[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1340-S1346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S1340]]



                BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we will have several more of my colleagues 
here to discuss how the balanced budget amendment benefits children.
  I will begin by saying that as a new Senator, I am in awe of these 
surroundings. Every day I reflect on the history that has taken place 
in this Chamber. I think of the people who have been here before me and 
hear them referred to in speeches on a daily basis.
  Much of the history of this great Nation has been shaped in this 
Chamber. Every day we are in session history is being made. Right now 
we are debating the balanced budget constitutional amendment. That may 
be the most important piece of legislation to be debated during my 
lifetime because of the implications it has for the future of our 
country.
  A new revolution may be taking place in this country. A few years 
ago, I was given a book by my pastor to read. It was a scholarly review 
of social cycles in the history of the United States. The baby boomers 
were one of those cycles. I am part of that. They were concerned 
primarily for themselves but also for others as long as there was 
something in it for them. It revealed how in the history of the United 
States there have been three recurring cycles. But following each 
period when we tried to be sure we took care of ourselves and 
instituted programs to make sure others were taken care of, provided we 
were included, that generation was followed by a reactionary 
generation, and the reactionary generation took away the ``gifts'' of 
the previous generation.
  In last week's balanced budget debate, we heard a lot of comments 
about Social Security. I am mentioning this reactionary generation 
because I want to make sure we protect Social Security not just today 
but for the time to come. All of us here are concerned about Social 
Security, and to say otherwise is just political hogwash. But the only 
way to protect Social Security is to include it in the balanced budget 
constitutional amendment. That is why the President's budget proposal 
and every budget prior to that included Social Security in the budget. 
We cannot continue to ignore the interests of our children and 
grandchildren--members of that reactionary agenda.
  What does the incredible debt that we have built up have to do with 
future generations? The Federal debt is $5.3 trillion. None of us 
understand how much $5.3 trillion is. But the reactionary generation 
that follows will learn, and they will learn all too soon. As they 
become saddled with tremendous debt, they will realize what the 
magnitude of how much $5.3 trillion really is.
  Already this reactionary generation says that they have a better 
chance of seeing an unidentified flying object than they have of seeing 
$1 of their Social Security money when they retire. They see no hope 
for the future, and they look forward to a lifetime of putting in 7.45 
percent or more of their paycheck and having that matched by their 
employer with another 7.45 percent. That is 15 percent that could have 
been their earnings, that could have been money in their pockets or in 
their own retirement accounts. When they realize that they will not 
receive a dollar of that money, what do you suppose their reaction will 
be? Will they protect Social Security for those already in the program? 
Will they care? Will there be a legislative revolution?
  As an accountant, I am fascinated with the budget discussion because 
we are talking about numbers, and that is exciting. We are talking 
about balancing budgets. We are talking about formats that will provide 
us with the most information possible, and we are doing it in the 
context of a real budget dealing with real people. We are doing it in 
the context of a history where we have only balanced the budget once in 
40 years--and that was 28 years ago.

  Some very valid accounting concerns have been raised here in debate 
by opponents of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. I have 
heard reference to the need for capital budgeting. I have heard 
reference to a need for Social Security to be off budget. I have heard 
reference to the need to take care of accounting problems that happen 
during recessions. As an accountant, I applaud this insight into the 
need for new accounting methods.
  Not only am I an accountant but I used to be the mayor of Gillette, 
WY, as it went through a boom and increased in population about two and 
a half times. I know from having been through both kinds of economic 
cycles that growth presents many of the same problems that recession 
causes. Under both situations a capital budget is required. We really 
do need Federal capital budgets and cash-flow management budgets. We 
need to list all of the capital purchases, vehicles, buildings, etc., 
that this Government needs to buy for the next 1 year, 2 years, 5 
years, 10 years, 50 years. I have found out that many agencies or 
departments have no idea how much capital they have. We need to have 
cash-flow budgets so that as the cash arrives the purchases can be made 
without extensive deficits. That is good business.
  When I heard the Democratic leader speaking about capital budgets 
last week, I got excited. That is the kind of accounting that we should 
have already had. But, this kind of accounting has nothing to do with 
passing the balanced budget constitutional amendment. It is just good 
business. Whether we have a capital budget or not, we need a balanced 
budget amendment.
  Last week I heard a lot of debate about the need to take Social 
Security off budget. Off budget is a fascinating accounting term. In 
fact in my accounting references I could not even find that term. And I 
have to say from listening to the discussions that there does not seem 
to be a lot of consensus as to what off budget really means.
  It looks like we found a catch word that scares senior citizens and 
makes everyone think this will save Social Security. As one who daily 
approaches being a senior, I want to see us get the rhetoric out of 
that term. We give the impression that Social Security has enough money 
at the moment. We talk about the surpluses going into Social Security 
and being used in the budget.
  Accountants frown at the word ``surplus'' revenue. Surplus implies 
more than what is needed. That is not the case with the Social Security 
trust fund. We give the impression that money is being put aside in a 
special account for our seniors so that when they retire there will be 
money to be drawn out in their names. That is not even close to what 
actually happens.
  In order for the money that people are paying into Social Security 
today to be available for them when they retire, the system must be 
actuarially sound. That means that the money going in now at the rate 
of investment allowed on that fund has to generate enough revenue so 
there will be a payout for the period of time promised. We have 
promised to pay out money for the remainder of a person's life at not 
only the rate that he or she is entitled to at the time they retire, 
but also with cost-of-living allowances.
  We have already passed laws in this country that force businesses 
doing pension funds to make their funds actuarially sound. They have to 
build a fund that at the time of retirement will have enough money in 
it that can pay the benefits for that person for the promised amount of 
time which is usually the balance of his lifetime. That is the law. 
Businesses are in the process of meeting that at an extreme cost to 
themselves. If we force businesses to keep their promises, then why do 
we not fulfill our promise to the same people and keep our accounts 
sound?
  At the present time Social Security is at least $9.3 trillion away 
from being actuarially sound. Do we have a way to generate that money? 
No. We have to perpetuate the current system. That is why we cannot 
privatize the system. We would bankrupt the system immediately if we 
allowed younger generations to take their money and put it in their own 
fund instead of putting it in to be paid out to our seniors 
immediately.
  We need to have a system where we can see how far in debt we are. And 
we need to do that not just for Social Security but for every single 
trust fund that we have. We either have to change the accounting system 
to account for the funds honestly and show how much of a deficit there 
is, or rename them so that they are not trust funds. Perhaps we should 
do both.
  OK, we agreed to do a system of pay in and pay out trying to build up 
some surpluses to take care of the coming influx of people going into 
retirement.

