishes of the people; that that was held for unique and special 
exceptions, and that our organic document of the Constitution should be 
rarely changed. We know that in the history of our country--the 208 
years of history--that we have only changed that document 27 times.
  But finally, in a poll just a few weeks ago, when the question was 
asked, ``Should there be a constitutional amendment requiring a 
balanced budget?'' all of a sudden that had skyrocketed to 83 percent 
of the American people. That is an all-time high. Not that the budget 
should be balanced--I think that is almost unanimous--but now that we 
should use the organic document of our country to force this issue. 
Because what the American public instinctively knows is that the 
growth, the phenomenal movement of a budget into deficit and into debt 
that now scores $5 trillion, and that this year we are going to deal 
with the 1997 budget with over $300 billion of interest; and that that 
interest will be more than we will spend on defense, or will be more 
than we will spend, within a few dollars, of Social Security; that 
somehow the American people are beginning to say, ``Isn't it true that, 
if you continue to accumulate that debt, somehow one day almost all of 
the budget would be interest?'' Well, no. I do not think that would 
occur. But significantly the largest segment of the budget would be 
interest.
  That is the impact on Government, and that is the impact on 
taxpayers.
  What is the impact on personal lives, and on the young people who are 
here helping us as pages in the U.S. Senate, when they get to be 35 and 
45 years of age? Even this President, who does not agree with a 
balanced budget amendment, and until 1994 when he began to be a born-
again moderate after having been a 1992-94 very liberal President with 
large tax increases and large

[[Page S5959]]

spending programs, even his government, his appointees, said these 
young people will be paying 75 to 80-plus percent of their gross income 
just to pay for government.
  So you have to ask them: ``Well, then what would you be able to do to 
own a home, to fund a college education of your child, to have the 
American dream that all of us expect for ourselves and our children? Is 
it possible that debt could eat it all away?'' Yes, it is.

  That is why the debate yesterday was so significant, and that is why 
the Senator from Oklahoma is absolutely right. The vote yesterday was, 
without question, one of the most significant votes that this Senate 
has taken. I honor Senator Bob Dole for bringing it up again, forcing 
the political issue and causing the American people to see who is for a 
balanced budget amendment to our Constitution and who is against it.
  It is very important that they understand the forces that work in 
Washington and the forces that resist the idea of fiscal responsibility 
with no real answer to how you deal with a $5 trillion debt and 300 
billion dollars' worth of interest on debt and an ongoing deficit. We 
have offered that solution. We have offered it in the form of an 
amendment to cause it to happen on an annualized basis.
  Last year, we put forth a budget that would bring us to balance. The 
fiscal responsibility that the American people have asked for is here. 
It is here in the majority party of the U.S. Senate which has brought 
about those kind of efforts and will continue to until it is the fact 
of the organic law of the land that we operate continually under a 
budget that is balanced or near balance. That has to be the goal of 
this Congress and for future Congresses and the responsibility of those 
who serve in the U.S. Senate. It is for our future; for our children 
and your grandchildren's future, Mr. President, that you showed us 
those marvelous pictures of this morning. If we fail to do that, we 
will no longer be a great people. We will no longer be a great people. 
We will no longer have a system of Government that is the envy of the 
world because it will be weak and anemic, and unable to provide or 
unable to cause the environment that creates the kind of human 
productivity that has historically been the mission and the great gift 
of this country. We will steal from all by destroying it with debt. We 
now have an opportunity to change that, and I hope that in the next 
Congress we bring that about and that we have a President who presides 
in the White House who will not openly fight us and resist us, but who 
will encourage and embrace the idea of a balanced budget amendment to 
our Constitution.

