[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1255-S1265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senate will now resume 
consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1, which the clerk will 
report.
  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:
       Dodd amendment No. 4, to simplify the conditions for a 
     declaration of an imminent and serious threat to national 
     security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from West 
Virginia [Mr. Byrd] is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the measure before the Senate is a proposed 
amendment to the Constitution mandating a balanced budget annually. It 
is unconstitution-like. I am not saying it is unconstitutional. If it 
is riveted into the Constitution, of course it would be constitutional. 
But I am saying it is unconstitution-like in its words, which lack the 
vision, the simplicity, and the majestic sweep of language that we find 
in the Constitution. Rather, it sounds and reads like a bookkeeping 
manual on principles of accounting. The amendment is replete with words 
like ``outlays,'' ``fiscal year,'' ``receipts,'' ``estimates of outlays 
and receipts,'' ``receipts except those derived from borrowing,'' 
``repayment of debt principal,''--words which

[[Page S1256]]

are out of keeping with the graceful language used by the Framers in 
writing the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The amendment 
is made up of 8 sections constituting a total of circa 310 words, more 
than were used by the Framers in stating the Preamble to the 
Constitution and in establishing a Congress composed of two Houses, 
establishing a House of Representatives, establishing a Senate, 
establishing the Presidency, establishing the Supreme Court, and 
including the article setting forth the mode by which the Constitution 
would be considered ratified and in effect. Moreover, it is a 
masterpiece of confusing details, deceptive illusions, and doublespeak.
  It is misleading. I am talking about this amendment now that we have 
before the Senate. It is misleading, contradictory in its terms, and is 
ultimately bound to disappoint the American people and undermine their 
faith in the credibility of the Nation's basic document of law and 
government.
  We all agree--all 100 of us--that continued massive deficits are bad 
for the country, and we are all in agreement that action must be taken 
by the legislative branch, working in cooperation with the executive 
branch, to bring our budgets under control and into balance at some 
point, yea, even to provide for surpluses so that the country can begin 
to retire the principal and reduce the interest on the national debt, 
which, in only the last 16 years, has assumed colossal proportions 
beyond anything that was even imagined during the previous 192 years 
and 39 administrations in the history of the Republic. I am saying 
during the 192 years previous to the first Reagan administration. I 
need not remind my colleagues and those who are listening to the 
debate--although I shall--that until the beginning of the first 
administration of Ronald Reagan, total debt of the U.S. Government was 
a little under $1 trillion, while, beginning with the first 
administration of President Reagan and continuing up to this time, over 
$4 trillion has been added to that debt. In other words, four-fifths of 
the total debt held by the public have been added in the last 16 years, 
four-fifths--four times the amount of debt that was accumulated during 
the first 192 years in the life of this Republic, during the first 39 
administrations in the life of this Republic, up until the first 
administration of President Reagan.
  Does anyone challenge that? Does anyone wish to stand on this floor 
and say, ``That ain't so''?
  It is no wonder, then, that the American people have lost faith in 
their Government, and if this proposed constitutional amendment is 
approved by both Houses of Congress and ratified by the necessary 
three-fourths of the State legislatures, the people of this country 
will have no cause for reassurance that our fiscal and deficit problems 
will ever be resolved. I fear that the situation will not have been 
made better but, rather, will have been made worse.
  I have not been able to listen to all of the speeches that have been 
made by all of the proponents of the amendment.
  I have tried to listen to as many as I could. I have not been able to 
hear them all. But of those that I have heard, there has not been one--
not one--that has addressed itself to the details of this amendment.
  We have heard many times that the devil is in the details. I have not 
heard a single proponent--not one--explain the amendment section by 
section or stated how and why the adoption of this amendment will, 
indeed, bring down the deficit and lead to a balanced budget. I would 
like for them to explain each section and explain how that section is 
going to bring the deficits down.
  All of the speeches that I have heard merely talk about the need for 
getting the deficit under control. I am for that. But none has 
explained how this particular proposed constitutional amendment is 
going to do the job. All I have heard have been ``the sky is falling'' 
speeches--oh, the sky is falling--which have simply stated the need for 
getting our house in order, to which we all can agree and stipulate.
  So they say deficits are bad; our national debt is too large; we need 
to get the deficits under control. Nobody disagrees with that. That is 
all the speeches I have heard. As I say, I have not heard them all. But 
all of the speeches by the proponents I have heard have amounted to 
that: Deficits are bad; we have to do something about them.
  And what do they propose to do? Adopt this amendment. They don't 
explain how it will rectify the situation.
  So I continue to wait to hear a single proponent--just one--who will 
come to the floor and explain clearly as to how each section will 
contribute to the common objective that we all seek; namely, a balanced 
budget, and explain beyond any doubt that these sections of this 
amendment, as so constructed, will do the job. You can bet on it.
  Everyone is in agreement that consistently operating with deficits is 
undesirable, but we are told to accept on faith this proposed 
constitutional amendment. We are told it will do the job, but we are 
not told how it will do the job. We are not given the details as to the 
sacrifices and the pain the people must endure in order to achieve 
yearly budget balance. We are only told that continued deficits are not 
good, which we all know to start with, but that this amendment will fix 
the problem. We are, therefore, importuned to buy what really amounts 
to a ``pig in a poke.'' And as far as the explanation of the amendment 
thus far is concerned, we cannot even be assured that there is a pig in 
that poke.
  So now let us proceed to take a look section by section at the 
amendment, which we are all being implored to support and which, if we 
buy on to this amendment, the American people will, likewise, be 
beseeched to ratify in their State legislatures throughout the country: 
Don't look at the details, don't bother, just accept on faith. Things 
are bad, deficits are bad, we have to do something about it. Ipso 
facto, vote for this amendment. It will do the job.
  For the benefit of the American people who do not have a copy of this 
amendment and who are watching and listening to the words spoken on 
this floor, I have had the entire amendment placed on this chart and 
will now go through it section by section in the hopes of shedding a 
little light at least on what I believe to be a very anti-Democratic, 
anti-Republican, and anticonstitutional proposal. Not unconstitutional, 
but anticonstitutional.
  So let us start at the beginning. The Bible says, ``In the 
beginning.'' You can't get much beyond that, ``In the beginning, God * 
* * ''
  Well, in the beginning, let's take the very top section. Let's start 
at the top.
  Section 1 of the constitutional amendment states:

       Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed--

  Shall not exceed--

     total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of 
     the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by 
     law for a specific--

  For a specific--

     excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

  Mr. President, and Mr. and Mrs. America, this states that for every 
dollar that is spent in any fiscal year, there shall be $1 of income. 
That is what it says. In other words, for every dollar that goes out in 
a given year, a dollar will have to come in, unless three-fifths of the 
Members of both Houses of Congress provide by law for a specific excess 
of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
  If Congress is bound to spend more than it takes in, how can it do 
it? It can only do so by a rollcall vote and by passing a law which 
states the specific excess by which dollars spent will exceed dollars 
received. It will not be enough for Congress to provide by law in a 
given year that outlays ``may exceed receipts.'' That is not enough. To 
comply with the language of this section, Congress will have to state 
specifically the excess of outlays over receipts that it is willing to 
approve.
  Moreover, this cannot be done by a simple majority in each House of 
Congress, as is the case with most other laws that are passed by 
Congress. The stickler here is that three-fifths of the whole number of 
each House will have to approve the specific excess. Got to be exact, 
the exact amount. ``All right, Senators, we're getting ready to vote. 
We've got to know the exact amount by which the outlays will exceed the 
receipts, because it has the words `specific excess'.''
  For example, the Senate is composed of 100 Members and three-fifths 
of them will be required to loose this amendment from its chains. 
Three-fifths of