[[Page S1341]]

 But, when the baby boomers reach full retirement, the Social Security 
surplus will decline at a dramatic rate, eventually going broke by the 
year 2012.
  Yes, we need a new accounting system for Social Security. Yes, we 
need that system now. No, it is not a part of the balanced budget 
constitutional amendment. It is a part of a good government proposition 
and we need to grapple with it and get it under control. The issue of 
what accounting system to use should not determine if we vote for or 
against a balanced budget amendment. A new accounting system is needed, 
but the balanced budget amendment is essential.
  The only hope for Social Security is a balanced budget, then switch 
to an accounting system that will realistically deal with the actuarial 
needs of Social Security so that we can protect it for future 
generations. Otherwise we will have a revolution that will take away 
seniors' Social Security.
  Last week I also saw many copies of the pocket Constitution of the 
United States being held up and explained. I too, carry my own copy of 
the Constitution of the United States. It was given to me some years 
ago by a district judge when I was in the State legislature.
  When I was mayor, on Constitution Day, I used to give all members of 
the city council a copy of the Constitution and encourage them to read 
it. Sometimes we read it as a part of the proceedings of the city 
council meeting. This document is an astonishing document. The insight 
by our forefathers was incredible. But this debate has also raised some 
constitutional issues.
  I have heard discussion that some people in this body consider this 
to be a draft. It fascinates me, that, with the exception of one single 
provision, the Founders of this Constitution considered it to be a 
draft. In article 5, instructions are given on how a change in the 
Constitution can be made. They made it difficult, but possible to 
change. The balanced budget constitutional amendment has to pass by a 
two-thirds vote in each House and then it must be ratified by three-
fourths of the States.
  I think those people who are opposing a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment know in their hearts that this time it will 
pass and will also have swift ratification by the States. If we did not 
believe it would be ratified by the States, this would be an easy 
debate. But we know the people of the States want it and the States 
will respond. If just those States with one or more Senators opposing 
the balanced budget constitutional amendment did not ratify the 
constitutional amendment, it would never become a constitutional 
amendment.
  Why will there be swift ratification? First, most of the States 
already have a balanced budget requirement in their Constitution. They 
work under the requirement and know the requirement works. They know 
their limitations and the types of challenges that develop from it. 
They understand that the challenges are not a detriment to the United 
States having a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
  People understand from their own experience that you cannot spend 
more than you take in. Almost every school child above the third grade 
is able to explain to me that if you spend more money than you take in 
you go broke. It has been said that we can learn much from children. 
Children focus on problems in more simple terms. Congress has not yet 
learned what the children know. The voters want us to stop spending 
their money they have not even earned yet. Our children and 
grandchildren plead with us to balance the budget and quit cosigning on 
their behalf for this mountain of debt.
  Another argument that I have heard in this debate is the need to 
adjust changes or, using a new term, glitches in the economy. $5.3 
trillion worth of debt has turned people into unbelievers about the 
paternal role of Government in our lives. We have already wrestled with 
the $5.3 trillion worth of experiments that wound up with these 
glitches in the economy. Where has it taken us? What do we have to show 
for it? The people know the Government has little control over the 
economy.
  I have heard the argument that families do not balance their budgets 
because they borrow for future such situations, and they do not pay the 
debt off each year. I agree, they do not. But I do hasten to point out 
that they at least pay off a little bit of the debt every year. Right 
now we should not only balance the budget, we should include in that 
balanced budget an enabling legislation provision to pay off the 
national debt.
  If you went to your banker and said, ``I want to borrow money to buy 
a house, but I don't want to have to pay anything but the interest for 
the rest of my life,'' would you get the loan? No, you would not. But 
that is what Government is doing. The Government is saying, we want 
you, the American people, to be our bankers, but all we want to do is 
pay the interest. I can foresee a time when the interest may amount to 
more than all of the other spending programs, so it will be tough to 
even pay the interest, and we still will not be paying a nickel on the 
national debt. Will the next generation be reactionary if they pay 
exorbitant taxes and cannot buy anything but interest?
  This does not begin to mention who finances our debts. We are 
fiscally controlled to a limited degree by foreign interests because of 
the large increase in their securities holdings. This weakens our 
economy and independence because the money is taken out of the United 
States. The interest on the Federal debt increased from 9 percent of 
total outlays in fiscal year 1980 to 15 percent in fiscal year 1995.
  The Federal Government has not been good about limiting or 
disciplining itself in any way. We understand how happy constituents 
get when we throw money at them and their wants. We also understand how 
disappointed and a little bit angry they sometimes get when they are 
not given things.
  I was in the Wyoming Legislature for 10 years. Halfway through that 
time, I moved from the house to the senate. At that time the State 
senate imposed a new rule on itself. We have a very limited time for 
meeting in Wyoming. We meet for 20 days in a budget session, which is 
every other year, and 40 days in a regular session. Now we save 2 of 
those days each time in case the Governor were to veto something, we 
could call ourselves back into session and override it. So we spend 18 
days one year and 38 days the next, and we avoid all special sessions.
  In recent years one thing has happened that has helped, and that is a 
rule that we imposed on ourselves to limit the number of bills that any 
one Senator can introduce in a session. We said that in a budget year, 
a Senator could only introduce three bills, and in a regular session a 
Senator could only introduce seven bills. We spent a lot of hours 
talking about limiting our own right to submit bills. Those who spoke 
most vehemently against it were the ones who turned in the most bills. 
It was not unusual for anybody to turn in 30 bills in a regular 
session. We passed a rule in spite of the opposition. Today the biggest 
supporters of that rule are the ones who before the rule turned in the 
most bills.
  Why the change? The ones who turned in the most bills discovered two 
things. First, their constituents were more pleased with the bill that 
passed than one that was merely introduced. Introducing and working a 
few bills resulted in a higher percentage of bills that passed. Second, 
maybe most importantly, it was much easier to say no to a constituent 
for a new bill if there was a prohibition against the number of bills 
allowed to be introduced.
  How does that relate to a constitutional amendment for a balanced 
budget? I am suggesting that, if we limit ourselves by a balanced 
budget constitutional amendment, we will concentrate more on what we 
really do well, and the things that we choose to do we will do well. We 
can have the America of our dreams. We will have more people 
participating, we will have less people expecting Government to do 
things for them, we will have more care and concern for our elders, and 
we will have more concentration on our children's and our 
grandchildren's welfare.
  We have an opportunity now to show that we can care for our parents 
and our grandparents and will provide for our children and our 
grandchildren. We can move to an honest system of accounting so we can 
end the deficits and pay down the debt to show that we really believe 
that the future of America is upon us now. We can preserve this as a 
land of opportunity for future

