[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1203-S1210]
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, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.

       Pending:
       Wellstone amendment No. 3, 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.


                            Amendment No. 3

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 60 
minutes for debate, to be equally divided in the usual form, prior to a 
vote on or in relation to the Wellstone amendment No. 3.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, yesterday I had a chance to speak for 
some time about this amendment and then Senator Hatch and I had a very 
honest exchange of views. Let me one more time just make clear to 
colleagues what this amendment says. This amendment says that if we are 
going to make a commitment by way of a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget, then we go on record that the Federal outlays, as 
we do this, should not be reduced in a manner that disproportionately 
affects outlays for education, nutrition, and health programs for poor 
children.
  Yesterday my colleague, Senator Hatch, said I was asking for an 
exemption. There is no request for an exemption. This is just simply a 
request for fairness, and it just simply says let us not lock ourselves 
into a very harsh set of priorities.
  I also pointed out yesterday that in the last Congress, 93 percent of 
the cuts in entitlement programs were entitlement programs that 
affected poor

[[Page S1204]]

people in America, too many of them poor children. I also cited the 
Committee on Economic Development, representing really some of the 
largest corporations in America, saying that what we did last time, 
last Congress, was really disproportionate and really not based on a 
standard of fairness, because we cut a lot of programs that were 
important to the nutrition and health care and educational status of 
children.
  I also quoted from the Concord Coalition, which has been a driving 
force for our balancing the budget, taking the same position. I also 
quoted from an editorial yesterday in the Washington Post.
  I think the most important thing that I did yesterday, though, Mr. 
President--and I would like to start this way today, and then develop 
these points, and then listen very respectfully to my colleague from 
Utah, and then respond to some of what he has to say--was to try to 
translate this debate into human terms. Yesterday, my colleague from 
Utah said, and I appreciated it, ``You know, I don't agree with Senator 
Wellstone but he is very sincere in his conviction.'' And I appreciated 
that. That's a tribute from another Senator.
  But this is really not about me. This is an amendment that I think is 
substantive, I think it is important, and I wish there would be 100 
votes for it. Because the fact of the matter is, all too often--and 
that was the record last Congress and I think it has been the record of 
too many Congresses--when we come down to the nitty-gritty, to the 
point where the rubber meets the road, we do deficit reduction based on 
the path of least political resistance. And usually, all too often, it 
is not the special interests or heavy hitters or well connected or big 
givers who are the ones that we target. And poor children have been, 
with the exception of some Senators, the Chair is one of them--you have 
shown a tremendous commitment to what we can do at a neighborhood 
level, at a community level, as has the Senator from Missouri, by way 
of commitment to children.
  But all too often, poor children in America are faceless and 
voiceless in the U.S. Senate, and I just think that it is not at all 
inconsistent for Senators--even if they are for this amendment, to vote 
for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget--to at least 
vote for this proposition. As a matter of fact, we are going to make it 
clear we are going to do it on a standard of fairness, and we are not 
going to disproportionately make cuts in programs that so vitally 
affect the nutritional and the educational and the health care status 
of children.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield just for a second?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield on the time of the Senator 
from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized on his own 
time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senator indicated he would like 100 
people to vote for his amendment. I will make a suggestion to the 
Senator, and that is, amend your amendment to put it in a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution form, and I will work to get you 100 votes. But we 
are talking about amending the Constitution with language that really 
clutters up the Constitution with language that should not be in the 
balanced budget amendment.
  If the Senator will do that, I will work to get him 100 votes in the 
Senate, because nobody wants to treat children or children's programs 
disproportionately, but it is not constitutional language, and it 
should not be in the Constitution. I have to be opposed to it, and I 
hope most of our fellow Senators will be opposed to it. Nobody is 
opposed to children.
  I think that would be a reasonable way of resolving this. Put it in a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, so it is not incorporated in the 
Constitution, as a sense-of-the-Congress resolution in the Congress. It 
just is not the way we should amend the Constitution of the United 
States.
  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I cannot let that happen, but 
if the Senator will change and do that, I would be happy to go to a 
vote, and I would work my side of the floor to get 100 people to vote 
to say we do not want children's programs to be treated 
disproportionately.
  I hope the Senator will consider this kind offer. It is a sincere 
offer. I share his viewpoint with regard to children. I think virtually 
everybody in here does. The fact of the matter is, though, that all 
items have to be on the budget if we are going to have any kind of a 
balanced budget amendment work. I know the Senator is not going to vote 
for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution no matter what we 
put into it. Even if we accepted his amendment as part of the balanced 
budget amendment, he would not vote for it.
  That way, you are sending a message. That way, you would have your 
colleagues voting with you. Otherwise, I think people who love and 
revere the Constitution have to say this is not the way you amend the 
Constitution; we should not put this language into a constitutional 
amendment because it is not constitutional.
  Frankly, I suggest to my distinguished colleague, I would like to 
help him do that if he wants to do that. If he doesn't, then I have to 
oppose this amendment, and I hope most Senators will oppose the 
amendment, because this type of language should not go into the 
Constitution, because although it is meaningful language, it is not 
constitutional language, and it will not guarantee the children's 
programs are going to be treated any differently than anything else 
under a balanced budget amendment.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the 
Senator from Utah. Actually, the language of this amendment is 
constitutional. It is designed that way. If there is going to be a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, I say to my good friend 
from Utah--and he has taken the leadership on this, he absolutely 
believes in it--if that is the direction we go in, then it is quite 
appropriate for me to have an amendment to this amendment to make sure 
that we do not lock ourselves into some very harsh and distorted 
priorities.