  I thank my colleague from Georgia for acquiring this time to debate 
and to continue to discuss this critical issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, while I have you both here, I want to 
thank the Senator from Idaho and Senator from Oklahoma, who have been 
here a bit longer than I in Congress, for the extensive and committed 
and dedicated work each of them have committed, not only to a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution, but to disciplined financial 
management of the affairs of our Nation for all the years in which you 
have been here. Your States and America owe you a great debt.
  Mr. President, these numbers get to be beyond what, I think, a lot of 
people can comprehend in their own home or business, but the fact that 
we have not had a balanced budget has had a massive impact on every 
family in America. I am going to talk about a Georgia family, a typical 
Georgia family, but it would not be any different in Oklahoma or 
Arizona or California. These are all going to be very similar pictures, 
no matter which State you look at.
  This family earns, in Georgia, about $45,000 a year. They are a 
family of four, typically. For the most part, today, both parents work, 
which I will come to in a minute. We have been talking about 5 trillion 
dollars' worth of debt and an expanding, exploding Federal Government. 
Margaret Thatcher was in Atlanta not long ago and she said something to 
the effect: Just remember, when anybody says to you I am going to do 
something for you, remember that they have to first take something from 
you to do it.
  Her statement could not be more true for this Georgia family. They 
make $45,000 a year, and the total Federal taxes on their income is 
about $9,511. The total State and local taxes are $5,234. The estimated 
cost of Federal regulations to the family, in other words, the price 
they have to pay when they buy a loaf of bread, to pay their share of 
all the regulatory apparatus that we have set up over the last 30 
years, is $6,650. That is more than their annual car payment. That 
could be worth about two annual car payments. And then they have to 
pay, because of that $5 trillion debt we are carrying, that pushes 
interest rates up, so they have to pay $2,011 for their share of the 
higher interest rates.
  When it is all said and done, half their income has been consumed by 
Government apparatus and Government programs. If Thomas Jefferson were 
here--he could never have perceived that our Government, the Government 
that those valiant Americans fought for and put in place, that 
Government would consume half the wages of bread winners. He is turning 
in his grave. And he warned us of this over and over and cautioned us, 
which is why he recognized that there should have been a statement in 
the Constitution that would have called for a balanced budget.
  The fact that we have not had a balanced budget amendment in place, 
we have not forced Congress to have balanced budgets in place, means 
that every family in America has to pay for these unchecked and 
burgeoning governments. In fact, they work half the year for these 
governments now.
  Imagine, the Fourth of July is not only Independence Day, it is the 
first day you get to keep your own check. Who would have ever thought 
that, that an American would work from January 1 to Independence Day? 
Independence Day is going to take on a new meaning. We need to have 
signs all across the country, ``Today you get to keep your first 
dime.''
  We have depended throughout our history on that American family to 
get America up in the morning, get it to school, keep a roof over its 
head, educate it, keep its health and, yes, instill it with the 
spiritual belief in this country so that there would be a continuum of 
leadership.
  This practice, the failure to have a balanced budget--we have had one 
balanced budget in the last 36 years. No wonder America is so anxious. 
She ought to be. This is dangerous. This has made it very difficult for 
that which we depend upon, the American family, to do what it is 
supposed to do. They cannot get it done right.
  Yesterday I referred to an editorialist in the Maryland Constitution, 
Marilyn Geewax. She thinks what is wrong in the American family is that 
they are greedy, they have too many electric toasters. I can tell her, 
that is not what is wrong in America. What is wrong in America is there 
is not enough left in their checking account to save or to do the 
things that we ask them to do.
  Mr. President, I see we have been joined by the distinguished Senator 
from Texas. In a moment or two, I am going to yield to her. But before 
I do, I wonder if I can put these two quotes up here.
  There was a quote by Representative Stark, on the House side, that he 
made Wednesday, that makes it imminently clear why the other side, and 
the President--we have not talked enough about it. If it were not for 
the President, we would have passed the balanced budget amendment. It 
rests right at his feet. He did not want that balanced budget amendment 
to pass. He said so. And that is why these six Senators changed their 
votes; they did it in deference to their President. But read this 
quote:

       To fix the longer-term problem--

  He is talking about the fact that also last week, in addition to 
talking about a balanced budget amendment, we were told Medicare is 
going broke faster than we thought. But he said:

       To fix the longer-term problem, Mr. Stark [of the House 
     Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. He is the ranking 
     member] said, ``Democrats probably would resort to either a 
     Government takeover of the hospital and health-insurance 
     payment system, or raising payroll taxes.''