[[Page S1342]]

generations. The challenge is now. Do we have the courage or do we need 
a revolt from the reactionary generation? Please help me to pass the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I will urge all 
Americans to write and call your Representatives and Senators and tell 
them to pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Passing it 5 
years from now will not suffice. We need action now.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you.
  Mr. President, after listening to the Chaplain's prayer this morning, 
I was reminded of the old saying, ``Everybody wants to go to Heaven, 
but not everybody wants to do what is necessary to get there.''
  In his State of the Union Message, the President said he wanted to 
balance the budget by the year 2002, but he then went on to express 
opposition to the balanced budget amendment. Without the discipline of 
a constitutional balanced budget amendment, neither Congress nor the 
President will ever have the courage to pass one.
  The President has submitted a budget that is technically in balance 
by the year 2002. But let us look at it. If you check the fine print, 
you will find that 75 percent of the savings proposed by the President 
are postponed until the last 2 years of the 5-year plan, the years 
after President Clinton's term has ended. That is the problem.
  Just to cite the statistics, Mr. President, the budget deficit this 
year is about $107 billion. You would think if you are going to zero in 
the year 2002, and we are at $107 billion this year, we would reduce it 
a little each year until we got to zero. But actually the budget 
deficit goes up in fiscal year 1997, and the President's policies would 
boost it another $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1998 from where it would 
otherwise have been. In fact, in the last year--the year that we are 
supposed to be at zero--the savings required to achieve balance will be 
$117 billion. So the Congress will have to do more in savings in the 
very last year of this 5-year plan than we would have had to do to wipe 
out the deficit in its entirety this year. So $107 billion this year; 
we are going down to zero in the last year, and that last increment of 
savings is $117 billion.
  This is like the person who says, ``I'm going to go on a diet. I've 
got to lose 30 pounds. And I'm going to give myself 6 months to do it. 
But I think I'll eat real high off the hog for the first 5 months and 2 
weeks, maybe gain another 25 pounds or so, so that in the last 2 weeks 
I'll lose 55 pounds.'' That is what the President's budget is 
suggesting. It is precisely why we need a constitutional amendment, to 
force the President and the Congress to make the tough choices to 
balance the budget; otherwise, it is the same old thing, just put it 
off until later. We all want to lose the weight, but we do not want to 
make the tough choices to lose it.
  Putting off tough choices for as long as possible is typical of just 
about every budget plan that we have had in the last several years, 
including the plan that Congress approved l\1/2\ years ago. It is why 
the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law failed in the 1980's.
  After all the easy choices have been made in the first few years, 
progress toward a balanced budget stops dead in its tracks. No one 
wants to make the tough choices needed to achieve the larger savings 
scheduled down the road. So the deadline for the balance is always 
pushed off just a few more years.
  President Clinton's budget postpones most of the savings, as I said.
  Congress will no doubt come up with a budget that will do the same. 
That is what always happens. That is why the national debt continues to 
grow.
  Mr. President, 2 years ago when the balanced budget amendment lost by 
one vote, the national debt was approaching $4.9 trillion. Today, the 
debt is over $5.3 trillion--an increase of about $400 billion. That 
amounts to about $1,600--$1,600--for every man, woman and child in 
America. With that increase, each American's share of the national debt 
now totals about $20,000. That is about what the average Arizonan earns 
in a year.
  Two years ago opponents of the balanced budget amendment said a 
constitutional amendment is not necessary. All we need to do is muster 