  I tried the route of a sense of the Senate last Congress, and 
actually I lost a couple of times on a sense of the Senate that we 
would not take any action to create more hunger, malnutrition, and 
poverty among children. Finally, it was adopted on a voice vote. I wish 
there had been a recorded vote. Then I think we went ahead and, in 
fact, passed some legislation or provisions of some legislation that is 
going to create that.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could just finish. I think this time around, 
given the track record of the last Congress and given the fact that the 
citizens that I am trying to represent today--poor children--do not 
seem to have much of a presence here, quite frankly, I do not think a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment does the job.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield on the Senator's time.
  Mr. HATCH. On my time. I have to say that you did get a voice vote 
last time, not a recorded vote. I am offering you a recorded vote. I 
happen to believe sense-of-the-Senate resolutions mean a lot. But I 
certainly could not accept this language as part of a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment. If for no other reason, what does the term 
``disproportionate'' mean? Which programs have to be preferred above 
others?
  There are a thousand programs we are talking about here. I know, 
because I worked with most all of them when I was ranking member and 
chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, on which the 
Senator from Minnesota now sits.
  I will get you the votes. I will work my side to try to get 100 of 
these people to vote for it. I happen to believe when Senators in this 
body vote for a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, it means something, 
especially if you get 100 percent. I cannot guarantee it, but I would 
work to get 100 percent. It would be adopted, because I think virtually 
everybody here would like to have children's programs treated fairly.
  The distinguished Senator makes a tremendous point. We treat seniors 
very well. They get about 20 times the help from the Federal Government 
that individual children get, and we are not

[[Page S1205]]

doing what we should do for children in our country. There are a lot of 
children in poverty who are in serious straits who do not have the 
health care that they need.
  On the other hand, the question is, how do we best solve that 
problem? I do not think you single it out, because once you do that in 
this amendment, there must be a thousand other things that do not want 
to be treated disproportionately.
  Frankly, it just makes the amendment a nullity. I would be happy to 
work for a significant up-or-down vote for the Senator, no motion to 
table, up-or-down vote if he would make it a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that does not go into this constitutional amendment.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and, again, I thank my colleague. I 
appreciate his kind words. I know he is very sincere in the offer. 
Again, what happened last time was we went ahead and adopted an 
amendment saying we would not take any action to create more 
malnutrition, hunger, or poverty among children, and then we went ahead 
and did budget cuts that, in fact, disproportionately affected poor 
people in America, many of them children.
  Mr. President, I really do view this amendment as a litmus test. I 
think I do want to draw a line in the sand here. If Senators put 
children first, and Senators believe we ought to invest in the health 
and skills and intellect and character of our children, and Senators 
understand--and they do--that what happens before kindergarten is so 
important, then I do not know why in the world we cannot make a 
commitment that when it comes to programs like Head Start and WIC and 
health care programs that affect poor children in America, that we at 
least make a commitment that we not disproportionately cut those 
programs.

  As to which programs, listen, with a lot of what is in this 
amendment, we are going to be writing implementing language, that is 
all going to be made specific. So I just do not think that critique 
really does any damage to this amendment. I would like to speak, again, 
about what is at stake.
  Yesterday, I read from some examples, just some stories of some 
families as we kind of reach out and talk to people around the country, 
not just Minnesota. Marlene is a lot like many women. She went from her 
parent's home to her husband's. With the exception of a waitressing job 
in high school, she never had worked outside the home, and had no job 
skills. After 9 years of marriage, Marlene's husband left her with two 
children and pregnant with a third.
  At 27, she found herself alone with no job skills or means of 
support. With the help of a neighbor, she enrolled in her local WIC 
Program. ``I knew about nutrition, child care and how to take care of 
myself. I just didn't have the money to. I knew that I needed to have a 
healthy baby. I just did not know how to get it.''
  WIC provided Marlene with vouchers to purchase the basics for a 
healthy baby--milk, cheese, eggs, et cetera.

       To this day, I believe that the food from WIC saved me and 
     my baby. Emotionally, I was so distraught and inept, I didn't 
     know if I was coming or going. Thankfully for WIC, for that 
     part of my life, I could just go on auto pilot. I knew that I 
     was taking care of my baby. I could go on with taking care of 
     the rest of the issues I was facing.

  It has been 10 years since Marlene received help from WIC. Now she 
works full time and supports her children. She says,

       WIC was crucial for me. WIC was like a bridge to help me go 
     from being dependent on someone to learning how to take care 
     of myself and my kids. It's like they took care of me so I 
     could take care of the rest of my life. I cringe to think of 
     how things would have been without it.

  Mr. President, Danielle is 8 years old. She looks closer to 6. Though 
a spirited and cheerful little girl, Danielle struggles in life. She 
was born at a low birth weight and has endured its effects. She will 
for a long time.
  As with many children born at a low birth weight, she has a limited 
immunity system and she catches a lot of colds and flus. She misses a 
lot of school. Like many children born at low birth weight, it takes 
Danielle a bit longer to figure things out in school. Says her teacher, 
``I see her little brain trying to figure things out. She works hard 
and struggles. She's always a few steps behind us.'' While pregnant 
with Danielle, her mother had no prenatal care or guidance.

