[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 15 (Friday, February 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1119-S1124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration

[[Page S1120]]

of Senate Joint Resolution 1 which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced 
     budget.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.

       Pending:
       Durbin amendment No. 2, to allow for the waiver of the 
     article in the event of an economic recession or serious 
     economic emergency with a majority in both Houses of 
     Congress.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday the President of the United 
States submitted his budget. I have to say that the President has come 
a long way. He now says that he agrees that the budget needs to be 
balanced by the year 2002. This budget is a legitimate departure point 
from which to move in developing a final budget package.
  I was disappointed, however, to see that the President's 5-year cost 
of Government is almost identical to what he proposed a year ago. This 
does not look like the era of ``big government is over.'' It is not 
even shrinking according to this budget. Even more disturbing, the 
budget deficit over the next 5 years is nearly $200 billion higher than 
what was proposed just a year ago. And the deficit does not even 
decline until the year 1999. The bulk of the spending cuts contained in 
his budget occur after the President leaves office.
  So he has left all of the hard decisions to the years 2002 and 2001. 
Seventy-five percent of any fiscal responsibility has to occur in the 2 
years after he leaves office.
  That is not what I call political courage. That is not what I call 
attending to the structural problems and the economic problems of this 
country. It is more of the same that we have had for the last 28 years.

  These huge stacks here on the table to my right represent 28 years of 
unbalanced budgets. These are the actual 28 budgets. Keep in mind that 
only involves the last 28 years, since 1969, the last time we balanced 
the Federal budget. For most of the last 60 years we have not balanced 
the Federal budget. So this is just a small smattering. If we put them 
all up here for the last 60 years, they would reach almost to the 
ceiling.
  Then we have this budget which came up here yesterday that has all 
the tough decisions made after he leaves office. The reason we elect 
Presidents is so they can make the tough decisions and help us to work 
in a bipartisan way so that nobody can scream at the other side.
  In this particular case this budget is filled with smoke and mirrors. 
What this means is that many of the tax cuts and spending increases 
contained in this budget are not even likely to occur or will not be 
offered until the last 2 years of the budget's projections, well after 
this President is gone.
  Just as important as reaching a balanced budget in 2002 is reforming 
the entitlement programs. This is what we are going to have to face. We 
are going to have to face the growing financing and deficit problems we 
see looming in the next century. This may sound far away, but it is 
only a few short years before we see the next century begin. We cannot 
be lulled into a false sense of security because we have not reached 
the crisis yet.
  I had hoped that the President would take a leadership position and 
tackle these difficult programs. Unfortunately, the budget contains 
only short-term fixes. We see no sign of the structural reforms that 
are absolutely needed. We see more signs of business as usual.
  By the way, while the President says that his budget balances the 
budget, the Congressional Budget Office--which he has touted himself as 
being accurate through the years and which certainly has not been what 
I consider a conservative Congressional Budget Office for all the time 
I have been here--the Congressional Budget Office says that his budget 
will not be balanced in the year 2002; and that the Administration is 
using economic assumptions that just are not realistic.
  I want to applaud the President for providing some tax relief in the 
budget. It is a solid first step in giving some tax relief to the 
American people. But it is only a baby step, and really a tentative one 
at that, because all of the tax increases--and there are plenty of them 