the courage to do it ourselves. That is what our constituents sent us 
here to do, make these tough choices. But we do not make the tough 
choices. That is the way it always happens.
  We actually did pass a balanced budget in the Congress of the United 
States in 1995. In that year it was the President who vetoed the 
balanced budget. So, Mr. President, it demonstrates that it is both the 
Congress and the President. When we muster the courage, the President 
is the one who apparently lacks it.
  Since that time, 2 years ago, Congress has had to add tens of 
billions of dollars to the budget just to get the President to sign the 
funding bills into law and keep the Government operating. Just last 
September, Congress had to add $6.5 billion that it would not have 
otherwise spent. And that is on top of an increase of about $25 billion 
the Congress had already built into the year's spending legislation.
  Desire and good intentions are not enough to ensure that balance will 
ever be achieved. Unless we are bound by the Constitution, Members of 
Congress and the President will always find some reason to spend more 
or to put off for another year the savings that are needed.
  The former Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, the late Paul 
Tsongas, explained it this way in testimony before the Judiciary 
Committee 2 years ago: ``There are a lot of votes in deficit spending. 
There are no votes in fiscal discipline. What you have here is a sad 
case of pursuit of self as opposed to pursuit of what is in the 
national interest.''
  Senator Tsongas went on to say this: ``The fact that our generation 
could have conceived of having a consumptive lifestyle in leaving all 
that debt behind can only happen if we do not go home at night and look 
at our kids and grandkids and feel something.''
  Mr. President, it seems to me that our departed colleague really hit 
the nail on the head. The balanced budget amendment is about our 
children and our grandchildren and what kind of country we are going to 
leave them.
  For most of our Nation's history, each generation has worked hard and 
saved and invested so the next generation would be a little better off. 
Only in the last 40 years has that changed. Now Government cannot seem 
to live within its means no matter how much it collects in taxes. It 
has, quite literally, mortgaged the homes and businesses our children 
will not buy or build for decades to come.
  My second granddaughter was born just about a year ago and she 
already owes, as her share of the national debt, $20,000. In fact, she 
can expect to pay more than $187,000 in taxes during her lifetime just 
to pay the interest on the debt. What will be left from her income to 
care for her children? How will the Government care for the needy of 
tomorrow when almost every dollar in individual income tax revenue is 
devoted just to interest on the national debt?
  Mr. President, a balance budgeted offers hope. Yes, it will require 
the Congress to prioritize spending so the most important programs are 
not jeopardized, and wasteful programs will have to be eliminated. Some 
of the luxuries will have to be postponed. A balanced budget will 
require heavy lifting, but offers hope and opportunity to Americans 
today and our children tomorrow.
  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that a balanced budget would 
facilitate a reduction in long-term real interest rates of between 1 
and 2 percent. That means that more Americans will have a chance to 
live the American dream--to own their own home. A 2-percent reduction 
on a typical 30-year mortgage of $80,000 would save homeowners $107 
every month. That is $1,284 a year, or over $38,000 over the life of 
the mortgage. That is money in their pockets. A 2-percent reduction in 
interest rates on a typical $15,000 car loan would save buyers $676. 
The savings would accrue on student loans, and credit cards, and loans 
to businesses that want to expand or create new jobs. Reducing interest 
rates is probably one of the most important things that we can do to 
help people across this country.
  I know there are those who have doubts. Some will say that balancing 
the budget may make sense in good economic times, but it is too rigid 
and will prevent us from responding to economic emergencies or other 
hardship when that occurs.

