[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.
____________________