[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 16 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1152-S1187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1.
  The clerk will report the pending business.
  The bill 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. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak in 
favor of the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. President, this amendment has come up repeatedly during my tenure 
in the U.S. Senate, and I have consistently supported the balanced 
budget amendment because of my deep-seated view that the Congress needs 
this discipline if we are to balance the budget on a permanent basis. 
It is a very fundamental principle that people ought to live within 
their means--if you or I do not, we end up in the bankruptcy court--and 
that governmental entities must live within their means. The only 
exception to this issue of living within one's means has been the 
Government of the United States of America, which goes into further 
debt each year with deficits of $100 billion or $200 billion, or more, 
establishing a national debt in excess of $5 trillion.
  This issue came into sharp focus for me recently when my wife and I 
were blessed with two grandchildren. We would certainly never think of 
imposing our financial obligations on our grandchildren, or spending 
money on their credit cards for them to pay at some later date. But 
that is precisely what we have done as a society. We have undertaken a 
variety of methods to try to move toward a balanced budget with Gramm-
Rudman and the so-called automatic sequestrations. That did not work. 
Nothing has worked, which is why I believe, in the final analysis, we 
need to move to the balanced budget amendment.
  We had the vote last year, coming within one vote of having the 
amendment pass. The President is opposed to the balanced budget 
amendment. But I do believe that just the pendency of the amendment has 
been a very substantial impetus moving the administration, the 
President, and the Congress to balance the budget without a 
constitutional amendment.

[[Page S1153]]

  President Clinton has laid before the Congress and the country what 
he submits is a plan to balance the budget by the year 2002. But the 
reality is, upon looking at the fine print, that it is unlikely to 
achieve that result because most of the cuts are in the last 2 years. 
When we come to that point, there is the inevitable impetus to 
eliminate those cuts. But to the extent that the pendency of the 
balanced budget amendment will move us to balance the budget without an 
amendment, that is so much to the good. Ideally, it would be preferable 
if we could balance the budget without having a constitutional 
amendment. But regrettably, that has not been our experience.
  It is always difficult to turn down worthwhile programs for Federal 
Governmental expenditures, and it is very, very difficult, painful, and 
really, at the present time, impossible to have tax increases with a 
Congress that is controlled by the Republicans and, I think, properly 
declining to even entertain tax increases. So when we do have the 
mandate of a balanced budget, it is apparent to everyone--it is 
apparent to all 535 Members of Congress, and it is apparent to our 
constituents. How frequently have we all heard the cry or the comment 
of a constituent coming to see us, ``I have a very important program 
that is meritorious and ought to be financed,'' and, at the same time, 
insisting that the taxes not go up and that the budget be balanced?
  I think it is important, Mr. President, as we go over this balanced 
budget amendment, that we allow sufficient flexibility for our 
Government to respond in times of crises or emergency. I share the 
concern that the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, 
has expressed in offering his amendment. But I think that the 
underlying resolution covers the problem in the appropriate way by 
calling for a supermajority, or 60 votes, in order to waive the 
provisions of the balanced budget in the event that there is a 
recession, an economic crisis, which requires that. Therefore, I intend 
to vote against the Durbin amendment.
  There has been very considerable comment about whether Social 
Security ought to be excluded from the balanced budget amendment. After 
very considerable thought, Mr. President, it is my conclusion that 
Social Security should be excluded. I say that notwithstanding my 
recognition of the problems there will be to balance the budget now if 
we exclude Social Security. But I submit that it is an artificial way 
of balancing the budget, which says that we ought to make expenditures 
which are not in excess of our income if we include Social Security, 
because those funds really are a trust fund to pay Social Security 
recipients at a later day. So what we are doing is saying we are going 
to spend more money, which we really can't afford now, by invading the 
trust fund, and we will put off for tomorrow what we are not willing to 
face up to today, to find a way to pay the Social Security recipients 
when the due date arises.
  We know very well that the so-called baby boomers will present a 
charge on the Social Security trust fund at a later date--2020--which 
we will be unable to pay unless we find some way to raise taxes or some 
way to make other cuts which are unrealistic in the context of what we 
might expect at that time. It may be that in crafting a balanced budget 
amendment, excluding Social Security, we will have to implement it on a 
schedule which is realistic which will account for excluding those 
surplus funds at the present time. But when we talked about Social 
Security initially we were talking about an insurance fund concept. We 
were talking about setting aside the money in a way where it would be 
there to pay those benefits at the time when one reached the age for 
Social Security.
  So that it is my very, very strong view that as a matter of sound 
financing that Social Security ought to be excluded. And this body has 
responded on many occasions when that issue has been presented. My late 
colleague, Senator John Heinz, was one of the major exponents for 
taking Social Security offbudget--not the only exponent but I recall 
the eloquent speeches which he made. And I recall many sense-of-the-
Senate resolutions where we talked about putting Social Security 
offbudget because it is a trust fund.
  I remember well during the tenure of James Baker, the Secretary of 
the Treasury, when there was an unusual invasion of the trust fund. I 
took the floor at that time and made a comment that there was really a 
fraudulent conversion which I believed was the case, and have 
analogized it to my experience as district attorney of Philadelphia 
when there was a trust fund and a fraudulent conversion. The people who 
took the money out of that trust fund were guilty of a criminal offense 
because, if it is set aside for a specific purpose and the trustee 
invades the fund for some purpose other than for which it was intended, 
that is a conversion and an invasion.
  So while I believe very strongly that we ought to have a balanced 
budget amendment, I think if it is to be realistic and not a double set 
of books that Social Security ought to be kept offbudget.
  Mr. President, I think that in constructing a timetable for a 
balanced budget amendment it is entirely possible to accommodate to the 
lesser amount of income which we have from Social Security payments in 
order to see to it that our current income aside from Social Security 
payments matches our current expenses, and that is the only way to 
truly have a balanced budget which I think we ought to have. And an 
amendment is the way to impose the discipline to be sure we will have 
it for the future.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his willingness to 
lead off in our efforts to pass the balanced budget amendment. 
Naturally, I disagree with him on the Social Security issue. But I know 
that he is a person of eminent qualification and one who does what he 
believes is right.
  I have had many years of opportunity to know the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania, and I have a lot of respect for him.
  Mr. President, today we begin the second week of one of the most 
important debates that has ever taken place in the U.S. Senate. The 
subject matter goes to the heart of the Founding Fathers' hope for our 
constitutional system--a system that would protect individual freedoms 
with the maxim of limited government.
  In the latter half of this century, however, the intentions of the 
Framers of the Constitution have been betrayed by multiple Congress' 
inability to control their spending habits. The size of the Federal 
leviathan has grown to such an extent that the very liberties of the 
American people are threatened.
  Like some of the provisions of the Constitution, the proposed 
constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, is an appropriate 
addition to constitutional limits on the powers of the Federal 
Government designed to increase the freedom of the people by limiting 
the freedom of the Federal Government to act in ways that are harmful 
to the people. It is identical to the balanced budget amendment that 
was passed by the House of Representatives in the last Congress. A 
number of our new Members voted for it at that time. It has broad 
support in the country and among Democrats and Republicans in that we 
need to ensure a sound fiscal discipline in our budgeting process in 
order to leave a legacy of a strong national economy and a responsible 
national Government to our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, our Nation is faced with a $5.3 trillion--going to 
$5.4 trillion--national debt that gets worse every year that we run 
budgetary deficits. The Government is using capital that would 
otherwise be available to the private sector to create jobs, and to 
invest in the future of this country. Increasing amounts of capital are 
being wasted on merely financing the debt because of spiraling interest 
costs. This problem presents risks to our long-term economic growth and 
endangers the well-being of our elderly, our working people, and 
especially our children and grandchildren. The debt burden is a 
mortgage on our children's and our grandchildren's future.
  The total debt now stands at almost $5.3 trillion. By the end of this 
debate it may very well reach $5.4 trillion. That means every American, 
every man, woman, and child in this country has an individual debt 
burden of about $20,000 per person. It took us over 200

[[Page S1154]]

years to acquire our first trillion dollars of debt. We have been 
recently adding another $1 trillion to our debt about every 5 years. 
While the trends on this front seem to be better, the fact is we are 
still running sizable deficits every year. And, unless we take prompt 
and decisive action, those deficits will continue to rise again this 
year, next year, and year after year. In fact, if you look at the 
President's budget, he even waits until he is out of office before they 
have to make the tough decisions to really balance the budget by the 
year 2002.
  Yet, Mr. President, opponents of the balanced budget amendment claim 
that there is no problem. They repeatedly point to the marginal 
slowdown in growth in debt over the past few years as though all our 
problems are solved. They say President Clinton has already dealt with 
this problem.
  They are dead wrong. Only inside the beltway can people claim that 
when the debt is exceeding $5 trillion and still on the rise that we 
are on the right track. Everyone on Capitol Hill knows and the 
Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that we are currently not on 
a glidepath to a balanced budget, or to the balanced budget that the 
President may suggest. According to CBO's most recent projections, our 
4 years of declining deficits that followed the enactment of President 
Clinton's record-setting 1993 tax hike will come to a grinding halt 
this year. What lies ahead is a familiar path of steadily increasing 
deficits rivaling anything we have ever seen before unless we take 
action to put us on the road to long-term fiscal discipline and 
balanced budgets.
  As this chart behind me shows, the Congressional Budget 
Office predicts that under current policies the deficit will begin to 
rise this year and continue to rise throughout the foreseeable future. 
The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will rise to $124 
billion in fiscal year 1997 and continue rising to $188 billion in 
fiscal year 2002. The deficits just keep rising until in 2007 our 
annual deficit is projected to be $278 billion. Added up, these 
deficits will add a total of more than 2 trillion additional dollars to 
the debt from now--in 1997--until the year 2007.

  There is no balanced budget in this chart. And I have to tell you, I 
doubt that there ever will be without a balanced budget constitutional 
amendment putting the fiscal discipline into the Constitution that will 
require us to live within our means. The simple fact is that with every 
additional dollar that we borrow we throw more coal on the fire of the 
runaway train that we are all riding on.
  The sad reality is shown by this stack of unbalanced budget 
submissions. The President's budget submission, which promises a path 
to balance in the year 2002, causes me substantial concern that this 
pile is just going to keep getting higher.
  And this only lists the last 28 years of unbalanced budgets since the 
last balanced budget in 1969. Actually, there have only been eight in 
the last 66 years. But the last 28 years have all been unbalanced. Each 
one of these volumes represents one of those unbalanced budgets during 
each of those 28 years.
  The sad reality is shown by this stack of unbalanced budget 
submissions. The President's budget submission which promises us a path 
to balance in the year 2002 just makes it very clear, if you believe in 
the Congressional Budget Office projections, that this stack is just 
going to grow that much higher over the next number of years.
  For example, the President's new budget projects a modest surplus in 
the year 2002 but also requires a 75-percent deficit reduction to get 
there in the 2 years after he leaves office.
  Now, get that. Up through the year 2000, this President's budget does 
not require much sacrifice or much effort to try to balance the budget. 
But in the years 2001 and 2002, 75 percent of the cuts have to take 
place, and we all know around here that that is basically impossible to 
do.
  So the game continues, the same game we have put up with for 28 
years, and it is pathetic, is what it is. This just indicates more of 
the same status quo, an avoidance of the tough decisions and deferral 
of the costs to the next guy, or should I say to our children.
  Additionally, the Senate Budget Committee has suggested that 
recomputing the numbers under CBO's more conservative economic 
assumptions puts the President's budget off balance in the year 2002 to 
the tune of an additional $66 billion. So the President's budget that 
he submitted just last week is not going to balance.
  The point is that we cannot yet congratulate ourselves for a job well 
done. There is hard work ahead for each of us to do, and there is no 
assurance of success. Based on the sad history illustrated by each of 
these 28 years of unbalanced budget submissions and the continued 
resistance of the President to take on the tough choices during his 
actual tenure in office, success is in serious doubt.
  That is one of the reasons why we need a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment. It has been called an insurance policy that 
we will get the budget actually balanced in the year 2002 and, more 
importantly, that we will keep it balanced thereafter.
  I would also note that it comes as no surprise that these increases 
in our Nation's debt mirror increases in Federal spending. The first 
$100 billion budget in the history of the Nation occurred as recently 
as fiscal year 1962--that was the whole budget--more than 179 years 
after the founding of our Republic. It took only 9 years for that 
figure to double, and in just another 6 years Federal spending had 
doubled again to $400 billion in 1977. I know, I was here. With another 
6 years came another $400 billion increase in the Federal budget, and 
by 1986 our Nation had seen its first $1 trillion annual budget. Today 
we face an annual budget for fiscal year 1997 projected to exceed $1.6 
trillion, as is the case under the budget recently submitted by the 
President.
  The Federal Government's appetite for spending the American people's 
money is the engine that has been driving this debt up and up because 
it has been easier to take the money in the form of a hidden tax like 
interest costs and future taxes, than in the form of a direct tax.
  One of most pernicious effects of the enormous deficit beast is the 
interest costs required to feed it. Interest on the public debt in 1996 
amounted to some $344 billion. That is roughly $50 billion more than 
total Federal revenues in 1975. In other words, we spent less than $300 
billion in 1957. In 1996, just 20 years later, gross interest costs 
took nearly 25 percent of all Federal revenues and more than half of 
all individual income tax revenue. And as this chart shows, net 
interest payments on the debt make up the third largest charge of our 
Federal budget.
  It is the red pie that is taken out of the total pie--the third 
largest payment in the Federal budget--exceeded only by defense 
spending and Social Security.

  It is really amazing when you look at it: Social Security spending, 
22 percent, defense spending is 18 percent, and net interest is 15 
percent. And it is going up every year and will go up exponentially 
unless we do something about it. And yet we have the same people around 
here year after year saying, ``Oh, let us just exercise our will and 
let us just do it.'' That is what they said for every 1 of these 28 
years of these unbalanced budgets, and that is what they will be saying 
10 years from now without any balanced budget, if we do not have the 
balanced budget constitutional amendment.
  Opponents of the balanced budget amendment suggest that we cannot 
afford to create a constitutional impediment to deficit spending 
because they believe that balancing the budget will result in decreased 
social spending.
  I do not personally understand the logic of continuing to waste such 
a large portion of our budget on interest on the rationale that we 
cannot afford to cut spending. What we cannot afford to do is continue 
to throw away so much of our budget on interest payments. Think of how 
much we could do on crime control, defense, disaster relief, health, 
science, and education if we had $344 billion available next year 
instead of paying interest against the national debt with that money.
  To help my colleagues put this in even better perspective, gross 
interest on the debt in 1966 amounted to more than the entire defense 
budget of $266 billion; 99 percent of Social Security payments, $347.1 
billion; 64 percent of

[[Page S1155]]

all discretionary outlays, $535.4 billion, and nearly 45 percent of all 
mandatory programs of $784.9 billion.
  The $334 billion of gross interest payments on the debt in 1996 could 
have covered our entire health spending, including Medicare and 
Medicaid, that is, $293.6 billion, all veterans-related entitlement 
spending, $18.8 billion, unemployment compensation, $22.6 billion, the 
cost of Federal law enforcement activities of $8 billion, and we would 
still have $1 billion to spare.
  Last year, in fact, we spent more money on net interest payments on 
the debt than we did for the combined budgets of the Department of 
Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Education, 
the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, the Department of 
the Interior, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Department of Labor, the Department of State, and the Department of 
Transportation. Just think about that.
  Interest on the debt is the fastest growing item in the annual 
Federal budget. According to the current Congressional Budget Office 
projections, gross interest on the debt will continue to rise 
substantially over the next 5 years from $360 billion in 1997, to $412 
billion by 2002, and by 2007 just the interest on the debt is projected 
to be $493 billion.
  If we keep going like we are, we are going to be paying almost 
everything on interest that could be used to solve a lot of problems in 
our society. This $495 billion is just $50 billion shy of our entire 
discretionary budget for the current fiscal year.
  Over the past 4 years of short-lived deficit reduction, we have paid 
roughly $1.3 trillion in interest on the public debt. That is more than 
the Federal Government took in during all of 1994. Without the gross 
interest on the debt, we would not have had a deficit in 1996. In fact, 
we would have run a budget surplus of $237 billion.
  But we cannot even begin to think about reallocating this money to 
more productive uses until we begin to reduce our debt. If interest 
rates go back up, the problem will be increased exponentially. Self-
propelled interest costs will continue to eat a larger share of our 
National Treasury, destroying our choices to fund new programs and 
eroding our ability to keep the commitments we have already made. This 
is serious stuff.
  And even if we are successful in passing a budget this year that will 
balance our budget by the year 2002, we will never begin to reduce our 
debt unless we can provide some assurance that such balanced budgets 
will become the rule rather than the exception. That is what the 
balanced budget amendment is geared to do.
  Mr. President, both sides will recite lots of numbers and figures 
during the course of this debate. One such figure is our current $5.3 
trillion national debt. But how does one communicate the implications 
of our staggering debt?
  In 1975, before this recent borrowing spree, the Federal debt 
amounted to approximately $2,500 per person. That was each American's 
share of it in 1975, and the annual interest charges were roughly $250 
per taxpayer. At present, the Federal debt amounts to about $20,000 per 
person, with annual interest charges that each person in this country, 
each man, woman, and child in America, has to pay, totaling nearly 
$1,350 per person, or roughly $2,975 per taxpayer. That is at today's 
interest rates, which will go even higher if we do not get things under 
control.
  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that in the year 2002, total 
Federal debt will be more than $6.8 trillion. That means roughly 
$24,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child in America, with annual 
interest costs projected to be over $3,100 per taxpayer.
  These last figures would mean a nearly tenfold increase in per-capita 
debt and a nearly twelvefold increase in annual interest charges per 
taxpayer since 1975. Over time, the disproportionate burdens imposed on 
today's children and their children by a continuing pattern of deficits 
could include some combination of the following: Increased taxes, 
reduced public welfare benefits, reduced public pensions, reduced 
expenditures on infrastructure and other public investments, diminished 
capital formation, diminished job creation, lower productivity 
enhancement and less real wage growth in the private economy, higher 
interest rates, higher inflation, increased indebtedness to and 
economic dependence on foreign creditors, and increased risk of default 
on our Federal debt.
  Senator Simon would always make this point: If we keep going like we 
are going, ultimately we are going to have to monetize the debt--that 
is, print cheap money--where it will cost you a bushelful of dollars to 
buy a loaf of bread like it did in Germany in the 1930's, and then 
write off all the debt on cheap dollars. But the United States of 
America as we know it will be gone at that point.
  Mr. President, this is fiscal child abuse and it must end. But, as I 
indicated earlier, there is no end in sight. After 4 years of declining 
deficits--financed partly with the largest tax increase in history--we 
have not reduced our staggering $5.3 trillion national debt 1 penny. We 
have only slowed the growth in the national debt.
  More important, as my Republican colleagues and I predicted would 
happen during the debate on the President's 1993 budget package, the 
Congressional Budget Office now predicts--and if you look at this 
chart--it now predicts that annual deficits will resume their upward 
climb beginning this year from an annual deficit of $124 billion in 
1997, to $188 billion in the year 2002, and then exceeding $200 billion 
the next year and reaching a near record $278 billion high in the year 
2007. Even OMB's estimates from the President's newly proposed budget, 
which predict lower debt totals than CBO, project that gross Federal 
debt will top $6.6 trillion, exceeding 66 percent of our gross domestic 
product by the year 2002.
  That means, according to their own estimates, the Clinton 
administration's self-proclaimed victory in bringing down the deficit 
will result in an additional $1 trillion or more being added to the 
national debt between now and the year 2002.
  Mr. President, we do need to do more. It is time for Congress to pass 
Senate Joint Resolution 1, to permanently restore the fiscal 
environment in which the competition between tax spenders and taxpayers 
is a more equal one--one in which spending decisions will once more be 
constrained by available revenues. The time has come for a solution 
strong enough that it cannot again be evaded for short-term gain. We 
need a constitutional requirement to balance our budget. Senate Joint 
Resolution 1 is that solution. It is reasonable, enforceable, and 
necessary to force us to get our fiscal house in order.
  There are those who oppose the balanced budget amendment because they 
say that Congress and the President are already committed to balancing 
the budget by the year 2002. As a matter of rhetoric, that is true; as 
a matter of what people say, that is true. But as a matter of real 
world politics, it is clear that the bridge between such rhetoric and 
reality is a rather long one.

  Since 1978 alone, there have been no fewer than five major statutory 
regimes enacted which promised to deliver balanced budgets. This 
includes Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. But there has not been a single 
balanced budget since 1960.
  Here are the 28 succeeding budgets. In about every one of these it 
was promised there would be an effort made to balance it, every one of 
which is unbalanced right up to today.
  Notwithstanding all of these budget plans and the five statutory 
attempts to require a balanced budget that I have mentioned, the 
national debt has increased by roughly $4.5 trillion since 1978. In 
other words, nearly 85 percent of our current national debt has 
accumulated during the period of time in which Congress has operated 
within statutory budget frameworks designed to ensure the types of 
fiscal discipline that would be required under Senate Joint Resolution 
1.
  While I support the efforts of the past and commend the dedication 
expressed by leaders of both political parties to reaching a balanced 
budget, I seriously doubt whether, without the weight of a 
constitutional requirement to balance the budget, we will achieve 
balance by the year 2002. Even if we did, there is nothing to prevent 
future Congresses from yielding to the inherent political

[[Page S1156]]

pressures that would lead to renewed deficit spending. We need a 
constitutional amendment if we are truly committed to solving this 
problem.
  Mr. President, the proposed constitutional amendment will help us end 
this dangerous deficit habit in a way that past efforts have not. It 
will do this by correcting a bias in the present political process 
which favors ever-increasing levels of Federal Government spending.
  In seeking to reduce spending bias in our present system--fueled 
largely by the unlimited availability of deficit spending--the major 
purpose of Senate Joint Resolution 1 is to ensure that under normal 
circumstances, votes by Congress for increased spending will be 
accompanied either by votes, A, to reduce other spending programs or, 
B, to increase taxes to pay for such programs. For the first time since 
the abandonment of our historical norm of balanced budgets, Congress 
would be required to cast politically difficult votes as a precondition 
to politically attractive votes to increase spending.
  The American political process is skewed toward artificially high 
levels of spending. It is skewed in this direction because Members of 
Congress have every political incentive to spend money and almost no 
incentive to forego such spending. It is a fiscal order in which 
spending decisions have become increasingly divorced from the 
availability of revenues.
  The balanced budget amendment seeks to restore Government 
accountability for spending and taxing decisions by forcing Congress to 
prioritize spending projects within the available resources and by 
requiring tax increases to be done on the record with record votes. In 
this way, Congress will be more accountable to the people who pay for 
the programs, and the American people, including our future generations 
who must pay for our debts, will be represented in a way they are not 
now represented. Congress will be forced to justify its spending and 
taxing decisions as the Framers intended, but as Congress no longer 
does.
  Senate Joint Resolution 1 represents both responsible fiscal policy 
and responsible constitutional policy. Passage of this resolution would 
constitute an appropriate response by Congress to the desires of the 
people and the States for a constitutional amendment on this issue.
  The Senate must approve Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced 
budget amendment. It is the right thing to do for ourselves, our 
children, our grandchildren, and future generations, and it will give 
us back responsible and accountable constitutional Government. The 
faithful stewardship of public funds that was so prized by our Founding 
Fathers can be restored for 21st century Americans.

  The virtues of thrift and accountability can be rekindled by this 
very 105th Congress, so I urge Senators to join with me and the other 
61 sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 1 in support of the bicameral, 
bipartisan, consensus balanced budget amendment which has taken years 
to develop and for which we have fought for over 20 years.
  This is the thing to do. This is the chance to do it. This is the 
chance to do what is right. I hope our colleagues will do so.
  I apologize to my colleague who has been on the floor, who would like 
to call up an amendment, so I yield the floor to him at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me first of all thank my colleague 
from Utah for his remarks. He has been a real leader on this. He is 
tenacious; he never, never gives up. I have tremendous respect for his 
work as a Senator, even though we are in profound disagreement on this 
question. But I would like to thank him for kind of matching what he 
does on the floor of the Senate with the kind of words he speaks.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. 
Rebecca Constantino, who is a fellow in our office, be granted the 
privilege of the floor during the debate on the amendment I am about to 
propose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 3

(Purpose: To state the policy of the United States that, in achieving a 
balanced budget, Federal outlays should not be reduced in a manner that 
disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition, and health 
                      programs for poor children)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Redesignate section 8 as section 9 and after section 7 add 
     the following:
       ``Section 8. It is the policy of the United States that, in 
     achieving a balanced budget, Federal outlays must not be 
     reduced in a manner that disproportionately affects outlays 
     for education, nutrition, and health programs for poor 
     children.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me read this amendment slowly and 
carefully, because I am hoping to get a very strong vote in favor of 
this amendment, and I hope it will be an up-or-down vote. This is a 
pretty important matter amending the Constitution, and if this is going 
to be done--it may or may not be done--we better do it well, we better 
do it carefully.
  This amendment says:

       It is the policy of the United States that, in achieving a 
     balanced budget, Federal outlays must not be reduced in a 
     manner that disproportionately affects outlays for education, 
     nutrition, and health programs for poor children.

  What this amendment is saying, and I will give plenty of historical 
and economic context for it, is that we should go on record and make it 
very clear that if, in fact, this constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget is passed, which then locks us into this goal, will make the 
commitment that we are not going to, as we did in the last Congress, 
disproportionately cut programs that affect, quite often dramatically, 
the nutritional or health or educational status of poor children in 
America.
  The reason that I offer this amendment is that I think we need to 
have some focus on this question. There can be arguments made, and 
there have been, on whether or not we ought to amend the Constitution. 
There can be arguments made about whether or not this is a mistake vis-
a-vis our fiscal and monetary policy to make sure recessions don't 
become depressions. There are arguments both ways.
  Senator Durbin has an amendment on the floor that says, look, if we 
need to move forward with an economic plan that puts the budget out of 
balance during a downturn in the economy, it should just be a 
requirement of a majority vote. I think that amendment is on the mark.
  I see the budgets over the years. There could be an argument of whom 
to blame. I wasn't here during the decade of the eighties or prior to 
that time. We can argue it both ways. I think historians are going to 
write about a piece of legislation which was euphemistically called the 
Economic Recovery Act which dramatically cut tax rates. I think it 
became rather regressive, because most benefits went to higher income 
citizens, at the same time of dramatically increased expenditures in 
the Pentagon. I think President Bush once called it voodoo economics. 
All of it was to lead to economic growth. People would have more money 
with a tax cut, productivity, jobs. It would lead to eliminating the 
debt. Actually, quite the opposite happened.
  That was actually borrowed money and borrowed time. It was politics 
of illusion. I really appreciate the focus of Senator Hatch on no 
longer having that illusion and the message from the people in the 
country that we should get our economic house in order and our 
political house in order. But what I am asking Senators to do, because 
I think we really owe it to the people we represent, is to make a 
commitment that one more time, as we go about achieving a balanced 
budget, Federal outlays must not be reduced in a manner which 
disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition and health 
care programs for poor children.

[[Page S1157]]

  I hope this amendment will not be tabled. I offer this amendment with 
passion and with commitment to a matter that I think is very important. 
I think there should be an up-or-down vote, and I hope it will be 
adopted.
  Mr. President, why the amendment? Well, because of recent history. 
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities issued a report entitled 
``Bearing Most of the Burden: How Deficit Reduction During the 104th 
Congress Concentrated on Programs for the Poor.'' I will just read a 
few of their conclusions:
  More than 93 percent of the budget reductions in entitlements have 
come from programs for low-income people. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that legislation enacted during the 104th Congress 
reduced entitlement programs by $65.6 billion from 1996 to 2002. Of 
that, almost $61 billion out of the $65.6 billion comes out of low-
income entitlement programs, the largest reductions in the supplemental 
security income program and programs for the elderly and the poor.