in this budget that he submitted yesterday--are permanent. The spending 
programs are permanent. But, the tax cuts are temporary and are likely 
never to occur because they go away if he does not meet his standards.
  So it is a big shell game again.
  I get so doggone tired of it. It is almost unbelievable. It is just 
more of the same of what we have had over the last 28 years, and it is 
really another reason why we simply have to pass this balanced budget 
amendment.
  The Presidents just do not seem to have the courage to stand up and 
do what really has to be done. I am really concerned about it. Well, I 
could go on and on on the President's budget, but I want to leave time 
for others.
  As we open the debate today on the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, I have to refer again to this stack of unbalanced 
budgets. These are the actual 28, the last 28 years' budget packages.
  I keep these budgets here, Mr. President, as a reminder of the 
generation of bipartisan budgetary failure. Here it is, 28 straight 
years of unbalanced budgets. There has not been one single balanced 
budget since 1969, not one in 28 years, and yet we have people on the 
other side come and say, ``Oh, let's just have the will to do it. Let's 
just do it and the President will sign it.''
  Give me a break. That is not going to happen any more than it 
happened over the last 28 years. Paul Simon said, ``Your hair will turn 
green before that happens, unless we have this balanced budget 
amendment.''
  I might say, Mr. President, there has only been one balanced budget 
in the last 36 years. If we had 36 up here, it would be much higher, 
the 36 individual budgets that have not been balanced. And there have 
been only eight balanced budgets in the past 66 years. Just think about 
it--58 years of unbalanced budgets. Only eight balanced budgets since 
1930.
  This sad history of budgetary failure is not a Democratic problem or 
a Republican problem. It is an American problem. Those of us who are 
proposing a constitutional amendment to require balanced budgets do not 
do so as Republicans or Democrats; we do so as Americans, Americans 
concerned about America and the future of our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Let me just give you a few illustrations of how bad our debt problem 
has become. The national debt, as we all know, is now over $5.3 
trillion--$5.3 trillion. That is a debt for each and every American of 
more than $20,000. CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, projects that 
in the year 2002, total Federal debt will exceed $6.8 trillion. That 
means roughly $24,000 of debt for every person, every man, woman and 
child in America, with annual interest costs projected to be over 
$3,100 per taxpayer. That is just what we have to pay on the interest 
against the Federal debt, $3,100 for each taxpayer a year by the year 
2002.
  The national debt has increased more than $4 trillion since the 
Senate last passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982. We passed it in 
the Senate. Tip O'Neill and the liberals in the House defeated it at 
that time.
  The debt, which started this year at a baseline of $5.3 trillion, has 
increased over $550 million each and every day since then. Since we 
began debate this year on the balanced budget amendment in the 
Judiciary Committee, the debt has increased by more than $10 billion--
just since we began debate this year.
  In 1996, gross interest exceeded $344 billion. That is more than the 
total Federal outlays in 1975--all outlays--and is nearly $50 billion 
more than the total revenues in 1975.
  In 1996, gross interest consumed nearly 25 percent of the Federal 
budget and more than one-half of all personal income taxes.
  In 1997, for the first time, we will pay more than $1 billion a day 
in gross interest on the debt. That is more than $41 million each hour 
and $685,000 each minute that we are losing in just interest costs.
  Net interest payments on the debt are currently the third largest 
budget category, amounting to 15 percent of the Federal budget, and it 
is the fastest growing item in the Federal budget.
  Our annual net interest payment on the debt is more than the combined 
budgets of the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Education, Energy, 
Justice, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State, and 
Transportation.

