Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 26 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 26 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1884-S1922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour for debate under the
control of the manager on the Democratic side with the first 20 minutes
under the control of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the Presiding Officer give me what
the parliamentary situation is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, 1 hour of time is reserved at this point under the control
of the manager on the Democratic side with 20 minutes allocated to the
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the Senator from
West Virginia to arrive--and my understanding is there is not someone
on the other side now asking to speak--I will, within the time on this
side, continue some comments I made earlier this morning.
I talked about the fact that the amendments were, in almost lockstep
fashion, knocked down by the proponents of the constitutional
amendment. I was concerned about that because even many of the
supporters of a constitutional amendment spoke in their testimony
before the Judiciary Committee of the basic flaws in this amendment as
worded.

[[Page S1885]]

When we go to amend the Constitution of the United States, the
constitution of the greatest democracy in history, we have at least an
obligation to our Nation, and certainly to the Constitution, the
bedrock of our democracy, to do it in an understanding way, not as some
kind of a slapdash, bumper-sticker, sloganeering fashion that raises
more questions than it answers.
The amendment before us leaves wide open questions of Social Security
and how that is going to be handled. It leaves wide open the questions
of a capital budget.
Just before we recessed for the caucuses, a proponent of the balanced
budget amendment spoke about Thomas Jefferson and how Thomas Jefferson
said that he would have liked to have had a balanced budget amendment.
Well, now, let us stop to think about this. Thomas Jefferson borrowed
an amount that was equal to twice the budget of the United States for
the Louisiana purchase. I mean, this would be like borrowing trillions
of dollars today.
Had President Jefferson had a balanced budget amendment, certainly
one like this, he would not have been able to do that. North Dakota
would have had the chance to speak Spanish, not English. Our European-
sponsored wars probably would have taken place on our continent.
Certainly the United States would not be a country described as ``from
sea to shining sea.''
These are some of the historical, as opposed to hysterical, facts in
this debate.
Senator Dodd offered an amendment that pointed out another serious
flaw in the language of the proposed constitutional amendment. Section
5 of the proposed amendment requires the United States to be engaged in
military conflict before a waiver may be obtained. Moreover, the Senate
report compounded the problem by indicating that only certain kinds of
military conflict may qualify. Only military conflict that involved the
actual use of military force may serve as the basis for this waiver.
Senator Dodd's amendment exposes the folly of this language. It would
create constitutional circumstances making military spending and
preparations easier only when military force is actually used and
military conflict ensues. If you want to arm to deter aggression, that
is suddenly no longer the preferred course. If you want to aid allies
in a conflict rather than dispatching U.S. military forces, that would
no longer be as viable an alternative. If you wanted to rebuild our
military capabilities after conflict, you could not do it without
three-fifths.

Has nobody read a history book about World War II? Does nobody know
what preparations we had to undertake and the possibility that we might
go into war? Has nobody read what we did to help other countries?
Instead of addressing the serious and substantial concerns raised by
Senator Dodd's amendment, the sponsors and proponents of Senate Joint
Resolution 1 simply opposed the Dodd amendment as creating a loophole
in the balanced budget amendment. The proponents did not offer
alternative language to address the real military and foreign policy
concerns surrounding Senate Joint Resolution 1. Instead, lockstep
voting, they defeated the Dodd amendment by a vote of 64-36. And then
they rejected those provisions again when they rejected the Torricelli
amendment.
We have probably reached a point, Mr. President, where Senators know
how they are going to vote. But I hope that they will go back and read
what is in this debate. We have said over and over again that if you
really want a balanced budget, just balance it. Vote to do it. This
morning, I asked the distinguished Republican whip, ``Where is the
Republican budget?'' You know, we have had this debated on the floor of
the Senate, Mr. President, when I have raised the fact that we are now
paying the interest on the huge debt brought up in the last two
administrations--President Reagan's and President Bush's--and the fact
that if we weren't paying the interest on the debt and deficits created
just in those two administrations, we would actually have a surplus in
our budget today, not a deficit.
Having said that, the response was, well, now it is not the President
who proposes that, it is the Congress that does that. If you want to go
into facts, President Reagan got 99.99 percent of everything he ever
asked for. Even though he had the veto pen, he only vetoed one spending
bill--only one--as each year unprecedented deficits went up, as each
year his budget showed greater deficits than had ever been seen in the
history of this country, and he vetoed one spending bill. Why? Was it
because it spent too much money? No. He vetoed that one bill because it
spent less money than he thought it should. The only spending bill
President Reagan ever vetoed was one that spent less than what he
wanted.
Let us assume that it is not the President's prerogative to propose a
budget. Let us assume it is not the President's plan, and let us assume
it is the Congress'. Then I ask, again, my friend, the Republican whip,
and others, where is the budget? ``Where's the beef?'' On April 15, we
are supposed to have a budget. Republicans control the Senate and the
House. They have a majority in each House. If, indeed, they really want
a balanced budget--not a balanced budget gimmick, but a balanced
budget--then vote one, pass one. There are 55 Republicans in the
Senate. That is a majority. There is a majority of Republicans in the
House of Representatives. Just bring up the budget and pass it. Pass
it. Pass the actual spending bills and tax bills.
Last year, even with a majority, they didn't even pass 13
appropriations bills on time. Mr. President, the public should not hold
their breath waiting for this to happen. The reason is very simple. It
is one thing to pass on to the States a constitutional amendment, no
matter how poorly drafted, and say, there, I voted for a balanced
budget. You can put that on the bumper sticker on your car, you can put
it on the tag line in your campaign, and you can use it in focus
groups. Of course, it doesn't balance the budget. It doesn't do one
thing. It doesn't change 1 cent of our national debt or the deficit, or
1 cent of the budget. But it sure makes you feel good, and it is a nice
political gimmick. But if you cast the hard votes to actually bring the
deficit down and actually balance the budget, then you are going to
upset special interests from the right to the left. I know. I have
voted for an awful lot of cuts to our budget. I voted for programs that
brought down the deficit. I voted for programs that cut thousands and
tens of thousands of Federal employees off of the rolls. I have voted
to cut programs in my own State that closed offices in my State and in
the State of the Presiding Officer, and every other place.
I think I have heard from everybody whose toes I stepped on in those
cuts. It is a heck of a lot easier to vote for the constitutional
amendment and say everybody is going to agree with you. It is more
difficult to make the actual cuts.
My challenge is this, to all those who say you want a balanced
budget. Fine, you have until April 15 to bring one up, and then start
making the tough cuts. Mr. President, I guarantee you, we won't see the
tough cuts being made, the real efforts to balance the budget. But you
are going to hear, once this cockamamy flimflam of a bumper sticker
constitutional amendment goes down to defeat this afternoon, you are
going to hear everybody saying, ``Oh, we lost our chance to have a
balanced budget.'' My response to that is: You guys are in charge, go
ahead and do it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the ranking
member, who has done a stalwart job in managing this joint resolution
in the last week or 10 days.
Mr. President, if there were ever an example of a ``David versus
Goliath,'' it is apparent in what happened this last week. All over
America, ads are being run on television, radio, and in newspapers.
Millions of dollars are being spent to talk about the merits of the
underlying constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. These ads
are full-page ads in some of the most expensive publications in the
world--the Wall Street Journal, et cetera.
The people who need Social Security can't afford these ads. These
people are certainly those that represent the ``David versus the
Goliaths.'' Let me