  If we had a balanced budget amendment, you could a make a big ``X''

[[Page S5960]]

through that statement. They cannot afford to have a balanced budget 
amendment when they talk about the Government takeover of medicine and 
creating yet a new entitlement that would be larger than Social 
Security in 2 years.
  Do you want to know why they do not want a balanced budget amendment? 
That is why. They cannot afford to have the discipline that a balanced 
budget amendment would have brought about. The family that is going to 
suffer is this average family, because they are the ones who are going 
to pay for that. They are already paying half their income. What do you 
think would happen if that situation came up?
  Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes at this time to the 
distinguished Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
taking this time to really talk in a little more detail about why we 
need the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. What happened 
yesterday, and its policy ramifications, really needs to be discussed 
so that the American people see that just because we are trying in this 
Congress to go toward a balanced budget does not mean we do not need a 
balanced budget amendment.
  In fact, I think when the American people have seen how very hard it 
is to balance the budget or to even have a 1-year budget that moves 
toward a balanced budget, and when they see how slow the progress has 
been and they see, even though we have tried to make the tough 
decisions--Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, welfare reform--these have 
been vetoed by the President and, therefore, we are still at ground 
zero. The American people see this.
  So, for Heaven's sake, does that not make the argument that we need a 
balanced budget amendment, because if we can ever get the deficit off 
the plate, if we can look at the year 2002 toward that point where we 
will have a balanced budget, don't we need to say no future Congress 
will ever be able to get out of control again? Don't we need to put in 
what Thomas Jefferson worried about, that we should have put in the 
Constitution in the first place, and that is that no future Congress 
can put debt on generations in the future, that no Congress will be 
able to say we want to spend this money now, but we want our children 
to pay for it.
  Thomas Jefferson worried about that. It was one of the two things he 
was concerned with that had not been addressed in the Constitution.
  The other one is term limits, and I think that probably bears on the 
problem we are having right now. We have too many people who have been 
in Congress too long who have not been in the real world who have 
continued to put off the tough decisions. These are people who talk 
well. They are people who say, ``Oh, we want a balanced budget; of 
course, we want a balanced budget. We'll make the tough decisions 
later,'' or ``We will let somebody else make the tough decisions.'' 
That is what Congresses have been doing for 40 years, and it is what 
Presidents have been doing. That is why we are in this mess.
  So, of course, we need a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. It would not take 2 years for a balanced budget amendment 
to be ratified by the States; that is, if the people are consulted, 
because the people know. The people of America are not stupid. They 
know the difference between a balanced budget and stability and the 
future of their children and out-of-control spending, spend-now-pay-
later policies that they have seen for so long out of Washington, DC.
  The opponents of the amendment, as was pointed out by my colleague 
from Georgia, really use scare tactics. Let me go through a few of 
those. This is just a gimmick. Don't you think if this were a gimmick 
that Congress would have tried it before? I mean, 40 years of gimmicks, 
I think I have seen just about everything. I think they would have 
thought of this if it were a gimmick. They say this will tie the 
Government's hands. ``What are you going to do if you have a war, if 
you need an emergency expenditure?''
  There is a safety valve. You can pass an unbalanced budget with a 
three-fifths vote, and I think if we were in a crisis in this country, 
if we were needing to go to war and support our troops, I believe 
three-fifths of the duly elected representatives of the people of this 
country would be able to come to that conclusion. But I do not think 
three-fifths of the duly elected representatives of our country would 
go into a deficit situation for just another social program.
  They say this will bring on another depression. You have heard that 
one. Bring on another depression? The money is going to be spent. 
People earn money, they send part of it to the Federal Government or 
they keep it.