[[Page S1257]]

the whole number of the Senate means that at least 60 Members of the 
Senate would have to vote in favor of permitting the specific excess of 
dollars paid out over dollars taken in. Sixty Members. Fifty-nine will 
not be enough.
  It will not matter if there is a snowstorm outside the doors and only 
59 Senators can get to the Senate to vote. That is a quorum--that is 
over a quorum. But that will not matter. Even if they all vote to allow 
outlays to exceed receipts by an exact and specific amount, that will 
not be enough.
  Now, this may appear to be a very simple matter on the surface, but 
upon closer examination it will be anything but simple.
  Why do I say this? Because there is no way on God's green Earth that 
human beings can precisely predict what the total outlays will be for a 
fiscal year until that fiscal year has expired and the U.S. Treasury 
Department has tallied up the final figures of what the income versus 
the spending was for the year just ended. No way--no way--that anyone, 
that any human being or any computer contrived by any human being can 
determine before the fiscal year is out the exact amount by which 
outlays for any fiscal year have exceeded the receipts of that fiscal 
year. No way. It is impossible. No way, until the fiscal year has 
expired and the U.S. Treasury Department has tallied up the final 
figures of what the income versus the spending was for the year just 
ended. You will not know until that happens.
  And only then, which is usually late in the month of October--perhaps 
the third or fourth week of October--several weeks after the end of any 
fiscal year, are the facts known as to the exact amount of the outlays 
and the exact amount of the receipts, and, consequently, whether or not 
there was a deficit, and, if so, specifically how much was the excess 
of outlays over receipts. We will not know it by the end of the fiscal 
year.
  So what are we going to do then? The fiscal year has ended. September 
30 is gone. We do not know what the excess was. How then can three-
fifths of the Members of the Senate vote for a ``specific excess of 
outlays over receipts'' when the final books are not closed, the 
amounts are not tallied. Nobody knows.
  I might stand on my feet and say, ``Mr. President, how much is the 
excess?'' Nobody can tell me. And we will not know it for perhaps 3 or 
4 weeks after September 30, after the fiscal year has ended.
  Therefore, there is no way for Congress to provide by law for a 
``specific excess of outlays over receipts'' during the fiscal year in 
question. The specific amount of any excess of outlays over receipts 
cannot be known by the human mind until the U.S. Treasury has totaled 
up the figures for a fiscal year that has already ended 2 or 3 weeks 
earlier and advised Congress of the results.
  Consequently, we are being presented in the very first section of the 
amendment with a requirement that cannot be met. It cannot be met. Now, 
let us examine more closely. Take the first portion of Section 1: 
``Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for 
that fiscal year * * *'' That language is very clear. It cannot be 
misconstrued or misunderstood. It means exactly what it says. It does 
not say that total outlays ``may not exceed.'' It does not say that 
``Total outlays for any fiscal year may not exceed total receipts.'' It 
does not say that ``Total outlays for any fiscal year should not exceed 
total receipts.'' Nor does it say that ``Total outlays for any fiscal 
year ought not exceed total receipts.'' It says, total outlays shall 
not--shall not--shall not--exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, 
no ifs, ands or buts. The Federal budget, under this language, must be 
balanced every fiscal year right down to the bottom dollar. There is no 
wiggle room--wiggle room--none.

  Now, let us understand what this means. We are told by the proponents 
of this amendment that the Federal Government should have to balance 
its budget every year, like a family does. How many times have I heard 
that? ``Oh, we ought to do like the average American family. We ought 
to do like a family does or do like the State governments do it. The 
Federal Government ought to do like the State governments do it. They 
balance their budgets. The American family balances its budget. And the 
Federal Government ought to do the same.'' How many times have I heard 
that? How many times have you heard it, Mr. President?
  The truth is that the American family does not and the truth is the 
State and local governments of this country do not do what this 
amendment requires the Federal Government to do. The fact is that the 
unified Federal budget is not the same as a family budget. The fact is 
that the unified Federal budget is not the same as the budgets that 
State and local governments are required to balance--or that they are 
supposed to balance. They are not the same.
  Unlike those budgets, unlike the State budgets, the unified Federal 
budget includes all spending that occurs in a fiscal year regardless of 
whether that spending is for recurring operating costs of the Federal 
Government or whether that spending is for public investments.
  Now, would anybody stand and challenge that? Would anybody tell me 
that the States are operating under the same kind of unified Federal 
budget that the Federal Government is operating under? Yet they say we 
ought to do like the States. The Federal Government ought to balance 
its budget like the States balance their budgets. Just one--I would 
like to hear a Senator challenge that statement.

  Under the unified Federal budget, capital investments, such as roads, 
airports, transit systems, military procurement for weapon systems, 
military aircraft, battleships, missiles, are required to be paid for 
in full as the purchases are made. This is a system of budget 
accounting that no business, no State or local government, and no 
family has to abide by.
  Let us consider the family budget. I consider my family budget a 
typical family budget. I can remember when I had to buy a bedroom 
suite--on May 25, 1937; soon it will be 60 years. On May 25, 1937, I 
bought a bedroom set, looking forward to the day when I pay that 
preacher $2 and take my wife away. We would not be going on any 
honeymoon. Of course, we have been on a honeymoon now for 60 years, but 
we would not be going anywhere. There would not be any gifts, would not 
be any flower girls, would not be any best man--except Robert Byrd. I 
bought a bedroom suite, paid for it at the company store where I was 
employed as a meatcutter and in produce sales, $5 down, $7.50 every 2 
weeks until it was paid off.
  So that is the way most families have to manage. Most families that I 
know have to borrow money to buy their homes, have to borrow money to 
buy their farms, they have to borrow money to purchase necessary assets 
such as automobiles with which they get to work and get home from work, 
and they have to borrow money to provide their children with a college 
education. I do not think that one will find very many Americans who 
would want to have to balance their family budgets in a manner that 
would require them to pay for the entire cost of their home in the same 
year, the entire cost of the farm in the same year, the entire cost of 
the automobile in the same year, or the entire cost of a college 
education for their children. Yet that is what the U.S. Government 
would be required to do by this section of this amendment.
  Mr. and Mrs. America, be on your guard; you need to know that. When 
you listen to these proponents say that the Federal Government should 
balance its budget just like the States balance theirs--listen, 
Governors, you know better than that. When the proponents say that the 
Federal Government should balance its budget just like the average 
American families balances its budget, hold on. Pay attention. That is 
not what it does.
  Similarly, the proponents tell us that most States and local 
governments are required to have balanced budgets. What the proponents 
fail to point out is the fact that State governments are required to 
balance only their operating budgets. Do not tell me that ``ain't'' so, 
because it is. The States are allowed to have separate capital budgets, 
which are excluded from the annual budget balancing requirement. A 
State may be required to keep its operating budget in balance each 
year, but the budget with which it floats bonds for the construction of 
school buildings or highways and other capital investments is not 
required to be balanced

[[Page S1258]]

each year. I know. I know that is the way the West Virginia 
Constitution operates. It does not require a unified budget as this 
amendment would or as the Federal Government does operate on a unified 
budget.
  If such capital investment budgets were required to be balanced each 
year, as this amendment would mandate that the Federal Government do, 
the States in many instances would not be able to build schools and 
highways and bridges. Is that not so, Governors who may be listening? 
Is that not so, State legislators who may be listening? The capital 
budgets of States are excluded from the annual budget-balancing 
requirement of the State constitutions. Under this balanced budget 
amendment, however, the Federal Government would be forbidden to adopt 
capital budgeting, and this would gravely endanger our ability to 
purchase the kinds of public assets or make the kinds of public 
investments that are so critical to this Nation's future economy and to 
its future security.