  Every 2 minutes a baby is born to a woman, a mother who had no 
prenatal care in our country. Her diet of chips, fast food, soda, and 
candy did not change during the 8\1/2\ months of pregnancy. Danielle's 
mother did not participate in the Women, Infants, and Children Program.
  At 5, Danielle's sister Alfrieda is healthy and active. While 
pregnant with Alfrieda, her mother participated in WIC. She had a 
healthy diet, checkups, and guidance. When she gave birth, she then 
gave birth to a fit and strong baby. She named her after the WIC nurse 
who mentored her.
  Says their mother:

       I see how Danielle is not all there * * * how she's slow 
     and kind of sick. They tell me it is 'cause of how it was 
     when I was pregnant. I think they are right 'cause I really 
     see a difference with my baby, Alfrieda. You would not know 
     that Danielle is older.

  In one family, in the case of two sisters, we see the impact and 
influence that WIC has. Danielle will always be a little behind, a 
little slow, and a little weak. Alfrieda will always be a bit smarter 
than her older sister, a bit ahead of her older sister, and a bit 
stronger than her older sister. One small family and one big 
difference.
  Mr. President, I said this yesterday, the medical evidence is 
irrefutable and irreducible that the most important educational program 
for our country is to make sure that every woman expecting a child has 
a diet rich in vitamins, minerals, and protein; otherwise, that child 
at birth may not have the same chance as all of our children and 
grandchildren have. And that is wrong. The goodness of our country is 
for every child to have that chance.
  Mr. President, we do not even fully fund the Women, Infants, and 
Children Program right now, a program for women during pregnancy, a 
program for infants, and a program for small children who, by 
definition, do not have enough income to be able to purchase the food 
to have an adequate diet.
  We know the WIC Program has made an enormous difference. It saves us 
dollars. It enables children to have a head start. It enables children 
to go on and do well in school. We know all of that. The only thing 
this amendment says is, let us make a commitment if we are going to 
balance this budget that in this constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget we make a commitment we will not, as we move forward, 
disproportionately cut programs that affect the nutritional status of 
children. That is what this amendment is all about.
  It is not a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I do want to draw a line 
on this. I believe I should be able to get a strong vote for this. I do 
not think it should be tabled. This is all about, as we go forward with 
deficit reduction, who is going to decide and who is going to benefit, 
and who is going to be asked to sacrifice.
  Are we going to decide, as we did last Congress, that we are going to 
disproportionately cut programs that affect the quality of life for 
children, poor children in America? Who will decide to cut the 
nutrition programs and whose children will be hurt? They will not be 
our children, but they are all of God's children. I think we all agree 
on that.
  So I am really hopeful that I will get support for this amendment. 
This is about values. We talk about values. This is about values. This 
is about Minnesota values.
  If you asked people, are they in favor of a constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget, they say yes. I have been in disagreement. I 
wish we would separate the capital investment part of the budget from 
on operating budget. I worry about it on political economic grounds. 
But forgetting that, most people say yes. But if you ask people, are 
you in favor of balancing the budget by making cuts in educational 
programs or nutritional programs or health care programs that affect 
children, they say no. So I am hoping that this will not be tabled and 
that Senators will vote for it.

  Arel is only 14 years old but has the responsibility of someone much 
older. He has two sisters. Even though they are at the right age and 
eligible for

[[Page S1206]]

Head Start, they do not participate because the program near their home 
is full. I forget--I do not have the numbers right before me--but 
something like only 17 percent of the eligible 3-year-olds are 
participating and only 40 percent of the eligible 4-year-olds are 
participating. Really, we should work Head Start back, Mr. President, 
to age 1 and 2 as well.
  By the way, it should be decentralized. This is a parent-
participation program. It should happen at the local level. It should 
happen at the neighborhood level. It can be done through nonprofits and 
it can be done through nongovernmental organizations. But when we know 
something works, when we know these kinds of programs give children a 
head start, why can't we make a commitment that we will not 
disproportionately cut these programs? Because if we do not make that 
commitment, I really fear that is what is going to happen.
  While we know how no Head Start will affect Arel's sisters, do we 
know how it is going to affect Arel? Their mother leaves for work as a 
bus driver at 4 a.m. She is working. This means Arel is responsible for 
the morning ritual with his sisters. After he gets them fed and 
dressed, Arel puts one sister on the handlebars of his bike and rides 5 
miles to drop her off at affordable day care. He returns home and gets 
his second sister to drop her off. Since he cannot drop them off early, 
he is late for school every day.
  Because of tardiness, he failed his first-period class twice. Though 
a talented athlete and a popular kid, Arel does not stay after school 
for any activities. He would probably make the football team. He is 
interested in track. He would love to be in a dance troupe. Instead, 
Arel gets on his bike, rain or shine, to pick up his sisters one at a 
time. I will not reveal to you what no Head Start means for his 
sisters. We know that. Unfortunately, so does their brother, a boy who 
has no childhood.
  Finally, Mr. President, Marcus is a shy and quiet first-grader who 
finds himself in the principal's office for the third time in a week. I 
gave this example yesterday. According to his teacher, Marcus is either 
overagitated, annoying other students in class, or listless and 
disinterested in the class at hand. Marcus does not usually know what 
is happening in class and he does not know yet his colors, numbers, or 
alphabet.
  Though many of his class attends a Head Start program and learns the 
initial steps toward understanding school and learning, Marcus does 
not. He represents 1 of the 1.2 million children that, though eligible, 
could not participate in Head Start when he was younger. The program 
near his home was full. Not only were they full, but there was a year 
waiting list when Marcus's grandmother tried to sign him up. Though 
there was room at another program, it was too far for his grandmother 
to take him.
  Marcus stayed alone sometimes at home 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 
ever been read to. While his classmates--I am going to repeat this--
while his classmates scurry around the teacher to be read to, he has 
not yet held a book or ever been read to.
  Marcus does not know how to write his name, nor can he recite the 
alphabet. In a phrase, Marcus is not part of the culture of the school. 
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 each week progresses, he falls further behind and 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 he also knows there is not much he can do about it.