  Now, where is the recession here? The recession is not going to be 
caused because there is going to be less Government spending. If we 
have less Government spending, that means there is more money in 
people's pockets. It is their money, it is not ours. I just love these 
people. I think the Senator from Oklahoma, who is sitting in the chair, 
has heard the people on the floor say: ``Oh, we can't have that tax 
cut, it would cost the Government $300 billion.''
  The Government? Whose money is it? It is not the Government's money. 
Money belongs to the people in this country who go out and work every 
day. It is their money. The Government will not lose $300 billion if we 
have a tax cut.
  I would ask the question a little different way: How much will it 
cost the hard-working American taxpayer if we do not cut their taxes by 
$300 billion?
  We are not talking about lower spending here; we are talking about 
who makes the decisions. We are talking about whether you decide how 
you spend your money for your family or whether you send your money to 
the Government for them to decide what your priorities should be.
  It is a matter of priorities and who makes the decisions. That is one 
of the reasons why the Republicans said very clearly, when we put our 
balanced budget forward over 7 years, that we had a $245 billion tax 
cut package, because we knew that if we were going to slow the spending 
in the public sector market, that we wanted to increase the spending in 
the consumer market.
  The difference is who makes the decision. That is why we put tax cuts 
in our balanced budget. It is why we have a $500 per child tax credit. 
It is why we have IRA's for the homemakers of this country so that the 
homemakers of America will have the same retirement security options 
that anyone who works outside the home has. It is why we have capital 
gains tax reform, so that our small businesses will be able to make 
those investments that will create the new jobs and help the economy 
grow. It is why we have inheritance tax reform. It is why we do away 
with the marriage penalty, or significantly reform it, because we know 
that the American family deserves to have more of the money they earn 
to spend for their families.
  So causing another depression is out of the question. In fact, our 
economy will boom if we will pass a balanced budget amendment. The 
markets went up just because it looked like we had the chance to do it 
a year ago. Last year, the market went up because they had the 
impression that Congress was finally going to ``gut up'' and do the 
right thing. We lost it by one vote.
  It was a great disappointment, but the market knew. The market knew 
that by lowering interest rates two points, which is what the balanced 
budget would do, that we would save money for every person in America 
who is paying a home mortgage, that we would save money for every 
person in America who is borrowing to buy a car, that we would save 
money for every person in America who is borrowing to go to college. 
The markets knew the stability that would be created by a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Last, but not least, they have really talked a lot on this floor 
about raiding Social Security--raiding Social Security--if we balance 
the budget. I ask the question to anyone in America: Would you trust a 
Congress that cannot balance its budget to keep Social Security intact? 
If someone does not have the guts to have a balanced budget for our 
Government, can they be trusted to keep the integrity of the Social 
Security system?
  Frankly, I think that is why our younger generation does not think 
they will ever see Social Security, because they see a Congress that 
cannot

[[Page S5961]]

even balance the budget or even pass a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget for the future, and they think, ``Now, if they don't 
have the ability to do that, I really don't think I'm ever going to see 
Social Security.''
  So, Mr. President, I think passing the balanced budget amendment is 
the most important policy decision that we would make in our lifetimes 
of public service. I think if we do not take that step, we can wait for 
our grandchildren to ask the question, ``You were there back then. Why 
didn't you do something?''
  I saw the picture that my colleague from Oklahoma showed of his 
grandbaby on the floor. I am horrified to think that that baby is 
someday going to meet me or talk to the Senator from Oklahoma and say, 
``You know, why didn't you do something back then when you could, so 
that I could afford to send my children to college, so that I would 
have a good job in a great economy in the land of opportunity?''
  Mr. President, if we do not pass a balanced budget amendment that is 
responsible for the American people, we are not going to be able to 
face our grandchildren, we are not going to be able to answer the 
question. So if our colleagues will think about the long-term future of 
this country, or if the people who are looking at voting for a U.S. 
Senator on the ballot next year will ask that person the question, 
``How do you feel about a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution?'' I mean, you only can say one of two things: ``I'm for 
it,'' or, ``I'm against it.''
  If the people of this country will rise up and say, this is the most 
important issue, then our grandchildren will not have the question, 
because it probably would not ever occur to our grandchildren that we 
would not balance the budget of this country when it is on our watch.
  So, Mr. President, I think the time has come for the people of 
America to weigh in on this issue. They saw the vote yesterday. They 
saw that we are within five, six, seven votes in this Congress of 
passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which will 
need to be ratified, so the State legislatures will have a chance to 
weigh in on this as well. I do not worry about the legislatures 
ratifying it, if we will have the guts to do what is right in this 
Congress.
  Mr. President, it is all a part of what we were elected to do. We did 
not run for the U.S. Senate thinking it was going to be an easy job. We 
knew, especially those of us who have run in the last 2 years, we knew 
that we were going to have to make tough decisions to turn around 40 
years of bad decisions.
  I have been a small businessperson. I bought a little company that 
was on the ropes. I had to make tough decisions to turn that company 
around. I did it. But it was not easy. That is the exact issue we are 
facing here on a much bigger scale, because the people of America are 
depending on us to make this tough decision for our country. They know 
that we are not going to agree on every budget cut that it will take. 
They do not expect that. But they do expect a responsible decision.
  Mr. President, I will just close by saying, there is only one way to 
prevent the most dreaded question that I can ever imagine. It is not 
from one of my constituents calling in or someone that I will see in 
Texas; it is not from a news reporter. It is from my 5-year-old 
grandchild, in 20 years, who would say, ``Cake, you were there back 
then. Now I am going to have a child, and I can't afford to send my 
child to college. Why didn't you do something?'' That is the question I 
do not ever want to hear.
  The way we can assure that we will never have that question in our 
families is to pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution 
because we know how hard it is to do what is right. We know the 
resistance that we have faced. We know that if we can ever get it to 
balance, that we should never again allow a future Congress to mortgage 
the future of our children.