[[Page S1343]]

  I think it is important first to point out that deficit spending is 
so ingrained in the Federal Government that we have been running 
deficits in good economic times as well as bad during the last 40 
years. Deficits have not been run solely to rescue the economy from 
hardship. If they were, we would not be having this debate today.
  Second, it is important to remember that the balanced budget 
amendment could be waived in times of true emergency. To ensure such 
waivers were not invoked routinely or without good cause, three-fifths 
of the House and Senate would have to agree. That should not be 
difficult in the case of real emergency.
  For example, when Congress extended unemployment compensation in 
response to economic problems in 1975, 1980, 1982, and 1991, it usually 
did so by a three-fifths majority. So the amendment leaves enough 
flexibility to respond to real emergencies.
  Mr. President, there is now general consensus that balancing the 
budget is the right thing to do. The President says he is for it, and 
the Republican majority in Congress says it is for it. We may be able 
to reach an agreement with the President and pass a plan this year to 
balance the budget by the year 2002. But without a balanced budget 
amendment, Congress or the President will no doubt find some reason to 
backtrack from the plan, if not next year, then in the year 2000 or 
2001, whenever the going gets tough.
  If we are serious about balancing the budget, we must support the 
balanced budget constitutional amendment. For our children's sake, we 
must do it now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on the 
balanced budget constitutional amendment being considered before us 
today. In the House of Representatives, I was fortunate enough to have 
been involved with the passage of this amendment during the 104th 
Congress and I am honored to be active once again in our efforts to 
pass this important amendment, and to help secure the American dream 
for future generations.
  Now, proposing an amendment to our national charter is not something 
to be taken lightly. It should be undertaken only for the most 
important of causes. The Constitution has guaranteed and protected the 
freedom of the American people. But it can only continue to defend 
those freedoms if we give it the ability to defend them. An amendment 
to balance the budget will give our Constitution the strength it needs 
to continue protecting and defending the freedoms that so many 
Americans enjoy.
  A balanced budget promises hope for the future, not fear as the 
naysayers will tell you. It promises to draw down interest rates, spur 
new investment decisions and increase our gross domestic product. It 
promises lower unemployment and more take home pay. And very 
importantly it promises to help protect our Social Security system.
  Without it our economic security is threatened. One of the most 
insidious aspects of our budget deficit is that it amounts to a hidden 
tax on our income, and on our children's future income. This hidden tax 
is felt by everyone who has taken a loan to pay for school, buy a car, 
or purchase a home. Higher interest rates are the taxes levied by a 
government that has not the courage to live responsibly or even 
honestly. We must balance the budget and thereby eliminate this hidden 
tax.
  The Joint Economic Committee estimates, and you have heard the 
estimates before, but I think they bear repeating, that yearly savings 
on an $80,000 home mortgage would amount to $1,272 by balancing the 
budget and that a student fresh out of school paying back a student 
loan would save about $180 per year because of the lower interest 
rates. These are not illusory effects or empty promises; they are 
rather the assurances of a responsible Government that balances its 
budget year after year and pays down the debt.
  But the Keynesian apostles will tell you the economy will collapse in 
tough times with a balanced budget amendment because it could force 
Congress to take actions that could exacerbate a recession. They are 
wrong.
  Opponents of the amendment before us argue that deficit spending is 
sometimes necessary to offset the negative effects of a recession, 
natural disaster, or war and to ease the flow of the business cycle. 
Now, they would argue that during tough times the Government should 
deficit spend and borrow against future prosperity. But this is simply 
the wrong approach. Future prosperity is our children's prosperity, and 
it should never be leveraged to provide for the consumptive desires of 
big Government.
  This amendment would not force Congress to raise taxes during a 
recession.
  Our fiscal policy over the last 40 years has hinged on the desire to 
deficit spend during times of both recession and expansion. So those 
who claim this amendment would place a straitjacket on our Nation's 
fiscal policies are correct. It would place a straitjacket on bad 
fiscal policies by placing emphasis on less Government spending rather 
than more.
  Deficit spending exacerbates the Federal debt, crowds out private 
investment decisions that bolster the economy, and leverages the 
country out of future economic growth and prosperity.
  We must balance the budget by cutting taxes, the right taxes, and 
Government spending, cutting that.
  So why are the opponents of this measure trying to stop the balanced 
budget amendment?
  Because, as a matter of economic policy this amendment means an end 
to the tax and spend economics that has given us our bloated, 
centralized Federal Government. What it boils down to is this: This 
amendment will help us put our fiscal house in order by ending faulty 
Keynesian policy and freeing up private enterprise and encouraging 
entrepreneurship. What works in America is the individual creativity 
and ingenuity of our people. This amendment will give us the tool to 
help realize that truth.
  Unfortunately, the fear-mongering attempts by the administration have 
been focused on transforming this debate from a debate about hope and 
future prosperity to a debate about an imagined fiscal doomsday. They 
want to continue following the failed Keynesian policies that have 
produced the most massive peacetime debt in our Nation's history and 
they know that this amendment will not allow them to do that.
  Now, I have a chart of what has happened to our Nation's debt over 
the course of our country's short history. I think it is pretty 
interesting and telling. You can tell that in earlier times we would 
hold a major debt during times of war, such as during the Revolutionary 
War, when we had a high debt in this country. During the Civil War, we 
had a high debt. Certainly, during World War I and World War II, we had 
a high debt in this country. But then when you look at between the 
times of war, we virtually didn't have any debt at all, or we pushed it 
down--up until the past 30 years. Instead, during this period of time, 
we have increased our debt into the massive debt that we have today.
  Mr. President, there is no reason for this debt that exists today. It 
has been fiscally irresponsible, morally irresponsible. It is a debt, a 
burden, a mortgage on America that our children will have to pay off. 
It is morally wrong of us to do that. This balanced budget amendment 
will keep this from happening in the future, so that future 
generations, future children coming into this country, won't be 
burdened with this tax on them, a tax which they never even voted on.
  Yesterday morning, when I walked into my office, the national debt 
was $5,325,298,771,668.63. This morning, when I walked into the office, 
the national debt was calculated at $5,325,967,417,901.67. Now, that 
means that, while America worked yesterday, its commitment to paying 
off the debt increased by almost $670 million.
  Mr. President, that was actually a cheap day for what we are running 
here lately. Every day that the Senate debates this issue, the average 
increase in our debt has been a $694 million. So we actually had a good 
day yesterday. But it's still a $694 million increase per day. Every 
day we debate this issue, the debt of our Federal Government grows.
  Wait, let's talk about it in real terms, per person. Statistics 
compiled by the Tax Foundation indicate that the median dual-income 
family pays a