  Said his teacher: ``I just don't know what can be done for him. I 
know that he needs a lot of one-on-one attention and love, but I just 
don't 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,'' says his teacher, ``I want to cry.''
  Mr. President, I do not want Senators to make this amendment out to 
be what it is not. There is an amendment on the floor. It is a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. This amendment says, as 
a part of that constitutional amendment to balance the budget--if that 
is what we are going to do--we make a commitment that we are not going 
to disproportionately cut programs that affect the educational and 
nutrition and health care status of children. It is that simple.
  This is about values. This is about fairness. I think we should make 
that commitment. I think we should make that commitment.
  Mr. President, we can no longer give speeches about children and no 
longer have photo opportunities with children unless we are willing--
unless we are willing--to invest in the health and skills and intellect 
and character of our children. Mr. President, that includes poor 
children, and that means we are part of local communities, but we are 
part of a national community. The U.S. Senate ought to go on record 
that these are our priorities. These poor children are a part of our 
priorities. That is appropriate, and it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 8 minutes, 25 
seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Minnesota. I 
believe he is devoted to children. But he is not alone. There are 99 
others in this body who are devoted to children. Frankly, children's 
programs can compete very successfully with other programs, just like 
Social Security can. To do a risky gimmick of putting this type of 
language into the Constitution, like those who want to take Social 
Security out of the Constitution, the purview of the balanced budget, I 
think would be highly risky and very, very dangerous.
  I was talking with the junior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. He 
indicated to me, he said, you know, if you use the language ``not 
disproportionate,'' which is what this language is, it can force 
proportionate reductions in all parts of the budget in order to comply 
with this amendment, because this would be an amendment to this 
amendment to the Constitution. The worst budgeting for kids could come 
from across-the-board budget cuts. That is how the courts could easily 
interpret the amendment. Mr. President, for the information of every 
Senator, I have offered to give the Senator an up-or-down vote on a 
true sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying the same thing which he did 
not get last year and which I will get him today, and I have offered to 
try to get him 100 percent of the Senators to vote for this so we would 
be on record as not wanting to have children's programs reduced 
disproportionately.

  However, to put this into the Constitution is the wrong thing to do. 
This is not language that you would normally see in the Constitution. 
The Wellstone amendment is not an appropriate amendment for inclusion 
in the Constitution. I want to point out to my colleagues that the 
Wellstone amendment would place in the text of the Constitution itself 
a statement of ``policy.'' I put policy in quotes because I think there 
is a lot of room to disagree with the Senator. It would put a statement 
of policy of the United States with regard to the budget priorities 
into the Constitution, the first time in history to do that. Mr. 
President, I do not believe that it is appropriate to put what is 
essentially a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in the actual text of the 
Constitution. That is why I am suggesting that our colleagues vote 
against this amendment because that is not what should be done. I 
believe that such a policy statement would either be surplusage or 
produce confusion and difficulties if it became part of the 
Constitution.
  Now, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota sincerely said we are 
not locking ourselves into a harsh set of priorities if we take this 
amendment. I think you are. Let me paraphrase that better. He said if 
we take the amendment as it is we are locking ourselves into a harsh 
set of priorities. I think it makes it more harsh if you put his

[[Page S1207]]

amendment in because, first of all, nobody knows what the word 
disproportionate means vis-a-vis constitutional language or 
interpretation; and, second, you are referring one item in the budget 
for one group of people in the Constitution over everybody else and 
there are a lot of people in this country who would like to not be 
treated in a disproportionate way. So we are not locking ourselves into 
a harsh set of priorities by having this balanced budget amendment 
passed. We are simply saying everything in the unified budget must be 
on the table. These programs for children are totally capable of 
competing with all other programs in the budget, as they should be. The 
fact is we have to have everything on the table because we are going to 
hit some very, very difficult times in the future and it will be 
difficult to know what to do to balance this budget.
  As we begin today's debate on Senate Joint Resolution 1, I do welcome 
the discussion of this amendment, because after all what this debate 
and the balanced budget amendment are all about is the legacy we intend 
to pass on to our children and our children's children. Unfortunately, 
as it stands today, the legacy is not one of health and prosperity, as 
has been the American tradition for the past two centuries; rather, the 
legacy we are imposing on our children is one of fiscal servitude. The 
debt, Mr. President, is a real threat to our children's future and to 
their well-being.
  As I emphasized before, with our national debt standing at $5.3 
trillion and going to $5.4 trillion, every child born today is born 
into this world trapped into a $20,000 debt. This new baby owes 
$20,000--$20,000. Think about that for a minute. In essence, what we 
are doing is handing every child who comes into the world an 
unsolicited and undeserved $20,000 liability. Unfortunately for our 
children, they are given nothing to show for that liability.
  Every one of the 28 years represented by these unbalanced budgets, 
every one of those 28 years these unbalanced budgets in this pile, in 
all but one of the last 36 years what we have done is finance our own 
exorbitant spending habits by mortgaging our children's future. In my 
view, this is taxation without representation in its purest form. What 
is worse, unlike you or me who may take out a loan to buy a house or a 
car and begin to pay that loan off, not only do we not pay down any of 
our children's debt, we continue to refinance and finance again our 
children's mortgages, adding more and more debt to pay for our own 
protracted fiscal irresponsibility.