  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Texas and hope that her wish 
of not ever having to answer that question can be fulfilled while she 
is here representing the State of Texas in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia for once again bringing together a 
group of Members to discuss an issue of significance. He has been doing 
an outstanding job, I think, of trying to make sure the public 
understands exactly what it is that is happening here in the Senate of 
the United States with the crisis and what the prospects are for our 
future.
  Today, I will continue this discussion about the balanced budget. 
There seems to me to be two fairly clear questions that Americans need 
to ask themselves. First, why do we need a balanced Federal budget? 
Second, why do we need a balanced budget amendment in order to have a 
balanced budget?
  The first question was really one that I think was addressed pretty 
effectively last year. That was the need for bringing the Federal 
budget into balance.
  The fact is that, as numerous Members have indicated over the last 
couple of days, a balanced budget means for most families in this 
country the chance to keep more of what they earn and to spend more on 
their own priorities rather than spending more money on interest 
payments, on things like new car loans, mortgages for their homes, the 
repayment of student loans, and so on, as has been very effectively 
documented, Mr. President.
  When our Federal Government is forced to go into the borrowing 
markets at large levels and compete with private investment, the price 
of private investment goes up, interest rates go up. When people want 
to buy a new home, and in many cases their first home, they find that 
it is unaffordable today because of interest rates. When people need to 
obtain a new car, they find that it may be not the car they need for 
their families because of interest rates. When students start to try to 
pay back their student loans, they find it extremely difficult because 
of interest rates.
  The reason interest rates are high, Mr. President, is because the 
Federal Government is borrowing so much money. The way to end the 
Federal Government's borrowing is to bring the Federal budget into 
balance. That is what we have been trying to do here. But the goal is 
not just simply to balance the budget one time in the year 2002, as we 
have been focused on; it is to keep the Federal budget under control 
and the growth of Federal spending under control well beyond that date.
  There is a very simple reason why 2002 has to mark the beginning, not 
the end, of the efforts to balance the budget. As we have learned and 
as I think economists on all sides now would agree, projecting the 
growth of Federal spending out beyond the year 2002, projecting the 
growth of entitlement programs as they at least currently are 
expanding, will find the Federal Government by the year 2010, 2012, 
2013, depending on your analysis, but some point about 15 years from 
now at the point where literally all Federal revenue, all tax 
collections in total, will only pay for the interest payments that have 
to be made on this huge Federal debt and for the entitlement payments 
that will be required at the current rate of growth of Federal 
spending.