  Please remember, I say to my colleagues, that one out of every five 
children in America today is poor. Mr. President, I read an article the 
other day with great interest of how you, as the Senator from Missouri, 
have teamed up with other Senators, like Senator Coats, and you have 
your own commitments to really not turning our gaze away from the 
concerns and circumstances of one out of every seven Americans, many of 
them children, but you are committed to doing something.
  We might have different ideas of what to do. I think that is 
commendable, and I know you well enough to know that you have that 
commitment. What I am worried about is deficit reduction based on the 
path of least political resistance, because I think that is exactly 
what we did in the last Congress. That is to say, we are afraid to take 
on powerful interests, so, instead, what we do is we go after the 
people who are not the heavy hitters, who are not the big givers, who 
are not well connected, and those people, all too often, in the Senate 
are voiceless and they are faceless and they are powerless and they are 
disproportionately poor children in America.
  I hope my colleagues will at least support this amendment. If this 
passes, it happens one time. Let's get it right. If we are going to 
lock ourselves into balancing the budget and deficit reduction, let's 
lock ourselves into humane and fair priorities that we are not going to 
disproportionately cut programs that affect the educational and 
nutritional and health care status of children.
  Mr. President, other than entitlements, 34 percent of the reduction 
in nondefense programs that are not entitlements came from 
nonentitlement programs for people with low incomes. Those low-income 
people programs accounted for only 21 percent of overall funding, but 
they were disproportionately cut as well.
  Just looking at the 104th Congress, I offer this amendment to make 
sure that we make a commitment that we are not going to cut such vital 
programs. Sometimes we are just too generous with the suffering of 
others. Let's not be too generous with the suffering of poor children 
in America.
  The Concord coalition had this to say. Martha Phillips the executive 
director, on November 26, 1996:

       Balancing the Federal budget--

  And this has been a goal of the Concord coalition--

     and keeping it in balance is critically important, but 
     balance ought not to be achieved principally on the backs of 
     the poor. Every program should be on the budget cutting 
     table. No programs, groups or special interests should be 
     exempt or get a free ride when the budget is being balanced. 
     But neither should the needy be singled out to bear a 
     disproportionate share of the load.

  They go on to say--this is the Concord coalition, I say to my 
colleagues, committed to deficit reduction. The Concord coalition goes 
on to say, under the able leadership of Senator Rudman and Senator 
Tsongas, who passed away--a real loss for our country--the Concord 
coalition goes on to say:

       Even though the 104th Congress, which passed the laws, and 
     the President, who signed them, did not plan to target 
     deficit reduction efforts on programs affecting low income 
     people, that was nevertheless the result of both actions that 
     were taken and those that were not.

  (Mr. ROBERTS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is another interesting statement 
from the Committee on Economic Development. By the way, I would like to 
congratulate the business community in our country. The Committee on 
Economic Development over and over and over again, over the last 
several years, have said, from the point of view of economic 
performance for our Nation, we must invest in the health, skills and 
intellectual character of our children. We must do that.
  I quote, as a part of a letter that was written November 26, 1996, by 
the senior vice president and director of research of the Committee on 
Economic Development:

       Second, in an unfortunate surrender to misplaced ideology 
     and political opportunism, our leaders in both political 
     parties have increased the magnitude of the financing problem 
     by insisting that tax reductions be included in their 
     balanced budget plans.

  That was their view. By the way, I think we are going to have to look 
very closely at some of those budget proposals. My understanding is the 
Joint Tax Committee, in projecting the majority party's tax cuts over 
the next 10 years, has identified close to $500 billion in the first 5 
years more targeted toward middle-income people and the second 5 years 
more targeted toward wealthy, high-income people.
  What is going to be the offset? Cuts in the nutritional and 
educational and health care programs for poor children in America? If 
that was the case, that would be unconscionable. If there was some sort 
of budget deal that leaves these children out in the cold, that would 
be unconscionable.
  The senior vice president of the Committee on Economic Development 
goes on to say:

       Third, as a result of the fiscal pressures created by these 
     two factors, the burden of budget austerity has fallen 
     disproportionately on those parts of the budget, and those 
     parts of society, that offer the least political resistance.

  Actually, I have been saying that over and over again. I guess we are 
in agreement. I am pleased to hear them actually state it that way.
  For the budget that means that the discretionary annually 
appropriated programs, including those public investment activities for 
a society--it quite simply means the poor.
  Now the quote:

       As David Stockman observed a decade ago, politics triumphs 
     over policy in seeking out weak clients rather than weak 
     claims.

  This amendment asks us not to let politics triumph over policy. This 
amendment asks us to seek out the weak claims, not the weak clients.
  This amendment says we go on record that when we balance the budget, 
we will not cut disproportionately those programs that affect the 
health care, nutritional and educational status of poor children. We 
ought to have 100 Senators voting for that. We can go forward to 
balance the budget. We can go forward with deficit reduction. But given 
the way we did it in the last Congress, and the evidence, I must say to 
my colleagues, it is irreducible and irrefutable that we ought to at 
least make this commitment.
  Mr. President, the Washington Post in an editorial written today had 
this to say:

       The balanced budget debate is only in part what it purports 
     to be--an argument over the deficit, savings, growth, and the 
     shifting of cost to the next generation. It is also a sharp 
     debate over social policy, conducted in fiscal code. If you 
     decide to balance the budget, the question immediately 
     becomes, at whose expense? The budget is by its very nature a 
     redistributive device. On balance, it tends to move money 
     from people who are better off to those who are not. If you 
     narrow the deficit, will it end up doing more of that, less 
     or about the same?

  This editorial goes on to make the argument that if we are going to 
do it, we ought to do it on the basis of a standard of fairness. We did 
not do that in the 104th Congress.
  This amendment asks the U.S. Senate, in the 105th Congress, Democrats 
and Republicans, to go on record that if we are going to balance the 
budget, we are not going to do it on the basis of the path of least 
political resistance and not going to go after weak clients. We are 
going to go after weak claims. And we are not going to end up passing 
budgets that disproportionately cut programs that affect the health, 
nutritional and educational status of poor children in America.
  If I were to get 100 votes, I would feel like I have died and gone to 
Heaven. I

[[Page S1158]]

really would. I am so hopeful that my colleagues will vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, in an interesting poll result, the Committee for 
Education Funding points out that whereas there is support for the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget--and there is. I have 
been opposed to it. You have to ultimately follow your conviction and 
vote for what you think is right or wrong. Senator Hatch clearly takes 
another position, and he votes his conviction. No one would ever say 
otherwise.
  But it is interesting that public opinion polls show--according to 
the Committee for Education Funding--that 90 percent of Americans 
support maintaining or increasing Federal support for education. When 
directly asked if they would support a balanced budget constitutional 
amendment that reduces funds for education, nearly 70 percent 
disagreed. So this amendment just asks us to be clear about how we 
intend to do this.
  Mr. President, just a little bit more context. I am going to get a 
chance to speak on this amendment today, and then I guess we will go 
back to the Durbin amendment and tomorrow get a chance to speak and 
then have a vote.
  We are, as I said the other day on the floor of the Senate, in many 
varied ways a model for much of the world. I mean, we should be so 
proud of our country, the diversity of our country, so proud of our 
economic performance, so proud of our leadership in the world, so 
proud, I think, of really helping to create a world where we no longer 
have to think so much about a nuclear war that could be the end for our 
children and grandchildren. But there is at least one way in which we 
are not a model, one area in which I think in recent years we have been 
moving in the wrong direction. And that is in fulfilling our national 
vow of equal opportunity. That kind of national commitment is in need 
of refurbishing and renewal.
  I bring this amendment to the floor because more than 35 million 
Americans are poor. That is one out of every seven citizens. In 1994, 
of poor children under the age of 6, nearly half lived in families 
below half the poverty line. That figure has doubled over 20 years. The 
number of people who work and are poor and work full time, 52 weeks a 
year, 40 hours a week, and still are poor has dramatically increased as 
well.
  Mr. President, minorities are poorer than the rest of Americans. 
African-Americans are close to 30 percent, Hispanics at a little over 
30 percent, and female-headed households are even poorer, and 44.6 
percent of the children who live in such families are poor. In 1994, 
almost half of all children who were poor in America lived in female-
headed households. So what we have here is one out of every five 
children poor, but it is getting closer to one out of every four 
children. One out of every two children of color are poor. 
Unfortunately, we cannot turn our gaze away from this reality, a strong 
convergence between poverty and race and gender and children in 
America.
  I am asking us to go on record to be for fairness in how we do this 
deficit reduction.
  Mr. President, let me give a few examples of the kinds of programs 
that I am talking about when I say that we should go on record that we 
will not disproportionately cut these programs that affect the 
nutritional health and educational status of children.
  Let me start out with the Women, Infants, and Children Program. Let 
me make a point with my colleagues, because sometimes I am going to 
give a lot of examples. I am going to talk about women and children. I 
want to translate these statistics into personal terms.
  But, first, as a teacher, I think I have said it before on the floor 
of the Senate, but I want to say it again. I was a college teacher for 
over 20 years. I have been in a school in Minnesota probably about 
every 2 weeks ever since I was elected. It is just crystal clear to me 
that the most important educational program in the United States of 
America--you know we talk about higher education. I was a college 
teacher. It is a big issue. It cuts across affordable higher education, 
cuts across a broad section of the population that people are very 
focused on, and it should be.
  But as a matter of fact, I think the most important educational 
program is to make sure that every women who is expecting a child has 
an adequate diet, rich in vitamins, minerals, and protein. It is just a 
fact. It is just a fact. The evidence is irreducible and irrefutable 
and it is medical evidence. If we do not make sure that every woman 
carrying a child has an adequate diet, all too often her child will be 
born severely underweight, her child will be born with an impairment 
that may mean that no matter what we do in our public schools, that 
child will never have the same chance as probably all of our children, 
Senators' children, or grandchildren. It is the essence of the American 
dream. It is the goodness of our country, for us to say that every 
child, no matter what race or gender or income of family, will have the 
same opportunity to reach her full potential or his full 
potential. That is what my father, who was a Jewish immigrant from 
Russia, taught me about our country. That is the greatness of our 
country. It is not too much for me to ask my colleagues to go on record 
that in balancing the budget we will not make any cuts in the most 
important educational program, the Women, Infants, and Children 
Program.

  In 1996, Mr. President, WIC provided assistance for 7.2 million 
women, infants, and children. That was about 60 percent of the eligible 
population. There are about 11 million women and children that are 
eligible. So, some women and some infants and some children are left 
behind.
  Mr. President, let me talk a little bit about the WIC Program. It was 
established as a pilot program in 1972 and it was made permanent in 
1974. It is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Who is 
eligible? Pregnant or postpartum women, infants, and children up to the 
age of 5 are eligible. Mr. President, how many people does it serve? 
More than 7 million people get WIC benefits every month, and 
participation has risen steadily. Children are the largest category of 
WIC recipients. Of the average 6.89 million people who received WIC 
benefits each month, 3.5 million were children, 1.8 million were 
infants, and 1.6 million were women.
  Mr. President, this is a program that is a huge priority or should be 
a huge priority for this Senate. It is a success story. Sometimes we 
harp on the complexity of it all like we do not know what to do. I am 
in agreement with every single Senator that says some of these 
Government programs ought to be reevaluated, some of them do not work 
well. But from the point of view of decency, of fairness, of justice, 
of saving money--what is the figure? For every $1 we invest in the 
Women, Infants, and Children Program, it is $3 less we spend in medical 
assistance later on.
  WIC is a huge success story. The Women, Infants, and Children Program 
reduces fetal deaths and infant mortality. WIC reduces low birth rates 
and increases the duration of pregnancy. WIC improves the growth of at-
risk infants and children. WIC decreases the incidence of iron 
deficiency anemia in children, improves the dietary intake of pregnant 
and postpartum women, and improves weight gain in pregnant women. 
Pregnant women participating in the Women, Infants, and Children 
Program receive prenatal care earlier. I think, Mr. President, about 
every 2 minutes in America a child is born to a woman who had no 
prenatal care. Children enrolled in WIC are more likely to have a 
regular source of medical care and are better immunized. Children who 
receive WIC benefits demonstrate superior cognitive development. WIC 
significantly improves children's diet. WIC is cost effective.
  I am just asking my colleagues to make a commitment that we will not 
disproportionately cut this program as we move forward to balance the 
budget because in the last Congress we disproportionately made cuts in 
programs that affected those citizens who did not have the political 
clout here, who did not give the big dollars, who are not the heavy 
hitters, who are not the well connected. This is a distorted priority 
if we at least do not make a commitment on behalf of these children.
  Mr. President, I will give some examples from the Women, Infants, and 
Children Program, but I want to first of all call attention to my 
colleagues to a special report in Time magazine February 3, 1997, ``How 
a Child's Brain Develops and What It Means for Child Care Welfare 
Reform.'' Mr. President, I

[[Page S1159]]

congratulate Time magazine for this issue. I really believe that we 
will see major change in how we think about our priorities here as a 
result of the kind of research that Time magazine reports on. 
Basically, if I had to summarize this whole issue, the conclusion is as 
follows: If you do not make sure that women expecting a child have an 
adequate diet, if you do not make a commitment to these children when 
they are young, if you do not make sure that they do not have not only 
adequate nutrition and adequate health care, but if you do not make 
sure that they do not have intellectual stimulation, a nurturing and 
caring environment--and by the way, Government cannot do all of that. 
The President knows that. Much of that is up to the family. If you do 
not make sure that that does not happen, then by age 3 for many of 
these children, it is almost close to all over; certainly by age 5.

  I think that what we are going to see and more of the concern that 
will come out, and it will be compelling, if we do not make the 
investment, if we do not do everything to make good things happen at 
the local and community level, and realizing people need resources to 
make sure that for these children we invest in the intellect and the 
character of these children, or many of them will therefore not make 
it. What a waste that would be for our Nation.
  Mr. President, I have said before on the floor of the Senate and 
today is my day to try and give this context because I think so much of 
politics is personal, I have learned so much as a grandfather. Because 
our children are all older and we had our children when we were very 
young, I forget what it was like. Now when we have the grandchildren 
over, I have said on the floor of the Senate before, you take a 2-year-
old and you watch him or I watch our granddaughter, it is amazing. 
Being in the same room, in the same house, and every 15 seconds they 
find something interesting and new. The President is smiling. He may 
have seen the same thing. What is going on is that these small children 
are experiencing all the unnamed magic of the world that is before 
them. We ought to ignite that spark for all of our children. We do not 
want to pour cold water on that spark, and we have, for too many 
children. Actually, it does not make much of a difference whether it is 
my grandchildren or anyone else's grandchildren, they are all God's 
children. I think it is time for us to move beyond symbolic politics 
and it is time to stop giving the speech and having the photo 
opportunities next to the small children unless we are willing to make 
an investment.
  Mr. President, at 23 years old, Elaine became pregnant and soon after 
she was laid off of her $9 an hour office job. Since she was pregnant 
she had difficulty finding another job. She did find one at $6 an hour. 
With little resources, she immediately learned about the Women, 
Infants, and Children Program which she says is the reason her baby was 
born healthy and strong. Her initial guidance from the WIC office in 
Reno, NV, taught her the basic nutritional information. I am just 
reading from this example. We have collected stories from people around 
the country. All too often we just speak in statistics here, or 
strategy or tactics. I want to try and translate this amendment into 
personal terms as it affects people's lives. Every month Elaine 
attended nutritional classes and received vouchers for items like milk, 
cheese, peanut butter, and beans. She said, ``I had no idea what I was 
supposed to eat and what was right for my baby. The public nurses were 
all so nice and helpful, I never felt bad. They wanted me to have a 
healthy baby as much as I did. I knew nothing about babies, like breast 
feeding and stuff. They taught me all that.'' After Elaine gave birth 
to a healthy boy, she would take him to the WIC clinic where he was 
examined.
  The same nurses who guided her through the pregnancies guided her 
through the initial steps of child rearing. Not only did she learn the 
basics of taking care of her son, but she continued to receive 
financial assistance. Says Elaine, ``The formula cost $160 a month and 
I did not have it. WIC gave it to me, and I'm not sure what I would 
have done without that help.''
  Eventually, Mr. President, Elaine returned to her office job at a 
rate of $9.60 an hour, and she was no longer eligible for WIC, and she 
should not have been. She now lives independently with her son. ``WIC 
saved me. I really don't know how I would have survived. It helped me 
survive on an emotional level and with finances. I was really 
surprised. I always thought these kinds of programs were for `low-
lifes,' but they were a lot like me. I just had hard luck and needed 
help. I got it.'' And Elaine's son got it. That is the difference 
between Elaine's son having a really what we would call successful and 
full life versus what might have happened to her son if she had not 
received this assistance.
  Is it too much for me to ask colleagues to go on record that we will 
not disproportionately cut the Women, Infants, and Children Program? 
Really, we should not cut it at all. This amendment doesn't even ask us 
to do that. Actually, we ought to fully fund it now. I don't understand 
some of these proposals here in Washington--some from the White House. 
When we don't actually fully fund some of these programs, I don't know 
exactly how we figure out which children go without health care, which 
children go without the nutritional help they need, which children are 
not in the Head Start programs. Who makes that decision? We know how we 
can make a difference and be helpful. We have some proven, credible 
programs that have worked, that are key to children, key to what we are 
about as a country. I am just saying, let us at least make a commitment 
that these programs are not the programs that we disproportionately 
cut.
  Mr. President, let me now move on and talk about the Head Start 
Program. Mr. President, the Head Start Program is a program that began, 
as I remember, back in 1965, or thereabouts. It is a program which, in 
many ways, is not perfect, but it has lived up to its title, which is 
that we do, as a Nation, just what the program says; we give children 
from some really difficult and tough circumstances, from low-income 
families, a head start. That is the goodness of America, what we are 
about. Yet, Mr. President, in 1996, the Head Start Program reached only 
17 percent of eligible 3-year-olds and only 41 percent of eligible 4-
year-olds. In the United States, almost 4 million children are eligible 
for Head Start, because children 1 and 2 could be receiving or 
participating in this program. But it served just over 800,000 of those 
over 4 million children. Roughly, 3.2 million children are not being 
served.
  The President's budget proposal says we will, by 2000, 2001, fund 
Head Start for another 1 million children. I still don't understand how 
we can make the collective decision not to fully fund it. How do we 
explain to people in the country, or more important, how do we explain 
to children?
  Jonathan Kozol--and I recommend Jonathan's work--wrote a book called 
``Amazing Grace: Poor Children and the Conscience of America.'' He 
wrote another book called ``Savage Inequalities: Public Education in 
America.'' His writing is so powerful. In an article he recently wrote 
for a journal called Tikun, a very interesting journal, he writes at 
the end:

       Millions of children in sequestered neighborhoods, like the 
     South Bronx, do not know what they have the right to hope 
     for. Their eyes ask questions that you and I and all of us 
     have yet to answer.

  Their eyes ask questions that, as Senators, we have not answered. One 
of those questions is, how can a country, how can a Congress, that 
purports to love children do so precious little to help some of the 
children that are the most vulnerable citizens with the direst need?
  Mr. President, across the freeway from the comforts of Disneyland is 
a housing division, a stone's throw from the lavish and affluent hotels 
that serve tourists. In a corner apartment lives Rene, a lively, 
exuberant, and bright 8-year-old. She is in the second grade where she 
is doing well in school. In fact, every morning Rene runs to school 
excited to learn. Too many of our children are running into the arms of 
police, rather than into the arms of parents and teachers.

  We pay a price for not investing in our children. We pay a price for 
not investing in poor children in America. Rene attended two years of 
Head Start, which, according to her mother, was ``a Godsend.'' At Head 
Start, Rene learned

[[Page S1160]]

the fundamentals of schools, such as her colors, the alphabet, and 
writing her name. More importantly, Rene and her family learned about 
school. For Rene, learning about school at Head Start meant more than 
academics. It meant her mother learned about nutrition and eating 
right. It meant her mother learned how to interact with and talk to 
teachers. Her mother learned how to prepare Rene for school, things 
like clean clothes and breakfast. It meant her mother learned about 
reading to Rene. It meant her mother learned that Rene needed a 
structure, a set time to eat dinner and to go to bed. Head Start taught 
this. Learning about school meant Rene learned to interact with her 
peers. She learned about sharing. She learned how to listen, how to 
take directions. Rene learned about curling up and being read to. She 
even learned to brush her teeth. Rene, Mr. President, represents one of 
the many children who have benefited from Head Start. Said her mother, 
``Before Rene got in this program, I knew nothing about what she 
needed. I was kind of scared for her to go to school. I didn't do so 
good in school, and I was getting ready for the same with her. Her 
teachers cared about her and me. They wanted to work with us, too. I 
knew they cared.''
  Remember, Mr. President, that the Head Start teachers who did so much 
for Rene and began her on the path to school success earn about $17,000 
a year. Also, keep in mind that for every Rene that benefited in Head 
Start, two are turned away. For every Rene that benefited in Head 
Start, two are turned away.
  I am asking Senators to make a commitment with this amendment, in an 
up-or-down vote, that we will not, in balancing this budget, 
disproportionately cut programs that affect the educational, health 
care, or nutritional status of children. WIC is one example, and the 
Head Start Program is another. I don't think that is too much to ask.
  Marcus, a shy and quiet first-grader, finds himself in the 
principal's office for the third time in a week. According to his 
teacher, Marcus is either overagitated, annoying other students in 
class, or else listless and disinterested in the tasks at hand. Marcus 
usually doesn't understand what is happening in class. He does not yet 
know all of his colors, his numbers, or the alphabet.
       Though many of his classmates attended a Head Start Program 
     and learned the initial steps toward understanding school and 
     learning, Marcus did not. He represents one of the 1.2 
     million children who, though eligible, could not participate 
     in the Head Start Program.

  Mr. President, in Minnesota, my State, only 40 percent of the 
children who are eligible for Head Start have access to it. In other 
States it is much lower.

       The program near his home was full. Not only was it full 
     but there was a year waiting list when Marcus' grandmother 
     tried to sign him up. Though there was room in another 
     program, it was too far for his grandmother to take him. 
     Instead, Marcus stayed home, sometimes alone, while his 
     grandmother worked. Marcus is conspicuously behind his 
     classmates. While his classmates scurry around the teacher to 
     be read to, he had not yet held a book or had ever been read 
     to. Marcus does not even know how to write his name.

  Let me pick up on that.
  He had not held a book, and he had never been read to. Why don't we 
go on record, in all of this haste to balance the budget, that we will 
not balance the budget on the backs of poor children, and we will not 
make cuts which would make it impossible for a child like Marcus to 
have a book read to him in a Head Start Program?
  There are a lot of homes that do not have any books at all. I read 
somewhere that one of the factors that most explains how well children 
do in school is the number of books that are in the home. Mr. 
President, there are many homes where the parent or parents can't 
afford any books. I would just suggest to my colleagues that one of the 
most important things we could ever do is to make sure that children 
have access to those books or that someone can read those books and 
nurture those children and stimulate those children.
  Peter Hutchinson, superintendent of schools in Minneapolis, made an 
excellent suggestion that I am going to try out speaking at the 
legislature next week speaking about children. Peter Hutchinson, Mr. 
President, said something that I think is appealing to you; a wonderful 
voluntary effort. He said, ``You know, Paul * * *'' and he has two 
teenagers--``we have all of these wonderful children's books in the 
home but the children are older now. Why don't we get those books in 
the other child's home? Let us get those books out of our homes. Let's 
get bookmobiles and get them into the homes of those children. And let 
us get them to those Head Start Programs and make sure that all of our 
children get that stimulation.''
  That is what I am talking about today.

       Marcus did not know how to write his name nor did he know 
     how to recite the alphabet. In a phrase, Marcus is not a part 
     of the culture of the school. He did not come to school ready 
     to learn. Marcus' teacher is concerned and anxious about him. 
     He is far behind his classmates, and she has little, if any, 
     time to help him catch up. As weeks progress, he falls 
     further behind and is more frustrated. Already Marcus hates 
     school and learning, counting the days until summer vacation. 
     He knows he is different. He knows he does not understand but 
     also knows there is not much he can do.

  Here is a child who is utterly defeated. I meet children. I travel 
the State. I travel the country and I meet with children who are age 
10, age 8, who can't look me in the face, who look down. They have no 
confidence. They don't believe they are going to be teachers. They 
don't believe they are going to be doctors. They don't believe they are 
going to be successful business people. They don't believe they are 
going to be lawyers. They don't believe they are going to be 
architects. They don't believe they are ever going to be Senators or 
Representatives. None believe they will ever be President. They have 
none of that hope. It is gone.
  Can't we make a commitment as a Senate knowing full well 
the importance of family and community? But can't we at least get some 
resources for the communities and neighborhoods and families so that we 
can support our children?

  I will tell you something. I am absolutely convinced that when 
historians write about this time period of the decade of the 1980's 
moving into the decade of the 1990's, the ultimate indictment of our 
country will be the way in which we have abandoned our children and 
devalued the work of adults who work with those children. Think about 
it for a moment.
  I am not off the topic. I love to take my grandchildren to the zoo. 
But if you work at the zoo, you get paid twice the salary, twice the 
wage, that a woman or a man makes working in a child care center. We 
pay people who work for the zoo twice as much money as we pay men and 
women who work with children. What in the world does that say?
  When I was a teacher at Carleton College in Northfield, MN, I would 
meet students, and they would say, ``In all due respect, we do not want 
to be college teachers. We want to work with these children when they 
are young, 1, 2, 3, or 4 years of age, because we know that is such a 
critical time.'' But many of them would then go on and say, ``But we 
can't. We can't support the family. We would make $6 an hour with no 
health care benefits.''
  What are we saying? Let us dig into our pockets. Let us not spend 
money on wasteful programs. Let us cut. Let us balance the budget. Let 
us be fiscally responsible. But, please, let us make a commitment with 
this amendment that we are not going to balance the budget on the backs 
of poor children. Please let us invest in certain areas of life in 
America, starting with our children.
  Marcus' teacher said:

       I just don't know what could be done for him. I know that 
     he needs a lot of one-on-one attention and love, but I just 
     do not have the time or the resources. Every day I feel him 
     slipping, and, frankly, it breaks my heart. He is a good boy 
     and a smart boy. I feel as if he is being punished for what 
     we did not do for him. I am worried that he will always hate 
     school and suffer until he can leave. He tries so hard. 
     Sometimes I want to cry.

  That is what this debate is all about. It is about people. It is 
about children.
  I say to my colleague from Utah that I really believe there can be 
100 Senators voting for this. I am not bringing this amendment to the 
floor because I want to point the finger at other colleagues. I am not 
bringing this amendment to the floor to force an embarrassing vote. I 
am bringing this amendment to the floor in good faith and in good 
conscience really hoping that my

[[Page S1161]]

colleagues will support it because, otherwise, I will just tell you, 
given our track record of deficit reduction based on the path of least 
political resistance, we are, with this constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget, going to lock ourselves into very stoic priorities, 
and we will make these cuts, and I believe in the absence of some 
commitment, we will make cuts in these very programs that affect these 
very children.

       By August of 1996, in West Monroe, Louisiana, there was 
     already a waiting list for Head Start for August 1997. Zora 
     Cheney has been a Head Start teacher there since 1965. She 
     was there at the very beginning. Not only does she see the 
     need for it, but she lives the success. According to Zora, 
     without Head Start the lives of many children would be in 
     words ``a disaster.''

  I visit Head Start programs all across Minnesota. Another outstanding 
feature is parental participation--high-participation parents--in 
meeting with the teachers and in talking about the children. This 
program is a really important investment in poor children.