[[Page S1121]]

  I think these basic facts should make it plain why the balanced 
budget amendment is an idea with appeal for Republicans and Democrats, 
for liberals and conservatives.
  There are liberal Democrats who see the money we waste on interest 
payments that could be used in better ways to help the disadvantaged. 
There are conservative Republicans who see the wreckage we are doing to 
the opportunities for our citizens and our people by strapping debt, 
interest, and future economic and tax burdens on them.

  We are all concerned that our resources are being misallocated 
because the Federal Government is spending willy-nilly, with 
thoughtless borrowing, rather than making deliberate choices.
  As we close this week of debate, I thank my colleagues who have 
participated in the debate who have expressed why we, Republicans and 
Democrats, are concerned about the debt the Government piles up just 
like the stack of these unbalanced budgets here, and why we, 
Republicans and Democrats, believe the only answer is the 
constitutional requirement that the Government act more deliberately in 
its spending decisions without always taking the easy recourse to 
borrow.
  This is a proposal that can unite us as Americans across party lines. 
Let me mention again that every Republican Senator is a cosponsor of 
this amendment. That is a great signal. But equally important is that 
seven courageous and bold Democrats have also signed on as original 
cosponsors. I wish to pay special tribute to those Democrats who 
support this and who have spoken in support of a constitutional 
amendment either in the Chamber or by signing on as cosponsors. 
Senators Bryan, Graham of Florida, Kohl, Baucus, Breaux, Moseley-Braun, 
and Robb have stood up for America and its future, and I applaud them 
for standing for principle and our children.
  Mr. President, I am also pleased to say that six other Democrats have 
voted for this in the recent past and have promised to support it in 
their most recent campaigns. I welcome their support for this most 
important insurance policy that this stack of budgetary failures will 
not grow too much higher and, more importantly, that our American 
future will be brighter. If all of these folks honor their commitments 
to their constituents, all 55 Republicans and all 13 Democrats who have 
said to their constituents they will vote for it, we will pass the 
balanced budget amendment this year and it will be a great day for all 
Americans.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I truly appreciate this opportunity to 
speak in behalf of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, 
and in this regard I especially thank several of my colleagues: Mr. 
Hatch, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee--and I 
associate myself with all of his remarks--Mr. Domenici, the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Craig, the 
Republican policy chairman, for their longstanding leadership and 
efforts in behalf of this legislation that I feel, in effect, would 
simply protect the financial and economic future of our children and 
their children.
  For those who have had the perseverance and the tenacity to pursue 
this goal, it has at times been a very lonely trail. Whatever success 
we might achieve, and that I hope we will achieve, it has been in large 
part due to the efforts of these Senators and their leadership role, 
and the American people should certainly be aware of that.
  I have read some interesting commentary in regard to this effort. Our 
opponents predict dark budget clouds for Social Security and any other 
programs deemed essential by Senators regarding their particular and 
parochial interests; but contrary to that dire prediction, if we total 
the sum of the balanced budget parts, I see and predict a very bright 
future. I see a nation with 6.1 million more jobs in 10 years. I see 
lower interest rates that will directly affect the daily lives and 
pocketbooks of every citizen in terms of the amount of the hard-earned 
income they pay now for living essentials--health care, housing, 
education, loans, food and transportation.
  If you ask the American people, with a 2 percent drop in interest 
rates, how would you like 6 months of groceries free as compared to 
what you are paying now, or corresponding savings in your health care 
premium costs, mortgage payment or student loans, and if you compare 
those savings in their pocketbooks with the marginal reductions in the 
amount of growth in Federal programs in this city, why, put that way, 
the American people support a balanced budget. They are six jumps ahead 
of Washington.
  So the question is how, how do we achieve a balanced budget? In his 
State of the Union Address, President Clinton said, ``Don't give me a 
balanced budget amendment. Give me a balanced budget.''
  I agree with that. I must say I do agree. But with all due respect to 
the President, many of my colleagues and I have done just that but to 
no avail. During the last session of Congress, we sent two balanced 
budgets to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and despite exhaustive effort and 
despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, in reality I think they were 
dead on arrival. However, I must say that passing the balanced budget 
amendment in the House last year and two budgets that were in fact in 
balance, despite the Presidential vetoes, this action did provide the 
kind of fiscal backbone and tenacity not seen in the Congress for 
decades. In my own case, I was very proud of our efforts within the 
House Agriculture Committee, as chairman, in enacting farm program and 
food stamp reform that also produced an estimated $350 billion in 
savings over the life of the budget agreement.

  It can be done. They said it could not be done, but it can be done. 
And with our reform of farm program policy passing by overwhelming 
margins--318 in the House, 74 in the Senate--we also proved there is 
bipartisan support for true reform and budget savings.
  We also achieved very considerable budget savings in discretionary 
spending at the conclusion of the appropriations process, all 13 major 
spending bills--something unique to the last Congress. So we made some 
progress. But that was last year. And last year, despite our successes 
and a reduced deficit, we fell short of the final goal, a budget that 
is truly, truly in balance. However, the real problem is that while 
there is considerable talk about accepting responsibility and standing 
foursquare for a balanced budget, there are serious differences of 
opinion as to how to bring the budget into balance.
  I don't know how many times I have heard my Kansas constituents say, 
``Pat, why can't you and Senator Kassebaum and Senator Dole--Bob and 
Nancy--work together and bring this budget into balance?'' Well, which 
programs would be cut? In most cases, I know, our constituents 
certainly come to Washington and say, ``Yes, I want to balance the 
budget; yes, I know we have to quit this business of mortgaging the 
future of our young people, our children and their children; but, you 
know, my program is a little different. My program really represents an 
investment.'' And, in many cases, that is true. But, do we have the 
political wherewithal to address the real entitlement question, and 
that is our individual freedom and the future of our kids and their 
kids? In that, if you total up all the spending, you reach a certain 
level, as evidenced by all of the budget reports on the floor of the 
Senate, where that is the key question, not each individual program.
  So, do we have the political wherewithal to save and restore Medicare 
and other entitlements? In this regard, the President and many of our 
friends across the aisle stated over and over again they are for a 
balanced budget, but not that budget, that budget meaning any cuts in 
their favorite and priority programs. And I must say, despite the fact 
that a Republican Congress and the President were within $10 a month 
difference last year in regard to preventing Medicare bankruptcy, $10 a 
month, some even say $7, because of the fact we were not able to reach 
agreement and the fact that the Democratic Party made a conscious 
decision to make Medicare a top issue in last year's campaign, I am not 
overly confident any budget agreement can be worked out without a great 
deal of difficulty--unless we have to--unless there is some outside 
discipline that