[[Page S1886]]

read to you a couple of letters I have received in my office:

Dear Sir: I would like to join your fight to stop Congress
from turning Social Security trust funds into a slush fund to
offset Government spending. I support a balanced budget, but
not one to loot the Social Security that we have paid into,
and our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles,
and cousins have also supported. I want to help you in your
fight to protect America's trust.
Mildred Johnson.

This is not a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal, or an ad on
network television or radio stations all over America, but just the
sending of a letter. This is the best she could do. It was probably
hard for her to pay for the stamp on the mail.
In the State of Nevada we have a Social Security recipient who
receives $725 a month. These are the people who are supporting what we
are trying to do. George Fry from Reno, NV:

Thank you for your concern, Senator Reid, for Social
Security. I am 74. After working my whole life, I really need
Social Security. I have a difficult time. My income is in the
$6,000 range per year. Social Security plus SSI are $490.89
month. You are very good about helping poor old people.

He is good to send his letter with a 32-cent stamp.
Francis Salden, from Las Vegas:

Please do not let anyone take Social Security from us. We
work very hard for this and sure would be lost if we wouldn't
have this. My husband and I work from 7 in the morning until
11:30 at night so we would not be without this . . . Social
Security.

They are not just old people who are concerned about Social Security.
Young people are concerned also.
Mr. President, Social Security is an important program, one that we
have to do everything we can to support and maintain. It is the most
important social program in the history of the world. It is the most
successful social program in the history of the world. If Senate Joint
Resolution 1 passes, Social Security will be devastated.
We have heard very little talk about how Social Security wouldn't be
protected. Everyone has said we want to protect Social Security. The
easiest way to protect Social Security is to secure it from the
confines of the underlying amendment, as we tried to do, and we got 45
votes. All we need is five other people to come and say, ``We support
the amendment,'' and follow the leadership of the courageous Senator
from Arizona, the senior Senator, Senator McCain, and the senior
Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, who said, ``In spite of
party affiliation, we are going to vote for the amendment because it
will protect Social Security.''
Mr. President, the polls in America support us. When I started this
debate 4 years ago, I was a lone wolf crying in the wilderness. Now, 75
percent of the American public say we want to balance the budget but we
want to exclude Social Security from doing so. That will make it hard
to do. The easy way to balance the budget is to use Social Security. We
want to exclude Social Security.
We have the Congressional Research Service supporting us. The Center
for Budget Policy supports our position, Mr. President. We want to
balance the budget, and we have voted for a balanced budget. It would
be very difficult and hard to balance it if we excluded Social
Security, but it will be the right way to do it.
I ask my friends from the other side of the aisle to recognize that
unless we exclude Social Security, we are dooming the most successful
program in the history of the world to failure.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I have previously emphasized, the
constitutional amendment is not like a statute that we can revisit,
fine tune, revise, or repeal. We have repealed only one constitutional
amendment in more than 200 years of our country's history. The only
constitutional amendment we have repealed was that of prohibition.
We ought to remember in this debate that we are being asked to
consider an amendment to our Constitution. Before we propose to alter
our fundamental charter of freedom--I might say also the blueprint for
our representative democracy--we ought to step back from the political
passions of the moment. We are debating a proposed constitutional
amendment, not just a political slogan, a plank of a campaign platform,
or partisan win or lose.
The Constitution of the United States is a good document. It is not a
sacred text, but it is the best law of any that has ever been written.
That is why it has survived as the supreme law of this country with
very few alterations over 200 years. It has contributed to our success
as a nation by binding us together rather than tearing us apart. It
contains a great compromise that allowed small States and large States
to join together in the spirit of mutual accommodation and respect. It
embodies the protections to make real the pronouncements in our
historic Declaration of Independence. It gives meaning to our
inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Constitution requires due process and guarantees equal protection
of the law. It protects our freedom of thought and protects our freedom
to worship or not as we each choose, and our political freedoms as
well. It is the basis of our fundamental rights of privacy and for
limiting Government's intrusions--and burdens--into our lives.
So I oppose what I perceive to be this growing fascination in this
country--and, unfortunately, the growing fascination with so many in
Congress--to lay waste to our Constitution and the protections that
have served us well for over 20 years. The separation of powers
amendment is the power of the purse and should be supported and
defended.
The most recent Republican platform endorsed six or seven
constitutional amendments, of which this is only the first. In the last
Congress, the Senate debated and rejected three proposed amendments.
This year that number could well double, or even triple, unless we
begin to exercise some discipline and restraint.
We have only amended the Constitution 17 times since the Bill of
Rights. We have only amended it 17 times since the Bill of Rights
because those who walked these Halls ahead of us had enough sense that
the Constitution came before their political purposes, their polls,
their momentary needs. They thought, ``How do we protect this
Constitution, one of the shortest in the world? How do we protect it
and keep it the living, breathing Constitution that it is?''
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
And of those 17 times, two of those amendments washed each other out.
Mr. LEAHY. They did indeed. As I referred to just before the Senator
came on the floor, one of those amendments was, of course, to repeal an
earlier amendment.
Mr. President, I see my friend from North Dakota and my friend from
West Virginia on the floor. I will yield the floor with this.
When we started off in this Congress, each one of us swore an oath to
support and defend the Constitution. That is our duty--all of us--to
those who forged this great document. It is our responsibility to those
who sacrificed to protect and defend our Constitution. It is our
commitment to our constituents. It is the legacy to those who will
succeed us just as it is showing our responsibility to those who stood
up before us.