  Let me illustrate this point, Mr. President. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, by the time a child born today is 5 years 
old, the national debt would have risen to $6.8 trillion and his or her 
share of that debt will have increased from $20,000 to $24,000. By age 
10, that debt will stand at $8.5 trillion, with that child shouldering 
approximately $29,000 of that burden. Just think about it. That is 
nearly a 50-percent increase of his or her debt burden in just 10 
years. At that rate, by the time a child graduated from college, he or 
she would owe in the neighborhood of $50,000 as their share of the 
Nation's debt. Now that, in my view, is no way to send a young man or 
young woman into the world to make a living. As sincere as my good 
friend from Minnesota is, the fact is even if we accepted this 
amendment he would not vote for the balanced budget amendment, which is 
the only hope of helping these young children in the future, the only 
hope of stopping us from spending their future away and saddling them 
with an irresponsible debt burden.
  Now our former colleague, Senator Simon, who led the fight for a 
balanced budget amendment on the Democrat side for many years, shared 
with us the words of another of our former colleagues, Senator Cohen, 
now Secretary of Defense, when he testified before the Judiciary 
Committee a few weeks ago. Senator Cohen was at one time opposed to a 
balanced budget amendment. And I remember those days because I have 
been responsible for bringing every balanced budget amendment to the 
floor of the U.S. Senate from the first one right on up until today. 
After serving in Congress for 18 years, Senator Cohen had this to say, 
and he was against it initially, but after 18 years, this is what he 
said:

       Today the ethic of self-sacrifice has been perversely 
     inverted. Parents and grandparents borrow from their heirs so 
     they might enjoy the comforts and pleasantries of the moment. 
     The practice of handing our children trillions of dollars of 
     debt with little more than a good luck wish can only be 
     considered an unconscionable and criminal act.

  Secretary Cohen is exactly right.
  As I have repeatedly said, the mortgaging of our children's future is 
nothing short of fiscal child abuse and it must end.
  As a result of our failure to exhibit fiscal restraints in setting 
budget priorities our children are faced with not only the looming 
burden of our enormous debt but also with massive annual interest 
payments required just to maintain the standard. This year we will pay 
$360 billion in gross interest to service our existing debt. That means 
we will spend nearly $1 billion every day of this year just on interest 
on the debt. Now to put this in perspective, if we take just the net 
interest, meaning we ignore interest paid by the Government to the 
various trust funds and subtract interest income received by the 
Government, our annual interest payment would amount to $935 for every 
man, woman, and child in America. Just look at this. Interest on the 
national debt, we could pay $340 to every man, woman, and child in Utah 
every day. Think about it. That is in my own State, and the interest on 
the debt is the fastest growing item in the Federal budget.
  According to the CBO, interest on the debt will continue to rise 
substantially over the next 5 years, to $412 billion by the year 2002. 
My gosh, that is more than the total Federal budget was 20 years ago. 
That represents half of all projected individual income tax receipts 
for that year and nearly two times all corporate income taxes. By 2007, 
the interest on the debt is projected to reach a whopping $493 billion. 
That is just the interest we owe. That is not the debt. That $493 
billion is just $50 billion shy of our entire discretionary budget for 
the current fiscal year.
  Mr. President, it is outrageous to me that we would consider 
subjecting our children to a future where 50 percent of their hard-
earned tax dollars would go to service the debt incurred by us, their 
parents. Just think what we could do for our children and our 
children's children if this money were available to be put to more 
productive use.

  We have talked a lot about the WIC Program, Women, Infants, and 
Children Program. I know a lot about that. As a newly elected 
conservative, one of my counties said they did not want WIC funds 
because they did not want Federal Government strings. I thought WIC 
funds were pretty important because they helped lactating mothers to be 
able to bring the best nutritional needs to their children, and even 
though this was a county that really supported me I stood up and said I 
think the WIC Program is a good program. Today, that county and the 
mothers that are poor benefit from that WIC Program. It is a highly 
effective program and works to improve the health of the mothers and 
the newborn children, and also serves to reduce our Nation's overall 
health care costs. I have long supported the WIC Program, as has just 
about every Senator. We are constantly struggling to come up with the 
money to fully fund participation in the WIC Program. With the $360 
billion we spend on interest on the debt this year not only could we 
fully fund participation in the WIC Program, we could afford to pay 
recipients nearly 100 times what they received last year.
  I could go through every program affecting children in our country 
today and we can talk about not allowing them to be disproportionately 
reduced. The best way to not allow children's programs to go down the 
drain is to pass the balanced budget amendment and put some fiscal 
responsibility into the Constitution, so we have to live within our 
means and we do not barter away our children's future, we do not 
mortgage it away, so we have the money to be able to help children. 
These gimmicks that some on the other side want to put into the 
Constitution are dangerous. In the end, they will wind up hurting 
children and not balancing the budget. The best thing we can do for our 
country is to get that budget balanced and keep it balanced and start 
paring down the national debt, as well. If we do not start