       We get kids here, so many kids here, that need us and would 
     not endure later school years without it. I have seen some 
     kids who come in, and it is obvious they are not cared for 
     enough and that the home family needs help. While Zora's 
     program emphasizes the traditional things that we discuss 
     with Head Start, like building on language, learning shapes 
     and colors and developing social skills, it does so much 
     more. Says Zora, ``We are concerned with everything about 
     that child. We want the parents to learn how to feed them, 
     how to dress them, how to parent them.'' She continued, ``I 
     have had children come to school, and I know they have been 
     sleeping on the floor. I know they need so much at home. We 
     work with other groups. We refer the families to get things 
     like furniture and doctor appointments.'' When asked the most 
     significant contribution that Head Start in West Monroe, 
     Louisiana has made to the community Zora replies, ``For many 
     its the first place that they feel safe.''
  I have other examples that I will go through tomorrow, but I just 
wanted to give some examples of some children, and I am going to be 
doing this over and over and over again, actually thanks to the people 
in Minnesota--I am just going to bring to the floor of the Senate the 
lives of children so that we can get some votes on their behalf because 
I will tell you something. For example, the Senator from Utah--and this 
is not meant to challenge him--on these children's issues he is 
effective and he is a powerful Senator for children. I know that. So I 
do not feel like I am spitting in the wind when I come out here to 
speak or I do not think I make a mistake with this amendment. I am just 
trying to get my colleagues to make this commitment because I know so 
many of them care so deeply about children.
  The amendment says we make a commitment that we will not put into 
effect disproportionate cuts in programs that affect education--I 
talked about that--nutritional and health care programs for children.
  According to the Childrens Defense Fund, 10 million children, one in 
seven children in America, are without any health care coverage at all, 
and I think that close to about a million children a year have been 
dropped from coverage because actually more and more people are getting 
dropped from employment-based coverage, or what has happened, employers 
will cover the adult but they do not cover the children.
  It used to be that people could get coverage for everyone in their 
family. Who are these 10 million uninsured children? Nine in ten, 88 
percent, have parents who work. Nearly two in three, 64 percent have 
parents who work full time. These are children of working poor 
families. More than three in four, 77 percent, are white. Sometimes we 
do a little bit too much by way of stereotyping and always assume we 
are talking about African American people or Hispanics. Two-thirds live 
in families with income above the poverty level, and more than three in 
five, 61 percent, live in two-parent families. Each year since 1989--
this was the statistic I was struggling for--900,000 fewer children on 
the average have received private coverage.
  I think actually it is real important for me to make this point about 
what this amendment is talking about and also some of the legislative 
initiatives that will be taken in this Senate in the 105th Congress. We 
are talking about working poor families. We are talking about people 
who are not old enough for Medicare, and even if, by the way, you 
receive Medicare in my State of Minnesota people do not have 
prescription drug costs covered and elderly people still live in terror 
of catastrophic expenses if they are no longer to stay at home and the 
nursing home costs, or we are talking about families that are not poor 
enough to qualify for medical assistance. They fall between the cracks. 
They work, they work hard, they are barely above the poverty-level 
income and they are not fortunate enough to have an employer that 
provides them with health care coverage. So their children are at risk. 
These families live paycheck to paycheck.
  What does this translate into? More than half of uninsured children 
with asthma never see the doctor during the year. More than half of 
uninsured children with asthma never see the doctor during the year. 
Many of these asthmatic children are hospitalized with problems that 
could have been prevented. One-third of uninsured children with 
recurring ear infections never see the doctor. Many suffer permanent 
hearing loss. Children with untreated health problems are less likely 
to learn in school. If you have an ear infection, if you suffer 
permanent hearing loss, if you are not treated for asthma, if you do 
not have dental care, if you come to school with an infected tooth, 
with a tooth with an abscess and you cannot even get dental treatment, 
you are not likely to do as well in school.
  Mr. President, it will actually save money when we invest in 
children. Each dollar invested to immunize a child saves between $3.40 
and, some say, $16 in direct medical costs, and it goes on and on. In 
every other advanced economy children get better health care coverage 
than in America.

  So, Mr. President, here we have children with undiagnosed vision 
problems who do not get glasses and do not even see the blackboard. We 
have children who suffer from asthma, we have children who have ear 
infections and can suffer hearing loss, we have children who are in 
pain and discomfort and have trouble concentrating, we have children 
who are not treated early for lead paint poisoning and these children 
can suffer permanent mental retardation, and we have 10 million 
children in America who are uninsured.
  Given this shameful statistic, is it too much to ask my colleagues to 
make the commitment that in our effort to balance the budget we are not 
going to make any disproportionate cuts that affect the health care 
status of poor children in America? We are not doing near enough right 
now.
  That is all this amendment does. I am fearful, on the basis of what 
we did in the last Congress, that when push comes to shove, we will not 
have a deficit reduction plan locked in by this constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget based upon a standard of fairness, that 
we will embark upon once again deficit reduction based upon the path of 
least political resistance, and those Americans who will 
disproportionately be asked to sacrifice are the very Americans who 
cannot tighten their belts any longer--poor children in America. This 
amendment goes to the very heart of who we are and what we are about.
  I do not know. My colleague from Utah may speak to this. Maybe there 
is a strategy on the other side--not the other side as if we are not 
friends, but we have majority party and minority party. I am in the 
minority party--to basically vote against all the amendments. I hope 
not. And one more time, I really hope that we will have an up-or-down 
vote on this amendment. I introduce this amendment with respect for 
colleagues. I think it speaks to a terribly important matter. I really 
hope that people will vote for it. I really believe most Senators agree 
that these are not the areas where we are going to make 
disproportionate cuts. I really think most Senators agree.
  Mr. President, I will speak more to this amendment, but for right now 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to express my regard for the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He is very sincere, and he always 
means well, and, frankly, I care a great deal for him.
  Having said that, I do want to point out that this is a 
constitutional amendment we are talking about here, and I need to take 
just a few minutes to respond to some of the comments

[[Page S1162]]

that my friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, has made.
  Let me begin by saying that I do not know of any other Member of this 
body more genuinely concerned about the children in this country and 
particularly those in poverty, unless it is myself. He works hard for 
these unfortunate people, these unfortunate kids, as do a lot of us, 
and I give him credit for that. When Senator Wellstone speaks on these 
issues, he speaks from his heart, and we all know that. Regardless of 
the differences on this amendment, you still have to give him credit 
for that.
  Having said that, Mr. President, the efforts to try to help children 
by exempting programs that affect them from the balanced budget 
amendment's purview will have precisely the opposite effect. As a 
matter of fact, we are throwing their future away unless we pass this 
amendment. We are saddling them with historic debt that literally is 
going to cause them to spend the rest of their lives working to get out 
from under the debt that we in our generation are leaving, or should I 
say the past generations because it is more than just our generation.
  The Senator has circulated a new section 8 that would become part of 
this amendment if it was passed. Let us have no illusions. Senator 
Wellstone, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, is not going to 
vote for this constitutional amendment no matter what happens, even if 
we accepted this section. But we could not, because this section says:

       It is the policy of the United States that, in achieving a 
     balanced budget, Federal outlays must not be reduced in a 
     manner that disproportionately affects outlays for education, 
     nutrition, and health programs for poor children.

  He has circulated a whole number of amendments exempting the Women, 
Infants, and Children Program, a program I support, Head Start, a 
program I support, and education positions which I support. His current 
amendment exempts, as it says here, outlays for education, nutrition 
and health programs for poor children from disproportionate cuts.
  If we care about children in this country--and I know we do; I don't 
think there is a person in the Senate who would not say that he or she 
cares--the most important thing we could do is pass this balanced 
budget amendment. Without it, it is our children and our grandchildren 
who will inherit the legacy of these astronomical debts, and they are 
going up by leaps and bounds. It is our children and grandchildren who 
will be called upon to pay the price for our years of profligacy, and 
they will pay that price with higher taxes, higher interest rates, 
fewer jobs, and economic instability. Thus, the amendment that we must 
support in order to save the children is not one which would gut the 
balanced budget amendment. To ensure the well-being of future 
generations, we need to pass the balanced budget amendment. It is the 
only hope for our children.
  One of the things that is difficult for me to understand is why some 
would argue or assume that exempting certain programs from the balanced 
budget regime would somehow save or help those programs. Just the 
opposite is the case. If there is a program worth preserving, and I 
suggest those programs are, we ought to make sure these programs are 
funded responsibly and not with rubber checks. What is the point? 
Exempt a program from the budget so it would be allowed to go bankrupt 
on its own? Is that what the point is? That is simply the kind of 
reasoning that has led us to a $5.3 trillion national debt, going to 
$5.4 trillion in the next couple of months.
  Mr. President, several self-proclaimed liberals are making these 
points as well as myself, notably Representative Joseph Kennedy, among 
others, the Representative from Massachusetts. They have become staunch 
supporters of the balanced budget amendment. Joe Kennedy is one of them 
because, as a self-professed liberal, he believes and other liberals 
believe, who are supportive of the amendment, that balancing the budget 
is the only way to protect and preserve the worthy programs for the 
needy. We are not doing anyone any good by bankrupting the Government 
and spending an increasing amount on interest on debt. Representative 
Kennedy last week suggested that interest was the primary villain, 
crowding out good social spending programs. Imagine what we could do 
with the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on interest every 
year?
  No, the way to ensure the preservation and stability of critical 
programs and help the most needy in our society is to foster fiscal 
integrity. This is not the first time we have seen an amendment that 
sought to carve out a loophole in the balanced budget amendment, nor 
will it be the last. But I would like to ask my colleagues to consider 
what the balanced budget amendment would look like if we really did 
exempt all of these different parts of the budget because we like some 
parts better than others. Anything affecting children, gone; seniors, 
gone; investments, disasters, all manner of social spending, all gone 
from the amendment if these folks have their way. So what is left? What 
would those who propose this barrage of exemptions and loopholes leave 
under the balanced budget amendment? Absolutely nothing. And everybody 
on this floor has some favorite program, that is what has led us to 
this morass and this mess. We all would like to save something. We all 
would like to do something.

  I have to say, it is pretty hard to fight against children's 
programs. I don't know anybody who wants to do that, and if they have 
to compete, they will compete very well and respectably for their share 
of the Federal budget. They always have and they will. I have to admit, 
I wish there was more money for these programs. I wish I could do more 
for those programs. But the best thing I think I can do for them is 
pass a balanced budget amendment that puts the fiscal responsibility 
into this system.
  Look, what do they leave under the balanced budget amendment? 
Nothing? That is what it all comes down to. These kind of amendments 
tug at the heartstrings of all Americans, and they try to make those 
who sponsor the balanced budget amendment look mean. But the truth is, 
if you really care about children, senior citizens, and disaster 
victims, you will vote for the balanced budget amendment. You will vote 
for a Federal Government with the fiscal strength to be there for them. 
You will vote for a balanced budget amendment because, without that, 
you will never be able to protect these programs and these people. And 
you will vote for a balanced budget amendment without loopholes such as 
the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is sincerely advocating here, 
because everybody deserves a balanced budget amendment. I hope we 
reject these amendments and pass Senate Joint Resolution 1 as it is 
before us.
  Additionally, I am not clear on the effect of the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota. This Wellstone amendment states 
that it is the policy of the United States that, in achieving a 
balanced budget, there should not be disproportionate cuts to poor 
children's programs. What is this, a sense-of-the-Constitution 
resolution? Is that what we put in the Constitution? I don't think so.
  I know it is not intended as an insult, but it kind of is, in a way, 
by suggesting we are not going to do right by our children. The 
distinguished Senator says we are not doing right now by our children 
because there is just not enough money. I can agree with that. I can 
agree I wish we had more money, I wish we could solve every social 
program there is. But no nation on Earth has ever completely solved 
them, and certainly no nation that is not fiscally responsible. And 
ours is the most fiscally responsible Nation in the world, or at least 
it has been up to the last 60 years.
  In the last 60 years--in just the last 28 years, we have had 28 
straight unbalanced budgets that are demonstrated by this. We have two 
piles here, one behind the other. It would be a lot higher than double 
my size if we put the other pile on top of this one. These are 
unbalanced budgets over each of the last 28 years. That is only part of 
it. We have only balanced the budget 8 times in 66 years. No wonder we 
cannot do enough for our children. No wonder we do not have the money 
to take care of these social needs. It is going to get worse and the 
people who are going to get hurt the most are children.
  Look at Social Security. When I talk to seniors, there are those who 
want to

[[Page S1163]]

take Social Security out of the purview of the balanced budget 
amendment, and that will be one of the big votes on this amendment. I 
talk to seniors. They are concerned about children, too, and they are 
concerned that most all the social spending now is going towards 
seniors, and very few dollars are going to children. Part of that is 
because we do not have a fiscally responsible Congress that has to try 
and divvy up the money so they work in the best interests of all 
Americans.
  Now, we have had a Congress that just said, ``Just keep borrowing and 
just keep spending and you can just keep doing that ad infinitum, 
forever.'' We all know that is not the case. Our priorities do shift 
from time to time.
  Again, I get back to the Wellstone amendment, is this a sense-of-the-
Constitution resolution? What does ``disproportionate'' mean? My gosh, 
do you realize what constitutional authorities would do with a word 
like that? What does that mean? Does this limit across-the-board budget 
cutting? Is that what it does? Our priorities shift from time to time, 
as we do the budgets. Congress has to be free to allocate resources 
within a balanced budget rule. It has to be free to do that. We cannot 
write something like this into the Constitution.

  How do we decide what is disproportionate? To senior citizens, they 
might think that spending on children is disproportionate, rather than 
spending on them. To children's advocates, spending on seniors is 
disproportionate to what we should be spending on children. We have to 
battle these things out. That is what we are elected to do. But we need 
to do it within the constraints of a balanced budget amendment so we 
really get down to the matter of setting priorities.
  I happen to believe if we set priorities, the distinguished Senator 
from Minnesota will be right in there pitching for the priorities of 
children, and so will I.
  (Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I think we will be able to win on this, 
to the extent we have the votes to win it.
  Furthermore, on this disproportionate business, how do we decide 
which programs affect children? Do we do it on the basis of program 
title, or by surveying recipients to see the actual use of the money? 
Is that how we do it?
  Madam President, it is pretty clear that if you put something like 
this in the Constitution, you create more problems than you solve. It's 
pretty clear that if you start advocating for any one select part of 
the budget to be outside the budget, because you want that protected 
from budgetary restraint, that you are hurting everybody. It's pretty 
clear if you prefer one group over another, you're going to have a lot 
of conflict among groups.
  If you do that, you darn well better do it within a balanced budget 
constraint, so the people know what is going on, and not just think the 
money is going to come from somewhere, which is about the attitude we 
have had around here for the last 60 years, and certainly for the last 
28 years, every year we had an unbalanced budget. And in current years, 
where we said this is a balanced budget for the first time--give me a 
break, not one of them has been and nobody has thought any would be.
  I have to tell you, I think it is going to be a budget charade this 
year as well. The President's budget, according to CBO, is already $66 
billion in debt, and the budget will be balanced in the year 2002, that 
is assuming current interest rates, that is assuming current rosy 
scenarios, that is assuming we continue to have no minor or major 
recession. All of those things are ifs.
  We should reject this and similar amendments and pass the balanced 
budget amendment that will lead a stronger future for our children and 
grandchildren away from bankruptcy and debt, which is where we are 
headed if we don't get smart and do what is right. To exempt anything 
from the budget is almost an insult to everybody who serves. It is an 
insult to everybody who serves in the Congress.
  We are here to try and do what is right. I believe the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota, myself and others, who similarly feel the depth 
of these problems, will be able to fight very, very well for these 
particular items in the budget, but within a balanced-budget concept. 
If we do that, I think we will have more money in the end, more real 
dollars to help children than we are going to have if we don't pass 
this balanced budget amendment. So I hope that our colleagues will vote 
this down.
  Just so people will know right off the bat, I probably am going to 
move to table every amendment that comes up. I don't want anybody to 
feel badly about it. We think that is the only orderly way to proceed.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if I might make a comment to the Senator 
from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield for a comment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Obviously, he has his right, as any Senator does, to move 
to table any amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. That is what we have always done.
  Mr. LEAHY. But I hope no person in the public will be fooled by that. 
The result is still going to be the same as an up-or-down vote would 
be.
  Madam President, the Senator from Utah has virtually a blood oath 
from the Republicans to vote against anything that might try to protect 
Social Security, children, or anything else in this proposed 
constitutional amendment. So he would have the votes, I assume, to win. 
But I hope the American public will not think this is a procedural 
thing. This is very much a vote on the merits on any motion to table 
that the Senator from Utah might make to defeat an amendment.
  He does have an absolute right, as any of us do, to move to table at 
some appropriate time. I hope he will allow enough time, of course, for 
debate, but he does have that right. But the vote on that motion to 
table should be viewed as if it were a vote on the merits.

  I further ask the distinguished Senator from Utah how much longer he 
will take.
  Mr. HATCH. I will only be a minute. I will say this, I agree with the 
Senator. The fact we move to table an amendment doesn't necessarily 
mean the substance of that amendment or the substance of that vote 
should be ignored. It is just a procedural way of handling the matter 
that I think we are going to have to do in an orderly way. But I think 
the vote will still mean who voted for it and who voted against. I 
always felt that way. I don't have any problem with that.
  I also would just like to say that I don't think there are any blood 
oaths around here either. I hope some Democrats who have cosponsored 
and my fellow Republicans will vote to sustain the motions to table, 
but I don't know of any blood oaths, nor do I know of any all-profound 
commitments that people have made. I just believe that people know this 
game is about to come to an end and that this is a chance to pass a 
balanced budget amendment to put our fiscal affairs in order, and that 
this is the last chance. This involves both Republicans and Democrats 
who have worked hard to come up with this consensus amendment in the 
best interest of our country. I understand there are different 
sincerely held beliefs on this matter. But in any event, I do not agree 
with my colleague.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I know the Senator from Vermont wants to speak, and 
then I will, after the Senator from Vermont speaks, respond to some of 
my colleague's points. I don't understand, I will say to my friend from 
Utah, he talks about tabling the amendment because this is an orderly 
way to do it. I don't understand why an up-or-down, yes-or-no vote 
isn't just as orderly. What is the problem with an up-or-down vote as 
opposed to tabling? It is just as orderly.
  The second thing--I guess it is less a question, and I don't know if 
my colleague, who is a good friend, meant it in this way--I don't think 
this is a game. This is less a question than, I guess, a response. I 
don't think it's a game at all. I don't think it's a game to these 
children, and it is not a game to me. I just want to be clear about it. 
It is an amendment offered out of respect. It is an amendment that I 
believe is profoundly important for our country. It is an amendment I 
hope Senators will support. It is not a game. It is not a game.

[[Page S1164]]

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, it may not be to the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota, but I really believe it is time to pass a 
balanced budget amendment, and this is the context in which this is in.
  With regard to tabling, we have always done it and intend to table 
the amendments if we can, and that is a right that we have. It is not 
meant to hurt the Senator or his position, it is just a matter of 
procedural choice, which I--and I just want to make it clear up front--
will probably do on all, if not most all, amendments that come before 
the body on this matter.
  I realize the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is very sincere, 
that he would not bring this amendment to the floor if he didn't mean 
it and it wasn't meaningful to him. I am not meaning to disparage his 
amendment at all, other than I think it would be a terrible way of 
writing the Constitution, putting words in the Constitution that would 
be almost impossible to define and I think would, basically, gut the 
constitutional amendment.
  Even if we put it in, even if somehow or another we could find some 
way of putting it in the amendment, I don't believe we would have the 
vote of the Senator from Minnesota anyway.
  To make a long story short, it is one of a long series of amendments 
that are intended to defeat the balanced budget amendment, and I hope 
my colleagues will vote to table.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, normally, I would speak in response to 
this, but I understand the distinguished Senator from Texas needs a few 
minutes to introduce a bill. Without losing my right to the floor, I 
yield to my distinguished colleague from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from 
Vermont.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 
294 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield to the Senator from Vermont and appreciate his willingness to 
let me introduce this bill on the day the officer is being buried. 
Thank you.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I should note a couple things from the 
debate that my good friend from Utah has stated. He said he is in favor 
of a balanced budget amendment. I know he has been very sincere about 
that. My difference is I am in favor of a balanced budget. The two are 
not necessarily the same. We have been voting closer and closer to a 
balanced budget each of the last 4 years.
  We have seen, after the enormous increase in deficits and the 
national debt that grew up with Presidential budgets throughout the 
1980's, for actually 12 years, beginning in the early 1980's straight 
through 1992, where we saw a tripling of the national debt--I do not 
want to sound partisan, but I point out those were all Republican 
budgets and Presidents, Republican Presidents who got virtually every 
single thing they ever asked for. In fact, the only appropriations bill 
that President Reagan ever vetoed--the only one--was one that did not 
spend as much money as he wanted. Yet he had, with his budgets, nearly 
doubled the national debt. The debt had taken 200 years to build up to 
the point where he became President. Within 8 years he doubled it. It 
was nearly tripled by the time his successor, another Republican, 
finished office.
  So we actually built up the debt during that time--we are spending 
over a half a billion dollars every working day just in interest on 
that. We would not have a deficit today had there not been so much debt 
built up during the Reagan and Bush administrations.
  In the last 4 years, under President Clinton, the deficit has come 
down every single year. No President, Republican or Democrat, has done 
that in my lifetime. I think he ought to get some credit for it. Now he 
has submitted another budget that will bring it into balance by the 
year 2002.
  We have endured a number of gimmicks, from the dumping of thousands 
of dollars of cash on the ground to even a debt ticker. Now we have 
this stack of books being represented as the unbalanced budgets of the 
last 28 years. They are not the budgets for the last 28 fiscal years. 
Let us make this very clear. The stack of books over there are not the 
budgets for the last 28 years. They are not the budgets of the United 
States at all. The stack of books are a mishmash of documents. Some are 
proposed budgets by past Presidents. Some are proposed appendices of 
the proposed budgets. Some are simply analyses of the proposed budgets. 
Actually, the stack is as much a gimmick as a constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget is a gimmick--as everyone from the Wall Street 
Journal, on the right, to newspapers like the Los Angeles Times and the 
Washington Post, more to the left, have pointed out.
  In fact, here is a copy of last year's budget resolution. It is a 
little tiny thin thing. This, incidentally, brought the deficit down 
for the fourth year in a row. It is not a very picturesque thing. It is 
not a gimmick. It is actually something we vote on. And by voting on 
it, we brought the deficit down.
  President Clinton made it very, very clear. All it takes to balance 
the budget is our votes and his signature; not a constitutional 
amendment. It also takes some courage on our part.
  Many of us have shown that courage over the last 4 years in bringing 
down the deficit. I am proud to be one of those. I am proud to be one 
of those who voted against the economic plan that built up those huge 
deficits in the first place. Because we are willing to cast specific 
votes is why I support the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, 
Senator Wellstone.
  I share his strong commitment to keeping America's children healthy 
and strong. He has stated this not just on the floor of this body but 
in individual talks with Senators. It is a deeply held view on his 
part. As one who has chosen to protect the lives of those in the next 
century, I share his view of that. I believe in strong families and a 
strong family structure in this country. Families prosper only if their 
children go the bed fed, not when their children go to bed hungry.
  Last Congress, we had this Contract With America--or contract on 
America. It seems like deja vu all over again. If you read the fine 
print of that contract, as the Senator from Minnesota has, and the 
balanced budget plan in there, it repealed the School Lunch Act that 
provides lunch to 26 million children. The Contract With America 
legislation repealed the WIC Program, special supplemental nutrition 
program for women, infants, and children, that provides nutritious 
foods to 6.9 million women and children. That Contract With America 
legislation repealed the Food Stamp Program, which is a nutritional 
safety net, a very modest one for 28 million people.
  Now we beat back the repeal of the School Lunch Act with the help of 
the Senator from Minnesota. We beat back the repeal of the WIC Program 
with the help of the Senator from Minnesota and we beat back the repeal 
of the Food Stamp Program with the help of the Senator from Minnesota 
and the Senator from North Dakota and others who were here on the floor 
today. We beat them back because people saw what was in the so-called 
Contract With America.
  But with the balanced budget amendment you do not see how this is 
going to be done. Nobody wants to bring up the enabling legislation, 
the details for future Congresses, or most likely for unelected judges 
to decide. How can we guarantee--I will ask this question of the 
Senator from Minnesota, is there any way you can guarantee that we 
would not repeal the School Lunch Act or the WIC Program or the Food 
Stamp Program without at least some of the protections of your 
amendment? Is there any way we can be sure we protect them?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the answer is no, absolutely not, on 
the basis of what was attempted. Also on the basis of some of the cuts 
made in the last Congress, the evidence is quite to the contrary. The 
evidence is, in the absence of some assurance and some sort of 
commitment in spite of all the

[[Page S1165]]

speeches made and words uttered, we will make disproportionate cuts in 
the programs that affect health, nutrition, and educational status of 
these children.
  If the Senator from Vermont would not mind if I go on briefly and 
respond to some of the comments made by my colleague, the Senator from 
Utah. First of all, sort of a clarification about how you define 
``disproportionate.'' It is pretty simple. Again, the evidence, and I 
am interested if somebody wants to argue with it, in the last Congress 
93 percent of the budget reductions in entitlements came from programs 
for low-income people. Madam President, 93 percent. All you need to do 
is figure out the percentage of the overall entitlement programs that 
are low income and you do not cut by more than that.
  We have the same thing with discretionary. You do not have to be a 
rocket scientist to understand what the amendment says. You cannot 
dance around it. Second, in all of the amendments we introduced and all 
the amendments that the majority party is introducing, in this whole 
constitutional amendment there will be implementing legislation to work 
out the final details.
  Third, Madam President, as to the Constitution and whether you can 
have policy in the Constitution, I am not a lawyer, but article III 
says:

       The judicial power of the United States, shall be invested 
     in one supreme Court, in such inferior courts as the Congress 
     may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both 
     of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices 
     during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive 
     for their Services a Compensation which will not be 
     diminished during their Continuance in Office.

  It certainly seems as if we have such policies in the Constitution 
right now.
  Madam President, what troubles me the most about the comments of my 
colleague from the Senator from Utah, first of all, he talks about this 
amendment giving an exemption. There is no exemption. This amendment 
just says give them what we did last time. Make a commitment that we 
will not disproportionately cut programs that vitally affect the 
nutritional, educational, and health care status of poor children in 
America. I gave examples of those programs in the way they work and 
what they mean to children. That is all it says and no more. Senators 
should be clear on what they are voting on.
  Finally, Madam President, and I want to be clear if I could get the 
attention of my colleague from Utah, I do not want him to think I say 
this without giving him a chance to respond, but in all due respect to 
my good friend from Utah, when we talk about bringing the deficit down 
and real interest rates down, and that is the way to help children, a 
lot of the children that I have talked about, Senator, do not have that 
future. If we do not make a commitment that we will make sure that they 
have adequate diet, adequate nutrition, that they come to school 
prepared to learn, that they come to school in good health, they are 
not going to have this future.
  For gosh sake, we should not in the name of deficit reduction savage 
poor children in America today. You do not want an up-or-down vote? You 
will vote to table. Fine. But this amendment is substantive. It speaks 
to the very real problem of the deficit reduction based on the path of 
least political resistance, picking out the most vulnerable citizens. 
If we do not make a commitment that we are not going to cut these 
programs that are so vital to poor children's lives--as a matter of 
fact, we should be investing much more--then these children do not have 
a future.
  Deficit reduction, I am all for. Balancing the budget, we should do 
it. But instead of focusing on poor children in America, why do we not 
focus on the subsidies that go to oil companies, tobacco companies, 
pharmaceutical, big insurance companies, and a whole lot of other 
corporate welfare? Why do we not focus on the $17 billion over 2 years 
more than the Pentagon requested wanted for the Pentagon? There are 
other places to make the cuts, but I say to my colleague from Utah, and 
I am sorry to say with indignation, this is anything but an abstraction 
to the children I am talking about.
  Your argument about how the best thing for these children is to make 
sure we balance the budget because real interest rates will come down--
by the way, the Federal Reserve ought to bring the real interest rates 
down right now if everybody is right, I am not sure they are about the 
Consumer Price Index having overstated inflation, what in the world are 
we talking about even the possibility of real interest rates going up? 
They ought to be going down. Above and beyond that point, it does not 
do the children that I am talking about today one bit of good to talk 
about balancing the budget in the future when you balance the budget on 
their backs. That is what we did the last Congress. That is what we did 
the last Congress.
  I am just saying, Senators, we should do this on the basis of some 
standard of fairness. I still think I can get 100 votes for this. I 
hope the Senator from Utah tomorrow, after we have a little bit more 
time for final debate, will not move to table this. I hope he will 
support it. With all due respect, the evidence does not suggest that 
with the absence of this assurance we will not make these cuts in 
exactly these decisive areas of life that so crucially affect the 
quality, or if we do not make this commitment, the lack of quality of 
the lives of poor children in America. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I know there are 2 minutes left before we 
end debate on this amendment. I acknowledge my colleague is sincere. It 
does not negate the fact we have to live within budget constraints or 
this country will go down and children will be the first to be hurt. 
That is why this amendment is so important. You cannot make any 
exceptions.
  If you make exceptions, then it does not become important. It does 
not work and it will not be the constraint that we need, it will not be 
the fiscal discipline, that it will make a difference whether this 
country really continues to be the greatest country in the world or not 
and whether it can do for children and families what we would all like 
to do. The best thing we can do is pass this amendment and pass it 
without exceptions, like my good friend who is very sincere thinks we 
ought to do.
  I just want to bring that to the attention of everybody, that it 
takes guts to stand up and do what is fiscally responsible, because it 
is easier to offer spending through all these constituencies then it is 
to have to make priority choices. This amendment will force us to make 
priority choices. I think that is critical in any kind of nation that 
really wants to call itself great.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, last week I talked about the balanced 
budget movement from a historical perspective. I discussed the fact 
that when our country started out as a new nation, policymakers felt a 
moral and ethical obligation to balance the budget year after year 
after year, and they did that. However, as time evolved, a process was 
developed under which programs were funded based on demand. This 
process produced what are called entitlement programs. It created a 
blank check. As a result of these entitlements and the corresponding 
lack of accountability, there is no longer the same concern to balance 
the budget that existed during the time of the Founders.
  I wanted to talk a little bit this afternoon from the perspective of 
a family man who has grown up in America, from the perspective of a 
small businessman who has had to start his business from scratch. Those 
obligations that I faced as a family man and those obligations that I 
faced as a businessman are pretty much the same obligations that we are 
facing as a Congress, as the leaders of this country, this great 
country called America.
  Thus far, we have had two amendments presented before this body 
which, in effect, provide for exceptions to a balanced budget 
amendment. One is the Durbin amendment, and the most recent one is the 
welfare amendment. These amendments are unnecessary. We already have a 
provision to meet emergencies in the balanced budget amendment proposal 
that is before us. Madam President, 60 percent of the vote in the House 
and 60 percent of the vote in the Senate, or 261 votes in the House and 
60 votes in the Senate, and we will be able to waive the provisions of 
this amendment to meet those national emergencies.