Mr. President, we talk about our children. My children will live most
of their lives in this next century. I want them to have a constitution
they can be proud of, not a constitution that fell, injured by
momentary political passions.
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. I
especially thank my colleague from West Virginia for his courtesy.
Mr. President, we are going to vote in just a very few hours on one
of the most critical issues facing this country. Mr. President, I
believe deeply that we must balance the Federal budget. I believe we
must do it because we are faced with a demographic time bomb that puts
this Nation's future in jeopardy if we fail to act. Just as deeply as I
feel about balancing the budget, I feel opposition to the balanced
budget amendment that is before this body. I call it the so-called
balanced budget amendment, because the most important question that we
need to ask and answer today is, What budget is being balanced by this
amendment?

[[Page S1887]]

When you pierce the veil, what you find is this isn't a balanced
budget amendment at all. It does not balance the budget. It loots and
raids every trust fund that this Government has in order to claim
balance. That is what this amendment does.
Mr. President, as I have pointed out before on the floor of this
body, if any private company sought to take the retirement funds of
their employees and throw those into the pot to claim they had balanced
the budget, they would be in violation of Federal law. Yet we are about
to enshrine that principle in the Constitution of the United States?
The greatest document in human history is our Constitution. It has made
this country the greatest country in human history.
Mr. President, this amendment that is before us would take the Social
Security trust fund surpluses--just over the next 5 years, $465
billion--and raid and loot every penny in order to claim balance. The
American people are for this amendment by about 80 percent until they
find out how it works. When they find out it only balances by raiding
and looting trust funds, then 80 percent of them are opposed to it.
Part of our responsibility is to make certain that people know how
this so-called balanced budget amendment to the Constitution works.
This is what it does. It raids and loots every penny of Social Security
trust fund surpluses in order to claim balance.
This chart I think discloses just how fraudulent the proposal we are
about to vote on is. It shows the deficits and debt in the year 2002.
If this is a balanced budget amendment, then in the year 2002, in which
it is fully effected, one would expect the debt would not be
increasing, that it would stop deficit spending.
That is not what it does. On a unified basis, they claim balance.
That is by using every penny of every trust fund of the Federal
Government. But if you look at excluding the Social Security trust
funds and Postal Service funds, you will find that in the year 2002 we
would have a $103 billion deficit. If you look more broadly at all of
the funds, all of the trust funds, you find out that the debt would
increase $110 billion in the year it is effected.
Mr. President, this is not a balanced budget amendment at all.
Second, there is no provision for a national economic emergency. We
know that right now the right policy is to cut spending and balance the
budget. That was exactly the wrong policy in the midst of the Great
Depression. We ought to have provision for a national economic
emergency.
Third and finally, we ought not to have a circumstance that would
permit unelected judges to write the budget for the United States. That
would be a profound mistake. The judges know nothing about the defense
needs of America. They know nothing about the budget considerations for
this country. The last thing we ought to have happen is to have
unelected Federal judges sitting around the table writing the budget
for the United States.
For those reasons, I am opposed to the balanced budget amendment that
we will vote on in just a few hours. It would be a mistake for the
country. It would not stand the test of time.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia is here, and I will yield to him. How much time do I have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont, on his time, has 12
minutes and 42 seconds, but the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd,
has 20 minutes reserved time under the unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. LEAHY. If that is the conclusion of the Chair, it certainly is
one I am very much in favor of. So that the Senator from West Virginia
will have 20 minutes of his own time.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Vermont. May I say
that if he has any problem with speakers whom he may have promised some
time, if I can be of any help with my time, I would like him to let me
know and I will yield some of it.
Mr. President, when the delegates gathered in Philadelphia in May of
1787, much was riding on their deliberations. No one can read the
speeches and notes from the Constitutional Convention and miss the
tenseness in the air as the men who gathered in May contemplated the
sheer magnitude of their task. The situation in the states was
critical. These men were charged with nothing less than breathing life
into the promise of the beautiful prose crafted by Thomas Jefferson in
the Declaration of Independence. They would be held accountable if they
failed.
What happened in that room in Philadelphia was extraordinary. What
emerged was a near perfect balance of order and liberty, and a careful
equanimity between individual freedom and the need for the security of
all. George Washington described the result as, ``little short of a
miracle.'' Indeed, one cannot read the Constitution without marveling
at the genius of its sparsely worded Articles. I have often felt that
surely the spirit of the Creator himself was present in the sultry air
during that season in Philadelphia.
But, the amendment which the Senate has been considering for the last
11 session days would rudely disrupt the carefully balanced powers of
the three branches so assiduously planned by the Framers. It would, for
the first time in our history, write a specific fiscal policy into a
Constitution intended to accommodate the ages. It would subjugate every
endeavor, every need, every aspiration of the people of this nation to
one goal--the goal of perpetually maintaining budget balance. It would
turn a system which has operated well for over 200 years because of its
underlying faith in the judgment of a majority of reasonable men and
women into a system that shackles that judgment to the whims and
politics of a minority. And because of its unworkable rigidity, the
amendment would, before long, be deliberately circumvented, thus laying
the groundwork for the slow undoing of the people's reverence for their
organic law.
This idea, which seems so simple on its face, has been born of mass
frustration and political expediency. Ours is an age transfixed by
efficiency, and the sometimes inefficient, often untidy machinations of
representative democracy can seem cumbersome. Ours is an age, too,
which deifies certainty--an age which has great faith in our ability to
quantify everything, to predict all contingencies, to deal with all
eventualities in advance. In fact, much of the law which we write today
seems to reflect an almost compulsive urge to anticipate, regulate, and
control every human activity.
It is ironic that many who support this amendment also rail against
the large hand of government control in the private sector. What is
this amendment but a strange hyperextension of that same urge to try to
predict and control every budget eventuality with some sort of legal
restriction which will keep us in budget balance in perpetuity?
Especially in the case of the budget process, our laws have already
become so complicated that few in Washington truly understand them. Why
would we want to compound that complexity by the addition of a
constitutional amendment and all of the rigidity and danger that it
poses? The answer is simply that the people are frustrated, and this
amendment can serve as political cover for a time. So we all decry debt
and bemoan deficits and claim that we need the amendment for
discipline. It is the magic formula. It is the ultimate fix for our
budget problems.
The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee has, since the
start of this debate, kept the budget documents for the past 28 years
upon his desk. It is true that we have run large deficits during many
of those years. But, let us not forget that the heavy spending that
this nation undertook during the cold war certainly contributed to
those unbalanced budgets.
Yes, we ran deficits, but I was here, and I can tell you that there
was no significant feeling in this chamber that that money was not well
spent. This body reflected a strong consensus in the nation as a whole
that we needed to spend whatever it took to assure our survival as a
nation, and to prevail over the Soviet Empire in the cold war. Starting
in 1962 and continuing until 1982, the annual average percentage for
defense spending of the entire discretionary spending pie was 60.6
percent. From FY 1983 to FY 1992, defense spending exceeded domestic
spending by an annual average of 68 percent for the whole period. The
rationale provided by then President Reagan was