[[Page S1208]]

doing that, we are going to pay the price and it will be a heavy, heavy 
price.
  Mr. President, I am very concerned about this because if we are going 
to have a balanced budget amendment everybody in the world knows and 
everybody in Congress knows this is it. This is the last chance. This 
has been developed over 20 years. It is a balanced budget amendment 
that has been developed by Democrats and Republicans. I do not believe 
any single person can say they wrote it. It is an attempt by all of us 
to get together and do what is right. It is supported by an 
overwhelming majority in this body. Sixty-eight people have guaranteed 
to their constituents they will vote for it. We need 67. We should have 
one more than 67 if everybody lives up to their word. Frankly, if we 
pass this balanced budget amendment, it has a very excellent chance of 
going through the House.
  Head Start is another program we have heard a lot about. I strongly 
support the Head Start Program. As chairman and ranking member of the 
Labor Committee, I was deeply involved in fighting to provide increased 
authorizations for Head Start, and I am proud of the fact that since I 
first came to the Senate, the number of children served by federally 
funded Head Start programs has more than doubled. And yet, given the 
budget constraints we face, we are still working toward the goal of 
fully funding the Head Start Program--a result I believe every one of 
my colleagues favors.
  If we could recoup just a small portion of the money we will pay in 
interest on the debt this year, we could fully fund Head Start in a 
heartbeat. Not only could we fully fund the entire Head Start Program, 
including the new Head Start Program for infants and toddlers that was 
established in 1994, with this year's interest expenditures we could 
increase Head Start funding for every one of those children by more 
than 10 times what we currently spend.
  There are plenty of other important programs we could improve if we 
were to free up the resources currently dedicated to servicing the 
debt. In fact, with the money we will spend in gross interest on the 
debt just this year, we could cover the costs of all food and nutrition 
assistance programs, including food stamps, for the last 14 years--
$346.9 billion. This same interest payment would cover the costs of all 
payments for WIC and other supplemental feeding programs, child 
nutrition and milk programs, student assistance, and low income home 
energy assistance for the last 20 years--$348.2 billion.
  Even in the current fiscal year, as this chart shows, with the money 
we will spend on gross interest payments, we could afford to double 
projected spending for elementary, secondary, and vocational education, 
higher education, research and general education aids, training and 
employment, housing assistance, food and nutrition assistance, social 
services, unemployment compensation, all health care services, and 
pollution control and abatement--and still increase Medicare spending 
by 50 percent.
  Now obviously we cannot simply pay off $5.3 trillion of debt and 
recoup our $360 billion in annual gross interest payments overnight. 
But, according to CBO, moving toward a balanced budget in 2002 would 
reduce projected net interest costs by some $46 billion and improve 
economic performance enough to produce a total fiscal dividend of $77 
billion over the next 5 years. This represents real savings of nearly 
twice the amount we spent on all food and nutrition assistance programs 
last year, and is nearly 10 times all earned income tax credit payments 
for the past 10 years combined. This is real savings we can bring about 
to benefit our children now just by balancing the budget.
  But, if we continue to deficit spend, as we have in all but 8 of the 
last 66 years, we will only continue to compound our existing debt, 
increasing the interest payments necessary to service that debt and 
further exacerbating the tax burdens our children will face in future 
years. According to OMB and CBO, such tax burdens may equate to a 
lifetime net tax rate of about 82 percent for future generations in 
order to finance the cost of government at all levels. The 82 percent 
figure for our children stands in stark contrast to the 29 percent net 
tax rate for the generation of Americans born in the 1920's and the 
34.4 percent net tax rate for the generation born in the 1960's.
  But the mammoth costs of financing both the Government and our 
enormous national debt are not the only burdens we are creating for our 
children by not balancing the budget. We should also recognize the 
significant economic benefits that our children stand to inherit from 
recurring balanced budgets, but which we are withholding from future 
generations by failing to exercise fiscal restraint today.
  As CBO reaffirms in its January report, balancing the budget in 2002 
and subsequent years will lead to increased real economic growth, 
reduced interest rates, higher corporate profits, and increased 
revenues to the Federal Government. As a result, the Joint Economic 
Committee has estimated that a typical middle class family could easily 
save $1,500 each year; $1,500 every single year, Mr. President. That is 
like a built-in $500-per-child tax credit for a family of five--at no 
cost to the Government--just for passing the balanced budget amendment. 
I know a lot of families in Utah that could use an extra $1,500 each 
year to pay for food or clothing for their children, to pay for college 
tuition, to pay down credit card debts, or even to take a vacation and 
spend time with their kids.
  Even a college student could save an estimated $120 each year on a 
$10,000 student loan if we were to pass the balanced budget amendment. 
And it is not the Government that must pay for that savings. It is 
simply the real benefit generated by the economy's reaction to long-
term balanced budgets.
  Mr. President, it is time for us to face reality. The single largest 
threat to our children's well-being is not that the Republicans and 
Democrats will be forced to live within their means when funding any 
given program. The real threat is that we will continue down the path 
of the last 66 years and mortgage our children's future earnings to pay 
for what we consider to be spending priorities today. If we do, our 
children will be left with no choice but to cut the very programs my 
colleague is talking about in ways that are unthinkable today, or 
drastically increase taxes on every American family to pay for the 
continued existence of those important programs. The balanced budget 
amendment is the only real assurance we have that our children will not 
be forced to make those choices.
  Now Mr. President, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out 
the solution to this problem. In fact, Grant Anderson, a 13-year-old 
young man in my home State of Utah, took the time to write a letter to 
me outlining how it can be done. Let me share with my colleagues what 
he had to say:

       Dear Orrin Hatch, I think we have a huge problem with the 
     national budget. I have the easiest way to fix it. Do you 
     want to hear it? Okay. Stop buying things if you don't have 
     the money.