[[Page S1166]]

  Madam President, I understand I will have an opportunity later on to 
continue with some of my remarks and that there is an order on the 
floor for another amendment.
  I will continue my remarks at another time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3:30 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration 
of the Durbin amendment No. 2, on which there shall be 2 hours of 
debate equally divided.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado, so he can finish his statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for yielding. I would now like to 
finish my comments that I began a few minutes ago.
  The Wellstone amendment would provide funding for education, 
nutrition, and health programs for poor children. So, again, as I was 
speaking about earlier, I want to talk about this from the perspective 
of a family man and also a small businessman. Joan, my wife, and I 
started like most American families. After we got our education, we got 
jobs. We earned a salary and worked hard to save money so that we could 
incur our first major debt as a family. For most families in this 
country, their first major debt is when they purchase a home. They are 
able to incur that commitment only after they have enough income saved 
up to go ahead and qualify to buy that first house.
  Most families in America work hard to pay down that debt because they 
understand that if they pay down that debt, then, in effect, they are 
beginning to free up their resources so that at some later date they 
can meet the educational needs of their children, the nutritional needs 
of their children, and they can meet the health care needs of their 
children. They also, hopefully will be able to save enough of their 
resources to get their children started out in life. In addition, by 
paying off that debt, they begin to build up a reserve in their home 
that they will be able to use in case of emergency.
  That is not unlike the situation that we have here in America. That 
is why it is important that we get deficit spending under control and 
that we have a balanced budget amendment that will say to the Congress 
that it can't spend more money than it brings in.
  Our debt today is greater than $5 trillion. Every year, for the last 
28 years, we have continually added to that debt. We have been going in 
a different direction than the average American family. If we really 
want a better future for our children and grandchildren, we do not need 
to establish more Government programs that will cause the deficit to 
rise instead of fall. Instead, eliminating the deficit is the most 
unselfish thing that we can do for our children and grandchildren.
  Now, as a small businessman, a veterinarian, when I started out, I 
had to go to the local banker to take out a loan. The largest portion 
of that debt went to purchase a building so that I could take care of 
my clients and their animals' needs. As time moved along, I worked hard 
to pay down that debt that I had incurred. I knew that the sooner I 
paid down that debt, the better I would be able to serve my clients 
because a smaller debt load would begin to free up my resources for 
other uses. Instead of paying out money on interest, I was able to buy 
new equipment and bring in more help so that I could take better care 
of my clients.
  I think that these two situations, as a family man and as a 
businessman, are not unlike what we face as a country. If we, as 
Members of Congress, face our responsibility as custodians of this 
country's future, we simply have to eliminate deficit spending. Despite 
everybody's good intentions, the trend has been in the opposite 
direction--our national debt has grown larger every year. I think that 
the most unselfish thing we can do for our children and grandchildren 
is to eliminate deficit spending and assure them a prosperous future. 
That is why I am supporting a balanced budget amendment. The only way 
that we will gather the courage and discipline to address our budgetary 
problems is if we have a constitutional requirement to balance the 
Federal budget.

  Now, many will argue here on the floor that we need to protect 
particular programs. And lots of times they will couch their arguments 
in terms of certain benefits for our children. But what they really 
want is to save their own jobs and programs. Because additional waivers 
or exceptions to the balanced budget requirement will preserve the 
deficit spending status quo, their primary concern cannot really be our 
children's future. The balanced budget amendment and eliminating 
deficit spending is the approach that concentrates on providing for our 
children's future. It is unselfishly saying that we want a better life 
for our children and grandchildren. That is why I am such a strong 
supporter of a balanced budget amendment.
  I wanted to share with Members of this body my experience as a family 
man and a small businessman. I don't think that the Federal budget is 
unlike what the average American family or small businessman faces on a 
daily basis. They understand the need to eliminate deficit spending, to 
pay down their debt. I just hope that this body has the same foresight 
that many American families and small business people in this country 
have.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Utah. Thank 
you.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                            Amendment No. 2

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is my understanding that under the 
order of the Senate, there is to be 2 hours of debate, if I am not 
mistaken, with 1 hour to be controlled by me and the other hour by the 
Senator from Utah, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from North 
Dakota, Senator Conrad, at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and my colleague from Illinois.
  Madam President, first of all, I thank him for offering the amendment 
he has put up, which we will be voting on in just 2 hours. I think it 
is a critically important amendment. Before I discuss that amendment, I 
would like to talk about what I have heard here today, because I have 
heard a lot of talk about how we are going to balance the budget. I 
heard a lot of talk about how we are going to eliminate deficits, and 
all of it is going to be done with this balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution.
  I thought to myself, maybe they really don't know that, in fact, this 
isn't a balanced budget amendment at all, because even if you pass this 
amendment, the debt will continue to rise. Isn't that surprising? We 
have heard all of this brave talk about how this amendment is going to 
balance the budget. We have heard all of this talk about how it is 
going to eliminate deficits. Yet, if we pass it, and if it is 
implemented, the debt will continue to rise.
  I asked June O'Neill, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, 
when she came to testify before the Senate Budget Committee, ``What is 
the deficit this year?'' She said, ``Well, Senator, the projected 
deficit for this year is $124 billion.'' I said, ``Is that right, $124 
billion?'' She said, ``Yes, that's the deficit.'' I said, ``Well, how 
much is the debt going to go up this year?'' Well, she wasn't sure of 
the number. I looked it up in a table before I asked the question. I 
said, ``Well, would it surprise you to find out that the debt, subject 
to limit, will be increasing $255 billion this year?'' She wasn't 
surprised by that. Of course, none of us who serve on the Budget 
Committee are surprised by that.
  The difference is that the deficit they are talking about in this 
amendment and the deficit she was talking about before the Budget 
Committee is the so-called unified deficit. That is when you put 
everything into the pot--all the income, all of the outgo, and you call 
that the unified deficit. The problem with that is, every penny of 
Social Security surplus is going in. That is about $70 billion this 
year of trust fund money that they are using to say they have balanced 
the budget.
  That is not a balanced budget. In fact, by law, in the United States 
that

[[Page S1167]]

is not a balanced budget. But they are going to put it into the 
Constitution of the United States that it is. Is that really what we 
want to do? Do we want to phony up what is a balanced budget and put a 
phony description of a balanced budget in the Constitution of the 
United States? Boy, I do not want any part of that game. Are we going 
to say in the Constitution of the United States that it is a balanced 
budget when you take every penny of Social Security surpluses and throw 
those into the pot and call it a balanced budget? If any private 
employer in this country tried to take the retirement funds of their 
employees and put them into the pot to balance their operating budget, 
they would be in violation of Federal law. That is called fraud. Yet, 
that is what we are talking about here. Their defense is, ``Well, we 
are doing it now.'' Yes, we are doing it now. We have been doing it for 
13 years. It does not make it right. And it certainly is not something 
we should put in the Constitution of the United States.
  The first question the people of the United States ought to insist be 
answered by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, What 
budget is being balanced? We need to ask that question, the most basic 
question of all, because by any serious definition of a balanced budget 
this amendment to the Constitution of the United States that they are 
offering is not a balanced budget amendment at all.
  This is the description. It says, ``Total receipts shall include all 
receipts of the United States Government. Total outlays shall include 
all outlays of the United States Government.'' That seems to make 
common sense. But the problem is that you are taking all of those trust 
fund surpluses.
  Look at what they are. In 1998, the fiscal year that we are working 
on the budget, $81 billion of Social Security surplus. Under this 
amendment that they want to put in the Constitution of the United 
States, the organic law of our country, they want to take every penny 
it of it to claim they have balanced the budget. In 1999, $169 billion 
will be the cumulative surplus by that time of those 2 years; 2000, 
$263 billion; 2001, $361 billion of Social Security surpluses, every 
penny of it going into the pot to claim they have balanced the budget. 
What a hoax. What an absolute hoax to call this a balanced budget. By 
2002, $465 billion of Social Security surpluses, and they will have 
taken every penny, they will have spent every penny, in order to claim 
that they have balanced the budget.
  That does not pass any kind of credibility test. For us to be 
entrenching that principle into the Constitution of the United States--
I thought about this very hard 2 years ago when it came down to my 
vote. I thought to myself, I don't know what the political 
ramifications are. I don't know how this will be read. But I know one 
thing. I am not putting my name on an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, the organic law that has made this the greatest 
nation in human history, and put my name on an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States that says that a balanced budget is 
one that uses every penny of the Social Security surplus to call it a 
balanced budget. No. I am not signing up to that kind of deal.
  Look at what we are talking about. By the year 2013, $1.8 trillion of 
Social Security surpluses, and they are going to take every dime and 
claim they have balanced the budget.
  Let me turn now to the amendment of my colleague from Illinois, an 
amendment that I think is critically important because I think there 
are three failures to this balanced budget amendment that is before us 
today. No. 1, it raids Social Security surplus funds to claim balance; 
No. 2, it does not have adequate provision for a national economic 
emergency.
  Madam President, we know right now that the right thing to do is cut 
spending and balance the budget, without question. I have spent a great 
deal of my time offering balanced budget plans in this Chamber. I 
deeply believe it is the right thing to do to secure the economic 
future for our country. There is a right way to do it and a wrong way 
to do it, and unfortunately the amendment before us, the underlying 
constitutional amendment, is the wrong one; wrong because it loots 
Social Security trust funds; wrong because it does not have adequate 
provision for national economic emergencies.
  But let me be clear. While it is the right thing to do now to cut 
spending and balance the budget, that was precisely the wrong thing to 
do in the depths of the Depression. Cutting spending, raising taxes in 
the depths of the Depression would only have made that calamity last 
longer and be deeper. That is the economic reality. And we are passing 
an amendment here not just for today, not for the next 5 years, not for 
the next 10 years, but perhaps for the next 200 years. It ought to be 
an amendment that can stand the test of time. This one, the underlying 
amendment, fails that test.
  The Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, has come to us and 
recognized that we ought to amend the balanced budget amendment to take 
account of national economic emergencies.
  He is saying that when we get into a situation, especially a 
depression, this country ought to be able to take fiscal policy that 
would help this country emerge. The Senator from Illinois has put his 
finger right on it, one of the key weaknesses of this amendment.

  Henry Aaron, director of economic studies at Brookings Institution, 
says, ``One does not need to be a primitive Keynesian to believe that a 
requirement forcing tax increases or spending cuts during an economic 
slowdown could be catastrophic. Yet, the need to mobilize a three-
fifths majority, not just in the Senate but in the House of 
Representatives as well, heightens the possibility that such policies 
would result because of incapacity to mobilize the necessity 
supermajority in both Houses.''
  Some of my colleagues on the other side who are moving this amendment 
may say, ``Well, all we have to do is get a three-fifths vote to waive 
these provisions in the event of a national economic emergency.'' I 
think that is cold comfort, Madam President. All we have to do is look 
back at some of the decisive moments in history to see that it isn't 
easy to get a three-fifths vote in this Chamber. On the eve of World 
War II we could not get a three-fifths vote to institute a draft. If 
there ever was a national emergency, it was World War II, and we 
couldn't get a three-fifths vote to institute a draft. In fact, we 
couldn't get a majority vote to institute a draft.
  Madam President, we don't want to hold the economic future of America 
hostage at in a time of national economic emergency. That does not make 
sense.
  Robert Solow, the Nobel laureat from MIT, said, ``The balanced budget 
amendment would force perverse actions by Congress, easily turning a 
small recession into a big one and a big one into a disaster.''
  We ought to pass the Durbin amendment because it makes economic 
sense. We ought to do that.
  This chart shows what we have learned in terms of evening out the 
economic cycles. This chart shows real economic growth from 1870 to 
1995. You can see these wide swings, these wild swings, in economic 
activity up until about 1950. Then these economic stabilizers that we 
put in force in this economy eliminated these wild swings that lead to 
so much pain, so much suffering, and so much devastation. That is what 
the Durbin amendment addresses. It says let us not eliminate these 
economic stabilizers. Let us not be in a situation in which we handcuff 
the American economy in the midst of a national economic emergency. Let 
us not be in a circumstance in which we cannot do what we know works to 
eliminate disastrous economic consequences. That just makes common 
sense.

  I hope we will support the Durbin amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the Senator from North Dakota has been 
very eloquent. The problem is that what he seems to be arguing for is a 
continuation of the status quo. For instance, on Social Security, at 
the very time he is arguing that it is immoral and that it is a rape of 
the trust, that it is a ripoff to keep Social Security within the 
purview of the balanced budget amendment, he supports a President who 
is doing exactly that.
  That is what the President's budget does. That is what every budget 
of

[[Page S1168]]

every President has done ever since we started the unified budget 
system. And it just makes little or no sense to take it out of the 
Federal budget, out of the unified system, because if it cannot stand 
on its own, which Social Security can, then why would we make any 
selectivity. The fact is it is a gimmick to take it off budget, and it 
is a risky gimmick at that. What they are trying to do is really defeat 
the balanced budget amendment.
  Then to argue that we have to take care of economic emergencies, 
well, what are economic emergencies? I must be able to list at least 
3,000 of them right now that could occur to which everybody could argue 
that the balanced budget amendment does not apply.
  It is one thing to argue for the status quo. I have seen 28 years of 
it. I have been here 21 of the 28 years. And I have to admit I fought 
for a balanced budget every one of those years, and there have been a 
number of us who have done so, but we have been in a distinct minority 
as unbalanced budget after unbalanced budget has been passed.
  Now they are saying let us keep the status quo. Even though this 
gimmick is going to take Social Security off budget and subject to all 
budgetary matters, we should take it out of the balanced budget 
amendment, as though Social Security cannot stand on its own. Come on. 
That would be one of the most risky things we could do. Every item 
ought to be on budget.
  Social Security is the largest item in the Federal budget. It ought 
to be in the budget. And we can work around the problems that are 
concerning the Senator from North Dakota and others who argue that. To 
talk about economic emergencies and try to write that into the 
Constitution, everybody knows that is a gutting amendment that would 
destroy the balanced budget amendment.
  To say that you cannot get a three-fifths vote is an insult to 
everybody who believes in this country and who is patriotic and who 
really believes that the country should go forward. If we have a true 
economic emergency, we will be able to get the three-fifths vote, and 
there will be a lot of us who are conservative who will be voting for 
the three-fifths vote.
  The fact of the matter is if it does not measure up, then that three-
fifths vote will not be granted. And a lot of these very same people 
will be saying, ``Oh, this is the most important thing in the world,'' 
as we go into another year of unbalanced budgets. That is what we have 
been doing.
  I hear these people saying, ``Oh, we can do it. Just do it. Just do 
it.'' I have heard that for 21 solid years. We have never done it yet 
in the last 28 years. What makes us think that ``let's do it'' means we 
are going to do it the next year. The fact is the President's budget is 
not going to be in balance, according to the CBO; the one he sent us is 
not balanced. And keep in mind the last 2 years are where all of the 
budget cuts have to occur in order to be in balance, according to the 
President, or there will not be any tax relief to the American people.
  So, look, we know that these amendments are intended to gut the 
balanced budget amendment. People who are arguing for them may be doing 
it sincerely, and I presume they are. But they are people who are not 
going to vote for this balanced budget amendment no matter what we do. 
They are not for it no matter what we do. We heard the distinguished 
Senator from Minnesota. Why, he has four or five major items that he 
would exclude from any budgetary restraint. There are others who would 
exclude Social Security from any budgetary restraint. And there are 98 
others in this body who would also like to exclude some of their 
special projects.

  The best we can do is work together on the unified budget and face 
the music and make priority choices within a budgetary constraint 
system, and if we do that we will save this country, we will protect 
our children, protect our seniors, protect those who need it, and we 
can. Otherwise, we are going to monetize the debt in order to stave off 
bankruptcy, and that means ruining our country, having interest rates 
going out of sight and inflation through the roof.
  We are talking about saving the country right now. That is what we 
are talking about. With these gutting amendments, if any of them pass, 
the balanced budget amendment will become a lot less effective.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, just to respond to my distinguished 
colleague from Utah, the Senator from Utah says, well, it is OK for us 
to put in the Constitution of the United States a definition of a 
balanced budget which assumes that you are going to loot Social 
Security trust funds, and every other trust fund, for that matter, 
because the President did it in his budget submission.
  I say that is a mighty weak defense of a constitutional provision. We 
are not talking about a statute here. We are talking about the organic 
law of the United States.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point, just on that point?
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me complete my thought, and then I would be glad to.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would.
  Mr. CONRAD. Then I would be glad to yield.
  The fact is we are talking here about an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States. This amendment does not lead to a 
balanced budget. The debt continues to increase even if this is passed. 
That is not a balanced budget, No. 1.
  No. 2, the President's budget, which is done on a unified basis in 
the same way as this constitutional amendment, is also not a balanced 
budget. And I have said that clearly.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I have said it publicly, and I have said it privately. It 
is not a balanced budget, because although this amendment claims 
balance and the President's budget claims balance, they are taking 
trust fund money in order to claim balance. That is not a balanced 
budget. It defies our own law. Our own law says you should not count 
Social Security trust funds.
  Second, the difference between Social Security and other funds is it 
has a dedicated revenue source. We impose a tax, a regressive payroll 
tax on the workers of this country and the employers of this country, 
and that fund is in surplus. And so when you mix it in with everything 
else, you are taking the surpluses generated by that stream of revenue 
that is being generated for a purpose. The purpose is to prepare for 
the baby-boom generation. But all the money is being spent. It is being 
spent for another purpose. That is wrong. And it is dead wrong to 
enshrine that flawed principle in the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. Third point. The Senator from Utah says three-fifths 
vote, requiring that is an insult to those who serve here. Not at all. 
It has nothing to do with insults. I could turn that on the Senator 
from Utah and say his requirement of a three-fifths vote is an insult 
to democracy. In democracy, majority vote prevails. We do not have 
supermajorities. I do not choose to do that.
  I do not think it is a matter of insult. I think it is a matter of 
reality. Do we really want to be in a circumstance in which this 
country faces an economic emergency and we have to have a supermajority 
vote to respond when we know from our own past that it has been 
difficult to muster a three-fifths vote. Even on the eve of World War 
II, to institute a draft, we could not do it. I submit to this Chamber 
and to the American public, the wiser course is the amendment of the 
Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I listened to these arguments, and I did 
not make the argument that we should have Social Security in the 
balanced budget amendment because the President is doing it. Everybody 
has done it because it is a unified budget that requires everything to 
be on budget. And on the other side of that coin, starting about the 
year 2014 Social Security goes in deep deficit. What are we going to 
do, keep that off budget so that we do not have to face the music, so 
we can keep borrowing?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 3 minutes of the Senator from North Dakota 
have expired.

[[Page S1169]]

  Mr. HATCH. I will use my own time. I am sorry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. The fact of the matter is, you cannot budget without 
putting everything on budget and you cannot handle it right. And the 
President is doing what the Secretary of Treasury said he should do, 
and that is keep all items on budget. There are 31 trust accounts, at 
least in the Federal Government. Are we going to take them all off 
because somebody makes the unfounded allegation that we are ripping off 
the trust funds? The fact is, the only way not to rip them off is to 
keep everything on budget. And that is a pretty important point.
  I do not see how you can argue to take it off budget. It just makes 
sense that we face all the music here, not just part of it, and that we 
do not make any exceptions so that we have to make priority choices if 
we are going to have a balanced budget amendment.

  The Senator is right on one thing and that is this amendment does not 
require a balanced budget. We can choose not to balance the budget. All 
we need to do is get a supermajority.
  This is not a pure democracy in this country. This is a 
representative democracy, and the Senate is a perfect illustration of 
how we do not always have a majority vote. The fact of the matter is, 
each State has two Senators, regardless of population, and that gives a 
disproportionate amount of voting power to some States over others.
  The House of Representatives is a purer democratic body, and our 
Founding Fathers in their wisdom understood this. They also would 
understand, if you are going to do a balanced budget amendment, you 
have to keep everything on budget. And it still does not rebut my 
point, which is that this is a gutting amendment. This amendment 
basically says when we have an economic emergency we can go off budget, 
the amendment does not apply. Again, I ask you, what is an economic 
emergency? There is a wide disparity of belief as to what is, and we 
provide for a way around that by a three-fifths vote, which I think, in 
a true economic emergency, will be easily obtained here and should be 
easily obtained here.
  In response to the supermajority requirement, the Senator from North 
Dakota raises the vote on war, a military threat. Senate Joint 
Resolution 1 provides a lower threshold for votes to waive the balanced 
budget rule in times of war or national security emergency. With regard 
to economic emergencies, during the past 15 years Congress has passed 
emergency unemployment compensation by supermajorities every time but 
once, and it can be legitimately argued that the once was a time when 
they should not have. Disaster relief has been enacted by a similar 
supermajority every time except twice over the last 7 years.
  What is wrong with requiring people who have not balanced a budget in 
28 years and who keep saying the same things, what is wrong with 
requiring some fiscal restraint of these people? It is apparent that 
Congress is not going to live with fiscal restraint unless it is 
imposed upon them, and the only way we can impose it--after five tries 
in the last few years of budget restraint by statute, none of which 
have worked--the only way you can impose it is through an amendment to 
the Constitution that everybody in this body and in the other body is 
sworn to uphold. I think it is just that simple.
  There is room for legitimate disagreement here, I am sure. I do not 
mean to imply that my colleagues are not sincere in every word that 
they are saying. But, on the other hand, I think those of us, the vast 
majority in this body, who will vote for this are sincere as well. We 
have seen 28 years of sincerity. People were sincere in trying to get 
balanced budgets during those years, but they did not do it. The reason 
they did not do it is because they did not have to do it and it was 
easy to borrow. It was a lot easier to borrow and mortgage the future 
of our children than it was to face the music. Our amendment will 
require we face the music.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, words do not change reality. You can call 
it a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States. It is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
but it is not a balanced budget. The simple fact remains, if you pass 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah and it is fully 
implemented, the debt continues to go up. You can say that is a 
balanced budget but it is not. It is simply not. The reason it is not 
is because the Senator from Utah is taking every penny of the Social 
Security trust fund surplus and throwing that into the pot and saying 
he has balanced the budget. It is not a balanced budget. No private 
employer could do that. It would be a violation of Federal law.

  On the question of three-fifths vote, it is very interesting----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minute of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. May I have 30 more seconds?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. On this question of national economic emergency, it is 
very interesting that all these arguments about supermajority go right 
out the window because they themselves provide for a simple majority in 
the case of a national security emergency but not in the case of a 
national economic emergency. That is a fatal flaw in this amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hear the distinguished Senator, but what 
he fails to say is that we are continuing that system without any 
restraint if we do not pass the balanced budget amendment. I think the 
Senator from North Dakota, not deliberately, has made several 
misleading statements, to some of which I would like to respond.
  He says the balanced budget amendment does not balance the budget if 
it does not exclude Social Security. Of course he fails to mention that 
in the long run everyone knows Social Security is going to run huge 
deficits and that it is not always going to run surpluses. This tends 
to balance out. If we follow his suggestion, we do nothing but continue 
the current system. His own President is including Social Security 
because he has to, because it is part of the overall unified budget. By 
the time today's children are retiring, Social Security will be running 
annual deficits of $7 trillion each year. Unless we keep Social 
Security on the budget and make it work and resolve it, in current 
dollars, it will be a $7 trillion deficit a year.
  He also fails to mention that this huge deficit would not count under 
the Social Security amendment that he supports. The amendment he 
supports would call this $7 trillion deficit a balanced budget. You 
talk about hoax; I don't see how anybody can argue that. Yet they do. 
The fact is, we are in trouble and what are we going to do? Just the 
status quo? Just keep doing year after year what we are doing; 
mortgaging our children's future and making it so this, the greatest 
country in the world, becomes the least great country in the world? 
That is where we are headed if we do not do something about it.
  The Senator from North Dakota also described the balanced budget 
amendment as looting Social Security. What a half-truth. The balanced 
budget amendment does not touch one penny in Social Security. That 
whole argument is nothing more than an accounting preference. The 
Social Security trust funds will be still invested in the greatest 
securities in the world, and that is American securities, U.S. Treasury 
bills, if you will. That is the only thing they can be invested in. 
That is going to happen whether we pass a balanced budget amendment or 
if we do not. So, this is a phony argument and, frankly, it would be 
literally--literally--a risky, risky gimmick to take Social Security 
out of the major budget because, on the one hand, there are surpluses 
today, but they are all invested in American securities. Starting about 
the year 2013, we have huge deficits; not surpluses, but deficits. 
Should we take it out when we have surpluses and not put it in when we 
have deficits? No. You keep it in all the time and you work with it and 
you