  The language of this first section of the amendment, if the amendment 
is ever adopted and ratified, will prohibit the Federal Government from 
purchasing capital assets and repaying the costs of them over time for 
the simple reason that it says that each year, the total outlays shall 
not exceed the total receipts; shall not exceed the total income of the 
Federal Government. Rather, the Federal Government would be required to 
pay for the entire cost of all these capital investments as they are 
purchased. I believe if the American people focus on this issue alone, 
it should be enough to convince them of the unwisdom of placing such a 
straitjacket on Federal budgeting into our Constitution.
  But the proponents of the amendment will say, ``Hold on. Hold on, 
Senator. This language allows a waiver of the budget balancing 
requirement.'' Sure enough, there is a portion of section 1 which 
reads, ``. . .unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of 
Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over 
receipts by a rollcall vote.''
  So the two halves of this sentence do not match up. This sentence is 
classic doublespeak. Mr. and Mrs. America, that is exactly what we are 
doing here, engaging in doublespeak. It is a kind of ``have it both 
ways'' sentence--the kind of stuff that politicians are so proficient 
at crafting. On the one hand, we are saying that the Federal 
Government's spending shall not exceed its income, that it must live 
within its means, and that that concept is important enough to rivet 
into the Constitution of the United States. But in the very same 
sentence, without skipping a beat, the language also says that all that 
is so unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House waive that 
requirement.
  So there is a requirement for a supermajority vote of three-fifths of 
each House to approve a waiver, and that constitutes minority control 
in each House, which is anathema--anathema--to the principle of 
majority rule, anathema to the democratic--small ``d''--rule, the 
principle of majority rule, a cardinal principle of representative 
democracy. That is basic in this Republic. It means that a minority can 
block action. The requirement of a supermajority three-fifths vote is a 
prescription for gridlock. A majority of three-fifths would be 
difficult to get on a politically charged vote of this kind where 
partisanship would rear its ugly head. What would happen, then, when 
the President's advisers tell him late in a fiscal year, or at the 
beginning of the next fiscal year, that despite previous estimates to 
the contrary--or if it is the last of October, in the next fiscal 
year--there was a substantial deficit and that Congress has not been 
able to produce the necessary three-fifths vote in each House to waive 
the requirement set forth in section 1 for a balanced budget.
  The clock is ticking. The fiscal year is running out. And a deficit 
looms large, large on the horizon. The President's advisers tell him he 
is constitutionally bound to balance the budget.
  Now, Mr. President, those Senators didn't do it. They could not 
muster the three-fifths vote to waive that provision in section 1.
  The President is, therefore, told to impose the necessary cuts in 
spending for the remainder of the fiscal year in order to achieve 
budget balance. He has no choice.
  At this late point, during any fiscal year, what could the President 
do? He would have no choice but to make arbitrary cuts in Federal 
spending, which could mean a reduction in payments to which many 
citizens are entitled under the law. Among the programs for which 
monthly checks are issued by the U.S. Treasury are Social Security 
benefits, military and civilian retirement benefits, veterans 
benefits--hear me, veterans--veterans benefits, payments for Medicare 
and Medicaid, and payments to contractors. To those who say that your 
Social Security check, or--veterans, lend me your ears--your veterans 
pension, or your military or civilian retirement checks are safe under 
this constitutional amendment, I can assure you that they are not. 
Moreover, it is highly likely that the judiciary will find itself 
embroiled in yearly budget decisions.
  I see in this committee report these words on page 23--words in the 
committee report that comment on section 6 of the amendment:

       The provision precludes any interpretation of the amendment 
     that would result in a shift in the balance of powers among 
     the branches of Government.

  How can any committee report say, with any authority that is 
dependable authority, that the provision precludes any interpretation 
of the amendment? Is that not what the committee report said? ``The 
provision precludes any interpretation of the amendment. . .'' That is 
saying to the courts, Mr. Justice, your court is precluded from 
interpreting the amendment in any way that would result in a shift of 
the balance of powers among the branches of Government. How much is 
that piece of paper going to be worth? Yet, a committee report says it. 
``The provision precludes any interpretation of the amendment that 
would result in a shift of the balance of powers among the branches of 
Government.''
  The President impounds the moneys. He feels he has to impound them. 
He has to stop the checks. He has to put a halt on the mailing of the 
checks. He impounds moneys. Does that constitute a shift in the balance 
of powers between the legislative and executive branches? And, Mr. 
Proponent, are you going to tell me that the courts will abide by this 
committee language here, that they will feel bound by this committee 
language, they will be ``precluded''? That is what this language says, 
that ``the provision precludes any interpretation of the amendment that 
would result in a shift in the balance of powers among the branches of 
Government.''
  Let me also say at this point that section 1 of the amendment is a 
hollow promise. It says the budget shall be balanced, but it does not 
say how the budget must be balanced. It does not say how the deficits 
shall be reduced. Where are the proponents? This is what I have been 
waiting to hear. I am opposed to this constitutional amendment. I want 
someone to tell me and to convince me and prove to me, by their written 
words, that I am wrong, that I am not reading these sentences 
correctly, that they don't say what I have said they say. I want 
someone to show me that I am wrong.
  It does not say how or where to cut Government spending. It does not 
say how or whether revenues should be increased. There isn't a 
proponent of the amendment that I have heard stand on the floor and 
say, ``This is how we are going to make this section work. We are going 
to have to raise taxes.'' I haven't heard a proponent stand up on this 
floor--not one--and say the President's proposed tax cut is going to 
have to be forgotten, or that the tax cuts proposed by the Republican 
Party--the GOP, the Grand Old Party--are going to have to be forgotten. 
Not only should we not have the tax cuts--I say we should not cut 
taxes. Here is one Senator who, if I were a proponent of this 
amendment, I would say, well, I am against cutting taxes. I believe we 
ought to balance the budget. I believe we ought to wipe out these 
deficits. But this language does not say how or where to cut Government 
spending. It does not say how or whether revenues should be increased. 
And all of the Republicans, in 1993, stated that the reason they did 
not vote for that budget balancing package--which worked--most of them 
used the excuse that it increased taxes. That may be what we will have 
to do again. But the language

[[Page S1259]]