  That about says it all, Mr. President. It's just that simple. Yet, 
without a balanced budget amendment, there appears to be no real end in 
sight to Congress' abdication of its responsibility to people like 
Grant Anderson and to future generations.
  The fact is that after 4 years of declining deficits we have not 
reduced our staggering $5.3 trillion debt one penny. We have only 
slowed the growth in the national debt. More importantly, as my 
Republican colleagues and I predicted would happen during the debate on 
the President's 1993 budget package, CBO 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 2002, and 
reaching a near-record $278 billion in 2007. Even OMB's estimates from 
the President's newly proposed budget, which predict lower deficit 
totals than CBO, project that gross Federal debt will top $6.6 
trillion, exceeding 66 percent of our gross domestic product, by 2002.
  Now I know that there are those who will say that we can solve this 
problem without the constraints of a balanced budget amendment--that 
Congress and the President are committed to balancing the budget and to 
putting an end to the era of deficit spending. While I can only pray 
that they are right, our history of deficit reduction efforts in 
Congress should give the American people reason to be skeptical.

[[Page S1209]]

  Since 1978 we have adopted no fewer than five statutory regimes which 
promised to bring about balanced budgets. Every single one of them has 
failed. As this chart shows, time after time statutory fixes have been 
met with increased deficits. In fact, nearly 85 percent of our current 
national debt has accumulated while Congress has operated within 
statutory budget frameworks designed to ensure balanced budgets. Now, 
we are told, things are different. But will they really be all that 
different without the discipline of a constitutional amendment?
  A quick look at the President's budget shows that under his plan, we 
will continue to have deficits that are higher than last year's budget 
deficit until the year 2000. Only in the last 2 years of this budget do 
we see the dramatic cuts necessary to bring us into balance. That's 
right, Mr. President, a full 75 percent of the deficit reduction 
planned in President Clinton's recent budget submission comes in the 2 
years after President Clinton leaves office. This is reminiscent to me 
of the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, wherein we committed ourselves 
to balancing the budget by 1991, only to see the law slowly amended, 
circumvented, and the requirement for a balanced budget finally 
eliminated just 1 year prior to the year in which we were to achieve 
balance under the original law.
  While I commend the President for his avowed commitment to balancing 
the budget and appreciate 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 2002. Even if we did--and I 
intend to work to that end--there is nothing to prevent future 
Congresses from yielding to the political pressures that would lead to 
renewed deficit spending. We need a constitutional amendment if we are 
truly committed to solving this problem.
  Mr. President, passing the balanced budget amendment, free of 
exemptions and loopholes that can be exploited by those who might not 
be fully dedicated to balancing the budget, is the most important thing 
we can do in this Congress to protect our children and the future 
generations that will follow. I urge my colleagues to join me in this 
effort by supporting the balanced budget amendment. If that happens, we 
will protect children like never before. To me that is worth it all. 
And in the end it will accomplish what the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota would like to do. But if we put amendments like this in 
everybody and their dog will be in here with some sort of a program 
they want to protect because they think it is the most important 
program in the world. No. Let us put everything in the budget on 
budget. Let us have everything subject to the balanced budget amendment 
and let us have them compete for the available funds as it should be. 
Then let us make the right priority choices. And I guarantee my friend 
from Minnesota that Orrin Hatch will be there with him trying to help 
the children of this country so that they don't suffer a 
disproportionate reduction in their programs. And I do not think they 
will as long as both he and I are here, and others as well.

  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, when Senators vote on this they should 
not confuse two different issues. There is not anybody on the floor of 
the Senate that I know of who is opposed to balancing the budget. There 
are Senators who oppose this amendment.
  My colleague keeps talking about balancing the budget or passing the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the best thing that 
we can do for our children. My amendment speaks to the concerns and 
circumstances of the lives of poor children. Close to one out of every 
four children in America is poor. One out of every two children of 
color is poor. Every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty in our 
country. Every 2 minutes a child is born to a mother who has had no 
prenatal care. Every 12 or 13 seconds a child drops out of school, many 
of them children from poor families. And there is a higher correlation 
between high school dropout and winding up in prison than there is 
between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
  Mr. President, all too many of our children are rushing into the arms 
of the police and not into parents' arms, or teachers' arms.
  My colleague used the word ``gimmick.'' This is no gimmick. This is a 
very serious amendment because for these children they don't have any 
future. How can you argue that a child who is born severely underweight 
and damaged and who can't do well in school is going to benefit by 
deficit reduction and balancing the budget 7 years from now? What about 
that child right now? How can you argue that the 50 percent of children 
or the 60 percent of children who could be given a head start but come 
to school without a head start not ready to learn are going to do well, 
if we do not make a commitment that we are going to invest in them? 
Balancing the budget 7 years from now does not help those children 
right now.
  There are 10 million children who have no health care coverage, most 
of them from working poor families, many of them with ear infections 
who have lost hearing; too many. Many can't read well because they 
should have had an eye examination. They can't afford it. Many of them 
should have dental care, and they come to school with an infected tooth 
and abscess. They can't learn well. It is difficult for children who 
are in pain and discomfort to learn well.
  If we do not make a commitment that in balancing this budget we will 
not balance this budget on the backs of those children and we proceed 
to do what we did in the last Congress, which is disproportionately cut 
programs that affect poor people and poor children in America, they 
don't have any future. What good does it do those children if we are 
going to balance the budget 6 years from now if we are going to savage 
them right now?
  This is all about values. And if my colleague means or is sincere--
and he always is. I guess it is just an honest difference that we 
have--that surely we are not going to make these cuts, that is what we 
have done in the past because these children don't hire the lobbyists. 
They don't march on Washington every day, and one more time they are 
not the big givers. Maybe there is a connection with all that we are 
reading about money and politics.
  Mr. President, I ask all of my colleagues whether you are against 
this constitutional amendment to balance the budget or whether you are 
for it to vote for this amendment. It is all about fairness. We ought 
to go on record. We ought to make it clear that in our effort to 
balance the budget with a constitutional amendment--or the way I prefer 
to do it, not a constitutional amendment--that we go on record that we 
will not do what we have all too often done in the past--unfortunately, 
the evidence is clear--that we will not disproportionately cut the 
programs that benefit and affect the health and the nutrition and 
education of children.
  What is the definition? Just pick out the percentage of low-income 
programs that are part of the entitlement programs. Pick out the low-
income programs for children that are part of the discretionary 
spending. Pick out the percentage, and in our overall cuts, don't cut 
them any higher. It is simple. It does not take a rocket scientist to 
figure it out. Let us not weave and dodge on this question.
  I hope that I can get a strong vote. It is a difficult debate because 
the Senator from Utah is one of the Senators whom I like the most and 
whom I respect the most. It is an honest disagreement.
  But I hope Senators will vote for this. It is the right thing to do. 
This does not say we are not going to balance the budget. This does not 
say we should not do what the Senator from Utah believes we should do. 
It just says that if we are going to lock ourselves into a 
constitutional amendment, or, if we do not do that, we are still going 
to make the commitment to balance the budget, that we will not balance 
the budget on the backs of poor children; that we will invest in the 
skills, health, and character of children in America, including poor 
children. These are all God's children. I am telling you something, and 
I could argue this for 24 straight hours, the history