[[Page S1344]]

little over $15,000 in Federal taxes each year. That means that over 
46,000 families will have to work the entire year just to pay for the 
time we spend debating this amendment today alone. That is money that 
could have been spent to send a child to college, or to make a 
downpayment on a home.
  I want to talk about it in more personal terms, about Bud Hentzen of 
Wichita, KS, and his family and what they are going to owe for interest 
on the national debt. Bud is a proud family man. He has 10 children. He 
also has 30 grandchildren. He did a calculation, and he was a little 
nervous about this. He is proud of his children and grandchildren, as 
well. He wants to leave them a better and brighter future. He has 
worked hard all his life to provide for his children and for their 
future. He wants his country to be strong for them in the future. While 
he personally has been responsible for providing for those children and 
educating them, he looks at his Federal Government and calculates that 
his 10 children collectively owe over $700,000, and his 30 
grandchildren collectively owe over $4.8 million for a total of over 
$5.5 million just to pay the interest on the debt for the Bud Hentzen 
family.
  That is not right. That is not what we are sent here to do. That is 
certainly not what Bud Hentzen would want us to do. He told me that the 
only thing he could tell them about the national debt was, ``I am sorry 
we left you this debt.'' Well, so am I. We ought to be more than 
sorry--we should be ashamed.
  This story makes it clear that this debate is about our children and 
their future. And it is about the immorality of our present system and 
whether or not we have the courage to change it for the better.
  Yet, opponents also claim that Congress does not need a balanced 
budget constitutional amendment in order to achieve balance. It simply 
needs courage. Well, our recent history proves that this claim is 
false. This argument is dubious because it admits that opponents of 
this amendment are motivated by political expediency, not true reform. 
For should the importance of a balanced budget disappear from the mind 
of America, the pressure to balance the budget would likely disappear 
from the minds of Members of Congress and the Senate. We are here to 
debate an issue of national importance that the march of time cannot 
and should not erode. This debate is not about the political whim of 
the day, it is about the economic future of our country. Let us then 
bind ourselves not by the political culture of the day, but by the 
resolve to complete the work we have started.

  The time to act is now. We must not betray our duty to our children 
and grandchildren, to Bud Hentzen's children and grandchildren, by 
failing to act on an issue that is so important.
  It is a moral imperative that we balance the budget and that we 
further give ourselves the tools we will need. How will future 
generations judge us if we have not the strength to end this practice 
of spending our children's inheritance for the sake of big Government? 
No doubt, when the pages of history have spoken, the debate we are 
herein engaged will be remembered not by the shrillness of the 
rhetoric, but by the consequences of our action. May those consequences 
enrich our Constitution, defend our freedoms, and protect our children.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today to, again, voice my strong 
support for Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. I 
might add that there are many ``Bud Hentzens'' in Nebraska, just as my 
distinguished colleague from Kansas so eloquently stated. The numbers 
are real. I would like to pick up on my distinguished colleagues' 
remarks with the following statement:
  During this debate, we have heard a number of arguments from both 
sides on the effects of a balanced budget amendment. I believe this 
debate comes down to one question: Is the balanced budget amendment in 
the best interest of our children, their children, and the future of 
America? My answer is ``yes.''
  Balancing our Federal budget is critical to ensuring that the 
American dream lives for our future generations. The real issue behind 
balancing the budget is our national debt. Mr. President, our national 
debt has risen to proportions that are virtually unimaginable to most 
of us. Numbers like $5.3 trillion in present debt, or $7 trillion in 
debt by the year 2002 are so far beyond the range of the daily lives of 
most persons that these numbers are easily dismissed. But these numbers 
cannot be dismissed. These are not just numbers. Each and every dime of 
our debt represents a burden we are placing squarely on the shoulders 
of our children. It is our children--our children--whose incomes will 
be taxed to pay off this debt. It is our children who will have to deal 
with a limited-growth-in-job-opportunity world because the debt has so 
constricted this economy that opportunities and possibilities will be 
severely limited for our children. It is our children who may never be 
able to purchase their own homes, or send their children to college, 
because their incomes will be consumed with high taxes to pay for an 
oppressive Government and make payments on the enormous debt that we 
have run up for them.
  The balanced budget amendment is no cure-all. Passing it will not 
save us from the hard choices required to balance this budget. But it 
will help us get there. It will force Congress to deal with the budget 
honestly. It will force Congress down a different path than the one it 
has traveled for 36 of the last 37 years. It will force Congress to 
balance the budget. Most importantly, it will force Congress to keep 
the balanced budget--to keep the balanced budget. It will give our 
future generations the hope and opportunities so that they can 
determine their own futures and the futures of their children, rather 
than being held hostage by an undisciplined Congress and an 
undisciplined Government deciding their futures for them by mortgaging 
their futures.
  Creating the kinds of opportunities for our children that we have 
enjoyed will require the kind of economic growth that should be 
America's legacy for the 21st century. It will require bold, strong, 
and imaginative leadership. To get there, we must cut Government 
spending, cut taxes, and cut regulations. We need to cut the size and 
scope of Government and allow private and personal initiative to soar. 
We must bring Government back to the people, where it is accountable. 
Balancing the budget is critical to this effort.
  Our children deserve better than a balanced budget based on ``ifs,'' 
``buts,'' ``maybes,'' conditional tax cuts, and conditional spending 
cuts. They deserve the security of knowing Congress is required to 
balance the budget every year. They deserve to know that Congress will 
not continue to add to the national debt. They deserve to know that we 
are not playing shell games and numbers games and word games with their 
futures.