[[Page S1170]]

do what is right. That is what the Secretary of the Treasury did. That 
is what he suggested. That is what he said is the right way to do it. 
By the way, that is also what the President just did in sending up his 
budget.
  So, if we do nothing here, we have business as usual, another, a 
29th, year of unbalanced budgets. I would feel a lot better if some of 
these people who are bringing up these amendments would be voting for 
the balanced budget amendment. But, no, these are amendments to gut the 
balanced budget amendment.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, could you please tell me how much time is 
remaining to me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 42 minutes for the Senator from 
Illinois, 38 for the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota, 
Senator Conrad, for supporting my amendment and joining in the debate. 
He has raised two very important issues. One relates to the future of 
Social Security and its involvement in balancing the budget. The other 
relates directly to my amendment, to whether a supermajority vote will 
be required in the House and the Senate in times of a national disaster 
or a national economic emergency for the Congress to decide to spend 
more than we have received in tax revenues that year.
  The Senator from Utah, the chairman of the committee, has spoken in 
committee and on the floor. His point is made and made clearly. He 
believes that Social Security should compete with all the other Federal 
programs. He believes that it should be there with no special 
treatment, should not be excluded, should be brought to the debate and 
treated the same way. I respect his point of view. I disagree with it.
  But in order to bring this back to my amendment, I would like to 
focus on the debate which started last Thursday and continues this 
afternoon.
  Consider this possibility. If we are successful in balancing the 
budget in fiscal year 2002, as proposed by President Clinton and 
virtually all of the leadership in Congress, we will applaud, 
congratulate ourselves and believe, I think rightly, that our economy 
is in stronger shape. And now let's take a hypothetical.
  In the next year, 2003, there is a downturn in the American economy. 
This is not an extraordinary event. In fact, history tells us that once 
every 5 years we face such a downturn. So our budget is in balance and 
the next year, millions of Americans, because of this recession, are 
out of work; men and women who have been paying Federal taxes, no 
longer working. Naturally, they are not paying the taxes.
  On the other side of the coin, they are men and women who need a 
helping hand. They are men and women who need unemployment compensation 
from the Government. They are men and women who may need, in dire 
circumstances, food stamps to feed their children from the Government. 
They may also need Medicaid for hospitalization care of their children 
while they are unemployed from the Government. They may be determined 
to go back to work and headed for a job training program to get them 
qualified for another job, that training program coming from the 
Government. They may decide it is time to get that advanced degree or 
college degree and need to ask for a loan from the Government. In each 
of these instances, people who are not paying taxes, working families 
who, through no fault of their own, are out of work, turn to the 
Government for a helping hand.
  Any economist is going to tell you your books are not going to be in 
balance that next year. Congress will then have to decide whether in 
the year 2003, in this hypothetical, we will not have a balanced 
budget, because we don't want to relegate millions of unemployed 
Americans to the ash heap of economic history. We want to make certain 
they have the same chance other families have had to get back on their 
feet, and that is the purpose of the Durbin amendment.
  How will we reach that decision? Under the amendment to the 
Constitution being offered by the chairman, the Senator from Utah, it 
would take a three-fifths vote of the House and the Senate, approved by 
the President in order for us to decide, yes, in the year 2003, we are 
going to waive the requirements of a balanced budget in order to get 
the economy moving again, in order to get people back to work, not to 
risk going more deeply into the recession.
  The chairman stands and says this supermajority requirement, this 60-
percent requirement, is not unreasonable. Surely, he says, the House 
and the Senate, faced with this economic challenge, will rise to the 
occasion, cast partisanship aside, avoid the personalities, rally 
around the flag, stand behind the families. I say to the chairman and 
to others of like mind, history suggests it might not be that easy.
  In the desk of each Senator is a publication known as the Senate 
Manual. It contains a lot of information about the rules of the Senate, 
and it also contains the Constitution of the United States.
  I ask the chairman to consider the following: When our Founding 
Fathers wrote the Constitution, which we are seeking to amend with this 
resolution, there were 13 colonies organized under the Articles of 
Confederation. And they said that 9 of the 13 colonies would have to 
ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

  Think about this: The birth of our Nation, the creation of the United 
States of America, and turning to 13 legislatures in 13 colonies, this 
Constitution was given to them, asking them to be a part of our Federal 
system.
  What if we had given them the Constitution with a supermajority 
requirement in each of the legislatures? What if we had said to them, 
``Just to make certain that you don't do anything rash, we are going to 
require a 60-percent vote from the legislature of each colony to ratify 
the Constitution, and it will take 9 of the 13 colonies to do it''?
  Mr. President, I am not certain we would be a federal nation today, 
because if you reflect on the votes actually cast in each of the 13 
colonies, you will find, unfortunately, that 5 of the 13 did not meet 
the supermajority requirement. Only 8 of the colonies would have met 
the chairman's supermajority requirement.
  So, though he believes we can rise to the occasion in economic 
recession, history tells us that even in the creation of this Republic, 
a supermajority requirement would have complicated things, slowed them 
down. I don't know if we would be standing today on the floor of the 
Senate of the United States of America. It is anyone's guess. But the 
suggestion that a supermajority requirement is something easy to come 
by belies history.
  What my amendment says is that a majority is necessary to make this 
decision. So, if we face a natural disaster--the big one in California, 
a hurricane in Florida, a hurricane in North Carolina--or a national 
recession, that we will come together as a national legislature and 
decide for that given year we will waive the requirement of a balanced 
budget because of a national economic emergency, a national disaster.
  The chairman suggests people will abuse this. They are going to call 
everything a national economic emergency. I don't think so. I think 
history tells us over the last 4 years, with the Clinton 
administration, with both a Democratic Congress and a Republican 
Congress, there has been a real commitment to deficit reduction.
  The chairman is standing next to his leaning tower of unbalanced 
budgets and suggesting to us that this is going to go on forever. But 
if the chairman would look closely over the last 4 years, he will see 
they are somewhat different than the other 24 years, because we have 
come to a bipartisan conclusion that we should and can reduce the 
deficit in a responsible way.
  President Clinton's administration, with the cooperation of a 
Democratic Congress and a Republican Congress, have brought 4 straight 
years of deficit reduction. This is the first time that has occurred in 
this century and far into the last century. So it suggests Congress has 
the message and has the goal in mind and is moving toward it in the 
right way.
  The chairman has said to us many times, this is something the 
American people want, a balanced budget, and he

[[Page S1171]]

is right, not just by our empirical evidence of visiting our States and 
speaking to our constituents, but also by sophisticated polling time 
and again. People come forward and say, ``Let's have a balanced 
budget.'' But I say to the chairman, I will also add a couple things to 
that.
  If you would ask them whether they want to protect the Social 
Security trust fund as part of balancing the budget, they want that in 
an overwhelming way.
  If you would ask them whether or not it is right for our Nation to 
come to the rescue of families unemployed in the midst of a recession, 
for the Nation to come together to offer things to families to get back 
on their feet, I think you will find an overwhelming response. Because 
the bottom line for most American families, whose senses are dulled by 
all this economic theory rhetoric, is whether or not they are doing 
well for themselves.

  Are people in their households working? Do they have a job? Do the 
kids have a chance for a bright future? Is our economy expanding, 
creating good-paying jobs? I think that really is a bottom-line 
question. In election after election that is the test we are held to.
  This amendment does not meet this test. This amendment, by requiring 
a supermajority vote, says that this Senate of the United States and 
the House of Representatives will hold itself to such a standard as to 
question whether or not we can rise to the occasion when there is an 
economic necessity.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered 
by Senator Durbin to protect jobs for working families. Without it, 
millions of Americans may well lose their livelihood if adequate steps 
are not taken to prevent real damage to the economy from the proposed 
constitutional amendment.
  Proponents of the balanced budget constitutional amendment claim that 
it will help American families. They predict dire consequences without 
a constitutional requirement to force a balanced budget. But, we know 
better. President Clinton's budget gets us to balance by 2002, and 
American families don't need or want to lock themselves into a 
budgetary straightjacket.
  Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin and over 1,000 economists have 
told Congress that the balanced budget constitutional amendment is a 
mistake. Because the amendment turns off the economy's automatic 
stabilizers, ``it could turn slowdowns into recessions, and recessions 
into more severe recessions or even depressions,'' according to 
Secretary Rubin.
  Without the automatic stabilizers, the Treasury Department estimates 
that the 1990 recession might have led to 9 percent unemployment--
instead of 7.7 percent. That would have cost the country over 1 million 
additional jobs.
  The fundamental problem with the amendment is that it requires a 
balanced budget even in times of recession. The depression of the 
1930's was made far worse because Congress repeatedly cut Federal 
spending and raised taxes trying to keep the budget in balance. This 
amendment could easily condemn us to repeat that unacceptable history.
  Surely, we can't ignore the views of over 1,000 economists who agree 
that this amendment mandates ``perverse actions in the face of 
recessions.'' The last time we failed to heed the warnings of the 
Nation's economists, at the beginning of the 1980's, the deficit 
skyrocketed and hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their jobs.
  Of course, supporters of the amendment say this will never happen. 
They tell us that if an economic depression is on the horizon, the 
proposed constitutional amendment allows Congress to waive the balanced 
budget requirement with a three-fifths vote. But it is reckless for 
Congress to gamble in this way with the economy.
  The Durbin amendment is needed to avert these serious threats to the 
economy and to American families. Under the Durbin amendment, a 
constitutional majority could waive the balanced budget amendment's 
requirements if there is an economic recession or serious economic 
emergency in the country.
  The amendment protects the country during times of military 
emergency, and it should also protect families during an economic 
emergency. I urge my colleagues to support the Durbin amendment.
  Finally, I want to ask the Senator a question, if I might.
  I have listened with great interest to the Senator's explanation. I 
find it enormously powerful and extremely compelling. After listening 
to the interpretation of both the balanced budget amendment and the 
Senator's anti-recession amendment, one has to draw the conclusion that 
on the one hand Americans who have great wealth will not be 
significantly impacted by the implementation of the balanced budget 
amendment during a recession.
  The very wealthy do not rely on the kinds of programs that you have 
mentioned. So their lives will not be adversely affected if this 
measure is actually put in the Constitution.
  On the other hand, as the Senator has pointed out, working families, 
children of working families, and parents of working families have the 
greatest risk under this amendment. If I understand the position of the 
Senator from Illinois, it will be the sons and daughters of working 
families that will suffer because Pell grants will be cut. It will be 
the children in Head Start--children of working families--that will 
have their education put at risk. It will be mothers and fathers of 
working families who will not receive assistance from job training or 
job dislocation programs during times of economic calamities. It will 
be their parents, those who have toiled in the factories, served in the 
Armed Forces, lifted this country out of depressions, and been the 
backbone of this Nation, whose Social Security and Medicare checks are 
put at risk.
  I wonder whether the Senator's arguments reach this issue of 
unfairness inherent to the balanced budget amendment. Because, it seems 
to me that one group of Americans, those hard-working Americans, have 
the most to risk. And those that are the wealthiest individuals or the 
most successful corporations have the least to risk. I wonder whether 
the Senator agrees with that observation.
  Second, if the Senator believes that is true, then what does he 
believe is the position of the organizations that represent working 
families.
  Where do the workers stand on this? Are they for this? Do they think 
that their futures are more secure by putting the balanced budget 
amendment in the Constitution? They say no.
  What about those groups that have fought for the rights of children, 
day in and day out, year in and year out, what is their position? Do 
they say yes? They say no.
  Do those groups that have been fighting to ensure decent health care 
for American seniors come to us and say, ``This balanced budget 
amendment is in the best interest of our seniors,'' or do they say, 
``Do not pass this measure, at least not without the Senator's 
amendment?''
  I am just interested if the conclusions that I draw from the 
Senator's excellent argument, particularly as it relates to the adverse 
impact economic downturns would have on hard-working Americans, is 
something that the Senator is very concerned about as well.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts.
  I think his point is well taken. I might add this. He has specified 
various groups that have come forward with reservations about this 
amendment. He and I both understand that in a time of economic turmoil, 
economic recession, some of the most vulnerable Americans are not even 
represented in Washington by a special interest group. They are the 
working poor, getting up every morning, and going to work, 40 hours a 
week, struggling to get by, barely beyond the minimum wage, often 
husbands and wives, sometimes working two jobs, trying to make ends 
meet, trying to keep their families together.
  That is what concerns me. They will be the first casualties in a 
recession. They will be the ones laid off. They will be the ones who 
will have to then make a decision about their lives and to get back on 
track. And what we are saying, I believe the Senator from Massachusetts 
and I agree, is that at various points in the modern history of America 
there have been opportunities

[[Page S1172]]

for them created through Government programs that have helped.
  Oh, certainly they need their own personal responsibility, their own 
initiative. But the door was there for them to walk through. If that 
door is bolted shut with the supermajority requirement, these families, 
the working poor, the groups that the Senator from Massachusetts has 
outlined, they will be the first casualties. That is why I offered the 
amendment. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for speaking on 
behalf of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  As he has pointed out, the economic issues and strength of our 
country is really the backbone for all of the hopes and dreams of 
working families. His amendment goes right to the core issue about what 
this impact would be at a time of economic cycles. I think anyone that 
understands the history of the economic strengths and weaknesses of our 
country would see that we should learn lessons from the historic past.
  Unfortunately, this amendment does not benefit from that kind of 
historical perspective, the underlying amendment. The Senator's 
amendment certainly does. I look forward to supporting the Senator's 
amendment. I thank him for bringing this matter to the attention of the 
Senate today.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator and reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has reserved the balance 
of his time.
  Mr. HATCH. I would like to recognize the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire, but first let me take 1 minute.
  I heard the dialog between the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from Illinois, and I have 
to say that I am fully familiar with all those groups. And about 78 
percent of the American people--between 68 and 78 percent of the 
American people--have always been for this balanced budget amendment. 
They come from all walks of life, from every group. The reason they do 
is they are deathly afraid that if we do not get this spending under 
control, the very people that my good friends have been talking about 
are going to be hurt the most. There is no question about it.
  To just keep arguing that we can continue to do business as usual, as 
has been argued here, that is the biggest joke of all.
  I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BOB SMITH. I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding and thank 
him for his strong leadership on this issue which he has done for so 
many years as we wait to see the long hoped for amendment finally reach 
passage.
  I was somewhat taken by the comments on the Durbin amendment made by 
my colleague. This is again an effort obviously to weaken the 
amendment. It is an interesting question about what an economic 
recession would be. How would one define it? Would it be just a general 
feeling of anxiety about the economy? Would that be an economic 
recession?
  I might also add, that in difficult economic times you will see areas 
of the country where certain pockets of the country, certain areas of 
the country there would be an economic downturn and other areas there 
may be an economic upswing. So the areas of the country where there is 
an economic downturn, how do we define where the amendment and when the 
amendment would kick in?
  It is obviously a weakening amendment. It is interesting, Mr. 
President, that for years and years and years we have heard from the 
critics, we do not need this amendment. We do not need a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. All we have to do is balance it. We 
have not done it yet. So I am waiting. And those people who say that we 
ought to do that, without the amendment, keep offering amendments to 
weaken what we are trying to do.
  This is a very historic debate that we are in today. Not only is it 
historic in the sense that there have been a number of efforts in the 
past to have a balanced budget amendment, but it is historic in the 
sense that if we fail, our children are going to pay the consequences. 
I think they are going to judge us not in a very kind way if, in the 
future, in the outyears, if they look back upon this time when we had a 
chance to deal with this in the Constitution and did not do it.
  I am pleased and proud to be on the side of Senator Hatch in this 
debate. I think he is on the side of the American people. Frankly, not 
only the American people today, but tomorrow and for many, many years 
to come. We have had a number of efforts, starting in 1935 in the 74th 
Congress. That was the first measure designed to require an annually 
balanced budget, and introduced by a Democrat, Senator Tydings of 
Maryland. The next year, the first proposed amendment to balance the 
budget constitutionally was by Harold Knutson of Minnesota, a 
Republican, in 1936. It was a bipartisan idea, and it began as early as 
1935. Since then, we have had some 30 measures that in some form or 
another have come before this Congress.
  The balanced budget amendment is not a Republican proposal. It is a 
bipartisan proposal. It always has been. Not only have all Senate 
Republicans cosponsored the resolution, but many Democrats have, as 
well--not as many as we would like, but many have. We hope we will get 
the other two or three that we might need.
  Senate Joint Resolution 1 was approved by the Judiciary Committee 
with the support of three Democrats--Biden, Torricelli, and Kohl. In 
addition, six other Democrats, Bryan, Graham, Baucus, Breaux, Moseley-
Braun, and Robb, as well as Senator Kohl. So we have bipartisan 
support. This is not a partisan issue. Preserving the United States of 
America for our children is not a partisan issue.
  Former Senator Paul Simon remains a very active and vocal proponent 
of the amendment and helped to lead the fight here on the floor 2 years 
ago when it was up on the floor. Perhaps even more recently, the late 
Senator Paul Tsongas, whom we all knew and respected, who recently 
passed away, stated: ``What you have here is a sad case of pursuit of 
self as opposed to pursuit of what is in the national interest. The 
balanced budget amendment is simply a recognition of that human 
behavior.'' Paul Tsongas was right.
  Secretary of Education Richard Riley was the Governor of South 
Carolina. He stated:
       I have opposed the amendment in the past, thinking it was a 
     `political cop-out.' The deficit problem has gotten so bad, 
     that I have now decided to support it.
  That is the issue here. It has gotten bad. We have not had the 
political courage, collectively, to balance the budget. You can say all 
you want, that we do not have to put it in the Constitution, but while 
we say that, the debt keeps going up, and it is now $5 trillion. Where 
do we stop, $50 trillion? When we get to $10 trillion, we will not be 
able to service the debt because a $10 trillion debt will cost you $1 
trillion in interest alone. The entire Federal budget is a little over 
$1.5 trillion, so two-thirds of the budget will be interest if we 
continue along this line. It needs bipartisan support, and I am glad 
that it has it. I hope it has enough.
  The last time the Federal Government had a balanced budget was 1969. 
The total debt was $366 billion. Today, it is $5 trillion. In less than 
10 or 12 years, it will be almost $10 trillion if we continue with the 
current rate of spending.
  Yet, we still have those who come to the floor and say we do not need 
an amendment, we do not need to clutter the Constitution. The Founding 
Fathers knew what they were doing; they did not put it in there; we do 
not need it; we can balance the budget. When? Each year that the 
Federal Government spends more than it takes in, billions are added to 
the overwhelming weight of our national debt.
  Even if we pass this, by the time we get things in order, we will add 
hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt, Mr. President. In fiscal 
year 1998, we will pay approximately $1 billion a day--$1 billion a 
day--in interest on the debt. In the fiscal year 1997, the gross 
interest we pay to the service of debt will total $360 billion, the 
second largest expenditure in the entire budget. It is $100 billion 
more than we spend on defense. Mr. President, $100 billion more than we 
spend on defense we spend to service the debt in 1997.
  What could we have done with all the money we have paid to service 
that debt? Now, that is a very interesting topic. We get criticized a 
lot here in the Senate for fantasizing. Let me fantasize about what we 
could do with all that money.

[[Page S1173]]

  I came to Congress in 1985. What if we had passed a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution that year and achieved balance in 1990? 
Imagine what we could have been doing with that money, which by now 
would have accumulated to $1.7 trillion. We could have built 97 space 
stations. We could have increased funding for the EPA 261 times. 
Imagine the potential of crime control programs if the Department of 
Justice just received 98 times more than this year's level. If we 
balanced the budget in 1985 and continued the current rate of spending, 
we could have done all of those things. If you did not like them, fund 
something else.

  What if Congress had balanced the budget in 1970 and kept it 
balanced? That was the year after we started the deficit spending. What 
if we actually had a $5 trillion surplus? We could preserve both 
Medicare and the Social Security Program for our children. Veterans 
benefits and services could be increased by 116 times. We could provide 
tax refunds instead of tax increases. Instead of imposing fees to enter 
our parks, we could increase funding for national parks by 4,000 times.
  So when you hear the people come to the floor and say it does not 
matter, we do not need to clutter the Constitution, that is not 
cluttering the Constitution. That is a well-needed amendment. Had we 
done this in 1970--true, we would not need the amendment. That is why 
we have the amendment process, Mr. President. The U.S. Constitution 
should be amended only in the gravest of times, only when it is 
necessary. How much graver can you get than the kind of debt we are 
passing on to our children? How much graver can you get than a $10 to 
$15 to $20 trillion debt? That is where we are headed.
  It has been changed 27 times, this Constitution. It affects every 
single Government activity and all Federal spending and touches the 
life of every man, woman, and child in our Nation, this issue of debt. 
A constitutional requirement makes it impossible for Congress to shirk 
its duty to make responsible fiscal decisions. That is what this debate 
is about: discipline by a constitutional requirement. No copout. You 
cannot have Senators coming on the floor, giving all these excuses, 
because it is in the Constitution. So they will have to do it. We may 
disagree on what we want to cut or what we have to do to balance that 
budget. We may disagree on that, and we will have that debate, vote, 
and take our lumps one way or the other, but we have to do it. We have 
to do it. That is what we have to do now. Congress will have to come up 
with cures for the Nation's financial woes, not just Band-Aids, and not 
just words.
  In a very few years, Mr. President--I am sure Senator Hatch and 
others have said this on the floor--in a very few years, interest rates 
on the debt plus entitlements will equal 100 percent of the Federal 
budget. That is the good news. The bad news is it is continuing to 
expand, that interest is consuming more and more and more of that pie, 
including the entitlement pie, because, theoretically, if we do not 
stop it, it will consume everything. If you think of your homes, your 
businesses, you can only go to the bank so many times and then they put 
the stop on, the cap on the credit card, the cap on your credit, and 
say, ``Now you have to live within your means,'' that is what this 
amendment will force this Congress to do.
  Despite compelling evidence of the need for immediate deficit 
control, legislative budget controls have failed to produce a budget 
surplus since 1969. We tried it with Gramm-Rudman. It sounded good. 
What happened? When we went to the sequester, when the rubber hit the 
road and we had to make the decision, we changed the law. We copped 
out. You cannot change this law. If we pass it into the Constitution, 
it is constitutional, you have to do it.
  Deficit spending is no mystery, although some would prefer it remain 
so. In fact, on Thursday, the Senator from North Dakota displayed a 
chart titled, ``We Cut the Deficit in Half.'' While it is true that the 
deficit projections are decidedly better than the May 1996 estimates, 
what actually accounts for the rosier outlook? The welfare reform 
legislation we passed last year had the greatest budgetary impact of 
any piece of legislation passed by the 104th Congress, according to 
CBO. This was the bill which President Clinton had to be dragged 
kicking and screaming to sign. And he apologized for signing it, but he 
signed it. That is the important thing. In addition, in his recent 
budget request, the President now proposes to add $22 billion in new 
spending to that welfare bill. Yet, he wants us to trust legislative 
remedies. Legislative remedies don't work, folks, because of human 
nature--the temptation to spend.

  With a balanced budget constitutional amendment, we don't have to 
worry about the whims and indulgences of a President, or Congresses, in 
years to come. Congress would have to stick to a strict budget just 
like American families and businesses. We need to pass this amendment. 
We need to pass it now. We should have passed it years ago. We could 
have passed it 2 years ago. We lost by one vote. All we are doing, my 
colleagues, is giving the American people a chance to have this go to 
their State legislatures so that they, then, can act to either approve 
or disapprove what we do. We are giving them the opportunity.
  Over the last 60 years, total Federal expenditures have increased by 
more than 800 percent. By 2020, if we do not raise taxes, we can zero 
out all Federal spending, except interest on the debt, and still not 
balance the budget. That is why we need it now.
  Now, it's interesting that when we think about balancing the budget, 
we think about it in terms that are perhaps away from home--this big 
issue balancing the Federal budget, don't spend this or that. Let me 
give an example. In New Hampshire, my State, the average citizen pays 
as much as $38,000 more on a 30-year mortgage for an $80,000 home as a 
result of the budget being out of balance. A student in New Jersey pays 
almost $9,000 more toward a 10-year loan. In just 1 year, a car owner 
in South Dakota could save $180 on an average auto loan, if we balance 
the budget and keep it balanced. The Concord Coalition estimates that 
the average family's income is $15,000-plus a year lower because of the 
deficits of the past 20 years. It impacts everyone--whether you work or 
don't, whether you have children or whether you don't. We can improve 
wages. We can create jobs. A 2-point cut in interest rates would not 
only reduce loan payments for families, but it would produce more jobs, 
perhaps 4\1/2\ million more in 10 years. For businesses, a 2-point 
percentage reduction in rates would lower investment costs and enhance 
the incentive to invest.
  I don't want to have to explain to my children someday, as we look 
back on this debate, why I stood here and mortgaged away their future. 
I am standing on this floor today, proudly in the sense that I support 
this amendment, but in a way ashamed that we have to. A baby born today 
can expect that over $187,000 of his or her lifetime income will be 
used just to pay interest on the debt--$187,000.
  Paul Tsongas, our former colleague, described Congress' deficit 
spending as ``generationally immoral.'' He was right. He was right a 
lot. I wish some of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
have listened to their former colleague. We must look for a real long-
term solution to address the retirement of the baby boom generation and 
the explosion of entitlement programs that will accompany this shift. 
We must not push off these disasters and leave them to my children and 
your children to solve. In simple terms, when we all shuffle off this 
planet at some time--hopefully, later rather than sooner--you would 
probably like to leave your assets to your children. Do you sit up at 
night and dream about leaving them your debts, your mortgage, your car 
payments? Or would you like to leave whatever you were able to build up 
as assets?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BOB SMITH. May I have 2 more minutes?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 2 more minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BOB SMITH. I thank my colleague. The conclusion is that there is 
a light at the end of this tunnel. You know what stands in the way of 
that light, Mr. President? About three votes--three votes. Maybe two. 
Senator Hatch is counting the votes. I haven't been counting them all. 
But it's two or three votes, two or three U.S. Senators

[[Page S1174]]

who are probably on the fence. That is the difference. That is how 
close it is. We lost it by one vote 2 years ago.

  Votes do matter. That is the difference between trillions in more 
debt and mortgaging our future or not. Senator Rudman, my New Hampshire 
colleague, said to me one time, ``There are only two things that can 
happen if we don't stop this insane process. First, we can continue to 
deficit spend and just cause sheer chaos when we can't pay our bills 
and go bankrupt. Or, second, we can print more money and sit around 
with 200, 300 percent inflation.'' We should all think about what that 
would do to our daily lives.
  There is no other option if we don't balance the budget. It is 
insane. Every American--man, woman, and child--in this country knows it 
is insane. They know it. You know you would not put up with it with 
your school board, your business, or your local government, town 
government; but you let the Federal Government, the Congress men and 
women spend you into oblivion. There is a light at the end of the 
tunnel, and I hope that the U.S. Senate and the Senators won't block 
that light. I hope this month the Senate will show the American people 
that they are interested in the future of our country and our children. 
Thank you very much.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his contribution 
to this debate. I agree with him that there are many leaders in both 
political parties who come to this issue with complete sincerity. He 
has noted my predecessor, Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, the late Paul 
Tsongas of Massachusetts, Warren Rudman, and the list goes on--men and 
women who have taken the time to analyze this situation and have come 
to the conclusion that a balanced budget amendment is in the best 
interest of this Nation.
  I respect all of those people, but I respectfully disagree with them 
when it comes to the specific language of this amendment. There is a 
reason why the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin, after 26 years on 
Wall Street, came before our Judiciary Committee and testified that 
absent an amendment, such as the one I am offering today, this 
procedure that we are enshrining in the Constitution will tie our hands 
in times of economic emergency and recession. It will turn recessions 
into deeper recessions or even depressions. We can't justify that, in 
the name of clinging to the old school language of the balanced budget 
amendment. The Senator from New Hampshire says we may be within one or 
two votes.
  I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, if we can sit down in a 
calm, bipartisan way and address two aspects of this balanced budget 
amendment, the supermajority gridlock when it comes to a national 
disaster or national economic emergency, and protection of the Social 
Security trust fund, I would daresay to my friend from New Hampshire 
that we would not be quibbling over two votes. This amendment would 
leave the floor of the Senate and the House with the kind of 
substantial bipartisan majority which would say to the legislatures 
across America that this amendment is a better one, a better version. 
But you know what happens in this town, in ``Wonderland, DC.'' Special 
interest groups get dug in. You can't change a word. If you touch a 
word of it, you are betraying all of the trust that has been given you. 
Please, how seldom we rise to amend this Constitution. Should we not do 
it in a way that is responsible, in a way that meets the requirements 
of our future?
  You know, during the worst days of our budget deficits, during the 
Reagan and Bush administrations, there were many Members of the House--
most are not serving now--that I served with, who used the balanced 
budget amendment as a figleaf for their fiscal recklessness. They would 
rush down and vote for these unbalanced budgets. They would lard up 
their districts. They would vote for big spending here and there. And 
then, when people said, ``Well, how do you explain doing this when it 
produces such deficits?'' ``I am for a balanced budget amendment, I 
want to amend the Constitution, and I want to make it against the law 
for people to do what I am doing. That shows you how sincere I am.''