[[Page S1888]]

that we would spend the Russians into the ground. Their economy was no
match for ours and the Evil Empire would implode.

It was a successful strategy. The Soviets were unable to match our
defense investments and beggared their economy to such an extent that
it was a major contributing factor to the shattering of the Soviet
empire.
Was that money well spent? Did we invest wisely? You bet we did! It
was one of the best investments ever made by the United States over
time. Yet, it could never have been done under this amendment.
We got something invaluable for that budgetary debt. We protected our
way of life and our freedoms against a foreign menace. And not only did
we protect our way of life, we performed a service for millions of
people around the globe by breaking the backs of the Soviets. Those
annual budgets were based on an assessment of the best interests of our
national needs at the time by a majority in the Congress working with
the Executive. And that is exactly as the Framers envisioned.
Throughout this debate, I have heard debt and deficits portrayed as
``immoral''. What folly that is! While most would say that gambling
debts are bad, or immoral, would anyone claim that borrowing to send a
child to college or to provide a home for one's family is an evil or
immoral thing? Indeed it can be immoral not to borrow. And by denying
future leaders the budgetary freedom to borrow for investments for
future generations, are we not depriving those future citizens of the
birthright of realizing their full potential? By subjugating every
other objective and every national endeavor, everything, from
protecting an ally, to building up to fight a war, to conquering an
epidemic, to feeding the starving, to investing in public
infrastructure, to educating our children, to challenging foreign
competition in the international playing field, to protecting our
economy in the event of a recession, everything will be held hostage to
the all supreme god, the golden calf, of balancing the budget each and
every year. Is that what the American people want?
Has anyone been noticing the recent economic surge of China? Its
growth rate is now around 10 percent a year. Its economy now ranks
third in the world. And China has increased its military budget by 50
percent in real terms between 1988 and 1993. Surely China is fast
becoming an economic power to be reckoned with. Are my colleagues
completely sure that, even in the military arena, future challenges
will not arise that may require us to again mount a long, steady
buildup of fresh dollars for defense? We need the tools to react. We
cannot anticipate every future contingency.
Yes, it is true that presently, our debt is too high. In part, we are
still grappling with the residue of debt from the cold war buildup and
the savings and loan crisis. In cooperation with President Clinton,
over the past several years the deficit has been coming down. We have
heard the concern of the people. Our system is working in exactly the
way the Framers intended. We have had the latitude to meet our
challenges. We have all the constitutional power we need right now to
balance the budget. We need nothing more. Adoption of this amendment
will only close down our future options and invite the ingenuity of
circumvention. Let no one be confused. If this amendment were ever to
become part of our sacred Constitution, all of our collective energies,
henceforth, would be devoted to overcoming each of the obstacles it
will have erected. A thousand flowers would bloom--all of them sowing
the poisonous seeds of disrespect for our law and further mistrust of
Government.
Balancing the budget is, indeed, a very difficult task. It is
difficult because it means inflicting pain. It means making decisions
that are not popular, and it means hurting some people because of cuts
to programs that matter in their lives. But we were sent here to use
our judgment and to make the hard decisions. All that we have to do now
is don the ``velvet cloak of responsibility.'' We need to begin by
telling the people the truth about what it will take to achieve yearly
budget balance. If this is to be our goal, taxes will have to be raised
and popular programs will have to be cut, because there is no other
way.
Already, our lack of courage and candor has resulted in mistrust by
our constituents. But, surely the answer to our political dilemma is
not to make our Constitution a scapegoat. Let us not make this
Constitution a scapegoat. Let us never go down the ridiculous road of
saying to the people, ``it's not my fault, the Constitution made me do
it.'' That is the ultimate cop-out. The easiest thing in the world for
politicians and for bureaucrats to do is to hide behind the regulations
or, in this case, behind a constitutional amendment. One of the few
things that continues to unite us and to command our collective
reverence is our Constitution. I would hope that we would always be
unwilling to risk that precious commodity, just so politicians can more
conveniently duck the accountability for difficult decisions.
Public policy is often controversial, but it can only be crafted by
human judgment. No process--no amendment to the Constitution, no law
that can ever be devised can ever substitute for it. The dream of a
somehow automatic government, completely objective and insulated from
the perils of flawed human judgement, may be in vogue today because it
fits neatly with our traditional fear of government, especially big
government. But, automatic, mechanistic, formula approaches to
governing are really the antithesis of what the Framers had in mind.