[[Page S1122]]

will force Congress to get the job done. The lure of political 
opportunism may be just too great. The coming debate in regard to 
Social Security is a classic example.
  I have here the report in regard to the balanced budget amendment 
legislation we are considering. On page 33, the minority views begin. 
And I note, as I thumb through some of the commentary, that it is 
merely a repeat of what many of us on this side of the aisle 
experienced in 30-second spots.
  So the real question is, does the Congress have the fortitude and the 
perseverance and the tenacity to truly balance the budget? As has been 
said by many of my colleagues, despite very good men and women of both 
parties with the best of intentions, it is now the 28th year in which a 
majority in Congress has failed in efforts for the Federal Government 
to live within its means and to prevent the mortgaging of our children 
and their children--28 years. There is the evidence right down there, 
right next to Senator Craig. As a matter of fact, I think it stacks so 
high that we are in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration code, and maybe the fire code.
  So we all agree that we must make progress toward a balanced budget. 
Then during the course of our political deliberations, we most 
generally agree to disagree on how to achieve this goal. I think it is 
clear that, if there is anything to be learned during the time we have 
regretfully experienced ever-increasing deficits and political discord, 
it is that we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to 
simply get the job done.

  Now, the minority says in the beginning of their views:

       The real question this year is not whether to reduce the 
     deficit but by how much and what cuts to make in order to 
     bring the budget into balance. That is the real work that 
     lies before us.

  And amen to that. And I credit the minority for starting off with 
that paragraph.
  But, as has been said before, we now have the President's budget, and 
in that regard I am going to quote from today's issue of the Washington 
Post. This is an independent observation, not known for conservative 
views--some conservative views. When they shine the light of truth into 
darkness, it is usually to the left-field bleachers as opposed to the 
right-field bleachers. But the Post says this morning:
  ``For the first time in 30 years, we'll be able to tell the American 
people that we have brought fiscal sanity back to their Government,'' 
declared Clinton's Budget Director, Franklin D. Raines, at a news 
conference.
  And the Post goes on to say this, and this a wake-up call to the 
American people:

       But, in many respects, [the President's] fiscal 1998 budget 
     falls well short of the administration's soaring rhetoric. On 
     issues such as deficit reduction, Medicare, tax cuts and 
     welfare, congressional Republicans and many independent 
     budget analysts charge [the President's] plan is crafted less 
     to impose fiscal discipline than to gain political advantage 
     in the budget battle to come.

  That is the Washington Post. That is not some Republican on Senate 
floor.

       In assembling its blueprint for wiping out the deficit by 
     2002 and beyond, the administration offers dozens of new 
     spending initiatives, including almost $60 billion of 
     additional entitlement programs [I thought we were going to 
     scale those back], while providing sketchy information about 
     spending cuts.

  Clinton is relying heavily on new fees and deferred spending 
reductions to reach balance. About 75 percent of all the proposed 
spending cuts would take effect after 2000, a strategy that would put 
off most of the pain--most of the discipline, if you will--until after 
President Clinton leaves office.
  A respected columnist, second to none, the dean of the political 
writers in Washington, David Broder, added this in today's issue of the 
Post:

       The numbers in the latter document [I am talking about the 
     budget] are immensely revealing. After pages of pat-myself-
     on-the-back rhetoric, the gauzy camouflage is pulled aside. 
     And you can learn that there's really not that much wrong 
     with this budget except that it adds another $1.2 trillion to 
     the statutory national debt in the next 5 years, fails to 
     start addressing the baby-boomer retirement problem, further 
     squeezes the share of money available for needed domestic 
     programs, shifts burdens to the States, shortchanges the 
     cities and stagnates investments in nonmilitary research and 
     development, the real seed corn for the future. Other than 
     that, it's a fine, forward-looking budget plan.