  Now we are like generals fighting the last war. That mentality, that 
language, brought to 1997 is what we want to put in and enshrine in 
this Constitution, saying that the wording and terms are inviolate, 
ignoring the realities. And, yet, the Treasury Secretary and over 1,000 
recognized experts on the economy have come forward and warned us. They 
have warned us to think twice about this. It may have a surface 
political appeal. But how on God's green Earth is it going to work?
  The chairman spoke eloquently in the debate on Thursday regarding my 
amendment and said, ``The very purpose of this provision of the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois is to make a balanced budget 
amendment easier to waive.'' He went on to say, ``Instead of trying to 
find ways to avoid fiscal responsibility, we ought to be working toward 
passing a strong balanced budget amendment that will help us to keep 
out of recessions in the first place.''
  I would like to say to the distinguished chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee that if he can help us craft an amendment that will 
abolish recessions in the American economy, I will certainly consider 
it carefully. But I do not think we gain anything by suggesting that a 
balanced budget amendment will put an end to the business cycle. With 
or without this amendment we will someday face a recession, and the 
question is, How will we respond?
  For those who question whether or not this Senator from Illinois will 
vote for a balanced budget amendment, I have voted for five balanced 
budget amendments--five versions that protected Social Security, 
avoided the supermajority gridlock, and addressed important issues that 
protect the American people particularly in times of recession.
  I would also like to make note of another element. Some say that this 
will lead to irresponsible behavior by the Senate and the House; that, 
if the Durbin amendment is adopted requiring only a majority vote, the 
people will exploit this amendment. I do not think the critics have 
taken a close look. If the critics of this amendment will read it 
carefully, they will see that, in my amendment, anxiety is not the 
basis for waiving the balanced budget. They will see that it requires, 
in fact, specific action by the House and by the Senate for waiving.
  First, there must be an economic recession, or a serious economic 
emergency in the United States.
  Second, Congress, must declare that there is such a recession, or 
serious economic emergency, by joint resolution.
  Third, that resolution must be adopted by a majority of the whole 
number of each House.
  Fourth, that resolution must become law, which means it must be 
signed by the President, or enacted over his veto by two-thirds vote of 
both Houses.
  I do not believe that any future Congress will view this as an escape 
hatch to ignore the requirements of a balanced budget. If they do, it 
will be at their own political peril.
  I believe that the requirement which I have in my amendment to the 
balanced budget amendment will require public accountability, a record 
vote, and the determination by the House and the Senate that, in fact, 
we do face an economic emergency.
  The chairman has also said we do not need the Durbin amendment; that 
what we need to do is to run a surplus in our Treasury so we have a so-
called rainy day fund that we can turn to to take care of working 
families who have lost their jobs. Unfortunately, the lead witness 
called by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to testify on behalf 
of the balanced budget amendment, former OMB Director James Miller, who 
is living proof of the redemption of politics, a man who has presided 
over a series of deficits as OMB Director and now is totally committed 
to a balanced budget since he no longer holds that position, came 
before us and said that, if he could change one thing in this balanced 
budget amendment, he would allow the Federal Government to establish a 
rainy day fund, or a stabilization fund.

  Mr. Miller knows, I know, and I think most do, the language being 
offered by the chairman in Senate Joint Resolution 1 does not allow the 
creation of a surplus, or this rainy day fund, to be there when our 
economy is in need. That, I think, is a serious shortcoming.
  Chairman Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board, a man credited by 
both

[[Page S1175]]

political parties despite controversy of having used monetary policy to 
stabilize our economy, was testifying before the Budget Committee when 
I asked him point blank, ``Are you for a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution?'' He said that we should not put ``detailed economic 
policy'' into the Constitution. I asked him about the automatic 
stabilizers, the Government coming to the rescue of an economy because 
of a recession. He said, ``It is far better to have a surplus or rainy 
day fund.''
  I am sorry to tell Chairman Greenspan that the balanced budget 
amendment before us today does not give us that option. It does not 
give us that option and, because it does not give us that option, is 
fatally flawed.
  Let me speak to the supermajority vote again. Not only would a 
supermajority vote result in too many of our predecessors failing to 
ratify our Constitution but a supermajority vote--think about this for 
a moment. Think about it in the context of the last 24 months, the last 
24 months when this Government was in such chaos and gridlock that we 
had Government shutdowns. Because of the requirement of a supermajority 
vote? No. Because of the requirement of a majority vote to extend the 
debt limit of the United States. Facing the need to pass a debt limit 
bill simply acknowledging our obligation for debt already incurred, or 
about to be incurred, we could not do it by majority vote. Without that 
debt limit extension, Federal law required that the functions of 
Government stop. The Government was shut down not once but twice for a 
total of 27 days at the cost to taxpayers of over $1.4 billion for the 
failure of Congress to muster a majority vote.
  Now we hear from the proponents of this amendment, ``Trust me. If we 
get into trouble, if there is a regional economic recession, if there 
is a disaster, a Midwest flood, or hurricane in Florida, surely this 
Congress will come together and do the responsible thing.'' Well, we 
saw, unfortunately, in recent memory when the Congress did not rise to 
its responsibility, or rise to the occasion, and allowed these terrible 
Government shutdowns for lack of a majority vote. And now we are 
putting in the Constitution of the United States clear language to 
require a supermajority to respond to a national economic emergency.
  The Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, said on Friday that past 
Congresses have passed economic stimulus packages in times of recession 
when they were needed with the necessary 60 votes, including 1993. 
Unfortunately, his recollection was not accurate. The inability to 
obtain 60 votes prevented enactment of antirecession legislation in 
1993, and even the President's deficit reduction package, which turned 
out to be a tremendous boost to the economy, passed this body only when 
the Vice President voted with an ``aye'' vote. By supermajority it 
never would have occurred, and I am not certain where we would stand 
today in terms of our economic situation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what we need to do for families is to 
resist the higher interest costs on the mortgages, student loans, 
consumer purchases, auto loans, et cetera. If Congress can get its 
fiscal house in order, more jobs will be created and those jobs will be 
more secure. If Congress stops borrowing so much, we will have a more 
stable economy, which, of course, can help us to avoid these economic 
downturns in the first place. The only way we are going to get there is 
to quit piling the 29th unbalanced budget and the 30th and the 31st on 
top of each other.
  The fact of the matter is the balanced budget amendment is flexible 
enough to respond to most needs--in fact, all needs. Put it that way. 
But it is serious enough to stop Congress from continuing the pattern 
of borrowing year after year which has kept the economy from growing as 
well as it could have.
  My colleague from Illinois has introduced an amendment that seeks to 
waive the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 1 for any fiscal year 
in which there is an economic recession or serious economic emergency. 
As such, the Durbin amendment seeks to avoid the three-fifths vote 
required by Senate Joint Resolution 1 to waive the balanced budget 
rule. This three-fifths majority was placed in the balanced budget 
amendment so that a simple majority of the Congress could not run 
deficits except in important situations--those recognized by a 
supermajority of the Members. Efforts such as the Durbin amendment 
would blow a huge hole in the balanced budget amendment.
  The terms used in the Durbin amendment is undefined. The 
determination of an economic recession or serious economic emergency 
could easily be manipulated by a spendthrift Congress as a way to avoid 
the discipline of the balanced budget amendment. Thus, the amendment 
would create a giant loophole that would swallow the balanced budget 
rule.
  Remember, also, that if the balanced budget amendment is waived for a 
recession, it is waived for all spending in that year. In other words, 
this amendment would permit deficit spending for any number of wasteful 
projects that are in no way related to the so-called economic 
emergency. Just remember President Clinton's 1993 attempt to push 
through a multi-billion dollar boondoggle under the guise of trying to 
end a recession which had in fact already ended. In short, Mr. 
President, if you take your finger out of the hole in the dike, the 
whole town is going to be flooded.
  One of the arguments made in favor of this amendment is that without 
it, the balanced budget amendment will somehow inhibit the functioning 
of the so-called automatic stabilizers. Mr. President, I believe the 
importance of automatic stabilizers has been overstated and, in any 
case, the balanced budget amendment will not inhibit their functioning. 
Moreover, the Durbin amendment does not respond to the concerns raised 
about the automatic stabilizers. It simply allows Congress to avoid the 
balanced budget rule by a lower threshold.
  Just to be clear on what these stabilizers are supposed to do, the 
notion of automatic stabilizers has to do primarily with the belief 
that in an economic downturn, there is a decrease in tax revenues and a 
concomitant increase in unemployment compensation and other welfare 
payments.
  The claim that the automatic stabilizers have moderated the business 
cycle is based on the assumption that the relative increases in 
Government spending associated with automatic stabilizers causes 
automatic, effective counter-cyclical fiscal policy. It is argued that 
such increased spending is the key to moderating both the depth and 
length of recessions and that the balanced budget amendment will 
prevent that spending from occurring.
  I believe the characterization of the effectiveness of the automatic 
stabilizers has been overstated.
  When appearing before the Senate Budget Committee just last month, 
CBO Director June O'Neill was asked a question about the relationship 
between automatic stabilizers and the apparent moderation in the 
business cycle over the last half-century. She cited better monetary 
policy and the Nation's move from away an agricultural based economy, 
with the inherent ups and downs that go along with agriculture, as 
factors at least as important as automatic stabilizers in minimizing 
recessions. Additionally, the move to a service economy and better 
inventory management practices have reduced the fluctuations associated 
with inventory overstocks and the factory economy.
  Further, a financial markets expert pointed out to the Judiciary 
Committee that the primary reasons why the business cycle has moderated 
in recent years are, first, monetary policy, which is controlled by the 
Federal Reserve Board; and second, the increasing efficiency of private 
markets, because of better information and other factors. These have 
nothing to do with automatic stabilizers or fiscal policy.
  It is relatively well-recognized that the perceived moderation of the 
business cycle over recent decades is due to many factors. For example, 
a December 2, 1996 article in the Washington Post affirmed, ``The 
success in finally halting the U.S. economic roller-coaster has been 
the result of many elements * * *''
  The Post article cited ``new technologies, the deregulation of many 
industries, and the increased

[[Page S1176]]

globalization of business and finance,'' as some of the most important 
changes that helped stabilize our economy. Global trade enables us to 
export what would otherwise be oversupply thus avoiding a bust cycle.
  Further, that article quoted Herb Stein, a former chairman of the 
Council of Economic Advisors, who noted that ``[b]ecause the economy is 
so big and so diversified and so open to the world economy, a shock 
would have less impact now.'' Thus, an event that may have sent the 
country into a recession in 1890 would only be a localized disturbance 
today.
  Another major factor in helping to tranquilize recessions that the 
Post recognized is that we are no longer on the gold standard. ``After 
the United States was no longer obligated to defend the price of gold, 
and the nation's deficits in international transactions could be 
financed easily by that world capital market, the Fed had far more 
ability to set interest rates according to the needs of the domestic 
economy.''
  So while these automatic stabilizers may have had some effect, there 
are clearly many other major factors that have brought our economy to 
the level of consistency we enjoy today.
  Certainly the automatic stabilizers are no justification for 
balancing the budget only eight times in the last 65 years. Let's face 
it. Our deficits have not been countercyclical, they have been 
counterproductive. While business cycles have come and gone over the 
last four decades, our deficit habit has not. Our deficits are 
structural and largely permanent, not cyclical.
  I also want to note that the notion of a country spending itself out 
of a recession is now rejected by many economists. One commentator has 
wryly stated that the theory of spending and borrowing out of a 
recession ``is the game-plan that propelled Argentina and Bolivia to 
economic superpower status in the 1970's.'' More recently, Japan has 
tried to do this and the result has been continued recession and larger 
debt. On the other hand, a number of the world's up-and-coming 
countries are enjoying booming economies while keeping their national 
budget in balance or even surplus. Perhaps we should be more concerned 
that we do not spend ourselves out of prosperity.
  But even if we assume that automatic stabilizers are important, Mr. 
President, the balanced budget amendment will not impede their use.
  The balanced budget amendment in no way prevents us from running a 
small surplus, which could be used to offset the effects of an economic 
downturn, thus avoiding a deficit. In fact, a number of experts the 
Judiciary Committee has heard over the years have suggested we do so. 
Fred Bergsten, a noted economist and former Treasury Department 
official, suggests we create a habit of regularly shooting for a small 
surplus, rather than absolute balance, which will allow us to use 
fiscal policy within the balanced budget rule better than we can now 
without it, with chronic, structural deficits.
  Even if we drop below an intended annual rainy day surplus, the 
balanced budget amendment has anticipated this sort of need. A three-
fifths vote in Congress will allow the balanced budget rule to be 
suspended for a year. That way, we have the flexibility to run 
reasonable deficits if we need to. The three-fifths requirement makes 
sure that we do not waive the amendment unless it is a true need and 
not just an attempt to avoid the tough choices.
  Some have suggested that the necessary three-fifths will be hard to 
come by. The history of the votes in Congress demonstrate that in 
actual circumstances of economic need, the Congress has had little 
difficulty achieving the vote that would be required under the balanced 
budget amendment, despite the fact that no such requirement was in 
place.
  The Congress has voted a number of times to extend the emergency 
unemployment compensation program. During the past 15 years, according 
to the Congressional Research Service, there is only one instance where 
the extension of this important program failed to garner a 
supermajority of votes in either Chamber. Indeed, in many cases even 
higher supermajority requirements would have been fulfilled. In times 
of real need, Congress will get a three-fifths vote.
  Some have also argued that the Durbin amendment is needed because 
Congress is too slow to respond to recessions. Well, they are half 
right. Congress is too slow to respond to recessions. Almost everyone 
agrees that when Congress tries to spend the country out of an economic 
downturn, their attempt either has little effect or they make things 
worse by spending as the economy is already recovering and then sowing 
the seeds of a future recession.
  But the Durbin amendment does nothing to address this concern. It 
does not speed up congressional action--I'm not sure anything can. All 
it does is change the vote required from three-fifths to a majority. 
And since history clearly shows that we get the three-fifths when we 
need it, all this amendment would do is make it easier to waive the 
balanced budget rule when we don't really need it.
  Finally, Mr. President, when he introduced his amendment the Senator 
from Illinois told a story about a friend who needed temporary help 
from the Government in his transition from one job to another. There is 
no doubt that this is a meaningful and laudable use of our precious 
resources.
  But it seems to me that we do all the working people of America a lot 
more good if we balance the budget, and thus reduce the number of 
recessions that they must endure, than if we create a loophole in the 
balanced budget amendment to allow future Congresses to easily increase 
the already crushing burden of debt. We ought to be less concerned 
about when we can spend more, and more concerned about when we must 
spend less.
  Senator Durbin's amendment seeks to waive the provisions of Senate 
Joint Resolution 1 for any fiscal year in which there is an economic 
recession or serious economic emergency in the United States as 
declared by joint resolution. As such, the Durbin amendment seeks to 
avoid the three-fifths vote majority prescribed by Senate Joint 
Resolution 1 in avoiding the requirement that receipts match outlays 
for any given fiscal year. This three-fifths majority was placed in the 
balanced budget amendment so that a simple majority of the Congress 
could not run deficits except in important situations--those recognized 
by a supermajority of the members. Efforts such as the Durbin amendment 
will render Senate Joint Resolution 1 useless.
  The Durbin amendment is wholly unnecessary. A brief analysis of 
historical fact will demonstrate that in circumstances of national 
disaster or economic downturn, the Congress has had little difficulty 
passing remedial legislation with supermajority support.
  The history of votes in this body demonstrates that in actual 
circumstances of economic assistance for unemployment or disaster 
relief, the Congress has had little difficulty achieving the 
supermajority vote that would be required under the balanced budget 
amendment. The Congressional Research Service helped me do some 
research on voting patterns in this area. I want to present for you the 
results of my research because I think it is illustrative.
  Let me summarize the results briefly: On the question of responding 
to economic recessions, the Congress has voted a number of times to 
extend the emergency unemployment compensation program. During the past 
15 years, I count only one instance where the extension of this 
important program failed to garner a supermajority of votes in either 
Chamber, based on Congressional Research Service data.
  Similarly, in the area of disaster relief, over the past 7 years, I 
found that in virtually every circumstance, emergency spending bills 
placed before the House and Senate passed with supermajorities, on the 
order required by the balanced budget amendment, even though no such 
requirement was in place.
  Let me go into more detail on the unemployment compensation votes. 
H.R. 3167, which became Public Law 103-152, extended the emergency 
unemployment compensation program [EUCP] in November 1993. This 
conference report passed the House with a vote of 320 to 105 and passed 
the Senate, 79 to 20. The underlying bill achieved similar majorities, 
passing the House 320 to 105, and the Senate 79 to 20. In March 1993, 
another emergency unemployment compensation bill passed the Congress 
and became Public Law 103-6. The

[[Page S1177]]

supermajority on H.R. 920 in the Senate was 66 to 33, and the vote in 
the House was 254 to 161.
  In 1992, the House passed the conference report on H.R. 5260, to 
extend the EUCP, by a vote of 396 to 23. The Senate acted similarly, 
passing the bill, which became Public Law 102-318, by a vote of 93 to 
3. Also in 1992, the Senate passed H.R. 4095 to extend the EUCP by a 
vote of 94 to 2. The House passed the same bill, which became Public 
Law 102-244, by a vote of 404 to 8.
  In 1991, the House passed S. 1722, to provide emergency unemployment 
compensation, by a vote of 294 to 127. The Senate passed the same bill, 
which was vetoed by the President, by a vote of 69 to 30. Similarly, 
the House passed the conference report on this bill by a vote of 300 to 
118 and the Senate passed the measure 65 to 35. Earlier in 1991, the 
House passed H.R. 3201, to provide emergency unemployment compensation, 
by a vote of 375 to 45. This measure became Public Law 102-107. The 
Senater passed it by voice vote. Finally, H.R. 1281 was passed in March 
1991, providing funding for the Unemployment Compensation 
Administration [UCA]. This bill passed the House with a vote of 365 to 
43. It passed the Senate by a vote of 92 to 8. The conference report on 
this bill, Public Law 102-27, passed with tallies of 340 to 48 and 93 
to 3, respectively. In 1990, the House passed H.R. 4404, to provide 
funding for the UCA, by a vote of 362 to 59. The conference report 
passed 308 to 108. This bill became Public Law 101-302, after passing 
the Senate by voice vote.
  All the way back in 1983, the Senate passed H.R. 1718, to provide 
funds for the Unemployment Trust Fund. The bill, Public Law 98-8, 
passed the Senate 82 to 15. Finally, the Senate voted in February 1982 
to pass House Joint Resolution 391, to provide funding for the 
Employment and Training Administration, by a vote of 95 to 0.
  What do these vote tallies indicate? They demonstrate that the Durbin 
amendment is completely unnecessary. During the past 15 years, my 
research reveals only one instance where a vote to provide unemployment 
compensation during a period of economic recession did not pass by a 
supermajority. One time in 15 years. That's remarkable.
  Similarly, in the area of disaster relief, Congress has 
overwhelmingly acted by supermajority votes in responding to crises.
  In fiscal year 1995, the House and Senate voted on H.R. 1944, which 
provided $7.2 billion disaster aid, mostly to help with recovery 
efforts in Los Angeles from the 1994 earthquake. The bill passed the 
Senate with a vote of 90 to 7--a clear supermajority. In the House, the 
bill passed with 276 votes--also a supermajority.
  The 1994 fiscal year Disaster Supplemental Appropriations bill, H.R. 
3759, received similar treatment. That bill, to provide nearly $10 
billion in new appropriation for the emergency expenses of the Los 
Angeles earthquake, humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping 
activities, as well as for Midwest flood assistance and highway 
reconstruction from the San Francisco earthquake, passed the House by a 
vote of 337 to 74--not really close, was it, to the 261 required for 
the three-fifths vote. The same measure passed the Senate by a vote of 
85 to 10.
  The 1993 fiscal year disaster supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 
2667, providing nearly $3 billion for emergency relief from the 
widespread flooding in the Midwest and other natural disasters, passed 
the House by a vote of 400 to 27. The Senate adopted it by voice vote.
  In 1992, the disaster relief supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 
5132, passed the Senate by a supermajority vote of 61 to 36. The bill 
provided $2 billion in new budget authority for fiscal year 1992, 
including funds for disaster assistance and loans to respond to the Los 
Angeles riots and the Chicago tunnel collapse and subsequent flooding. 
In the House, the same bill passed by a vote of 244 to 162.
  Also in 1992, the defense and disaster supplemental appropriations 
bill, H.R. 5620, providing $10 billion in grants and loans to help 
victims of Hurricane Andrew, Typhoon Omar and Hurricane Iniki, passed 
the Senate by a vote of 84 to 10, it passed the House by a vote of 297 
to 124. Finally, the 1992 supplemental appropriations bill passed the 
Senate with a vote of 75 to 17. This bill provided $8 billion for 
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm as well as other moneys for 
communities recovering from other natural disasters. The same bill 
passed the House by a vote of 252 to 162. The conference report passed 
the House by a vote of 303 to 114.
  Last, the 1990 continuing appropriations bill, House Joint Resolution 
423, provided disaster assistance generally. This bill passed the House 
by a vote of 321 to 99, and passed the Senate by a vote of 97 to 1.
  During the past 7 years, we have voted many times on emergency 
disaster funding programs. I count only two situations where a 
supermajority was not reached--this despite the fact that no 
supermajority was needed.
  The facts are hard to refute. The Durbin amendment clearly has little 
or no factual basis when compared to the voting record of the Congress. 
When the situation warrants, either because of economic recession or 
natural disaster, this body has had little difficulty achieving a 
supermajority of votes to pass needed spending programs. The balanced 
budget amendment has the flexibility necessary to respond to true 
emergencies. Creating loopholes like the Durbin amendment only serve to 
make deficit-spending as a matter of course easier.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I think the chairman, the Senator from 
Utah, concluded that automatic stabilizers do have some impact. I think 
that the chairman would agree with me that for a person who has lost 
his job or a person who has lost her job, the prospect of turning to 
the Government for unemployment insurance to continue to keep your 
family together not only stabilizes your situation while you search for 
another job but helps to stabilize the economy.
  I think the Senator from Utah would agree with me that unemployed 
workers seeking retraining and additional education to find a job in 
fact help to stabilize our economy. And that is exactly the point of 
this debate.
  I would concede every point made by the chairman about all of the 
other stabilizers that have evolved in our economy if he would concede 
that there is still a legitimate role of specific programs which step 
in to help the unemployed family.
  Let me give you an illustration of this which has been used in this 
debate before. This is an illustration of the business cycle in America 
from 1870 forward. The spikes on the top of the line are the good news. 
That is when the economy was expanding, businesses were growing, 
farmers were doing well, and jobs were being created.
  But every time we dip below this line, we see unemployment, 
businesses going out of business, farmers quitting, heading to town. 
And look at these spikes in the economy on the negative side leading up 
until about 1945 or 1947--much more pronounced, much more dramatic, 
deeper recessions, depressions, millions of Americans put out of work.
  But what happened after the mid-1940's? We see the downturns, but 
they are barely noticeable in comparison to what occurred before that 
time.
  Automatic stabilizers. The things which the Senator from Utah noted--
global economy, monetary policy, so many other things--but what happens 
are the things I have noted as well. Families out of work had a place 
to turn. It was no longer survival of the fittest. If you had personal 
responsibility, if you were held accountable, you had a means to get 
back on your feet.
  Last Thursday, in this debate I talked about my friend, Bob Bergen, 
who lost his job at the factory in Springfield. Bob came by my house 
yesterday in Springfield, and we were talking about it. I said, ``Bob, 
remind me. How did you get out of that factory job?'' which he had been 
at for 22 years. They closed down the factory, and he got into the 
business of furnaces and air-conditioning. I said, ``What was the name 
of the program?''
  ``The JTPA Program. I signed up for it, and I went to the community 
college. I took the courses, and when they closed that plant, I was 
ready to do something with my life.''
  JTPA is a Federal Government program. It is one of the automatic 
stabilizers we have used in the past. To

[[Page S1178]]

discount that or dismiss it and say that it has nothing to do with Bob 
Bergen now in a good business in Springfield, IL, employing his son, I 
might add, as are so many millions of others, is to ignore reality.
  Let me address one other point raised by the chairman.
  The chairman says that my use of the term ``economic recession'' is 
just not precise enough. I call the attention of the chairman to Senate 
Joint Resolution 1, to his own language, which allows, in section 5, 
Congress to waive all the provisions of the balanced budget amendment 
in times that ``the United States is engaged in military conflict which 
causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security.''
  What does it mean? Troops in the field, troops under fire, whether or 
not we suspect that might occur or it already has? These sorts of 
things suggest that whatever the language of this constitutional 
amendment, our implementing legislation is going to have to be there to 
make certain that it is explained in detail.
  At this time I yield to the ranking Democrat, Senator Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  I do support the Durbin amendment. I stated earlier that I wish it 
would not be tabled, that we would have a straight up-or-down vote, but 
I think the American public understands what the vote means.
  I was interested in hearing my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, the senior Senator from Utah, oppose the Durbin amendment 
last week by saying the proposed constitutional amendment does not need 
the flexibility of the Durbin amendment in times of economic crisis 
because we can build up yearly surpluses to handle tough times. The 
distinguished chairman said:

       The balanced budget amendment in no way prevents us from 
     running a reasonable surplus which could be used to offset 
     the effects of an economic downturn. This surplus would allow 
     us to use fiscal policy within the balanced budget rule 
     better than we can now without it.

  Not quite so. The constitutional amendment does not have that 
flexibility. It is very specific as it is written, and it prohibits 
this use of a rainy day fund. Indeed, those who support it--proponents' 
own witnesses before the Judiciary Committee over the course of the 
last two Congresses--pointed this out and suggested the language be 
amended to provide for such a rainy day fund. The distinguished Senator 
from Illinois was present at those hearings this year when they were 
saying just that.
  Fred Bergsten in 1995 and James Miller in 1997, the witnesses brought 
by the proponents of the constitutional amendment, criticized the 
language before us for not including the possibility of accumulating 
surpluses in a rainy day fund. That is what we do to prepare for 
economic downturns in my own State of Vermont.
  So I hope we might pay attention to the Durbin amendment. I hope we 
might support it.
  The distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, 
challenged the other side to explain the language in this proposed 
constitutional amendment to say how it is going to work; what do the 
words mean; what sections do what? In fact, nobody has taken up the 
Byrd challenge. I urge the proponents to accept the challenge of 
Senator Byrd, if they can--I suspect they cannot--and say just what the 
words mean.
  If you read the words, they say, ``Total outlays for any fiscal year 
shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year.'' Then they 
provide for waiver by a three-fifths majority --come on, that is not 
going to happen. The rainy day fund is out. It would require outlays, 
specifically, those saved in the rainy day fund, to be expended in a 
latter year and thereby exceed the total receipts for that fiscal year.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter opposing the so-
called balanced budget amendment for the Coalition for Budget Integrity 
be printed in the Record. This is a coalition of approximately 150 
organizations that oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to add a 28th 
amendment on budgeting. The organizations range from labor unions and 
children's advocacy groups, to seniors' groups, teachers, religious and 
secular charities, environmental groups, nutrition groups, and 
veterans.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                               Coalition for Budget Integrity,

                                 Washington, DC, February 4, 1997.

                  Oppose the Balanced Budget Amendment

       We, the undersigned organizations, strongly urge you to 
     oppose a balanced budget amendment to the United States 
     Constitution.
       The proposed constitutional amendment is not the answer to 
     the nation's economic problems. The proposed balanced budget 
     amendment is likely to damage the economy more than 
     strengthen it. The amendment would require larger spending 
     cuts or tax increases in years of slow growth than in years 
     of rapid growth, precisely the opposite of what is needed to 
     stabilize the economy and avert recessions. The amendment 
     thus risks making economic recessions more frequent and 
     deeper.
       A constitutional amendment would also be likely to limit 
     public investments which are critical to long-term economic 
     growth because the amendment fails to distinguish public 
     investments needed for growth from other areas of government 
     spending. The amendment would largely deny the federal 
     government a basic practice that most businesses, families, 
     and state and local governments use--borrowing to finance 
     investments with long-term payoffs.
       This amendment has no place in the Constitution of the 
     United States. It would inappropriately draw the judicial 
     branch of government into the determination of fiscal and 
     economic policy. The amendment also undermines the important 
     constitutional principle of majority rule by establishing a 
     three-fifths vote to allow a budget to go unbalanced.
       The American public has a right to know how a balanced 
     budget will be achieved before a balanced budget amendment is 
     enacted. Which important programs--education, health care, 
     social security, transportation, job training, environmental 
     protection, housing--will either be dramatically cut or 
     eliminated threatening America's vital interests?
       We strongly urge you to oppose the constitutional balanced 
     budget amendment.
           Sincerely,
       AFSCME.
       ACORN.
       Advocates for Youth.
       AIDS Action Council.
       Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning.
       Amalgamated Transit Union.
       American Arts Alliance.
       American Association of Children's Residential Centers.
       American Association of Classified School Employees.
       American Association of Retired Persons.
       American Association of University Professors.
       American Federation of Government Employees.
       American Federation of School Administrators.
       American Federation of Teachers.
       American Friends Service Committee.
       American Jewish Committee.
       American Jewish Congress.
       American Postal Workers Union.
       American Public Health Association.
       Americans for Democratic Action.
       Association of Performing Arts Centers.
       B'nai B'rith.
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
       Bread for the World.
       Catholic Charities USA.
       Center for Community Change.
       Center for Law and Education.
       Center for Law and Social Policy.
       Center for Science in the Public Interest.
       Center for the Advancement of Public Policy.
       Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
       Center on Disability and Health.
       Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law.
       Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.
       Child Welfare League of America.
       Children's Foundation.
       Children's Defense Fund.
       Church Women United.
       Citizen Action.
       Coalition for Low Income Community Development.
       Coalition for New Priorities.
       Coalition of Labor Union Women.
       Coalition on Human Needs.
       Colorado Rivers Alliance.
       Common Cause.
       Communications Workers of America.
       Community Nutrition Institute.
       Community Service Society of New York.
       Consumer Federation of America.
       Council of Graduate Schools.
       Council of Jewish Federations.
       Democratic Socialists of America.
       Economic Policy Institute.
       Environmental Action.
       Environmental Justice Working Group.
       Environmental Working Group.
       Families USA.
       Family Service America.
       Food Research Action Center.
       Friends Committee on National Legislation.
       Friends of the Earth.
       Fund for New Priorities in America.
       Grassroots Policy Project.