Theirs was a vision of well-motivated men, kept in check by carefully
balanced powers and accountability to the public, but left unfettered
enough to deal with the changes and challenges of the ages. The
proponents of this amendment claim that we must have this amendment or
there will be no discipline to force budget balance. Consider the
paucity of that argument! Remember that word, accountability. The
people have all the tools they need to discipline us, simply by
exercising their rights at the ballot box come election day. I believe
that we can meet our responsibilities to bring this budget to balance
without resorting to this ruinous encumbrance of our Constitution. But,
we must all step up to our responsibilities, be accountable to our
people, and put aside partisanship if we are to succeed. If we do that,
then this amendment will at last be relegated to the ash heap of bad
ideas where it most assuredly belongs.
I have fought this fight a half dozen times in the Senate since 1986.
Frankly, I am weary. There is so much at stake. But, each time that I
fight this amendment anew, I thank God that there are those members who
are willing to risk political popularity for the dictates of their own
consciences.
And they have no one to answer to but their constituents. When they
take the oath of office to be United States Senator, they do not
surrender their independence. They do not surrender their independence.
They do not surrender their consciences to anybody in this Chamber or
in this Government. And they are accountable only to the people of
their States.
They have not taken the easiest course. They have chosen, rather, to
go against the prevailing political winds in order to do the right
thing. There can be no other motivation for such courage, but a deep
and abiding love for this magnificent country of ours.
The 5th century Athenian statesman, Pericles, delivered a funeral
oration to commemorate the soldiers who gave their lives at the battle
of Salamis. Upon that occasion he said, ``It was for such a country,
then, that these men, nobly resolving not to have it taken from them,
fell fighting and every one of their survivors may well be willing to
suffer in its behalf.'' I thank God for a continuing supply of these
noble men and women in our own time, ``willing to suffer'' on behalf of
our country and its Constitution. Because of their courage, the
``miracle at Philadelphia'' may be preserved for yet a while longer.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Vermont has
12 minutes, 40 seconds remaining.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has yielded
back 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S1889]]

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has stood
stalwartly like the giant rock maple trees of Vermont, those trees,
which have such great strength but are also the source of Vermont's
sweetest product, maple syrup. I say this because we know of the
kindness and gentleness toward his colleagues of the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia, but we know that like the rock maple trees
of Vermont, he does not bend to the attacks on the Constitution.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend from Vermont whose heart is as stout as
the Irish oak and as pure as the Lakes of Killarney.
Mr. LEAHY. I didn't think in 22 years I would be at a loss for words
on the floor of the Senate, but that came as close, let me tell you.
Mr. President, we will come very soon to a vote. The distinguished
Senator from West Virginia does deserve enormous credit for standing up
each time for the Constitution. Really, that is what I am urging
Senators to do. There is no question in my mind that if we took a
public opinion poll, the popular thing, the easy thing would be to vote
for this constitutional amendment, and we can say, then, as soon as the
States ratify it, it is somebody else's problem.
If we don't stand up and do the things we need to do to protect the
Constitution, if we don't stand up and do the things we need to do to
bring down the deficit, if we don't stand up and cast the tough and
unpopular votes, well, then, somebody can go to court and let the
courts straighten it out.
Mr. President, when I first announced for the U.S. Senate in this
week--this very week--in 1974, I was a 33-year-old prosecutor in the
only State in the Union that had never elected a member of my party. I
told the people of Vermont, ``You may not always agree with me on every
single thing I will do, but I will make you one pledge: I will hold
your interests and the interests of the country foremost. I will follow
my best judgment. I will follow my conscience. I will not allow myself
to be swayed by passing polls and fancies, and I will always try to do
right.''
I have cast more votes in the U.S. Senate than any Senator in
Vermont's history. I have cast more votes in the U.S. Senate, by far,
than any Senator in Vermont's history. If I went back through those
thousands of votes, I bet I could find a vote or two or three or four
that might come as close. Some come to mind, because some of these
votes were votes, if I could have cast it on a balance, I would have
cast 51 percent one way, 49 percent the other, they were that close.
I remember the wise advice of the majority leader when I first came
here, Senator Mansfield of Montana, who said, ``Don't worry if maybe
you have some difficulty on a very close vote. Do what you think is
right, and if later you determine maybe you made a mistake, the issue
will come up again.'' It usually does.
So if I go back to the thousands of votes, I could find one of those
51 to 49 votes, but this is not one of those 51 to 49 votes. On this
vote, I have no question in my mind what is the right vote. It is not
the popular vote, but it is the right vote, and that is the vote I will
cast against this amendment, because we have amended the Constitution
only 17 times since the Bill of Rights, and two of those amendments
crossed each other out: One was for prohibition; one was to end
prohibition. All the other amendments have stayed there, because the
men and women who came before us carefully considered what was best for
the country, what was best for our Constitution, and even though during
this time the temptation, the siren song of constitutional amendments
has been heard through the Halls of the House and the Senate hundreds
and hundreds of times, the siren song has been heard by those
campaigning, by those elected and by those defeated, but the siren song
was resisted. We are a better country for it.
This is not a time to try to manipulate the Constitution of the
United States of America. This is not a time to put into the
Constitution an amendment so flawed, an amendment that leaves more
questions unanswered than questions answered, an amendment that may
look good on a bumper sticker but stinks like a dead mackerel on the
shores of the Constitution. This is not an amendment this Senate should
send to the States.
Rather, what we should do, Republicans and Democrats alike, is join
together and pass real budgets, pass those budgets that allow the
United States to continue to have the world's strongest economy, an
economy that is the envy of every other country, and an economy,
incidentally, which has a smaller deficit as part of its gross domestic
product than any of the rest of the industrialized world, an economy
which is unmatched in recorded history, and realize that there are
things that we should spend for.
Thomas Jefferson borrowed an amount, I think, equal to about twice
what the whole budget of the United States was to make the Louisiana
purchase. Is there anybody here who would like to see what this country
would be like had we not made that Louisiana purchase, had we not had
that westward expansion? If we had not been able to go out to our
Western States, why, there are some Senators even currently in this
Chamber today who might not have States to represent had we not had the
Louisiana purchase.
I ask Senators to think back to when the Constitution was put
together. Small States and large States were given an equal voice in
this body so that they could maintain their identity. What a great
compromise that was, what that did to allow this country to hold
together--an advantage, obviously, to my own State of Vermont. But
under this constitutional amendment, on matters of spending, on matters
of crises, on matters of natural disasters, we would no longer have
that parity. We would be left at the whim of the minority, not of the
majority.
So, Mr. President, on this vote, I am sure in my heart and soul I am
voting the right way, the right way for the State of Vermont. But I
must say to my fellow Vermonters, even more important, it is the right
way for our country and our Constitution.
I was raised in a household brought to revere the Constitution. I
have taken an oath to support it in each of my terms in the U.S.
Senate, in each of my terms as a prosecuting attorney. I remember each
and every time I took that oath because I stopped and thought of what I
was swearing allegiance to. It is what sets us apart from all other
countries on Earth. It is why we have a Constitution that every one of
us should stop and read and reread periodically. It is why, if we have
a matter where we want to bring down the deficits, then do it the
honest, old-fashioned way, vote to bring it down, vote the hard
choices, vote against the special interest groups on the right or left,
vote for what is best for the country, but do not pass the
responsibility off to our Constitution, to future generations, to the
courts to do what we are elected to do, what we are paid to do, and,
more important, what we are sworn to do for this country.
This is something that should unite Democrats and Republicans. When
this debate is over and after this vote has gone by, I hope that before
we go to more bumper-sticker kinds of debates, that we go to the issues
where we can join. Certainly the financial status of this country is
one.
Mr. President, earlier today, I was summarizing the debate that the
Senate has had on this proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. I would like to continue that discussion to complete
the Record on this historic debate.