[[Page S1210]]

of the way we have done deficit reduction is that they come out on the 
short end of the stick.
  This amendment I think is the right thing to do. It puts us on record 
and it makes it clear that we are going to balance this budget based 
upon the Minnesota standard of fairness.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I yield the rest of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will not take long.
  I know my colleague is sincere. I know he is a very good person and 
that he feels very deeply about children. And I have a great regard for 
him. He knows that. Children have the love in this town. One of the 
most effective lobbyists in this town is Marian Wright Edelman. I know. 
She and I worked hard to get the child care bill through. That has 
helped millions of children all over this country.

  I do not take a second seat to anybody with regard to taking care of 
children. In fact, Elaine and I have six. We are expecting our 16th and 
17th grandchild within 2 weeks. I want them to have a future. I want 
them to have the care. I want there to be some money to help them. I 
want our country to be solvent. I do not want their futures bartered 
away and mortgaged away. The reason child care programs are being cut 
every year is because we are spending it all on interest on the 
national debt.

  The only thing that will give children protection in the future is if 
we pass this balanced budget amendment. We have here 28 years of 
unbalanced budgets. I do not know about others, but this pile is very 
significant to me. Every year we have people who are of the more 
liberal persuasion saying we should spend more, we should just get the 
will to balance the budget but we should spend more. They are 
inconsistent.
  Let me just tell you something. I think out of the mouths of children 
comes the greatest truths sometimes. This is a letter I received from 
Grant Anderson, a young boy. Here is what he said, August 5, 1996:

       Dear Orrin Hatch. I think we have a huge problem with the 
     national budget. I have the easiest way to fix it. Do you 
     want to hear it? OK--

  With an exclamation mark. And then he writes in big print the 
letters. He said:

       Stop buying things if you don't have money--

  And a bigger exclamation mark. And then he said:

       Thanks for your time. Grant S. Anderson.
       P.S. My mom and dad voted for you.

  A particularly good letter, I thought.
  But the fact of the matter is Grant is right on the money. My friend 
Grant Anderson really calls it the way it should be. If we are going to 
stop spending money we do not have, we have got to get rid of all these 
years of unbalanced budgets. And since we have proven that we are not 
going to get rid of them without a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, then, by gosh, I suggest we pass the balanced budget 
amendment so by the year 2002 we have the true budget that will be 
balanced so kids like Grant Anderson and all the kids my colleague is 
fighting for and I am fighting for will have a future.
  Now, to me out of the mouths of young people sometimes comes the 
greatest truth.

       Dear Orrin Hatch. I think we have a huge problem with the 
     national budget. I have the easiest way to fix it. Do you 
     want to hear it? OK. Stop buying things if you don't have 
     money. Thanks for your time. Grant S. Anderson.

  I am grateful to Grant. I am grateful that he took the time to write 
to me, and there are thousands of others who are writing to us who want 
us to try to put some fiscal sanity into the system. We have tried five 
different balance-the-budget methodologies and not one of them has 
worked. The distinguished Senator said his amendment is not a gimmick, 
but his amendment reads:

       It is the policy of the United States that in achieving a 
     balanced budget amendment--

  ``It is the policy of the United States.'' He is writing policy into 
the Constitution--

       Federal outlays must not be reduced in a manner that 
     disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition 
     and health programs for poor children.

  I agree with him; it is not a gimmick. It is a risky gimmick. If you 
start putting language into the Constitution that the distinguished 
Senator thinks can be easily interpreted, he does not know much about 
the Supreme Court if he takes that attitude. I have to tell you, we are 
making a great mistake. So I hope our colleagues will realize it is 
important to keep this amendment intact. It is the only amendment that 
has a chance of passing. It is a bipartisan amendment, and I hope we 
will support it here today.
  I move to table the Senator's amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). 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 
table the Wellstone amendment No. 3. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 36, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

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

                                NAYS--36

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to table the amendment (No. 3) was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________