in this amendment doesn't say whether revenues should be increased.
  But never mind, the proponents of the amendment have provided an 
escape hatch right in the amendment itself. Take a look at section 6.
  Section 6 states, ``The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
article by appropriate legislation * * *'' There is nothing new about 
that. Congress has the power now, working with the President, to 
balance the budget. But this amendment says, ``The Congress shall 
enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which 
may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.''
  I hope that the new Members of the Senate will pay close attention to 
this language. I can understand that when new Members come here, they 
haven't had any experience with the terminology or the Federal budgets, 
with the estimates of revenues and outlays from year to year, and how 
those estimates have been off. I can understand that. So I can forgive 
new Members. But I hope they will listen. Section 6 states that, ``The 
Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate 
legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.'' 
This is the Achilles' heel of the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution.
  I especially would like the proponents of this amendment to come over 
here and defy what I am saying about section 6 of this constitutional 
amendment.
  While section 1 is the core of the amendment, because it says that 
the budget shall, not may, but shall be balanced every year, section 6 
in the very same amendment says that we don't really have to balance 
the budget as section 1 would require. The proponents of this amendment 
are telling us in section 6 that they are just kidding in section 1 
when they say that the budget must be balanced. In section 6, they are 
saying, ``We don't really mean it, Mr. and Mrs. America.'' In section 
1, the amendment says that ``outlays shall not exceed receipts'' in any 
fiscal year, but section 6 says only that estimates of outlays shall 
not exceed estimates of receipts in any fiscal year.
  So, if this amendment is adopted, the sacred document of the 
Constitution will say, in no uncertain terms, in section 1 that 
Congress shall balance the budget every year. But just read a little 
further, and the Constitution of the United States will say, forget 
section 1, Congress doesn't really have to balance outgo with income, 
doesn't have to balance outlays with receipts. All we have to do is 
just rig the estimates, so that estimated spending will not exceed 
estimated income for any given fiscal year.
  Isn't that what this says?
  Section 1, therefore, makes the entire balanced budget proposal as 
phony as a $3 bill. Better still, phony as a $2.50 bill; phony. If the 
escape hatch is used, we will be right back where we have been so many 
times in the past, balancing the budget will be smoke and mirrors, and 
anyone who can read the English language knows it. Because there it is 
as plain as the nose on your face: ``The Congress shall enforce and 
implement this article''--meaning the constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget--``by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
estimates of outlays and receipts.'' Section 6 makes this proposed 
constitutional amendment a fraud; a fraud. I shall have more to say 
about section 6 at another time, but I will say this much: I say it 
makes the amendment a fraud.
  Let the proponents read what the committee report says about section 
6. Let me read from the committee report. Page 23 of the committee 
report: ``The Congress shall enforce and implement * * * creates a 
positive obligation on the part of Congress to enact appropriate 
legislation to implement and enforce the article.'' Then the committee 
looks at the words ``which may rely on estimates of outlays and 
receipts.''
  The committee report goes on to say this: ``Estimates''--the word 
``estimates''--``means good faith, responsible, and reasonable 
estimates made with honest intent to implement section 1.'' The 
committee knows that it is providing a loophole that is large enough 
for Atilla to drive his 700,000 horsemen through, large enough for 
Tamerlane, large enough for Amtrak--because it says in the first 
section the budget must be balanced, the budget shall be balanced; 
outlays may not exceed receipts.
  Then it comes along in section 6 and says, ``Well, we don't really 
have to do that; don't really have to pay any attention to that 
language. What we really mean is that the estimates of outlays shall 
not exceed the estimates of receipts. And the record will show, as I 
will on another day, that it is impossible for the estimates--insofar 
as the record is concerned, it has been impossible for the estimates to 
balance or to come out as stated. It is impossible for anyone to 
estimate what the revenues are going to be. It is impossible for anyone 
in this Government to estimate what the revenues will be. It says, 
well, estimates really mean good-faith, responsible, and reasonable 
estimates.
  What is meant by ``good faith''? How do we know when they are ``good 
faith'' estimates? How do we know when they are ``responsible'' 
estimates? How do we know when they are ``reasonable'' estimates? How 
do we know when those estimates are made with ``honest intent''? We 
have seen the numbers ``cooked.'' David Stockman was the Director of 
OMB during the early years of the Reagan administration. The numbers 
were ``cooked,'' and David Stockman said so. So they were rigged.
  The committee goes on and says, ``This provision gives Congress an 
appropriate degree of flexibility''--you bet it does --``in fashioning 
necessary implementing legislation. For example, Congress could use 
estimates of receipts or outlays at the beginning of the fiscal year to 
determine whether the balanced budget requirement of section 1 would be 
satisfied so long as the estimates were reasonable and made in good 
faith. In addition, Congress could decide that a deficit caused by a 
temporary, self-directing drop in receipts or increase in outlays 
during the fiscal years would not violate the article.''
  This is the committee report I am reading from, and it is talking 
about section 6 in this constitutional amendment. The language goes on 
to say in the committee report: ``Similarly, Congress could state that 
very small or negligible deviations from a balanced budget would not 
represent a violation of section 1.'' How much is ``small''? How much 
is ``very small''? What would be a ``negligible deviation''?
  We have a $1.7 trillion budget. Let us say that the deviation is $50 
billion. Is that ``small''? Is that ``very small''? Let us say the 
estimate only missed it by $50 billion. That is $50 for every minute 
since Jesus Christ was born. Is that small enough? It is only 3 percent 
of the total budget, $50 billion. As a matter of fact, you can make it 
$51 billion of a $1.7 trillion deficit. It would only be off 3 percent. 
Is that ``negligible''? Is that small enough?
  It goes on to say: ``If excess of outlays over receipts were to 
occur, Congress could require that any shortfall must be made up during 
the following fiscal year.''
  Now, this is the committee report explaining the amendment. And that 
is shilly-shally. That is what the committee report says. I did not say 
it. Section 6 provides the loophole, it provides the way out, the way 
to get around section 1 in the amendment, the way to get around this 
balanced budget amendment. I will have more to say about that section 
at a later time.
  Now let us look at section 2 of the balanced budget amendment. 
Section 2 states, ``The limit on the debt of the United States held by 
the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole 
number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a 
rollcall vote.''
  In practical terms, what this section means is, again, if a minority 
in the Congress decides that they do not want to go along with the 
policies of the majority, they can put this country into default on its 
debt. If the United States ever defaulted on the payment of its debt, 
that action would send the world financial markets into utter chaos. 
This is the same as any family's filing for bankruptcy. Forget about 
ever getting another mortgage on the home or another automobile loan. 
Any lender, knowing that you have already skipped your payments and 
gone bankrupt, is going to charge you an exorbitant rate of interest on 
your next loan, that is, if you can ever get another loan.
  Failure to raise the debt limit or ceiling, when required, would have 
far-reaching effects on the U.S. Treasury's

[[Page S1260]]

ability to pay Social Security and veterans' pensions and other 
obligations, and the Nation's creditworthiness would be destroyed. 
Millions of people depend on Federal payments, including employees, 
pensioners, veterans, investors, contractors, as well as State and 
local governments. If the debt ceiling is reached and the necessary 
supermajority vote of both Houses is not achieved, all of these 
payments must be stopped.
  The fact is that over the last 16 years, there have been 30 occasions 
when the Congress has voted to increase the debt limit. And yet, on 
only 2 of those 30 occasions have we met the three-fifths requirement 
of this balanced budget amendment. It is not going to be easy. A 
minority will have many opportunities to play politics with this 
phraseology in this amendment. Only on 2 of those 30 occasions have we 
met the three-fifths requirement for this balanced budget amendment. On 
the other 28 occasions, less than three-fifths of the whole number of 
both Houses voted by rollcall to provide the necessary increase in the 
debt limit.
  I have seen the occasion arise many times when this party or that 
party, one party or the other, will play politics with this language. I 
have seen situations in which the Democrats laid back, would not vote 
for an increase in the debt limit. They would make the Republicans do 
it. And I have seen the occasions when the Republicans would lay back 
and not vote to raise the debt ceiling, make the Democrats do it.
  One particular instance comes to mind. This is just an example:
  ``On Friday, October 12, 1984, the 98th Congress adjourned after the 
Senate, in a final partisan political battle, narrowly approved an 
increase in the national debt ceiling to $1.82 trillion. Senate 
Republicans cleared the way for adjournment when, without the vote of a 
single Democrat''--I was the minority leader--``without the vote of a 
single Democrat they,'' meaning the Senate Republicans, ``approved an 
increase in the national debt ceiling. `There will be no more votes 
today,' said Baker,'' meaning Howard Baker, ``as he smiled broadly. 
`There will be no more votes this session. There will be no more votes 
in my career.' His Senate colleagues and spectators in the galleries 
came to their feet to give the Tennessee veteran a roaring ovation as 
he sat in his front-row seat. Baker joined in the light laughter 
saying, `Frankly, I first thought that applause was for me. But then I 
realized that it was for sine die adjournment.' ''
  ``Following the vote on the debt limit, Senator Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan said, `For 4 years, Republicans have always made us Democrats 
pass a debt limit. Then they campaigned against it. Now it's their debt 
limit. Let them pass it.' ''
  So those are the games that were played, and they will be played 
again.
  Section 3 of the amendment is as follows: ``Prior to each fiscal 
year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget 
for the U.S. Government for that fiscal year, in which total outlays do 
not exceed total receipts.''
  So this section means then that the President of the United States 
must send a balanced budget to the Congress before each fiscal year 
even though during a recession the President may deem it advisable to 
recommend a fiscal deficit in order to help get the country back on its 
feet. That will happen from time to time. The language of section 3 
would preclude his doing so. He is not supposed to recommend a fiscal 
deficit. He is required by the constitutional amendment to recommend a 
balanced budget.
  Notwithstanding this requirement, however, a President's Office of 
Management and Budget could ``cook the numbers,'' as was done during 
the administration of President Reagan. Didn't David Stockman say so? 
That is not just Robert Byrd talking. They cooked the numbers to 
reflect whatever income and spending numbers the administration wanted. 
And they can do it again. They will do it again--cook the numbers.
  The President's budget could, for example, forecast that the economy 
will grow faster than it really will grow, and therefore would take in 
more tax revenues; or the administration could forecast that interest 
rates would be much lower than most economists predict, or that 
unemployment would drop during the upcoming budget year, thereby 
causing the budget to be in balance. Cook the numbers.
  In short, the President and his staff can, as we have seen in the 
past--don't say, ``It ain't so,'' because it is--come up with any 
number of rosy scenarios in order to make the numbers balance. 
Consequently, simply telling the President of the United States that he 
must send a balanced budget to the Congress does not in fact get us any 
closer to balancing the budget. The American people will again be 
treated to ``make believe,'' ``Alice in Wonderland'' budgets while we 
politicians just keep on playing the same old shell game in ways that 
will fool the American public.
  Section 4 reads:

       No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless 
     approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a 
     rollcall vote.