  That means not $1 for national security, not $1 for education and 
training, not $1 for law enforcement to protect the safety of our 
citizens, not $1 for transportation and infrastructure, not $1 for any 
other priority unless the Federal Government borrows that $1 or prints 
that $1.
  We know we are not going to go back to the days of the printing 
press, Mr. President. So that leaves only one option: The further 
borrowing of money at levels far greater than we ever have before. If 
we do not bring the growth of Federal spending under control and 
balance the budget today, that is the prospect, that is the future we 
look forward to. In fact, it would require so much Federal borrowing 
that I think

[[Page S5962]]

private investment in this country would effectively be crowded out 
entirely, bringing us the kind of economic crisis that we have never 
confronted before as a nation. That is the future.
  The question is, Why do we need an amendment so we do not bring about 
that future? I think what has happened over the last few months is a 
pretty clear indication exactly why we need a Federal balanced budget 
amendment in our Constitution.
  The fact is, Mr. President, we now have virtually everybody singing, 
it would appear, from the same song sheet. We should have to balance 
the Federal budget. The President says it, although a year ago he did 
not. The Members of the Republican party in the Senate and the House of 
Representatives have, not once but twice, passed a balanced budget. 
This year Democratic Members and Republican Members on the Senate side 
got together and offered a third version. The fact is, everybody now 
says they are for it; and everybody in Congress has now found a 
balanced budget they could live with and vote for. But we still do not 
have it. The reason we do not have it, Mr. President, is very simple: 
There is no discipline in the process that requires us to come to final 
agreement.

  So the President, as we saw last winter, could call down leaders of 
Congress and spend hours talking in generic terms about the Federal 
Government and how he wanted to balance the budget, but no one was 
under the pressure that a constitutional amendment would bring in order 
to balance that budget.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 5 additional minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  For that reason, we have deadlock. For that reason, we did not reach 
cloture. For that reason, there was no finality. On we went, on we go--
people all claiming to be for a balanced budget, but not willing to 
make the ultimate tough decision to get there.
  As we saw last year, the President would say 7 years, 9 years, 10 
years, whatever amount of years seem to satisfy the audience, voters, 
or polls. We did not get the balanced budget. Mr. President, it is 
imperative that we do so. We have to consider exactly where the country 
will be if we continue to flounder along.
  As we learned yesterday, just to take one specific program area, 
Medicare, we know where we are going to be if we do not bring about the 
kind of discipline in the fiscal process that the Senator from Georgia 
has been talking about the last 2 days. Where we will be in the year 
2001; the Medicare trust fund will go bankrupt. We are no longer 
talking, as has been the case in the past, in general terms about a 
bankruptcy somewhere in the distant future. We are not talking, as even 
we were last year, about having 7 years to solve the problem. We are 
talking about bankruptcy of the Medicare trust fund on our doorstep in 
5 years. We are talking for the first time, Mr. President, not about 
the Medicare trust fund running a surplus, but it is now running a 
deficit.
  If that is not enough of a wakeup call, I ask my colleagues, what 
would it take? Obviously, there are some who believe you can continue 
to put this off. Indeed, the Senator from Georgia today brought us this 
card which quotes from Wednesday's Washington Times: ``The Democrats 
said they are not concerned that Medicare will go broke because 
Congress has always acted at the last minute to avert disaster.'' That 
may have been the way the Democratic Congress acted in the past. This 
Republican Congress does not believe in putting off and putting off and 
putting off the solutions to the problems that Americans, particularly 
that our seniors confront, Mr. President.
  Not only that, but we understand if we do not solve the problem today 
with a well-thought-through plan, the only alternative way to fix the 
problem at the last minute will be the kind of plan that I do not think 
most Americans are going to want or going to tolerate. In fact, we have 
a sense of what that plan will be. Congressman Stark from California, 
who is the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee of the Ways and Means 
Committee that oversees the funding of the entitlement programs, the 
person who would be chairman of that subcommittee if his party were in 
charge of the House of Representatives, said the Democrats probably 
would resort to either a Government takeover of the hospital and 
health-insurance payment system, or raise payroll taxes.
  For Americans who are trying to understand the difference between 
what we are suggesting on our side, Mr. President, and what the 
opposition is suggesting, I think this quote probably encapsulates 
things about as vividly as it possibly could. The Republicans had 
offered a plan here over a lengthy period of time to reduce the growth 
of spending in entitlement areas--not cutting, but just reducing the 
growth of that spending--through more prudent and efficient operation 
of these programs, by giving seniors, to take the Medicare case as an 
example, giving seniors the kind of choice the rest of us have as to 
how we will deal with our health care, but basically preserving intact 
a system that gives individuals control over how they take care of 
themselves in the health care they receive.
  Now, if we do not address this problem in the fashion Republicans are 
offering, to avert disaster and bankruptcy in Medicare, the alternative 
will be this: A system the Democrats will design that will include 
either the hiking of payroll taxes or a total Government takeover of 
the health-care system. I actually predict, Mr. President, that if we 
wait any longer, under the Democratic scheme you will get both of 
these--not one, both.
  So that, Mr. President, puts it in pretty clear contrast, what the 
options are for Americans today. If we balance the budget, if we put a 
constitutional amendment in place that requires discipline not just for 
1 year but for the future of this country, then we can guarantee our 
children the kind of security that we have had, the kind of knowledge 
that if they work hard, play by the rules and do their jobs, they will 
have choice over their destiny. If we do not, their destiny is going to 
consist of higher taxes, Government-run health care, and more 
Government intrusion into their lives.
  As far as I am concerned, Mr. President, when I talk to the people of 
my State, the answer to this question is pretty simple. People in 
Michigan want to control their own destinies, give their children more 
opportunity, and see the Government run the way their families are run. 
Keeping their own budget balanced is a challenge most American families 
and almost every Michigan family confronts every day. I think we should 
expect no less here in Washington.
  For that reason, I am very disappointed the balanced budget amendment 
failed. I continue to join and will join with the Senator from Georgia 
and others to do our best to make sure sooner or later the balanced 
budged amendment to the Constitution passes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Michigan for the very 
eloquent statement on the purpose of passing a balanced budget 
amendment and the consequences, as well, of not having one.
  There have been many accolades in the last couple of days for the 
Senator from Illinois. The leader on the other side of the aisle 
endeavored to try to convince the President and his side of the merits 
of a balanced budget. In his remarks which he made the other morning on 
the floor, I want to quote them, I was here, he made a very eloquent 
statement about why this country needs a balanced budget amendment. He 
said, ``I was reading the other day and came across where John Kennedy 
in 1963 complained about the huge amount of money that was paid for 
interest for which we get nothing.'' That is something to be 
remembered. It does not buy any service. It does not buy a tank or 
defend anybody. ``He complained about the huge amount of money being 
paid for interest for which we get nothing. Do you know what the gross 
interest expenditure was in 1963? Nine billion. That is a terrible 
waste of money.''