  Either we are going to balance the budget or we are not. Let us be 
honest. Let us be honest with our children and our grandchildren. Let 
us be honest with this country. Our children deserve better than the 
hocus-pocus that we have been giving them. Where is our leadership? 
Where is the leadership in this Congress? Where is the leadership in 
this body? Where is the courage in this body? And where is the outrage? 
Where is the outrage in the U.S. Congress for what we are doing and 
what we have done to the children of this country?
  We must get control of the Federal budget and America's fiscal 
policy. We must enforce lasting fiscal discipline on the Congress of 
the United States. A balanced budget amendment ensures that we will 
balance the budget for years to come. Regardless of who is President, 
regardless of which party controls the Congress, the balanced budget 
amendment would be a nonpartisan enforcer of controlled Federal 
spending and responsible fiscal policy.
  We owe our children no less. We owe our children more than flimsy 
promises and optimistic assumptions. We owe it to them to make a 
lasting commitment to balance the budget of the United States for years 
to come. They deserve no less than the same opportunities that were 
afforded each of us. In fact,

[[Page S1345]]

Mr. President, they deserve greater opportunities to succeed just as 
our opportunities exceeded those of our parents. That has been the 
legacy of every American generation. That is the magic of America. That 
is the greatness of America.
  The only way to ensure this commitment to our children, the only way 
to make sure our promises are not undone, is to pass the balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Mr. President, thank you, and I yield my time.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, thank you,
  Mr. President, I have been watching this debate over the last few 
days, and I heard some of the opponents to a balanced budget amendment 
talk in a very eloquent way, as I have heard throughout the years. It 
seems like the arguments never change. So what I have done is picked up 
a few of these, and I would like to respond to some of these arguments.
  The other day one of the Members who has argued against a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution for as long as I can remember made 
the comment that proponents want to treat children like children, 
hiding the hard truth from them, and then went on to elaborate about 
all of the things that are going to happen if we don't fully disclose 
what is going on with the proposition of a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution.
  I can remember so well back when my No. 2 child was learning to ride 
a bicycle back in Oklahoma. I can remember when he got on. He was 
wobbling. Maybe, Mr. President, you have gone through the same thing. I 
finally got him so that he was able to go in a straight, narrow line. 
Then he made his first trip around the neighborhood. He is a hand 
surgeon today. He came back, and he said something to me that is very 
profound. He said, ``You know, daddy, I wish the whole world were 
downhill.''
  I think what we need to do is be fully honest with everyone and let 
them know that it is not going to be easy if we pass a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution because, in fact, the whole world is not 
downhill. It is going to take some sacrifices. We have demonstrated 
very clearly what is going to happen if we do not do it.
  I heard the other day opponents saying they are tired of Washington 
telling people what to do and the Washington-knows-best mentality, that 
the balanced budget amendment is the ultimate Washington mandate. I 
suggest to you that just the reverse is true. We can talk about this 
all we want, but what we are saying to the American people when we deny 
them the opportunity to have ultimately a balanced budget is we want to 
keep control of all of these things in Washington.
  Reference was made yesterday to the Governors who are talking about 
how they are cutting taxes in their States and the successes that they 
have had and suggested that the budget balancing amendment, if passed, 
would force the States to have massive tax increases. Let me tell you. 
That just isn't true. The problem that we have right now is there is a 
mentality that I think prevails in both bodies of Congress, or did at 
least up until 1994, and certainly does today in the White House; that 
is this direct relationship between taxation and the deficit.
  I can remember when this President was sworn into office and he 
appointed Laura Tyson to be the chief financial adviser to the 
administration. She said--and this is a direct quote--in direct 
contradiction to 12 years of Republican ideology, ``There is no 
relationship between the level of taxes a nation pays and its economic 
performance.'' To me this is really the key to the whole thing--
somebody who actually believed that. If you carry it on to its logical 
conclusion, you would say that all you have to do is have a taxation 
level of 100 percent, and everyone is going to be motivated the same 
and our revenues would go up. We know, obviously, that is not true. 
There are many Democrats who knew that wasn't true back when President 
Kennedy was President. He came out and said that we have to raise 
revenues, that we have needs, and that the best way to raise revenues 
is to reduce taxes. He did, and it happened. Of course, we look 
throughout history and we see it has happened over and over again.