  What the proponents of this amendment are doing is making it more 
difficult for Congress to close tax loopholes--to get rid of what are 
called tax expenditures. Mr. President, that little piece of the 
economic pie amounts to about $500 billion in lost revenues every year. 
This is not to say that all of these tax writeoffs are bad policy. 
Certainly the mortgage interest deduction has allowed many more 
Americans to own homes than may have otherwise been the case. So, many 
of the writeoffs are wholesome and healthful for the economy. But, at 
same time, some of these writeoffs are simply tax loopholes which, like 
leeches, suck the blood from the economic body politic.
  No one likes to raise taxes, but it is something that has to be done, 
and for 208 years, Congress has been able, by a simple majority vote in 
both Houses, to increase revenues. It does have to be done, from time 
to time, no matter how much we may dislike having to vote to do it. 
Yet, this section would require a kind of ``floating'' supermajority in 
both Houses in order to increase revenue. Let me explain this term 
which I have invented. For over two centuries, the Constitution has 
required only a simple majority in each House to raise revenues. For 
example, let us say that there are 90 Senators present and voting on a 
measure to raise taxes. Up to this point, a simple majority, just 46 
Senators of the 90, could pass the bill. Under this proposed 
constitutional amendment, with 90 Senators voting, 51--51 Senators, not 
46; 51 Senators, or five more Senators than a simple majority--would be 
necessary.
  Now, depending upon what day of the week, what hour of the day, of 
course, a supermajority of five votes would be necessary rather than a 
simple majority of one vote. But let us say that 80 Senators are 
present and voting. A simple majority would require 41 Senators to pass 
the bill. With this new constitutional amendment in place, at least 51 
Senators would be required--or 10 more votes than is presently 
required. Hence, a supermajority of 10 in that hypothetical case would 
be necessary. And so on. If 70 Senators voted, ordinarily 36 Senators 
could pass the bill. But under this constitutional amendment, 51 
Senators would be required, or 15 additional Senators over and above a 
simple majority; a supermajority of 15. So it is a ``floating 
supermajority.'' This is why I refer to it as a ``floating 
supermajority.'' It floats, or changes, depending upon the number of 
Senators present and voting, so that if the supermajority of five votes 
is necessary to pass the tax bill on a Wednesday, let us say, a 
supermajority of 10 votes or 15 votes may be necessary if the passage 
of the bill should occur on Thursday or Friday. It could be 9 o'clock 
in the morning in one case and 4 o'clock in the afternoon in the other. 
So it would fluctuate. It is not an exact number. It will float from 
day to day and from hour to hour, depending upon the clock and the 
calendar.
  Section 5 states:

       The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for 
     any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. 
     The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal 
     year in which the United States is engaged in military 
     conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat 
     to national security and is so declared by a joint 
     resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House, which becomes law.

  Mr. President, Congress does not always declare war anymore. Even 
when it does declare war, the declaration

[[Page S1261]]

may not necessarily be lifted when the shooting stops. Congress 
declared war against Germany in 1941. Not very many Americans, and not 
all the Members of the U. S. Senate, perhaps, realize that this 
declaration of war existed until September 28, 1990. Consequently, if 
this constitutional amendment to balance the budget had been a part of 
the U.S. Constitution during that period, the Congress could have 
waived the balanced budget requirement every year for almost a half 
century--because a declaration of war was ``in effect,'' technically.
  So, here again, this section requires a ``floating'' supermajority, 
as did section 4, in order to receive the necessary approval by both 
Houses of Congress.
  If the Nation is not engaged in a conflict that causes an imminent 
and serious military threat to national security, then a three-fifths 
majority would be required to waive the amendment for national security 
reasons. I would like to remind my colleagues just to think back with 
me to the 1990-1991 timeframe and recall President Bush's military 
buildup in the Persian Gulf. Prior to the actual Desert Storm 
engagement, a very expensive military buildup was necessary to provide 
the materiel and the personnel to conduct that conflict. Under this 
constitutional amendment, should a similar situation arise, the 
President would be required to achieve a three-fifths majority of both 
Houses in order to enact into law a waiver under section 1 because the 
waiver under section 5 would not be applicable, in that we would not be 
``engaged'' in a military conflict; we are just getting ready for one. 
We are just rolling up our sleeves. We are just preparing. We are 
getting things all lined up, but we are not actually in a military 
conflict. But that has to be done because you cannot provide the 
materiel, the equipment, the engines of war just overnight. 
Furthermore, under section 5, a three-fifths majority could be required 
to increase military spending to deter aggression, provide military aid 
to our allies, or to rebuild forces after a military conflict.
  Until such a three-fifths majority is achieved, what happens to the 
Nation's defenses? What happens to our national security? Will our 
allies be able to count on the United States to stand shoulder to 
shoulder with them if a necessity for such should materialize in the 
future?
  Will they have any confidence that the United States will act? They 
have to be more confident than I am confident that the three-fifths 
vote would be here in this Senate.
  Section 7 states:

       Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United 
     States Government except those derived from borrowing.

  ``Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States 
Government except those derived from borrowing.''

       Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United 
     States Government except for those for repayment of debt 
     principal.

  Under the definition of section 7, Social Security checks and 
veterans benefits, veterans pension checks, Medicare reimbursement 
checks--they are outlays. Does anyone dispute that? Those are outlays. 
The senior citizens of this country and the veterans of this country 
are being asked to accept on blind faith the fact that their Social 
Security checks or their Medicare benefits will be secure if this 
constitutional amendment is adopted here and ratified later by the 
requisite number of States.
  They are being told--Social Security recipients are being told, the 
recipients of veterans checks are being told--that even though the 
Social Security trust fund is not specifically exempted from the 
balance mandate, they have no need to worry, because Congress is on 
record as agreeing to balance the budget without touching the fund.
  The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
commonly known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, placed Social Security off 
budget beginning in 1986. This legislation, with its protections for 
Social Security, passed the Senate by a vote of 61 to 31 with a strong 
bipartisan majority. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 reinforced 
these earlier protections for Social Security by placing it even more 
clearly off budget. What the American people are not being told by the 
proponents of this amendment, however, is that a mere statute--a mere 
statute--protecting Social Security is subordinate to the Constitution 
of the United States, which is the supreme law--the supreme law--of the 
land. It will top, it will trump any statute. The supreme law. Here it 
is, the Constitution of the United States. Tops any statute.
  Nor would the good intentions of the present Congress be binding on 
future Congresses. I say to the veterans and to the senior citizens of 
our country, be on your guard. If this proposal becomes a part of the 
U.S. Constitution, your checks--your checks--will be at risk of being 
reduced in the future.
  Finally, Mr. President, section 8 says:

       This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 
     2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its 
     ratification, whichever is later.