  But do you know what the latest Congressional Budget Office figures 
are for this fiscal year, gross interest expenditure? Mr. President, 
$344 billion. From 1963 to 1996, from $9 billion interest payments to 
$344 billion, and going up.
  The point that Senator Simon of Illinois was making was that if we 
had a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we would not be 
paying

[[Page S5963]]

$344 billion in interest payments. Those resources would be available 
to return to the American taxpayer, to this Georgia family that is 
losing half of its income to government, so that they could do the job 
we are asking of them.
  Mr. President, it was a very disappointing vote yesterday. It was 
exceedingly costly to every American family. A balanced budget would 
save the average American family $2,388 a year in mortgage payments, 
$1,026 in a 4-year car loan, $1,891 over a 10-year student loan.
  The net effect of having passed a balanced budget amendment, the net 
effect of having balanced budgets would immediately leave $3,000 to 
$4,000 in the checking account of this average Georgia family--$3,000 
to $4,000. That is the equivalent of a 10- to 20-percent pay raise. 
That is what we are talking about.
  You get passed it all, talking about the checking account of a 
typical family at work, doing what they have to do to get the country 
up in the morning, to get it to school and get it ready. We have 
impaired, drastically, their ability to do it. Passage of a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution, as Jefferson called for, as 
Senator Simon called for, as Senator Dole called for, is the best 
single thing we can do to protect the integrity of these working 
Americans all across the land, tomorrow and for the year to come.
  I see the time I was allotted has expired. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________