[[Page S1179]]

       Gray Panthers.
       Hadassah.
       International Association of Fire Fighters.
       International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron, Ship 
     Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers.
       International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
       International Federation of Professional and Technical 
     Engineers.
       International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, 
     Machine and Furniture Workers.
       Laborers' International Union of North America.
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
       League of Women Voters.
       Legal Action Center.
       Libraries for the Future.
       Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, ELCA.
       McAuley Institute.
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
       Migrant Legal Action Program.
       National Association for Visually Handicapped.
       National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.
       National Association of Child Advocates.
       National Association of Community Health Centers.
       National Association of Letter Carriers.
       National Association of Retired Federal Employees.
       National Association of School Psychologists.
       National Association of Service and Conservation Corps.
       National Association of Social Workers.
       National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc.
       National Coalition for the Homeless.
       National Commission for Economic Conversion and 
     Disarmament.
       National Council of Jewish Women.
       National Council of Senior Citizens.
       National Council on Aging.
       National Council on Family Relations.
       National Education Association.
       National Family Farm Coalition.
       National Family Planning and Reproductive Health 
     Association.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Hispanic Council on Aging.
       National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council.
       National Low Income Housing Coalition.
       National Minority AIDS Council.
       National Neighborhood Coalition.
       National Organization for Rare Disorders.
       National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education 
     Fund.
       National PTA.
       National Puerto Rican Coalition.
       National Rural Housing Coalition.
       National Senior Citizens Law Center.
       National Treasury Employees Union.
       National Urban League.
       National Women's Law Center.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       Neighbor to Neighbor.
       NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
       Older Women's League.
       OMB Watch.
       OPERA America.
       Paralyzed Veterans of America.
       Peace Action.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       Public Employees Department, AFL-CIO.
       Service Employees International Union.
       The American Association of University Professors.
       The ARC.
       The Enterprise Foundation.
       Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
       Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.
       UNITE, Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile 
     Employees.
       United Auto Workers.
       United Church of Christ, Office for Church and Society.
       United Food and Commercial Workers Union.
       United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and 
     Society.
       United States Student Association.
       United Steelworkers of America.
       United Transportation Union.
       Wider Opportunities for Women.
       Wisconsin Assembly of Local Arts Agencies.
       Women and Poverty Project.
       Women of Reform Judaism, The Federation of Temple 
     Sisterhoods.
       YWCA of the USA.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, paralleling the position of the 1,060 
economists who banded together to oppose this constitutional amendment, 
the 150 organizations that make up the Coalition for Budget Integrity 
argue that the proposed amendment is likely to damage the economy more 
than strengthen it. They note that the amendment would require spending 
cuts or tax increases at just the wrong times. They are concerned that 
the constitutional amendment would likely limit public investments by 
failing to distinguish public investment from Government spending and 
failing to allow for a capital budget. They correctly observe that the 
constitutional amendment would draw the judicial branch into the 
determination of fiscal and economic policy and undercut the 
constitutional principle of majority rule with supermajority three-
fifths requirements to raise the debt limit and waive the provisions of 
the amendment.
  Mr. President, I also want to commend the honesty of Jack Kemp, who 
appeared yesterday on the NBC News television program, ``Meet The 
Press.''
  Jack Kemp was quite honest in his appraisal of the so-called balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Jack Kemp said yesterday on national television:

       I have never been enamored with putting a budget balanced 
     amendment into the Constitution. . . . I would not vote for 
     the Stenholm balanced budget amendment because it clearly is 
     a trap into which, I think, a future Congress would end up 
     keeping taxes high or raising taxes in a recession. . . . 
     It's a recipe for a future disaster for this country.

  Jack Kemp said what I believe many Members of Congress privately 
believe, but are too afraid to say in public.
  I believe Jack Kemp was right to speak his conscience and I hope more 
Members of Congress will follow his courageous lead.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes, 15 seconds. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains to us?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I withhold the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. LEAHY. I give control of our remaining time to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me first of all react to the Senator 
from Vermont's inclusion of Jack Kemp's remarks of yesterday into the 
Record. Jack Kemp does not support our balanced budget because he feels 
it is not strong enough in one respect; it does not require the tax 
limitation that Jack Kemp believes is necessary. Over the years I have 
debated this at length with Congressman Kemp. He knows that what our 
amendment does is a substantial movement in the right direction. While 
I would have liked tax limitation over time, we know that is a vote 
that cannot be won on the floor of the Senate or the House. That is why 
we have left tax limitation up to the true limiters, and that is the 
electorate, to decide if a tax increase should produce a change in the 
makeup of the U.S. Congress. So we are not going to put our Government 
on automatic pilot, as would be the subtle insinuation of Senator 
Durbin in arguing that, somehow, this amendment is not flexible enough 
and therefore we need his majority-vote waiver.
  Let me talk about putting whims in the budget process, because I 
believe that is exactly what would be done if you favor the Durbin 
amendment. It does not require this Senate to make tough choices, and 
it creates almost an unlimited opportunity for deficit spending. The 
balanced budget amendment as we have proposed it, and as it has been 
introduced on the floor of the Senate by Senator Hatch, is flexible 
enough. It allows deficit spending if 60 percent, or three-fifths of 
the majority of the Congress, vote that way. If there is a true long-
term emergency, the votes will be there to respond to it.
  Let me cite some examples. The Senator from Illinois knows these 
examples. He has participated, as have I, in a fair number of them. 
From 1962 to the present, there have been 12 economic stimulus packages 
passed by Congress. All 12 have received three-fifths votes in the 
Congress. So, every time there was a true emergency and collectively 
the Senate or the House decided it was just that, the three-fifths 
majority written into this balanced budget amendment was garnered. In 
other words, when there is legitimacy, and not just the easy pass go 
that we have had now for decades upon decades, that has built the stack 
of unbalanced budgets here on this table, but when it was really 
necessary, the record clearly shows that the support of three-fifths of 
the Congress was there.
  Of course, there was one so-called economic stimulus package that did 
not pass at first. We got involved in a

[[Page S1180]]

filibuster in 1993 on a so-called stimulus package, but at that time a 
recovery was already underway. Every economist in the country said, 
``We are in a recovery; why are you pumping more deficit spending into 
the economy and risking a surge of inflation?'' And, of course, we did 
filibuster, and that deficit spending package failed, largely because 
it was nickel-and-dime kind of stuff, to build a swimming pool here or 
paint a mural there or create some kind of make-work somewhere else. It 
had nothing to do with job training to a great extent, or job creation. 
Yet some were pushing it, even when economists were saying, ``Yes, in 
fact, the economy is recovering.''
  But even when that first, large bill did not pass in 1993, an 
overwhelming majority of the Congress still showed compassion for those 
actually in need; we soon passed a stripped-down bill, which extended 
unemployment benefits.

  While we do not use the word ``emergency'' in the balanced budget 
amendment, clearly an emergency is whatever three-fifths of the 
Congress term it is. That is a reasonable test of what is a true 
emergency. So, those 12 economic stimulus packages that I referred to 
since 1962 were deemed by the Congress to be important enough to garner 
the three-fifths vote. Therefore the other day, several weeks ago, when 
the President said, ``If you had a little flexibility in there for a 
recession,'' and he was visiting with those of us who were proponents 
of this amendment, then he ``would show some kind of interest in it.'' 
I said, ``Well, it is there, Mr. President. You need to recognize that 
we saw those needs and that is why we put inside the amendment the 
three-fifths requirement that would be necessary to deficit spend.''
  Some have said that recessions are often regional, that there are 
economic areas within our country that fail to respond to recovery, and 
that economics shifts occur unevenly. They say, without the Durbin 
amendment, it would be hard to provide relief in those cases. If that 
is the case, why has there not been why has there not been a long list 
of regional recession relief bills that have been defeated? Or that 
have passed only narrowly? No, the Congress has responded in time of 
need and that is why all of these bills have gotten the three-fifths 
vote that we thought was a necessary safeguard for this amendment.
  The Durbin amendment is based on a fundamental mistake. Let me repeat 
that. The Durbin amendment is based on what I believe to be a 
fundamental mistake. Regularly balanced budgets do not harm the 
economy, but saying they do is the mistake he makes. He assumes, as 
does the Secretary of the Treasury, that somehow balanced budgets are 
dangerous for the economy, or could create or worsen a downturn. And 
yet economists, liberal and conservative, argue a that balanced budgets 
will lead to a sustained 2- to 2.5-percent drop in the overall interest 
rates. They would create jobs and a higher standard of living.
  I see that as an economic stimulus. The balanced budget amendment 
would create economic stimulus. Regularly balanced budgets would help 
the economy. And yet we still recognized the need for putting into the 
amendment some flexibility in the case of a recession and Congress 
needing to respond to it.
  The Durbin amendment simply guts the balanced budget amendment. It 
would let a majority waive the requirement for a balanced budget on a 
whim. It does not require that there be a real recession, merely that 
Congress declare one. It would not just allow the amount of deficit 
spending supposedly necessary or unavoidable because of an economic 
emergency--it would allow unlimited deficit spending.
  If you go back and look at history, you find that economic growth was 
greater, and average unemployment was lower, during those periods in 
which budgets were regularly balanced.
  In fact, if Congress had passed the balanced budget amendment the 
first time I voted for it in 1982, the typical family's income would be 
$15,500 higher today. That is not my number, but was estimated by the 
Concord Coalition. According to the General Accounting Office, if we 
balance the budget and keep it balanced, after 20 years, our children's 
standard of living will be between 7 and 36 percent higher.
  Deficits are the problem. The debt is the threat to the economic 
security of our children, our seniors, and those who are vulnerable to 
changes in the economy. Former Senator Paul Simon brought in liberal 
economists who told us that the debt and deficit are so big, deficit 
spending is now useless as an economic stimulus.
  The evidence does not show that balancing the budget makes recessions 
more severe. Investors Business Daily pointed last week to a 1986 study 
the National Bureau of Economic Research that said, when you adjust for 
the different way data were collected before World War II, prewar and 
postwar recessions did not really differ significantly in length and 
severity.
  While the balanced budget amendment already, with its three-fifths 
vote requirement, anticipates the need to respond to a serious, long-
term economic problem, the Durbin amendment seems concerned with a 
rapid response to short-term swings. But Congress has a notoriously bad 
track record when it comes to short-term responses to the economy.
  Every economic stimulus or anti-recession bill since 1949 was passed 
by Congress after the recession was over. But the Durbin amendment 
still requires Congress to vote to waive the balanced budget 
amendment--meaning it does not allow a prompt response, just an easy 
evasion.
  The Durbin amendment has nothing to do with so-called automatic 
stabilizers. The balanced budget amendment already allows for automatic 
stabilizers. Section 6 of the balanced budget amendment allows for the 
honest, good-faith use of estimates in legislation that implements a 
balanced budget. Read the committee report: If Congress makes good-
faith, reasonable estimates of receipts and outlays, and then mid-year 
changes in the economy cause a temporary deficit, that would not 
trigger a three to five vote. Unemployment benefit checks, for example, 
would still go out.
  The problem is that we now have permanent deficits, in good times as 
well as bad.


                               Conclusion

  We do not need a loophole in the balanced budget amendment--like the 
Durbin amendment. We need to change the bleak status quo. Our $5 
trillion debt--growing by more than $8,000 a second--proves that we 
have a long-term problem. This stack on the Senate floor of the last 28 
unbalanced budgets--14 of which promised balance but did not deliver--
demonstrates that this problem requires a permanent solution. If we 
pass the balanced budget amendment, we will create an economic bill of 
rights for the 21st century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 1 minute.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me draw to a conclusion my debate on 
this amendment, because I hope that we can table this amendment. I see 
no reason to write that kind of language into the Constitution. We have 
given clearly the kind of flexibility that the Congress has needed in 
the past to respond.
  It isn't by accident that we picked three-fifths. When you go back 
and analyze past actions of Congress and economic stimulus packages 
that meet the definition of an emergency or what's needed for 
recessionary recovery, that is exactly what this amendment is designed 
to respond to. I believe it does, and I hope that our colleagues will 
join with us in tabling this effort.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 4 minutes remaining; 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I will use this to conclude my 
remarks.
  I want to first thank my colleague, the Senator from Utah, for this 
debate, for his fairness throughout this debate and the prior debate, 
though we clearly disagree on a very important issue. I thank him for 
the fairness with which he has handled this debate and allowed me the 
opportunity to express my point of view.

[[Page S1181]]

  I said at the beginning of this debate I don't think there is a more 
serious vote that a Member of the House or Senate could make, absent a 
vote on whether the United States goes to war, than a vote on whether 
we amend this Constitution. When you think that on only 17 occasions in 
the 205 years, since 1791 have we actually amended this great document, 
each of us should pause and reflect and make certain that what we bring 
to the legislatures of this Nation for consideration is the very, very 
best.
  What we are talking about today, I think, is a critically important 
part of this debate. It is important because, as the Senator from 
Vermont, who was kind enough to join me in this debate, said, we are 
talking about the ability of the American people through their 
Government to respond to an economic emergency.
  There are those who would argue we need a supermajority, and history 
tells us in the last 2 years, the requirement of a majority vote 
resulted in gridlock and Government shutdown and national 
embarrassment. I worry that at some future date in the midst of an 
economic downturn, after this budget has been pared back dramatically 
to reach balance, when there are people and groups in this town, like 
hungry dogs on one bone, trying their very best to preserve something, 
requiring a supermajority vote to step up and help working families get 
back on their feet could be an invitation to gridlock at a time when 
those families need us the most.
  Mr. President, I close by making a final request to the fairminded, 
to the judicious chairman of this committee in asking him for one last 
consideration, and that is that we have the yeas and nays on the merits 
of this amendment. I think I know the outcome, but let us preserve in 
this debate an up-or-down vote on this question. Let us give, in the 
course of this debate, to the American people our best judgment on the 
merits.
  Let us not have this question, I think critical question, masked by 
some procedural vote that will suggest that this amendment on its face 
does not merit a yea-and-nay vote in the Senate. I think it does, and I 
would gladly give that right to any Senator in their effort to improve 
on a modification of a document which we all value and revere, the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will only take a few minutes. I want to 
thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for the kind way he has 
conducted himself on this amendment. He has a wonderful personality. He 
did a very good job in our committee, and I think he has done a very 
good job here on the floor.
  In all honesty, his amendment would drive huge loopholes into the 
balanced budget amendment and make it, basically useless, because 
almost anybody could claim almost any type of event as an economic 
emergency. That would trigger his amendment and do away with the 
balanced budget amendment.

  There is one thing I would like to clarify. My good friend from 
Vermont talked about Fred Bergsten. Fred Bergsten suggested we shoot 
for a small annual surplus to be used during the course of each fiscal 
year. Mr. Bergsten is a Keynesian who believes fiscal policy will work 
better if the cycles are above the zero balance line rather than below. 
The fact the past surpluses accumulated in past years cannot be used 
without a three-fifths vote puts a lock on our savings, so such savings 
will not be used willy-nilly. But the best use of surpluses will be to 
pay down our debt. If Congress decides to use accumulated surpluses, it 
will be easier to get a three-fifths vote to use savings than to 
borrow, and that is the point I am making.
  Let me just conclude with the thought that the Durbin amendment is an 
unnecessary loophole that would, basically, make the balanced budget 
amendment, once a part of the Constitution, very ineffective. Congress 
can respond appropriately to real needs, but we need the increased 
protections of Senate Joint Resolution 1 to protect future generations.
  I worry about our children and our grandchildren and their children. 
I worry about whether people are going to have good jobs in the future. 
I worry about whether it is going to take a bushel barrel of dollars to 
buy a loaf of bread. I worry about whether we are going to monetize 
this debt, as the distinguished liberal Democrat Senator from Illinois, 
Senator Durbin's predecessor, Paul Simon, has always said will happen. 
If we monetize this debt, this country, as we know it, will be gone, 
because people will no longer believe in the credit of the United 
States. If we inflate our economy to pay off our huge national deficits 
and debt, we are ultimately going to wind up where we will have 
inflation that would eat every working person's lunch every day.
  If you really love the poor, if you really love senior citizens, if 
you really love our children and grandchildren, if you really love the 
future of this country, then we can't have loopholes like this blown 
into the balanced budget. We have to stand up and vote for a strong 
balanced budget amendment. It is difficult, I have to admit. It makes 
life a little more difficult for us as Members of Congress, but don't 
you think it is time to end these unbalanced budgets? Here are 28 of 
them, the last 28 years, and without this amendment, it will go on 
forever and our children's future will be gone.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Santorum] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith, Bob
     Smith, Gordon H.
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Santorum
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 2) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


              Unanimous Consent Agreement--Amendment No. 3

  Mr. LOTT. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 on

[[Page S1182]]

Tuesday, February 11, there be 60 minutes of debate, equally divided, 
in the usual form prior to a vote on or in relation to the Wellstone 
amendment No. 3, and following the expiration or yielding back of the 
time, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Wellstone 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there 
will be no further votes this evening. It is my understanding that 
Senator Boxer intends to make a statement relative to the 
constitutional amendment. Also, the President of the United States will 
be visiting with congressional leaders tomorrow on the Senate side of 
the Capitol--in fact, in the President's Room just off the floor of the 
Senate Chamber. Therefore, it is my hope that when the Senate convenes 
following the weekly policy party luncheons, there will be a short time 
agreement for debate prior to a vote on or in relation to the Wellstone 
amendment regarding underprivileged youth. Members should expect a vote 
relative to the Wellstone amendment in the 3 o'clock timeframe 
tomorrow. Also, the Senate could be asked to confirm the nomination of 
Congressman Richardson to be Ambassador to the United Nations. 
Therefore, a rollcall vote is expected with respect to that nomination.
  I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Before he leaves the 
floor, I would like to personally thank the newly elected Senator from 
Illinois, Senator Durbin, for his leadership on this extremely 
important amendment that he offered the Senate, which would have made 
this balanced budget amendment a much more attractive amendment to the 
people of Illinois, to the people of California, to the people of all 
of our States--to the Nation.
  A very interesting poll just came out in the February 9 edition of 
The Los Angeles Times, some people, when asked in the abstract, said 
they would support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, 
under any circumstances. However, about 39 percent of the people polled 
said they would not support the balanced budget amendment if it could 
mean cuts in areas that they overwhelmingly approve of, such as 
Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
  I learned at a very early age from my parents what it was like to 
live through a depression. There was no safety net then in the 1930's, 
and people were literally committing suicide because there was no 
safety net. They didn't know what they were going to do for their 
families, and they were absolutely filled with despair.
  We have learned a lot since then, and Senator Sarbanes, with his 
charts, has shown us that we learned a lot since the Great Depression, 
and that we have the ability to soften those recessionary periods. Yet, 
in this inflexible amendment that is before us, it would take a 
supermajority, Mr. President, to act on behalf of the American people. 
Now, I did not come here to this great Senate to have my hands tied in 
the case of a recession, a depression, or a natural disaster.
  I want to thank my friend from Illinois for raising that issue as 
well. He has gone through the Midwest floods, as I have gone through 
the California floods, earthquakes, and fires, and there but for the 
grace of God goes every single one of us in this Chamber. And if we 
cannot act as a majority, without the requirement of a supermajority, 
to meet the needs of the people, then what are we doing here?

  By rejecting this amendment of the Senator from Illinois, which he 
was so eloquent in explaining, I truly believe that this amendment, as 
it stands, is dangerous. It is dangerous for our people.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am delighted to yield to my friend.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Senator made reference to this earlier, and I think 
the very able Senator from California is on to an extremely important 
point here. I want to illustrate it with this chart.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators in the rear of the Chamber will cease 
conversations. Take the conversations outside the Chamber.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what we are talking about here, because we 
have voted down this extremely important amendment, is, how are we 
going to act in this U.S. Senate to ease the pain of people during 
recessions or other economic emergencies. People who are jobless, who 
have no health insurance or who can't afford to pay their rent?
  I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. SARBANES. Well, as the Senator has noted, as economists across 
the country have commented, and as the chart beside me shows, since 
World War II we have been able to ease the business cycle because we 
experience automatic stabilizers during an economic downturn. We start 
running deficits because we are not collecting taxes and we are paying 
out unemployment. If you try to balance the budget, or if you are 
required to do so by constitutional amendment during an economic 
downturn, you are going to return our economy to these boom-and-bust 
cycles that we experienced throughout the first part of this century 
and we are going to lose the ability to have this kind of movement in 
the business cycle, which is much better for our people.
  The Senator is absolutely correct. With this amendment, we are going 
to be dooming ourselves to going back and turning economic downturns 
into recessions and recessions into depressions, as the Senator has 
pointed out.
  Mrs. BOXER. Exactly. I would say to my friend that you have to learn 
from history. If we can't learn from history, we are doomed to fail the 
people. Some of us have heard about these depressions from our parents. 
Look at the Senator's chart. We can clearly see what has happened since 
World War II. We have spared our people from the deepest, darkest days 
of recession and depression.
  By rejecting the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois, 
which would have given this U.S. Senate and the House the ability to 
act without requiring a supermajority in times of recession, this 
becomes a very radical amendment to the Constitution.
  Does my friend not agree?
  Mr. SARBANES. I agree absolutely with that. We at the moment have the 
best unemployment situation in 20 years; the best performance on 
inflation in 30 years. We have now brought the deficit down as a 
percent of the gross national product to the best ratio in 25 years. We 
are making progress on all of these fronts. We have the strongest 
economy in the world.
  People come in with this radical notion of amending the Constitution 
of the United States. All we need to do is continue to make the hard 
decisions that are made with respect to the budget. It is one thing to 
balance the budget. Those are the tough decisions. Those are the ones 
we ought to make and not put an amendment into the Constitution of the 
United States which is going to deny us the ability to deal with 
economic downturns and recessions when they occur. The amendment they 
are talking about putting into the Constitution of the United States 
does not abolish the business cycle. It does not eliminate economic ups 
and downs. Yet with this amendment, we run the risk of going back to 
economic cycles with very deep downturns when our people are really 
suffering through depression. We have not had that since World War II. 
And I for one don't want to go back to it.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to thank the senior Senator from Maryland for his 
leadership on this. I have the honor and privilege of serving with him 
on the Banking Committee, where he is the ranking member, and on the 
Budget Committee, where we serve together. So we have a chance to 
debate and discuss these issues. A great privilege it is always to have 
the participation of my friend from Maryland because he brings such 
insight.
  I say to my colleague that he and I have voted for balanced budgets 
in the past. That is why this amendment debate is really a figleaf. As 
my friend pointed out, it does not do one thing to balance the budget.
  I am going to show some most extraordinary newspaper articles which

[[Page S1183]]

have appeared as editorials or as op-eds. The writers of those articles 
call this balanced budget amendment what it is--a technique for people 
to say, ``Oh, I voted to balance the budget,'' even though in many 
cases these colleagues didn't vote for the one budget in 1993 that my 
friend from Maryland and I voted for along with a bare majority of the 
Senate which has set this country on a course of 4 years of declining 
deficits and has set this country on a course of economic prosperity. 
We have far to go, but we are moving in the right direction. The vote 
that mattered, I say to my friend, was the vote that we cast, the tough 
vote--and some people lost their seats because of it--that made the 
actual changes in budgetary policy which has cut this deficit from $290 
billion when George Bush left office to where it is today at about $107 
billion. That was the tough vote.
  This vote is an easy vote. We are just setting the stage for the 
States to call conventions in order to ratify the amendment. And even 
if it is approved by the States, in the end, there is a real 
possibility that there will be a disagreement and the courts will be 
called upon to try to resolve the situation.

  So it makes no sense. That is why 1,100 economists condemn the 
balanced budget amendment as unsound and unnecessary. I know that this 
statement has been quoted time and time again.
  I see that my friend is on the floor now with some very important 
numbers. I am happy to yield to him.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to support the very perceptive statement of the 
distinguished Senator from California about the reduction in the 
deficit subsequent to the enactment of the 1993 budget, which, as the 
Senator pointed out, was passed on the tie-breaking vote of the Vice 
President.
  In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion. We have brought it down 4 
years in a row. It is now at $107 billion. Four years in a row we have 
had a steady decline in the deficit. We brought it down from $290 
billion to $107 billion, and, as a percent of our gross product, the 
deficit has dropped from 4.9 percent in 1992 to 1.4 percent in 1996. 
The last time the deficit was this low as a percent of our gross 
domestic product was in 1973. This is the best performance in 23 years 
in reducing the deficit as a percent of our gross domestic product. 
This is a very good record. We are going to continue the progress. We 
are going to continue to bring the deficit down, both in absolute terms 
and as a percentage of our GDP.
  Let me show you a chart which compares what we have succeeded in 
doing in this country and what is happening in the other major 
industrial countries.
  This chart compares various nations' deficit as a share of GDP. The 
United States is now at 1.4 percent. Here is Japan, 3.1; Germany 3.35; 
Canada 4.2; France 5; the United Kingdom 5.1; Italy 7.2. We have the 
best performance of any of the major industrial countries.
  We have an economy now with 5.4 percent unemployment, the best 
unemployment in 20 years. We are at less than 3 percent inflation, the 
best inflation performance in 30 years. The deficit of 1.4 percent of 
GDP, the best since 1973. That is a vertical comparison with our past 
performance in this country.
  Then we look to see how we are competing with other countries. This 
chart shows we have the best performance of any of the G-7 countries. 
This economy is working. We ought not now to take this, as the Senator 
has described it, radical step of trying to amend the Constitution of 
the United States and perhaps dooming ourselves in some future crisis 
to be unable to confront the economic circumstances of the time. As the 
Senator has pointed out, that is what these over 1,100 economists 
across the country are saying.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend and colleague.
  I think the record is clear. We are making progress, and what we 
ought to be doing now is debating how we make further progress. Instead 
we are spending many, many hours discussing an amendment to the 
Constitution which does not one thing to continue this progress.
  These economists, including 11 Nobel laureates in economics from 
Stanford University, the University of California at Berkeley, New York 
University, Carnegie-Mellon, Yale, and MIT--you can't have a better 
group of people who know what they are talking about. Some of what they 
say is, ``We condemn the proposed balanced budget amendment to the 
Federal Constitution. It is unsound and unnecessary.''
  I received a degree in economics many years ago, and I know that 
economists choose their words carefully because economics is not an 
exact science. As a result, economists try very carefully to measure 
their tone and measure their words. So when you have 1,100 economists 
signing on to this, and using the word condemn, this is serious 
business. Now, maybe there are colleagues in the Senate who could stand 
up to some of these people and tell them they are incorrect, but I have 
a hard time believing that.
  Let me sum up what they said. And it just parallels what the Senator 
from Maryland has shared with us.

       The amendment is not needed to balance the budget. The 
     measured deficit has fallen dramatically in recent years from 
     $290 billion in '92 to $107 billion--

  They say:

       The deficit is 1.3 percent of gross domestic product, a 
     smaller proportion than that of any other major nation.

  The Senator from Maryland has said this very same thing. They go on 
to say:

       Congress and the President can reduce the deficit to zero, 
     balance the budget or even create budget surpluses without a 
     constitutional amendment.

  These 1,100 economists close by saying:

       There is no need to put the Nation in an economic 
     straitjacket. Let the President and Congress make fiscal 
     policy in response to national needs and priorities as the 
     authors of our Constitution wisely provided.