  Which means simply that it can't take effect prior to fiscal year 
2002. So those of us who are up for reelection in the year 2000 could, 
if it was our desire, vote for this amendment, go on home, sit in the 
old rocking chair, and just rock away, because the hammer isn't going 
to fall on me. This thing will not go into effect until 2002, at the 
earliest.
  What does that mean? That also means that Members of the House and 
Senate will be relieved of the pressure until 2002. So we can just go 
on our merry way. It will all be taken care of, it will all become 
automatic, this is self-enforcing, it's automatic. The sky is falling; 
the debt is bad; the deficit is terrible; just vote for the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget; it's just that simple.
  This section amounts to nothing more than a feel-good section. What 
this is saying is that we can wait to actually balance the budget. We 
do not need to do it now, Mr. President. This year of 1997 may well be 
the most opportune time in many, many years to achieve a balanced 
Federal budget. The President has submitted a budget that is projected 
to balance by the year 2002. We have already made substantial progress 
toward that end. The deficit has already been reduced over 60 percent 
in the last 4 years. It is time to finish the job that we started 4 
years ago and enact legislation that will achieve a balanced budget by 
2002, not wait until 2002 to start to balance the budget.
  So, Mr. President, when looked at in its entirety, this proposed 
constitutional amendment amounts to nothing more than constitutional 
flimflam, constitutional pap. If it is adopted, we would have turned 
majority rule on its head and replaced it permanently with minority 
rule. And in the meantime, we will have perpetrated a colossal hoax--h-
o-a-x--on the American people, and our children will have been robbed 
of their birthright to live under a constitutional system of checks and 
balances and separation of powers.
  We have all heard the moaning and groaning, the shedding of tears 
about our children, how they are going to bear the fiscal burden that 
has been placed upon them. I share that feeling. I voted for the 
package in 1993 that reduced the Federal deficit by $500 billion, 
something like that, $500 billion, which has resulted in four 
consecutive years of reduced deficits.

  I voted for that. No Senator on that side of the aisle can say that 
he voted or she voted for that. They will say, ``Well, the reason I 
didn't is because it increased taxes.'' Well, that may be part of the 
pain that we will have to undergo to relieve that burden from our 
children's backs.
  I do not think the President should be advocating tax cuts now. I do 
not think that the GOP, the grand old party, should be advocating tax 
cuts at this time. Forget about the tax cuts and relieve the burden on 
our children's backs by that much.
  I am concerned too about my grandchildren and my great grandchildren 
and their children, that they will not live under a Constitution such 
as that which was handed down to us by our forefathers.
  But let me remind my colleagues who may be listening, let me remind 
the American people who may be listening, this amendment does not 
require that the budget be balanced. It does if we only look at section 
1. But when we look at the amendment in its entirety and go down to 
section 6, we realize full well that it does not mean that. We are only 
required to balance the estimates, the estimates of revenues, the 
estimates of outlays. So what this amendment does is require us to 
balance the estimates.

[[Page S1262]]

  Mr. President, I am reminded of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. In his 
``Republic,'' Plato, in a dialogue with a friend, speaks of human 
beings living in a cave, with their legs and their necks chained so 
that they can only look toward the rear of the cave. They are prevented 
by the chains from turning around, from turning their heads toward the 
entrance of the cave. And above and behind them is a fire blazing, 
causing shadows to appear on the walls of the cave, the shadows 
creating strange images that move around the walls, as the flames 
flicker and as men and objects pass between the fire and the human 
beings who were chained. The den has an echo which causes the prisoners 
to fancy that voices are coming from those moving shadows.
  At length, one of the human beings is liberated and compelled 
suddenly to stand and turn his neck around and walk toward the cave's 
entrance, walk toward the light at the entrance. As he is compelled to 
move toward the cave's opening, he suffers pains from the light of the 
Sun and is unable to see the realities, unable to see the realities of 
which in his former state he had only seen the shadows. He even fancies 
that the shadows which he formerly saw were truer than the real objects 
which are now revealed to him.
  He is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent until he is 
forced into the presence of the bright noon day sun and he is able to 
see the world of reality.
  Mr. President, as I listened to my colleagues who are proponents of 
the balanced budget amendment, I hear them year after year urging 
support of a constitutional amendment, and they use the same old 
arguments year after year. They must be getting tired of hearing those 
arguments over and over. I know I am tired. They seem never to view the 
amendment with reality but always with their backs turned toward the 
light and their faces turned toward the darkness, as it were, of the 
rear of Plato's allegorical cave. As in his Allegory, they seem to be 
impervious to a realistic view of the amendment, but continue to insist 
that it is really the elixir, the silver bullet, and they seem to 
resist holding it up to the light but prefer, instead, to concentrate 
on its shadows, its feel-good platitudes.
  I view the amendment as a flickering, unrealistic image on the walls 
of the cave of politics. Most of the proponents of the amendment are 
unwilling to take a look at the amendment, section by section, phrase 
by phrase, clause by clause, and word by word, preferring to live with 
the image that has so long been projected to the overwhelming majority 
of the American people by the proponents of the amendment. It is a 
feel-good image that will not bear the light of scrutiny, and the 
echoes that come back from the walls of the cave of politics are the 
magic incantations that we hear over and over and over again in this 
so-called debate--``vote for the amendment''--which really is not a 
debate at all. It has not been thus far. Maybe it will become one. If 
it were a debate, the proponents would be on the floor, even now, 
challenging the conclusions that I have drawn and expressed and telling 
me that I have not been reading the amendment correctly--``No, the 
amendment does not say that,'' they should be saying--in which I have 
proclaimed it to be a fraud.
  Elijah smote the waters of the Jordan with his mantle and the waters 
parted, and he and Elisha crossed over the Jordan on dry land to the 
other side of the Jordan. I have seen that old river of Jordan, one of 
the great rivers of the world. I thought it was going to be a wide, 
deep river. Not a wide river. Not a deep river. Some places it might be 
2 feet deep, that great old river of Jordan.
  I bet my friend here sings songs about that old river of Jordan.

       On Jordan's stormy banks I stand,
       and cast a wishful eye
       To Canaan's fair and happy land
       where my possessions lie.
  So Elijah smote the waters with his mantle and the waters parted, and 
he and Elisha crossed over on dry land to the other side of the Jordan. 
This constitutional amendment will never be the mantle that will part 
the waters of political partisanship and divisiveness, ``cooked 
numbers,'' and doctored estimates so as to provide a path across the 
river of swollen deficits to the dry land of a balanced budget on the 
opposite banks of the stream. Where are those who will challenge what I 
have said about section 6, who will say that I am wrong about this 
amendment's unworthiness of being placed in the Constitution, who will 
cite the errors of my argument and explain to this Senate the 
amendment, section by section, and explain why this amendment will 
work, how it will work, where the cuts will be made, and how the 
revenues will be increased. All of these good things do not just happen 
once the amendment is added to the Constitution.
  If this amendment is the panacea that so many in this body claim it 
to be, then certainly it could stand the scrutiny of point-by-point, 
section-by-section debate. It is flawed, as I believe, and if it is 
flawed, as I believe, we must dare to hold it to the light and expose 
it. The American people should not be sent such a far-reaching 
amendment without an exhaustive discussion of the havoc that it could 
create.
  This is not a campaign slogan--``pass the balanced budget 
amendment.'' It is not a Madison Avenue jingle designed to sell soap. 
Why not just put it on the bumpers of our automobiles as a bumper 
sticker--``pass the constitutional amendment.'' This is an amendment to 
the most profound and beautifully crafted Constitution of all time. And 
we owe the American people the best, most thorough debate on its 
provisions of which we are capable as lawmakers and as their elected 
representatives.
  Let us all come out of the cave and not fear or shrink from the 
bright rays of the Sun on the language of this amendment.


                            Amendment No. 6

       (Purpose: To strike the reliance on estimates and 
     receipts.)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may offer an 
amendment at this time and that it be laid aside pending the 
consideration of other amendments that may have been introduced 
already.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall read the amendment:

       On page 3, strike lines 12 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       Section 6. The Congress shall implement this article by 
     appropriate legislation.