  That is by David Broder and I think it deserves significant attention 
for those involved in this debate as well as all of the American 
people.
  Mr. President, with the fall of the Greek Republic as an example, 
there is an often-quoted and pessimistic theory that a democracy cannot 
exist as a permanent form of government. The argument and prediction is 
a democracy can only exist until the voters discover they can vote 
themselves largesse from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the 
majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits, 
with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal 
policy.
  That was predicted about the Greek Republic. It happened. If that 
prediction is true, it is a terrible prospect for our future.
  Mr. President, I don't buy it. I think the American people are 
willing to sacrifice and invest in the future if we but set the example 
and get the job done.
  I must say, when we look at our most recent history, and the fact our 
best efforts fell short during the last session of Congress--and, 
goodness knows, we worked hard--I believe this debate, this legislation 
and this time represents our very best opportunity to set our Nation's 
fiscal house in order.
  In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton said, ``we need 
action.'' And I agree. It is, indeed, time for action.
  And for action that gets the job done, we need a constitutional 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me make note of the comments of the 
Senator from Kansas. They are so appropriate and so well directed at 
what we can do here as it relates to controlling our spending and 
modifying programs that do just that and produce long-term benefits.
  The Senator from Kansas last year, of course, was a major player and 
author of the Freedom to Farm Act while he was chairman of the House 
Agriculture Committee. That very act changed the whole dynamics of 
Government policy as it related to farm programs and Government's 
relationship to production agriculture.
  He spoke of the net savings in the tens of billions of dollars that 
will result over an extended period of time. I would guess that less 
than a few years ago, many Senators and many Members of the U.S. House 
would have said, ``That can't be done; you cannot sever that 
relationship.'' And yet, we have severed it.
  Agriculture continues to prosper every bit as well as it did tied 
directly to the Government and Government programs and, we believe, in 
the long term will prosper more, simply because it is not relying on 
farming-to-Government programs but, in fact, is now looking at the 
market and producing to the market, as we had hoped it would.
  That was one major benefit in change that occurred in the 104th 
Congress.
  Another one that occurred that is, in the long term, going to 
substantially get us to the point by 2002 of a balanced budget, of 
course, was the welfare reform.
  So when the kind of pandering that occurs here on the floor, often 
from the other side, that there is no way to balance the budget, or, if 
you balance it, you must begin to exempt major portions of the budget 
because they are too sensitive, too important and no constraints must 
be put upon them of the kind that a constitutional amendment would 
place upon them, so, therefore, they must be exempt, I would argue just 
the opposite, that all it forces us to do is make tough choices, 
priorities, where should the dollars be spent.
  Of course, we all know we are going to build and maintain a strong 
human safety net in Government policy for the citizens of this country 
who are poor or disadvantaged or need an opportunity. That is exactly 
what has been and will remain a concern of this Congress always.
  All we are asking, and what I think we are causing to happen, is what 
the American people have been asking now for well over a decade. Out of 
fear--now fright--that this Congress cannot control a Federal debt, 
they are saying, ``Balance your budget.''

[[Page S1123]]

  Of course, the Senator from Kansas and I, the day before yesterday, 
referenced this large stack of 28 consecutive budgets that are piled 
here beside me, to recognize that 14 of them have deficit spending, 
with all the intent to deficit spend and no intent to balance. And 14 
of them have the intent to balance, where the Congress collectively, in 
producing the budgets, said it is our intent that these budgets lead to 
a balanced budget.
  Yet, of course, we now have evidence, by the President's budget 
coming to us yesterday, that in all the rhetoric and all the time that 
he expended and all the good intentions that he expended in the State 
of the Union Message this week, referencing a balanced budget many, 
many times, that his budget isn't balanced, won't even balance unless 
you do major cuts and major tax increases, largely because he is 
habitually the kind of public leader that we have had for so many 
years, who wants to constantly add new programs without making the 
tough choices of deleting programs so that you can add.