  In the case of all those who are critical of the administration and 
say that back during the 10 years or the decade of the Republican 
administrations in the White House, the tax increases, or the deficit 
increases, came they say as a result of the tax decreases when in fact 
the total revenues that came into the Federal Government in 1980 was 
$517 billion. In 1990 it was $1.031 trillion, exactly doubled. That 
happened during a decade of the greatest tax reduction in the history 
of this country.
  Mr. President, I know that we are coming up toward the end of the 
time. But I would like to respond to just two more of the statements 
that have been made.
  First of all, they said that the balanced budget amendment will give 
politicians the ``license to cut and slash needed programs.''
  The Heritage Foundation not too long ago came out--and they have 
updated it since then--with a study that came to the conclusion that if 
we took all of the Federal programs and had a built-in increase of 1 
percent, or 1.5 percent, or 2 percent, you could actually balance the 
budget, that you could eliminate the deficit without cutting one 
Federal program. The problem is that programs come in--and we have seen 
it happen over the years--historically, they will come in and say this 
is going to meet a problem that we have, the problem goes away, and the 
program stays on.
  I am always reminded of one of the great speeches made in our time 
called a ``rendezvous with destiny'' when Ronald Reagan made that 
speech long before he was in public office. He said, ``There is nothing 
closer to immortality on the face of this Earth than a government 
program once formed.'' That is what we have seen over and over again. 
This has been going on for a long time.
  I can remember when there was a very prominent Senator from Nebraska, 
Carl Curtis. Carl Curtis back in 1975 had a bright idea. He said, ``We 
are going to have to do something about this debt.'' I think the whole 
debt was less than $400 billion at that time. He said, ``In order to do 
something about this, we are going to have to show that the States want 
it and that the people want it.'' So he decided to come and ratify an 
amendment to the Constitution in advance. I remember when he came to 
Oklahoma. I happened to be in the State senate at that time and 
introduced a preratification resolution where we ratified it in 
advance. Then all of the rest of the States came in.
  I would suggest to you that there is a great groundswell out there of 
people who want this to happen, and they recognize that it is not going 
to happen otherwise. We listen to people stand on the floor. I have not 
heard one person stand up here and say, ``We want larger deficits. We 
want to increase the debt.'' They don't say that. They say, ``We will 
do the responsible thing. We need to make the hard decisions.''
  The problem is that for the last 40 years we have not made the right 
decisions, and we have not made the tough decisions. Now that we have 
an opportunity, a rare opportunity, one that is realistic, it could 
actually happen, because we only missed it by one vote a year ago.
  Let me finally conclude by saying that one Senator stood on the floor 
the other day. This is a quote. He said, ``The budget balancing 
amendment is nothing more than a vague and empty promise. Most Senators 
who support it will not even be here in the year 2002 when it will take 
effect.''
  Let me suggest to you that as a result of the vote, it is very likely 
that there will be a lot of Senators who will not be here. I will make 
a statement that sounds a little bit extreme. But I have to make it.
  If you look back at the voting behavior of those U.S. Senators who do 
not want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, you will find 
that those are the ones who are the liberals. By ``liberals,'' I am 
talking about individuals who vote for greater tax increases, who want 
more Government involvement in our lives. I have a chart here that 
shows that. Those who voted against the balanced budget amendment last 
year--and there were 33 of them--of those 33, all of them, 100 percent 
of them, voted for the largest--this is called the tax stimulus 
program--the largest tax increase that we

[[Page S1346]]

had in 1994. And all of them have either a D or an F rating by the 
National Taxpayers Union.
  A lot of people forget that we don't have to guess how people perform 
up here because there are all kinds of organizations that are giving us 
ratings. How is that going to affect some of the other elections? If 
you look back and you look at the Members of Congress that were 
defeated or retired in 1994, in the Senate there are 11, and 8 of them 
fell into this same spending class. In other words, those individuals 
who are getting defeated now in the polls are individuals who are big 
spenders and individuals who are for tax increases as opposed to 
cutting the size of Government.
  So I think there are some very real ramifications to this that are 
political ramifications. I suggest to you, Mr. President, that there 
are a lot of Members in here who, if they vote against our effort--it 
is a genuine effort for a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution--will have to pay the political price for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Rhode Island 
is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________