  Mr. President, that does away with balancing by estimates.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 6.
       On page 3, strike lines 12 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall implement this article by 
     appropriate legislation.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will be happy to consider a time limit on 
this amendment and vote on it on a future day. I am agreeable to trying 
to work out a time limit at some point. I just offer it today so that 
it may be made part of the Record and may be printed and that we may, 
then, with this understanding, return to it at a future day.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia has done a service to this body, as he has for so many years 
in so many different issues at so many different times.
  In part of this debate over the last 2 days, I have on more than one 
occasion urged the proponents of this constitutional amendment to step 
up to what I call the Byrd challenge. I know the distinguished senior 
Senator from West Virginia knows that I say that most respectfully 
because when the distinguished Senator from West Virginia lays down a 
challenge on a constitutional issue, every one of us, Democrats or 
Republicans, should pay attention because what he is doing is 
challenging the U.S. Senate to rise above politics, rise above polls of 
the moment, but to stand up for our Constitution for the ages. Polls 
come and go. Polls change. The Constitution stands for the ages.

[[Page S1263]]

  I think of the vote as the war clouds gathered in Europe before World 
War II, the vote to extend the draft, I believe it was by one vote. 
Those who voted to extend the draft cast a very unpopular vote for the 
most part. Where would democracy be today if they had not had the 
courage to step beyond the polls of the moment? Look at the Marshall 
plan. I remember former President Nixon telling me that he remembers 11 
percent of the people in this country were in favor of the Marshall 
plan, but if Harry Truman had not had the courage to push forward and 
had not Members of this body and the other been willing to stand up, we 
would not have had the democracy stand where it does today.
  If this great country, the greatest democracy, the most powerful 
economy, the most powerful Nation in history, hamstrings itself into 
something in the Constitution where it cannot reflect basic economic 
realities, those of us who succumb to the passing moments of a poll may 
regret, and our children may regret, that we did not listen to the Byrd 
challenge.
  I repeat what I said before many times, the Byrd challenge is here. I 
ask proponents of this constitutional amendment to focus on the words 
of this proposed amendment, explain what they mean, explain how this 
proposed constitutional amendment will work. Senator Byrd has explained 
this amendment word by word, section by section, phrase by phrase, and 
what he has done is asked the obvious questions--what does it mean?
  Mr. President, we are in this Chamber, the Chamber that shows respect 
for silence, for the silence is thundering in response to the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, because there has been no 
response to his question, what do these phrases mean, what do these 
words mean, what do these sections mean?
  Mr. BYRD. Would the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. I hope that Senators 
will look carefully at section 6 of the proposed constitutional 
amendment and that they will also look very carefully at the words of 
the committee report, which deals specifically with section 6. The 
distinguished Senator from Vermont is on the Judiciary Committee. He 
wrote some differing views from those of the majority of the committee, 
and they are printed in the committee report. But inasmuch as my 
amendment strikes most of section 6, I hope that Members--and I 
particularly call to the attention of new Members of the body, section 
6 and the language in the report which provides the loopholes that will 
give us all a way out of having to live up to this constitutional 
amendment give us a way out of having to balance the budget, in the 
event that it is adopted by both Houses and ratified by three-fourths 
of the States.

  I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I 
close only with this: None of us in this body owns a seat in the U.S. 
Senate. We are privileged and honored to serve here at the time we are 
here, and then we go on. But our Constitution does own a place in our 
country. It has been amended only 17 times since the Bill of Rights. We 
should never rush pell-mell into an amendment to this Constitution 
without thinking through the consequences.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I think it is important for the American 
people to know how significant and important this debate is on the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I served 16 years in 
the House of Representatives and am now in my third year in the U.S. 
Senate. Some have argued that when we debate this amendment, we are 
hearing the same old argument over and over again. That is true, 
because we have the same problem year in and year out. That is why 
those of us who support a constitutional amendment feel so strongly 
about the necessity to have this amendment in the Constitution of the 
United States because it will ensure stability and security for the 
future of this country and for our children and our grandchildren.
  Having served in this overall institution for 19 years now, we have 
heard the debate on the constitutional amendment. This is about our 
eighth time in either the House or the Senate, or both, that we have 
been debating this issue. Guess what? Each and every time we have heard 
the same arguments over and over again as to why we don't need a 
constitutional amendment, that it is not necessary, that we can do it 
on our own, that if only we had the will or the discipline, we could 
enact a balanced budget, that it is simply not necessary. Well, if that 
was the case, why then don't we have a balanced budget? Why is it that 
we are still trying to enact a balanced budget? Why is it that we are 
still trying to reach an agreement with the President of the United 
States on a balanced budget?
  The President said the other day in his State of the Union Address, 
``We don't need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States. All 
we need is your vote and my signature.'' Well, we gave him our vote on 
a balanced budget. It was submitted to the President of the United 
States last year. Guess what? We didn't get his signature.
  That is the problem. We can all have our disagreements about the 
particulars. But in the final analysis what is required in a balanced 
budget amendment is that you have to agree to the bottom line. There is 
a bottom line. What this amendment says is that total outlays will not 
exceed total receipts in any fiscal year. I know that is a concept that 
is difficult to understand in this institution because it is nothing 
that we have ever been required to do. What we feel is important to the 
security interests of this country is to ensure that we have balanced 
budgets in perpetuity.
  Almost every State in the country is required to have a balanced 
budget. Yes. Most of them are required to balance their budgets because 
of a constitutional amendment in their State constitution, like my 
State of Maine. My husband served for 8 years as Governor. Believe me, 
they didn't argue with particulars of the constitutional amendment. 
They understood what they had to do because they took an oath of office 
as each and every one of us does in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House 
of Representatives. We are required to uphold the Constitution of the 
United States as each and every Governor is required to uphold their 
State constitution.
  So what they did in good faith is reach an agreement on a budget, and 
in their case a biennial budget. Yes, if their estimates were wrong, 
they made adjustments. Their constitutions are not prescriptions for 
perfection. It is an attempt to comply with the constitution. That is 
what the Governors and the State legislatures do all across the 
country. If their estimates are wrong, if their projections for 
interest rates, unemployment rates, or inflation rates are wrong, they 
make adjustments throughout the year or at the end of the year, because 
they understand they are required to balance the budget.

  So, I find it sort of nothing short of extraordinary that we sit here 
and argue, ``Well, this amendment is providing too much flexibility 
because we are relying on estimates.'' Yet, on the other hand we are 
facing numerous challenges and propositions to a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget that would enhance our flexibility 
because there are those who argue, from across the aisle and other 
opponents, who say, ``Well, a constitutional amendment is too 
restrictive, we can't respond to circumstances such as recessions or 
downturns of the economy, a national economic emergency of some kind.'' 
So we are getting it from both sides--from those who say it is too 
restrictive and other opponents who argue saying it isn't restrictive 
enough. That is the problem here. Because in the final analysis, if we 
are truly interested in ensuring that we balance our budget, I suggest 
that we could overcome our institutional opposition by passing a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

[[Page S1264]]