REID, FEINSTEIN AND DORGAN AMENDMENTS

Senator Reid offered a perfecting amendment to exclude the Social
Security trust fund from Senate Joint Resolution 1. Senators Feinstein
and Dorgan also offered substitute constitutional amendments that would
have excluded the Social Security trust fund from the balanced budget
mandates. The Reid, Feinstein and Dorgan amendments all focused on
removing any threat to Social Security by this proposed constitutional
amendment.
The Social Security Program is America's contract with its senior
citizens. Were the underlying resolution to become the basis for a
constitutionally-mandated budget balancing act, Social Security would
be rendered just another Government program and have its place on the
chopping block with everything else.

[[Page S1890]]

Since 1983, Congress has acted to protect Social Security from
overall budget cuts. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 required
Social Security to be placed off budget within 10 years. That
protective legislation passed the Senate 58 to 14 with a strong
bipartisan majority. In fact, Congress accelerated this process. Rather
than wait 10 years, 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 means that the
congressional budget resolution in 1985 was the last time that Social
Security was included in the Federal budgets that Congress approves
each year.
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings permitted across-the-board spending cuts--
sequestration--when budgetary goals are not achieved. By its actions
placing Social Security off budget, Congress explicitly and
intentionally exempted Social Security from the sequestration process.
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings--with its protections for Social Security--passed
the Senate 61 to 31 with a strong bipartisan majority.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 reinforced earlier protections by
placing Social Security even more clearly off budget. This bill, too,
passed the Senate 54 to 45 with the bipartisan support of 35 Democrats
and 19 Republicans.
The proposed constitutional amendment turns its back on these many
years of bipartisan progress in protecting Social Security from the ebb
and flow of efforts to eliminate the deficit. I believe that our senior
citizens deserve better.
When the Government overestimates revenues for an upcoming year, or
underestimates expenses, or something changes in the course of the year
to influence either, the budget goes out of balance and, under Senate
Joint Resolution 1, the Government is out of money. The amendment's
mandates would make continued expenditures into constitutional
violations of law. If this proposed constitutional amendment were
enshrined in the Constitution, it could force the Federal Government to
stop making payments for any number of obligations, possibly including
payment of Social Security checks, until the budget imbalance could be
corrected.
Treasury Secretary Rubin warned the Judiciary Committee of this great
risk, when he testified:

[T]he amendment poses immense enforcement problems that
might well lead to the involvement of the courts in budget
decisions, unprecedented impoundment powers for the President
or the temporary cessation of all federal payments. Any of
these options could disrupt Social Security and Medicare
payments.

Further, if the President and Congress reached a budget impasse under
the proposed constitutional amendment, Secretary Rubin cautioned:

Some proponents have suggested that under these
circumstances, the President would stop issuing checks,
including those for Social Security benefits. Alternatively,
judges might become deeply involved in determining whether
Social Security or Medicare checks would be stopped.

This would be a disaster for senior citizens on fixed incomes who
live on Social Security and Medicare from check to check. When they
miss a check, they will not have the funds to pay the rent or meet the
mortgage, buy groceries, pay their utility bills, heat their homes, pay
for medical care or needed pharmaceutical drugs, or meet other
expenses.
That is the dilemma that the Social Security system would face if
Social Security is not protected under this proposed constitutional
amendment. In his recent letter to Senator Daschle, the President
stated:

I am very concerned that Senate Joint Resolution 1, the
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, could pose
grave risks to the Social Security System. In the event of an
impasse in which the budget requirements can neither be
waived nor met, disbursements or unelected judges could
reduce benefits to comply with this constitutional mandate.
No subsequent implementing legislation could protect Social
Security with certainty because a constitutional amendment
overrides statutory law.