  I am not suggesting the programs the President spoke of are not 
contemporary and necessary. When he spoke to education the other night, 
I applauded a fair amount of what he said. But I am willing to stand 
here and make the tough votes to suggest spending ought to decrease 
somewhere else if we as a country are going to shift our priorities in 
spending to education.
  We now have an amendment before us that would impact the whole intent 
of a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, and those are tough 
choices, prioritizing and doing exactly what the American people expect 
us to do, and that is balance the budget. If 51 of us can say, ``Oh, we 
can't balance the budget, the environment is too extreme at the moment, 
economically at this point in the country or the priorities of spending 
are we just have to bypass this national mandate, this constitutional 
mandate and do it only by 51 votes here in the Senate,'' then I suggest 
to you this amendment wipes away the full intent of a balanced budget 
amendment and causes us, if that were to become part of the balanced 
budget amendment, to gimmick up the Constitution by simply doing 
exactly what we do now.
  So we are telling the American people that the amendment that is 
before us is one where, ``Oh, we have given you a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. Rest assured we have given you what you 
wanted, but more importantly, we have now simply represcribed business 
as usual.''
  It is with those frustrations that I think we are now suggesting that 
this is an amendment--the amendment to the constitutional amendment, 
the one before us--is one that does not deserve to be in the 
Constitution, because it would be false pretense to argue it any other 
way.
  Yesterday, there was a fascinating article from Investors Business 
Daily that I thought was very reminiscent of the very arguments we are 
placing here on the floor. The President had expressed concern about 
the ability to react promptly in a recession and, of course, the 
amendment we have before us would argue that that is what it allows. 
When the President said that, I said, ``Mr. President, we have provided 
for that. We have a three-fifths vote in the amendment now.'' It is a 
tough vote. It is not always easy to come by, but it is a necessary 
vote to force us to the reality.
  Let me suggest that Congress, in 1962, passed 12 economic stimulus 
bills because of a recession. All 12 bills received 60 votes or more in 
the U.S. Senate. In 1993, in a stimulus package, there were similar 
kind of votes.
  What I am suggesting is that the record is replete with a voting 
pattern that says if we are truly in a major economic emergency and 
there is need for economic stimulus, that the very marker we have put 
in the proposed constitutional amendment that we are debating on the 
floor is the proper mark and not 51 votes.
  So what Investors Business Daily said yesterday was:

       The idea that deficit spending could smooth out the rough 
     spots in a business cycle comes from John Maynard Keynes. 
     Recessions, he believed, started when all the buyers in the 
     economy suddenly stopped spending. . .
       The evidence shows that public works programs have done 
     nothing to solve recessions, a 1993 article by economist 
     Bruce Bartlett in The Public Interest magazine pointed out.
       Spending packages aimed at fighting recession have never 
     been enacted before a recession ended on its own.

  In other words, they always came after all of the indicators were in 
place that the recession was over.
       Recessions are usually defined as two straight quarters of 
     falling GDP. So no one actually knows a recession is 
     happening until six months after it starts. No one knows it's 
     over until three months later.

  That is the reality of how we define ``recession.'' Yet, the 
amendment that we have before us to amend the resolution would argue 
that we know better.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
editorial called ``Prospective Balanced-Budget Blather'' be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Perspective Balanced-Budget Blather, February 6, 1997