  Now, Mr. President, I am so honored to be in this Senate representing 
the largest State in the Union. It truly is an honor. I am humbled by 
it. I am humbled by our Constitution. And so I think we need to be 
pretty humble when we think of how we are going to vote on this. I 
think we have to be humble. I think we have to look at what the experts 
tell us. I think we have to look at the facts as they have been laid 
before us by my friend from Maryland. Our economy is moving in the 
right direction.
  Having a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would in fact 
put us in a straitjacket, would in fact tie our hands, would in fact 
make it very difficult for us to get out of an economic crisis when we 
may have to temporarily go out of balance while we take care of it.
  Let me ask a question of my friend from Maryland, who is still in the 
Chamber.
  In his State he has been fortunate not to have had the number of 
natural disasters that I and the people of my State have had to face. 
He knows this place, however, because he has been here a long time, and 
the people of Maryland keep sending him back for a reason--because he 
is wise. So I ask my friend, under this amendment as it is proposed--
and particularly since this Senator Durbin's recession amendment was 
defeated--California was in a horrible recession, the worst in the 
country. We moved from an economy that was heavily supported by jobs in 
the defense sector, to an economy without the great dependence it once 
had on defense sector jobs, and we had a very hard time. We made 
investments that softened the blow but still it was tough. Then we got 
hit with an unbelievable earthquake called the Northridge earthquake. 
Because the Federal Government acted swiftly, because we could act 
without having to have a supermajority, we were able to pump $11 
billion into the California economy to rebuild the infrastructure. We 
are rebuilding the universities. We are rebuilding hospitals. We are 
rebuilding people's lives.
  I say to my friend, I will offer an amendment to waive the 
requirements of a supermajority in case of natural disasters such as 
earthquakes, fires, floods--where people are homeless and in trouble.
  Under the amendment as it stands now, however, if any State had a 
disaster like that which occurred in California, with $11 billion of 
damage and people hurt and suffering, does my friend believe we could 
get the required supermajority to act swiftly?
  I have very grave doubts about it, because I have seen us have a hard 
time even getting 51 votes. I ask my friend,

[[Page S1184]]

would he want to be here representing a State that had a disastrous 
flood or earthquake or any other natural disaster and have this 
amendment in place which requires a supermajority?
  Mr. SARBANES. The Senator from California asks a very appropriate 
question. In a sense, she answered it right at the end with the 
observation that she herself has, as I have, seen instances in this 
Chamber when we were scrambling to get a simple majority in order to 
provide disaster relief to one or another State in the country that had 
been devastated by a natural disaster. And many Members said, ``Well, 
we don't really want to do that. Yes, it's a difficult situation, but 
we don't want to make this response.''
  I have seen the very able Senator from California personally work the 
floor of the Senate in order to try to get a majority vote in order to 
respond to what her State had been stricken with, and she was 
successful, I must say. But suppose you had to get a supermajority in 
order to do it. Past experience does not bear out the assumption that 
you can just get a supermajority willy-nilly. In the past, we have had 
to scramble simply to get a majority.
  The amendment contains a provision that states that you cannot raise 
the debt limit unless you have a supermajority, and obviously unless 
you can raise the debt limit and borrow additional funds, you are not 
going to be able to respond to the disaster, and particularly not 
respond to it immediately, which is often what is required. But time 
and time again in this Chamber I have seen the leadership sweating 
bullets in order to get a simple majority in order to deal with a debt 
limit issue. So it just defies past experience for Members to stand 
here and say, ``Oh, we will get the supermajority.'' As the Senator 
from California has pointed out, it is tough enough to get the 
majority, the simple majority.
  Mrs. BOXER. I give my friend an example. The San Francisco 
earthquake, Loma Prieta, which was way back, we are still rebuilding 
from, I say to my friend. And we had a freeway go down, just a 
disaster, and we got the funds to rebuild the freeway. About 2 years 
ago on the floor of this Senate a Senator said we have to back off this 
because we are building it in a different fashion and it is costing too 
much money.
  I stood up as one of the two Senators from California and explained 
that if we rebuilt it the same way it was prior to the earthquake, it 
would fall down again. We had to put a little more into it to make sure 
that the structure was as safe as possible--to ensure that the 
residents traveling on the freeway would be safe.
  Well, I won that vote, but I have to tell you it was close, I say to 
my friend.
  Under this constitutional amendment, there is no way I could have 
done that because it would have required a supermajority--we would have 
needed to be out of balance for a short period of time because of the 
unanticipated funds required to respond to the disaster. And I say to 
my friend that, if any State experiences a multibillion dollar 
disaster, unless you can come on the floor and convince colleagues to 
cut other programs, you are going to be in deep trouble. That is the 
other reason why this is a very, very radical amendment.

  I want to say to my friend, I so appreciate his participating in this 
discussion. It means a lot to me that he is here. As a matter of fact, 
it reminds me of one time out in California when he was at a forum with 
me, when most people had gone home. It was a situation very similar to 
tonight.
  But I want to say to my friend, as we sit on the Budget Committee 
together, there is one figure who comes before the Budget Committee 
that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just think is the 
best. They credit this person with everything good about the economy, 
and his name is Alan Greenspan. I think Alan Greenspan is doing a good 
job. I sometimes disagree with him, but overall I think he has done a 
good job. Where is Alan Greenspan on this constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget? Let me say--I am not going to read his whole 
statement, but I think this sums it up:

       As a consequence, what I am concerned about is that it is 
     very difficult to implement technical economic policy through 
     the Constitution. I don't like the idea of embodying concrete 
     economic issues in the Constitution, which is going to have 
     to stay in the Constitution for 50 or 100 years or more.

  So I find it really interesting that on every single economic issue, 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--who all support this 
amendment; I do not think there is one of my colleagues on the other 
side who is going to vote the other way--have abandoned Alan 
Greenspan's leadership, where they have followed him down every other 
economic road. Again, I ask my colleagues to be a little humble on 
this. We do not have all the answers. None of us has all the answers. 
But, certainly, if you are going to walk away from someone who you 
think has been right on target, keeping inflation under control, 
keeping the economic recovery going, and he is telling us not to do 
this, it seems to me fairly arrogant to disregard it.
  I would like to share with my colleagues what I think is a terrific 
editorial that appeared in the Los Angeles Times. As a matter of fact, 
it is so good I am going to read you most of it. I honestly think this 
says it the way it is. It speaks for me.

       Balanced Budget Plan: Looks, 10; workability, zero.
       This seductive idea won't stand up under close inspection.

  Here is what it says:

       No. 1 on the legislative menu of the new 105th Congress is 
     a Republican-backed constitutional amendment to require a 
     balanced budget by the year 2002 and every year thereafter. 
     What could have more first-glance appeal? But amending the 
     Constitution, despite the political symbolism, is not the way 
     to go about controlling government spending.
       On Tuesday, President Clinton voiced his strongest 
     opposition yet, appropriately characterizing the proposed 
     amendment as a ``straitjacket'' that pays little regard to 
     the vagaries of the economy. For instance, it would not 
     provide the flexibility needed to deal with recessions . . .

  My friend and I from Maryland, we have gone through this, I think, in 
a detailed way. It says:

       . . . it would not provide the flexibility needed to deal 
     with recessions, when Federal funding might have to rise as 
     revenues drop. The proposal would allow suspension of the 
     balanced budget requirement only if three-fifths of each 
     House approved. That's not much of an escape valve, 
     considering how long it takes Congress to act on most 
     problems . . .

  We know that. It takes us time to gear up around here, as the 
President is going to learn as he enjoys his stay in the Senate. So, in 
time of recession, we are often behind the curve as it is. We come in 
the second quarter, after the recession.

       The amendment, pushed through the Senate Judiciary 
     Committee on Thursday, generally fails to spell out how a 
     balanced budget would be achieved. The difficult decisions on 
     what spending to cut or how to raise revenues are not 
     addressed but simply are left to future Congresses--and 
     everyone knows how difficult and seemingly endless budget 
     negotiations can be in the Capitol . . .

  The article closes by saying:

       The amendment--which will be put before the States' 
     legislatures if it wins approval in the House and Senate--has 
     drawn opposition from a broad spectrum of economists and 
     fiscal experts. It should. The amendment is irresponsible 
     governance, fiscally reckless and a false political star.

  The Los Angeles Times is not known for such strong language. It is 
very measured. The editorials are very measured. So let me repeat that:

       The amendment is irresponsible governance, fiscally 
     reckless, and a false political star.

  The last article which I want to mention comes from the USA Today, on 
Monday, February 3, 1997. The headline reads:

       This is cheap political grandstanding. There is an easier 
     way to balance the budget: Just do it.

  ``Just do it.'' It says, ``Balance The Budget? Yes. But An Amendment? 
No.''
  So, whether it is our worry about being in a straitjacket when there 
is a recession or a natural disaster, or whether it is our worry about 
the Social Security trust fund--which absolutely will be hit if an 
amendment does not carry the day to exempt it--or whether it is our 
worry about Medicare--all of these areas are at great risk if we 
continue with this proposal, which has been condemned by 1,100 
economists. Editorials all over the country have pointed out that 
passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is just not a 
wise thing to do.

[[Page S1185]]

  We can and must balance the budget. I voted for six balanced budgets. 
I am very proud of that. I am proud to see the deficit coming down. It 
is a serious matter. I hope, however, my colleagues will have the 
courage to walk away from an idea that seems wonderful on its face, but 
if you look behind the door, you will see the pitfalls there.
  I thank you, Mr. President, for your kind courtesies. I thank my 
colleague from Maryland for participating in this discussion with me. I 
hope, as we go down the road on this debate, we will have some more 
colleagues step away from this at-first-glance politically popular idea 
and realize that it will put us in an economic straitjacket with no way 
to respond to recessions or other economic emergencies or crises. So it 
is putting us into a straitjacket which can only harm the people.
  To close: ``Balance The Budget? Yes. But An Amendment? No.''
  There is an easier way to balance the budget: Just do it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the Wellstone amendment, No. 3.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I commend the very 
able Senator from California for her very fine statement. She clearly 
understands the pitfalls that are involved in a balanced budget 
amendment and, I think, has spoken eloquently to the issue. She has 
also spoken with a very deep personal knowledge of the situation 
confronting her and her State when she has had to deal with these 
natural disasters. I simply want to underscore, again, for those who 
say, ``well, we will easily get a supermajority in order to waive the 
provisions of this amendment in an emergency situation,'' that I saw 
the Senator working literally day and night just to get a majority in 
order to deal with a natural disaster and, as she pointed out, coming 
up with close votes in order to do it.
  She succeeded, which is very much to her credit and reflected her 
very effective advocacy. But had a supermajority been required, she 
would have fallen short. So I want to thank her for her very strong 
statement.
  Mr. President, I know it is late into the evening, and I am not going 
to take long, but I want to take just a few minutes to speak to the 
issue before us, and I hope at a later point to make a longer 
statement.
  First of all, I want to point out, as we deal with this amendment to 
amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, it is very 
important to understand that the budget we are talking about balancing, 
the U.S. budget, does not have a capital budget to it. Everyone gets up 
and says, ``well, the State governments do it, the local governments do 
it, private individuals do it, corporations do it, why shouldn't the 
Federal Government do it?''
  None of those other entities balance a capital budget as well. They 
all provide for capital budgets that are financed by borrowing. That is 
what State governments do. They have a requirement to balance the 
operating budget, but they then sell bonds. Why do States and 
municipalities issue bonds? Why is there a municipal bond market? 
Because they borrow in order to fund the capital budget.
  We don't have a capital budget at the Federal level, and anyone who 
is really serious about trying to write requirements into the 
Constitution, which, by the way, I think are extremely difficult to do 
because you can't provide for every contingency, but if you had any 
degree of seriousness, would first provide for a capital budget. You 
would set capital investments apart and say, ``all right, we recognize 
we make investments in the future and we capitalize them, and we borrow 
to fund the capitalization.''
  That is what people do when they buy a home. Although it is said that 
everybody has to balance their budget, people don't balance their 
budget every year. It is wise and prudent financial policy, if your 
income is adequate to the task, to borrow in order to buy a home, to 
borrow in order to buy a car.
  If individuals had to operate under this amendment's balanced budget 
requirement, the vast majority of people in this country would not be 
able to buy an automobile and they would not be able to buy a home, 
because they couldn't produce the cash with which to make the full 
payment in the year they incur the obligation, which is what this 
amendment is requiring of the Federal Government.
  So that is the first point to make. You are talking about trying to 
balance a budget that includes within it your capital expenditures, 
instead of setting them aside and funding the capital expenditures 
through a capital budget, which is financed by borrowing and which 
makes prudent economic sense. After all, the highway or the building is 
going to last you for 20, 30, 40 years, and it makes sense to borrow, 
to amortize it over that period of time and have the use of it right 
from today out into the future.
  The second point I want to make about the balanced budget amendment 
is in the post-World War II period, we have used what are known as 
automatic fiscal stabilizers in order to ameliorate economic downturns. 
When the economy begins to go soft, the Federal budget automatically 
shifts toward deficit, for two reasons: First, people are losing jobs, 
and because they are no longer working, they are not paying taxes into 
the Treasury; therefore, the revenues into the Government decrease. 
This happens automatically. We don't take any action around here for 
that to happen. It just occurs. Because people are no longer working, 
they are no longer earning, and those people, at least, are not paying 
taxes into the Treasury.
  Second, at the same time, automatically expenditures increase, 
because we pay out unemployment insurance. If you have been working, 
you become unemployed, you are entitled to draw unemployment insurance. 
So those payments go up.
  The consequence of those two things happening--and there are other 
transfer payments also that go up in the course of an economic downturn 
or a recession--the deficit widens. But that deficit serves to cushion 
the economic downturn, because it helps to sustain purchasing power in 
the economy that would otherwise go into decline. Cushioning occurs 
because by providing unemployment insurance, you help to hold the 
economy up and to check the downturn.

  Now, that happens automatically. It doesn't require a conscious 
decision. If the recession is bad, we often then go on to make 
conscious decisions here about ways to try to bring the economy back. 
But under normal circumstances, this cushioning is sufficient to 
moderate the economic downturn.
  Because we have followed this policy essentially since the end of 
World War II, we have been able to check the boom-and-bust cycle of our 
economy, which we had previously been experiencing. Of course, that is 
a very good thing, because you don't put your economy and your people 
through the absolute wringer of a major economic downturn.
  The fact of the matter is, as the economy goes soft, you begin to run 
these deficits. If you try to offset the deficit, either by cutting 
spending or raising taxes or a combination of the two, in an economic 
downturn, you would only drive the economy further down. The economy, 
the business cycle is swinging downwards, and if you compound that 
swing by a policy of trying to eliminate the deficits which arise from 
that downturn, you only make the downturn worse, and we have 
experienced that in our history, during the Great Depression.
  This is why these automatic stabilizers are so important, and this is 
why, in many respects, this amendment is so dangerous.
  This chart beside me measures real economic growth from 1870 to 1995, 
and it shows the ups and downs in economic growth in our economy, 
beginning in 1870 and running through until 1995. The essential thing 
the chart shows is that since World War II, we have essentially been 
able to avoid deep economic recessions or, indeed, depressions.
  One of the reasons--not the only reason, but one of the reasons--we 
have been able to do that is because we have had these automatic 
economic stabilizers which have kept the economy from coming down into 
deep negative growth. Only a couple of times have we actually had a 
downturn that took us into negative growth. Most of the time we get 
movements, they remain in the

[[Page S1186]]

positive level, and, as you can see, we have not in recent history 
experienced the kinds of deep moves we experienced pre-World War II.
  That is why the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Rubin, in 
testimony before the Judiciary Committee about this amendment to the 
Constitution, said he was fearful that what it would do is turn an 
economic downturn into a recession and a recession into a depression.
  Amendment supporters say, ``Well, if that happens, we'll get a 
supermajority around here, we will waive the provisions of the 
Constitution, and we will take action.''
  There are a number of difficulties with that response. First of all, 
the automatic stabilizers work automatically. No one has to recognize 
there is an economic downturn. Often, we don't see an economic downturn 
is happening until much later, until it is well into its cycle.
  Only a few years ago, Alan Greenspan thought the economy was doing 
well and said so. Later, it turned out that at the moment he said that, 
the economy was already into a downturn, but it wasn't recognized, it 
wasn't seen. Later, when all the figures came in, we went back and saw 
that we had already gone into a downturn. This amendment is going to 
cost us these automatic fiscal stabilizers that operate without the 
need for congressional action, and that cushion a recession that we 
might not even know to exist.
  Second, we have a lot of arguments around here about whether we have 
a downturn, how serious a downturn is, how you have to respond to it.
  Franklin Raines, the Director of OMB pointed out the other day before 
the Budget Committee that a lot of our difficulties are regional 
depressions, not national depressions. Much of the country might be 
doing all right, but a region of the country may be in severe trouble 
and needs help in order to address the situation in which to find 
itself.
  Of course, then it is going to be extremely difficult to get a 
supermajority because most communities will not be experiencing a 
recession or downturn and their representatives will not want to waive 
this provision.
  I can remember during the administration of President Bush when we 
tried to act on extending the unemployment insurance. It took us 
months, months, months, and months before we were able to do it. And 
all the time the economic downturn was getting worse. As a consequence, 
all the time we were falling further and further behind the curve.
  The fact of the matter is, is that the earlier you can act, and 
particularly if you can act automatically, through stabilizers, the 
quicker you can check the downturn. If the downturn gains momentum, 
begins to build up steam in that direction, the amount of corrective 
action that has to be taken in order to turn it around is much greater. 
The prudent thing is to act early on, because then you do not suffer as 
much damage because you do not go as deep into the decline.
  But this balanced budget amendment is a virtual guarantee that that 
kind of early action will not be taken and that we will always be 
playing catch up with the economic cycle.
  The many distinguished economists who have spoken out, and to whom my 
very able colleague from California has made reference, have focused, 
amongst other things, on this aspect of the situation. We ought not to 
give away lightly the benefits that have come to us by developing 
effective fiscal policy to help restrain the movements of the business 
cycle. We have not eliminated it. I assume my colleagues who are 
pushing this amendment do not for a moment suggest they somehow have 
figured out a magical way to eliminate the business cycle. But we have 
developed policies that have ameliorated the business cycle.
  I do not want to go back to these deep declines in the economy. We 
ought not to be in the situation where, as in the 1930's, we would rue 
the day that we denied ourselves the capacity to respond to that kind 
of an emergency so that we actually had to experience something 
approximating economic devastation before we were prepared to take 
action.
  Why would you do that? Why would you want to do that? Is the economy 
not working well? Let us look at that issue for just a moment.
  The unemployment rate today is 5.4 percent. It has been down in the 
low range of 5 percent now for many months. It is a very good 
performance. The last time we had a performance anything like that over 
a sustained period of time was 20 years ago.
  What about the inflation rate? The inflation rate is under 3 percent. 
It has been there now for the last 4 or 5 years--about or under 3 
percent. The last time we had a performance on the inflation front that 
was that good was 30 years ago.
  So we are doing very well on unemployment and inflation.
  We have created 11.5 million jobs over the last 4 years. Other 
countries envy us in terms of what we are doing. But, amendment 
proponents say, we still have a problem with the deficit? What about 
the deficit? Let us take a look at the deficit.
  Are we making any progress on reducing the deficit? Can someone 
contend that we are not making any progress on the deficit-reduction 
front and, therefore, we need a constitutional amendment, as risky and 
as radical as it might be, in order somehow, some way to compel some 
kind of action? We should note, however, that the amendment does not 
curb the deficit at all? You are still going to have to make the budget 
decisions with respect to the budget--your spending and tax decisions 
with respect to the budget. Have we been doing that already?
  In 1992, the deficit, in current dollars, was $290 billion. Since 
then, we brought the deficit down in each of the succeeding 4 years. 
The deficit now is $107 billion. And the President has submitted a 
budget plan that will eliminate the deficit by the year 2002.
  Some have criticisms of that plan. Others praise it. I think it is a 
pretty good plan but it is not written in stone and it is up to the 
Congress to deal with it now in consultation with the administration. 
But in any event, there is a plan to bring it down and eliminate the 
deficit by the year 2002.
  I think the President has pretty good credibility in putting forward 
this plan on the basis of his record.
  We ran large deficits in the 1980's and into the early 1990's. It was 
not just the administration that did that, the Congress was complicit 
in it as well. After all, you do not get a budget unless we in Congress 
pass it. Although I do want to point out that through those 12 years, 
in all but 1 year the budget passed by the Congress had a lower deficit 
figure than the budgets submitted to the Congress by the 
administration.
  In other words, in every year but one the Congress was able to do a 
tighter budget than what the administration had submitted to the 
Congress. Had we passed the administration's submitted budgets, as 
proposed to us, the deficits would have been larger, not smaller. We 
did not increase the deficits. We in fact lowered the deficits.
  But now in the last 4 years we have made this very impressive 
progress and we are on the path to a balanced budget. The way you make 
this progress is you make decisions on the budget each year. None of 
this progress was made because there was an amendment in the 
Constitution. And if you put an amendment in the Constitution, the 
progress still will not be made.
  The progress can only be made when you vote the budgets, when you 
make the spending and the tax decisions that are contained within the 
budget, the consequences of which then give you your deficits or your 
balance. That is when you make the decisions. And we have been making 
hard decisions, particularly the 1993 economic plan, which passed this 
body on the tiebreaking vote of the Vice President.
  A lot of people criticized that plan. People said ``Oh, this is going 
to have devastating consequences on the economy.'' It was a combination 
of spending cuts and some tax changes. But what it produced was a 
reduced deficit and an economy that has worked exceedingly well over 
the last 4 years, an economy that other countries look at with a great 
deal of envy.
  These are the absolute figures on reducing the deficit. Let us look 
at the measure of the deficit as a percent of the gross national 
product, which is a very important measure. It enables us to compare 
with our own performance over time and with other countries. Because as 
you strengthen your economy, you can bring your deficit down and it

[[Page S1187]]

becomes a smaller percentage of the GDP and becomes easier to handle. 
It is like an individual's situation. If he has more income, he is 
better able to handle the deficit. If his economic strength grows more 
rapidly than the deficit he is trying to handle, then he gets stronger 
and more able to pay off the debt.
  Let us look at that. This is what has happened. In 1992, the deficit 
was 4.9 percent of GDP. That is not a good figure. I am prepared to 
state that right at the outset. The European Community now, which is 
trying to move toward monetary union, has established some benchmarks 
which it is pressing the 15 members of Europe to abide by in order to 
achieve the monetary union. And one of them is that deficit, as a 
percent of GDP, be under 3 percent--under 3 percent. That is the 
benchmark they have set out.
  In 1992 we were at 4.9 percent. As this chart beside me shows, we 
brought down our deficit as a percentage of GDP to 4.1 percent in 1993, 
3.1 percent in 1994, 2.3 percent in 1995, and 1.4 percent in 1996. That 
is the best performance since 1973, 23 years ago. It is a better 
performance than all but 3 of the 15 members of the European Union, 
three of the smaller countries--Luxembourg, Denmark, and Ireland. Our 
projections out into the future are very positive; according to these 
projections, we will do even better than 1.4 percent in the future.

  So we are making very significant progress toward a balanced budget. 
We really are on the right track. The real place we ought to be 
focusing on is on the budget process and the decisions that will be 
made with respect to spending programs, tax programs, tax subsidies, 
tax expenditure issues, and so forth.
  Further, our performance of 1.4 percent deficit as a percent of GDP 
is better than any of the G7 countries, the major industrial countries 
in the world.
  I was at a Joint Economic Committee hearing this afternoon where 
Chairman Stiglitz of the Council of Economic Advisers was presenting 
the economic report of the President. He talked about how nice it was 
now to go to international meetings with the performance of our economy 
and be able to hold out as an example to other countries what we are 
doing.
  Look at this chart beside, which compares the deficit as a share of 
GDP for each of the G7 nations. Here is the United States, down to 1.4 
percent. We have a game plan now, by the year 2002 to close that out 
completely. Now, I know we will have arguments here about the game 
plan, but I think it is credible. It could be changed, it could be 
different. I think it is credible. I think it represents a bona fide 
effort to close this out.
  Look at this comparison: Here is Japan with 3.1 percent deficit, 
Germany, 3.5 percent; Canada, 4.2 percent; France, 5.0 percent; the 
United Kingdom, 5.1 percent. Italy is 7.2 percent. If you make the 
comparisons, if you do a vertical comparison over our history, we have 
the best performance now, deficit as a share of GDP, since 1973. That 
is how we stack up in terms of our past record. If you do a horizontal 
comparison with other countries around the world, this is how we stack 
up. Any way you look at that, that is a pretty good performance.
  Now, let me finally address one other point about this amendment. I 
want to address this assumption here that you can simply get these 
supermajorities almost by the wave of the hand if you have any kind of 
serious problem confronting you. Now there are two kinds of 
supermajorities required in this proposed resolution, Senate Joint 
Resolution 1--either a majority of the total membership of the body or 
three-fifths of the total membership of the body, what they call the 
whole number of the House. Now, what the ``majority of the whole'' 
requirement means is in the Senate you would have to have 51 votes--
although there is some argument, legally, about the role of the Vice 
President's vote in this process, an interesting debate that shows you 
the complexity of this proposal and its potential for complications. 
That question has never been resolved. Then there is the three-fifths 
supermajority requirement, which of course in this body would be 60 
votes.
  I want to make historical reference to one critical vote in the 
House, which in a historical sense we can look at and say, ``Well, that 
was a critical vote in the history of this country. That was really a 
national crisis, and clearly Members should have recognized it and 
should have acted accordingly. That is the kind of situation which, if 
it arises again, we certainly would be able to get these 
supermajorities provided for in this Senate Joint Resolution 1.'' In 
1940 the U.S. Congress, on the urgings of President Roosevelt, provided 
for a draft for 1 year, because President Roosevelt saw the war clouds 
that were gathering in Europe and felt the United States needed to 
undertake preparation for what might be coming. A year later, of course 
the issue arose, since it was only for a year, about extending the 
draft. We are now talking about the fall of 1941, only shortly before 
Pearl Harbor. The President asked the Congress to extend the draft so 
that we could continue this program of military preparedness because 
the war clouds were even darker and more ominous.

  The issue was so close in the House of Representatives that Speaker 
Rayburn, exercising a very rare prerogative of the Speaker, took the 
floor of the House at the close of the debate to urge extension of the 
draft. The vote on that issue in the House was 203 to 202, so under the 
Constitution it carried. You had a quorum present, had a majority of 
those voting, carrying it 203 to 202. Mr. President, 203 is--and was 
not then--a majority of the whole number of the House of 
Representatives, which would be 218 today, and it is certainly not 
three-fifths of the whole number of the House. These are the two 
supermajorities required in this resolution.
  Now, there you were with a crisis situation which certainly, looking 
back at it historically, you would have said, ``Well, obviously, those 
Members of Congress will recognize what the country is confronting and 
vote to carry this forward.'' They barely did it. They cast a vote that 
would not have worked under the supermajority requirements contained in 
Senate Joint Resolution 1.
  I think those who say of course we will achieve supermajorities are 
being much too sanguine. The amendment says that the debt limit shall 
not be increased without three-fifths of the whole number. We can 
hardly put together simple majorities in Democratic or Republican 
administrations to achieve this goal. I have voted in this body to lift 
the debt ceiling in Republican administrations at the request of 
Republican Presidents and Republican Secretaries of the Treasury 
because I felt obviously we had to do that. We could not put the credit 
of the United States at risk. But those votes have been exceedingly 
close and they have not come anywhere near meeting the supermajority 
requirements contained in this Senate Joint Resolution 1. No wonder the 
Secretary of the Treasury has voiced his apprehension that we might 
risk a default on the debt and hurt the creditworthiness of the United 
States through the passage of this amendment to the Constitution.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about this 
amendment. It is a very radical proposal. It has a lot of surface 
appeal, as my colleague from California pointed out when she quoted the 
editorial in the Los Angeles Times. The easy vote is obviously to be 
for it, as most people upon hearing it say it is a good idea. You 
really have to go into it and examine it very carefully and appreciate 
the real way you bring the deficit down is to make the budget 
decisions, not to amend the Constitution of the United States.
  I yield the floor and 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________