The 1983 bipartisan Social Security Commission headed by Alan
Greenspan recommended converting the Social Security system from a pure
pay-as-you-go program to one that builds up surpluses to pay for the
future retirement of the baby boom generation. The Greenspan Commission
recommended taking Social Security off budget in order to meet this
goal without subjecting the program to the vicissitudes of Federal
budgeting for other programs. Congress concurred with the Greenspan
Commission's recommendations in passing the Social Security Amendments
of 1983.
Just as families save for their retirements, the Social Security
Program currently is building up surpluses while baby boomers are still
working in order to be able to afford their retirements in the next
century. This proposed constitutional amendment would encourage, even
necessitate, Congress, the President, and the courts using Social
Security as a way to comply with the amendment. When the trust fund
begins to shrink after the year 2020, this proposed constitutional
amendment would add pressure on the Government to cut Social Security
rather than risk constitutional violation. Instead, we ought to be
working on ways to honor our commitments and ensure the long-term
solvency of Social Security.
A recent analysis from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is
telling. It says:

The Leadership version [of S.J. Res. 1] would be virtually
certain to precipitate a massive crisis in Social Security
about 20 years from now, even if legislation has been passed
in the meantime putting Social Security in long-term
actuarial balance. To help pay the benefits of the baby boom
generation, the nation would face an excruciating choice at
that time between much deeper cuts in Social Security
benefits than were needed to make Social Security solvent and
a much larger increase in payroll taxes than would otherwise
be required. There would be only one other alternative--to
finance Social Security deficits in those years not by
drawing down the Social Security surplus but by raising other
taxes substantially or slashing the rest of government
severely. As a result, the government might fail to provide
adequately for other basic services, potentially including
the national defense.

Congress can balance the budget while protecting Social Security, but
the sponsors of the underlying resolution tabled the Reid, Feinstein
and Dorgan amendments. I do want to acknowledge Senator McCain and
Senator Specter for voting their conscience on the Reid and Dorgan
amendments to protect Social Security. I respect their decisions to
buck their party's no-amendments strategy on this point. Their votes
not to table these amendments were, I believe, the only times
Republicans voted to do anything other than march lock-step with their
leadership in support of the original language of Senate Joint
Resolution 1.

TORRICELLI AND FEINSTEIN AMENDMENTS

Before he announced his determination how he would vote on the
underlying resolution Senator Torricelli offered an amendment that
highlighted another serious flaw in Senate Joint Resolution 1. The
underling resolution prohibits capital budgeting.
As Senator Torricelli so forcefully pointed out during the Judiciary
Committee deliberations on Senate Joint Resolution 1, we as a nation
are suffering from a capital investment crisis. In 1965, more than 6
percent of our Federal expenditures were invested in infrastructure
such as roads, bridges, ports, and mass transit systems. By 1992, that
share of capital investment had fallen by more than half to about 3
percent of our Federal budget and this year it will approach barely 2
percent.
At the same time as our infrastructure funding has been shrinking,
our Nation's needs have continued to grow. The result is that we are
becoming a nation in disrepair. For instance, more than a quarter of a
million miles of roads need repair and more than 25 percent of our
bridges have exceeded their lifespan.
This failure to maintain adequate infrastructure is hurting our
competitiveness in the global economy. We are competing against other
countries with the foresight to repair their roads and bridges,
modernize their transit systems, maintain their ports, build new
schools, and make the investments in telecommunications infrastructure
that are the keys to success in today's global competition. The United
States is dead last among the G-7 nations in public infrastructure
investment as a percentage of gross domestic product.
We must reverse this trend and make the long-term investments needed
to support a strong economy. We must be able to invest in education if
we are to

[[Page S1891]]

give our children their best chance to compete and win in the coming
century.
Sections 1 and 7 of the underlying resolution prohibit capital
budgeting. All expenditures, whether the equivalent of operating
expenses or capital investments, are tallied the same for purposes of
this proposed constitutional amendment. The sponsors and proponents of
this measure refuse to permit any exception and future Congresses will
be forever barred from solving our infrastructure crisis by creating a
capital budget for long-term investments.
Senate committee hearings in 1995 established an extensive record in
support of maintaining a separate capital budget. Herbert Stein, of the
American Enterprise Institute and former economic adviser to President
Nixon; Edward V. Regan, of the Jerome Levy Economics Institute and
former New York State controller; and Dr. Fred Bergsten, on behalf of
the bipartisan Competitiveness Policy Council and former Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury during the Carter administration; differed on
the wisdom of enacting a constitutional amendment on the budget but all
agreed on one thing: If such an amendment were to be considered it
should separate capital investments for any annual balance requirement.
Nonetheless, when the majority had the opportunity to consider
amendments that would have allowed for a separate budget for capital
investments, it rejected them. This was a principal thrust of the
Torricelli substitute and an important aspect of the Feinstein
substitute. They were flatly rejected by the majority and their no
amendments approach to consideration of the underlying resolution. Both
of these amendments were tabled with all Republican members who voted,
voting against capital budgeting.
This inflexibility is one of the principal objections of the more
than 1,000 economists who oppose Senate Joint Resolution 1. It is also
one of the reasons President Clinton opposes this constitutional
amendment on budgeting. As the President so clearly stated:

We must give future generations the freedom to formulate
the federal budget in ways they deem most appropriate. For
example, some believe that the federal government should do
what many state governments do: adopt a balanced operating
budget and a separate capital budget. Under this
constitutional balanced budget proposal, the government would
be precluded from doing so.

During the Judiciary Committee's January 17 hearing, Robert
Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained:

What families do when they balance their budget is families
say that all of their income, including money they borrow,
equals all the cash they pay out. Families borrow money when
they purchase a house through a mortgage, when they buy a
car, and especially when they send a child to college. If
families had to operate on the basis that this amendment
does, they would have to pay for all of college education out
of the current year's income, all of the entire cost of a
home, not the down payment, the whole thing, out of the
current year's income. Nobody operates that way.