  As I have said in the past to those who argue that, ``Well, it is 
just really a gimmick,'' if there was a gimmick, Congress would have 
passed it long ago because Congress loves gimmicks. But this 
constitutional amendment isn't a gimmick. It is an attempt to put our 
fiscal house in order.
  It is interesting. We get this coming and going, if you listen to the 
debate. We have charts that show declining deficits. But what about the 
charts that show the deficits moving up beyond the turn of the century 
and even before that time? We will be required in the year 2002 alone 
to reduce the deficit to balance the budget by $188 billion. But the 
opponents will not tell you about the deficits in future years that 
will double and triple--double and triple. In the year 2025 alone, the 
deficit will be in that one year alone $2 trillion. You know 2025 isn't 
that far away, if you think about your children and your grandchildren 
and the staggering debt that they will be required to assume because we 
are just passing it on.
  In fact, if we do not manage this debt, the next generation will be 
required to pay an 82-percent tax rate and see a 50-percent reduction 
in their benefits. And that is a fact.
  Are we not required or obligated to address that question? An 82-
percent tax rate and a 50-percent reduction in benefits. That is what 
we are leaving to the next generation. I know I and others as strong 
proponents of this amendment share a true responsibility to begin to 
address this question. I would like to think that we have faith in this 
institution sufficient enough to know that this can happen. But it will 
not and it has not.
  The last time we balanced the budget in the U.S. Congress was the 
same year that Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon. That is what these 28 
unbalanced budgets on this desk represent. That is the point. Since 
1950, we have only had five surpluses--five. In a century, practically 
speaking, 27 times. That is the track record. That is the historical 
track record.
  Is that the gamble we want to take for the next generation? I say 
not. And that is why I am prepared to take the risk in terms of the 
interpretation of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, 
because it is that important to our future. And so each and every time 
we hear everybody saying: ``We can do it; it is important, I agree; we 
should have a balanced budget; we can do it on our own,'' just think 
for a moment. We have not had one since 1969.
  The fact is we cannot even agree statutorily. We had that debate last 
year for a long time. In fact, a group of us on a bipartisan basis 
offered our own plan to try to serve as a catalyst for this debate. In 
fact, we received 46 votes. And I did not like everything in that 
budget, I have to tell you. But I was willing to agree to it because I 
thought the bottom line was that important. I do not doubt for a moment 
that it is difficult to reach an agreement among 100 Senators or 435 
Members of the House, so a total of 535, plus the President of the 
United States. But there has to be some give-and-take in this process, 
some flexibility in order to reach the bottom line. Unfortunately, we 
have too much flexibility because we are not required to balance the 
budget. Oh, sure, we have some statutes, but Congress has long ignored 
those statutory requirements to balance the budget--long ignored them. 
That is why a constitutional amendment is so important.
  I frankly think there is no greater issue, no issue more central to 
the economic future of our country as well as to our children and to 
our grandchildren than balancing the budget. I know the administration 
is touting an economic recovery, but I have to tell you there are not a 
lot of people in my State participating in a full economic recovery. 
Many people are feeling very anxious about the future, about their 
children's future. The overwhelming majority of Americans--in fact, 
some polls say as high as 88 percent--have said that they do not 
believe the next generation will achieve the American dream.
  I say that is disheartening, and yet I can understand why people 
would feel pessimistic, because they know they are working hard to try 
to make ends meet, and they know their children will be working hard to 
make ends meet in order to maintain a decent standard of living.
  We have heard, well, household income is up. But the real household 
income in America today is down below the levels of 1990 when we were 
facing a recession. And certainly my State and New England, California 
were the hardest hit regions in this country. But that is because there 
are more people working in the family today; they are having more jobs 
in order to make ends meet.

  There was a cartoon last year showing the President touting the 
millions of jobs that had been created, and the waiter serving him 
lunch said, ``Yeah, and I have four of them.'' That is the point. 
People are having to work longer and harder than ever before to make 
ends meet.
  So then you look at the tax burden. We have heard a lot of discussion 
about taxes. The tax burden is high. It now represents 38 percent of a 
family's income--more than food, shelter, and clothing combined. So not 
only are people working longer and harder in more jobs, but also they 
are facing a rising tax burden.
  Then we hear about economic growth, and we have seen the projections 
for the future--2.3, 2.1, 2.5, but the average projected growth for 
America in the next 5 years is about 2.3 percent. If we had had that 
growth rate for the last 30 years, we would not have achieved today's 
economy until the year 2003. We would have had 13 million fewer jobs in 
America.
  The point is that this balanced budget is crucial to American 
families because it means more income in their pockets. That is the 
bottom line. That is the mathematics of it all, because the less the 
Government spends, the less it borrows, the more money American 
families will have in their pockets. That means savings to them. It 
means their car loans, their student loans, their mortgages will be 
less costly. That is a fact. In fact, all combined, they could realize 
a savings of $1,500 a year because interest rates will be less.
  That is real money to the average American family. It is less money 
they have to give to their Government. It is more money that they have 
to spend. Frankly, that is what this debate is all about, how we can 
improve the standard of living for American families and begin to think 
about our priorities here in the Congress and the priorities for our 
Nation. But when you do not have to meet a bottom line like every 
family does in America, every business, every State, you do not have to 
think about what is a priority anymore. You do not have to think how 
well or efficiently or effectively we will spend the hard-earned 
taxpayers' dollars. We just do not have to think about it because we 
can just incur deficits year in and year out. Even the President's 
budget that he submitted to the Congress last week adds another $1 
trillion over the next 5 years. And that is supposed to be a balanced 
budget.
  That is what we are talking about. So that is why I happen to think a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget is the only course of 
action that we can take to ensure prosperity for the future.
  I know we can have our differences, but in the final analysis we 
ought to agree that this is the one step we can take. A balanced budget 
will be great for American families. It will be great for America 
because it will expand economic growth, and economic growth is the 
engine that drives a healthy economy. It will help to increase wages, 
create more jobs, unleash millions, billions of dollars in capital to 
allow this country to expand and to grow. I do not think we ought to 
accept budgets that compromise our economic standards, our economic 
opportunities, because that is what unbalanced budgets do. We are 
facing a very competitive future in this global economy. The American 
people understand that. They understand that, and they are worried 
because they are not certain how their children will be able to prepare 
for that competitive economy.

  That is why education has become a central issue and a central part, 
I know, of our agenda here in the Senate, and a central part of the 
President's agenda--because we are going to have to prepare to make 
investments in education, not only for the basic education needs of 
Americans but also in continuing education so they are constantly 
prepared for the changes in skills and technology. But, in order to

[[Page S1265]]

make those investments, we have to set priorities in our budgets. We 
have to have more money to spend. That is why I think balancing the 
budget and investing in education are not mutually exclusive goals; 
that you can be fiscally responsible but at the same time be visionary, 
be compassionate about the investments that we need to make as 
priorities for America. That is what a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget will do, because it will require us to do it each 
and every year, to examine and reexamine our priorities and how well 
these programs are functioning.
  We have an obligation to make sure that every dollar that is spent is 
spent wisely and efficiently. Under the current budget process, there 
is no such requirement.
  John F. Kennedy once said, ``The task of every generation is to build 
a road for the next generation.'' I cannot think of a more important 
road than the one that leads to fiscal security for future Americans. 
We have no less an obligation to ensure that, because never before has 
one generation delivered to the next generation a lower standard of 
living. But we are in danger of doing that now, and that is why I think 
it is so important that we grapple with reality and reach the 
conclusion that the only way we can ensure that prosperity and security 
for Americans is by enacting a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget.
  I yield floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I see several of my colleagues are waiting. I am only 
going to speak 6 or 7 minutes. Do I have to ask unanimous consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that at 1:30 the Senate 
will proceed, under the previous order, to the Dodd amendment for 4 
hours.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will just take what time is left.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for a question? Mr. President, 
the Senator indicated he wished to speak for 6 or 7 minutes. The 
Senator from North Carolina, apparently, wishes to speak for 3 minutes, 
and I had come to the floor wanting to speak also on the legislation.
  I ask the Senator to propound a unanimous-consent request that he 
speak for 7 minutes, the Senator from North Carolina follow for 3 
minutes, after which I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe that we would need 
unanimous consent to deal with the Dodd amendment, as to whether or not 
that time would be extended.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time be taken 
out of both sides equally in the Dodd amendment, because I think we 
have more than enough time. If we need more time, we will ask unanimous 
consent to get more.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank Senator Hatch very much for taking care of 
that, Mr. President. I appreciate that very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine had a very good 
statement that we all ought to take cognizance of, and that is based on 
her experience, being that her husband was Governor of Maine and they 
had to live within a balanced budget, year after year after year. It 
does force discipline upon policymakers. She gave an eloquent statement 
from that point of view, as well as a lot of other good reasons why we 
need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

                          ____________________