       Without deficits, recessions would be longer, deeper and 
     harder to pull out of, the common wisdom says. Treasury 
     Secretary Robert Rubin echoes that in opposing a balanced-
     budget amendment. But it's not true.
       The idea that deficit spending could smooth out the rough 
     spots in a business cycle comes from John Maynard Keynes. 
     Recessions, he believed, started when all the buyers in the 
     economy suddenly stopped spending.
       Sellers usually respond to such a decline in demand by 
     cutting output and jobs, rather than cutting prices, the 
     Keynesian view went. That threw more people out of work, and 
     further reduced aggregate demand.
       Only government could turn this cycle around, by pumping 
     money into the economy. It did so by hiring people for public 
     works programs, for example.
       But because the government collects less in taxes during 
     recessions, those public programs had to be paid for with 
     debt, Keynes argued.
       The evidence shows that public works programs have done 
     nothing to solve recessions, a 1993 article by economist 
     Bruce Bartlett in The Public Interest magazine pointed out.
       Spending packages aimed at fighting recession have never 
     been enacted before a recession ended on its own, as the 
     chart shows.
       In fact, Congress often enacts these packages the very 
     month the recession is over. They are usually nothing more 
     than pork-barrel spending dressed up as compassion.
       Recessions are usually defined as two straight quarters of 
     falling GDP. So no one actually knows a recession is 
     happening until six months after it starts. No one knows it's 
     over until three months later.
       Even then, it takes Congress time to pass a law for extra 
     spending. And it takes still more time for that money to make 
     its way through the economy.
       So even if Congress could tell when a recession was 
     starting--unlikely, given the records of most economic 
     forecasters--it still wouldn't have more than a small effect.
       And Keynes was wrong not just in practice, but in theory as 
     well.
       He based his whole theory on the notion that government 
     experts acted rationally, while the average person did not. 
     Central planners could know enough and act quickly enough to 
     save people from the consequences of their own bad 
     decisions--clearly not the case.
       There are programs, such as unemployment insurance, that 
     kick in automatically when recession hits, without having to 
     wait for Congress to act. The amount those programs actually 
     increase during recession could be easily handled within a 
     balanced budget, however.
       Between 1980 and 1984--which includes years of deep 
     recession--real spending on jobless benefits rose $47.4 
     billion above its level in 1979, an economic peak. That 
     increase was just 1% of government spending over those four 
     years.
       Recessions have been less severe in the postwar period, 
     many economists argue, largely because of the greater role 
     Government has played in easing recessions. But it is not 
     certain that they are less severe, and it is even less 
     certain that this is due to government.
       On the surface it seems true. From 1920 to 1938, recessions 
     averaged 20 months, with a 14.2% decline in real GNP. Since 
     1948, they averaged 11 months, with 2.4% drop in real GNP. 
     Unfortunately, it's hard to compare the two periods, because 
     the prewar data are quite crude.
       National Bureau of Economic Research economist Christina 
     Romer, in a key 1986 American Economic Review article, tried 
     to compare apples with apples. She adjusted the more recent 
     data so that it was calculated much like those of the prewar 
     period.
       And she found the evidence of a change in the length, 
     frequency and severity of business cycles was weak.
       Even if recessions are less severe, it may have little to 
     do with government. The growing importance of the service 
     sector, where employment tends to be stable, could be one 
     reason. And technology has helped ease the sharp boom-bust 
     cycle of the farm and factory sectors.
       Legitimate gripes about a balanced-budget amendment are 
     easy to come by. But Rubin's is not one of them.

  Mr. CRAIG. It is important to recognize that while the politics of 
the argument are interesting, the record would

[[Page S1124]]

suggest that it does not fit, that Congress has always responded to 
recessions after they were over. And, in fact, what ended up usually 
was pork-barrel spending that became a part of the total budget program 
that went on.

       Between 1980 and 1984--which includes years of deep 
     recession--real spending on jobless benefits rose $47.4 
     billion above its level in 1979, an economic peak. That 
     increase was just 1% of government spending over those four 
     years.
       Recessions have been less severe in the postwar period, 
     many economists argue.

  That is exactly the point of those figures, the argument that somehow 
we straitjacket our Government by a balanced budget not able to respond 
to times of recession, and the facts simply do not bear it out, the 
economic facts, not mine, but those of the economists who study this.
  So when Secretary Rubin fears straitjacketing, what Secretary Rubin 
fears is that the American people will once again have control of their 
budget and the spending of the Federal Government and that we take it 
out of the hands of politicians and force them to stay within 
parameters and make the tough choices and to stop mounting the huge 
Federal debt that we are currently having.
  That is the essence of a balanced budget amendment. That is why we 
are here on the floor, because the American people have asked us to do 
this. I am one of those who believes so strongly that the record is 
replete with the facts that we as politicians cannot do it.
  Some of us can make those tough votes; others cannot for various 
reasons. It is true that, as never before, special interest groups come 
to Washington for a piece of the pie. So it is easy to give it away and 
make the pie bigger. The only problem is we borrow hundreds of billions 
of dollars annually to make the pie, expecting future generations to 
pay for the ingredients. Therein lies the great discrepancy, why we are 
here.
  It is an important issue. We must fight to make sure that we retain 
it and that we pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment 
resolution and disallow the kind of amendments that would weaken it or 
make it hollow at best. We cannot put that kind of language in our 
Constitution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able 
to proceed as in morning business and the time I use not be deducted 
from the debate on the pending business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the President.
  Mr. President, I have a couple of items that I would like to address, 
if I may, here of a different nature than the debate on the 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Myself, I will have 
some remarks later in the day on that subject matter, but I would like 
to take a little bit of time, if I could, to raise several issues.
  (The remarks of Mr. DODD pertaining to the submission of Senate 
Congressonal Resolution 6 are located in today's Record under 
``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.)

                          ____________________