The actions of Thomas Jefferson as President, as opposed to his oft-
quoted ruminations about the evils of public debt, are also instructive
but ignored by the majority. In 1804, President Jefferson had the
United States borrow $15 million, in 1804 dollars, by selling bonds to
finance the Louisiana Purchase. That amount approximates more than $225
billion in 1993 dollars and exceeds every Federal budget deficit except
for the final 2 years of the Bush administration.
Was President Jefferson wrong to invest in the Louisiana Territory
that provided this country with 15 States? Of course not. But had the
provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 1 been included in the
Constitution, our Nation's westward expansion might well have ended at
the Mississippi River.
Under the underlying resolution, the failure to permit a capital
budget would have severe consequences by discouraging long-term
investment and ignoring our infrastructure crisis. Just as a budget
deficit unfairly harms future generations so, too, does the failure to
differentiate capital investments from operating and consumption
expenditures. The inevitable result will be less investment in our
country's future, pressure to operate through inefficient leasing
practices and gimmickry.
The majority ignores the fact that 42 States, most cities, and
businesses exclude from their balanced budget requirements capital,
enterprise, or trust funds that are financed primarily by borrowing
rather than by current revenue. Moreover, most States with balanced
budget requirements use capital funds that finance major capitol
projects by issuing long-term debt.
The Nation's leading economists agree that a capital budget is an
essential part of the State experience with balanced budget
requirements and that the omission of a capital budget in this proposed
constitutional amendment is a major flaw. These economists note:

Unlike many state constitutions, which permit borrowing to
finance capital expenditures, the proposed federal amendment
makes no distinction between capital investments and current
outlays. . . . The amendment would prevent federal borrowing
to finance expenditures for infrastructure, education,
research and development, environmental protection, and other
investments vital to the nation's future well-being.

Having defeated all attempts to allow for capital budgeting within
the underlying resolution over the last several weeks, the weekend
papers are again hinting that the Republican leadership is rethinking
its strategy and may be willing to reconsider whether capital budgeting
can be incorporated into the underlying resolution. These vacillations
by the majority illustrate why this matter is not appropriate for a
constitutional amendment. The Constitution cannot be made to say and
require one fiscal policy one week and the opposite the next. That is
not the stuff of the Constitution. These are matters of public interest
that can be addressed by policy and statutes that serve the times and
the needs of the American people.

BOXER AMENDMENT

Senator Boxer offered an amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 1 that
again pointed out a serious and substantial flaw with this proposed
constitutional amendment. The Boxer amendment would have permitted
Congress to response to emergencies and natural disasters by a majority
vote.
The proposed constitutional amendment can no more prevent a recession
than it can an earthquake, but it will restrict our ability to deal
with the effects of both. A natural disaster, such as a large-scale
flood, earthquake, or fire, could require the Federal Government to
expend large sums to assist the victims and begin to rebuild the
ravaged area. We need only look to the devastation suffered in Arkansas
and Mississippi over the last few days to be reminded of nature's
power.
The proposed constitutional amendment would make these kinds of
sudden emergency expenditures impossible because they would cause an
unauthorized increase in the deficit. Humanitarian efforts could and
would be held hostage while the requisite supermajorities were rounded
up in each House of Congress. A minority in either House could block
such efforts altogether or extort other paybacks.
In recent years, the Federal Government has been called on to give
critical aid to supplement State and local efforts to protect the
public health and safety in response to major disasters and
emergencies. Much of this aid has been paid for by supplemental
appropriations because of the unexpected nature of major disasters and
emergencies.
From fiscal years 1989 to 1996 Congress had to appropriate
supplemental major disaster and emergency relief in every year but one.
For example, in 1992, Congress passed an emergency supplemental
appropriation over $4 billion to help victims of the Los Angeles riots,
the Chicago floods, and Hurricane Andrew. In 1993, Congress passed an
emergency supplemental appropriation of $2 billion to help victims of
the Midwest floods. In 1994, Congress passed an emergency supplemental
appropriation of more than $4 billion to help victims of the Los
Angeles earthquake.
Relief for major disasters and emergencies must be flexible. Usually,
a swift response from the Federal Government is needed to aid local
relief efforts. Disaster and emergency relief by constitutional mandate
is a prescription for gridlock, not swift action. When your State is
hit by a major disaster or emergency, do you want critical Federal
assistance to hang on the whims of 41 Senators or 175 Representatives?

[[Page S1892]]

Our Founders rejected requirements of supermajorities. We should look
to their sound reasons for rejecting supermajority requirements before
we impose on our most vulnerable and neediest citizens a three-fifths
supermajority requirement to provide them Federal relief from major
disasters and emergencies.
Alexander Hamilton painted an alarming picture in ``Federalist Paper
No. 22'' of the consequences of the poison of supermajority
requirements. Hamilton said that supermajority requirements serve ``to
destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure,
caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto
to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.''
These supermajority requirements are a recipe for increased gridlock,
not more efficient action. As Hamilton noted long ago: ``Hence, tedious
delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of
the public good.'' Such supermajority requirements reflect a basic
distrust not just of Congress, but of the electorate itself. I reject
that notion.
I fear that a supermajority requirement will lead to some in Congress
playing politics with critical relief from disasters and emergencies.
Even with today's simple majority requirement for supplemental
appropriations for disaster and emergency relief, we see the potential
for partisan politics.
In the last Congress a multibillion-dollar disaster aid package for
California was caught in the budget wars between President Clinton and
House Republicans. The House Republican leadership delayed action on a
request from the President for supplemental appropriations for
emergency relief for victims of the California floods and Los Angeles
earthquake. Fortunately, public outcry forced the House Republicans to
relent. That political gamesmanship happened with only a simple
majority requirement for supplemental appropriations for disaster and
emergency relief. Think what would happen if Congress had to clear a
supermajority hurdle to pass disaster and emergency relief.
Again, instead of addressing the serious and substantial concerns
raised by the Boxer amendment, the sponsors and proponents of Senate
Joint Resolution 1 simply opposed its consideration as creating a
loophole in the underlying resolution. They did not offer alternative
language to address the emergency and natural disaster concerns
surrounding Senate Joint Resolution 1. Instead, with lock-step voting,
they tabled the Boxer amendment by a vote of 60 to 40.

FEINGOLD AMENDMENT

Senator Feingold offered several amendments to Senate Joint
Resolution 1, including one that would have permitted the use of a
``rainy day'' fund. Simply put, the Feingold amendment would have
allowed the use of an accumulated surplus for necessary expenditures
during any fiscal year.
Section 6 of the underlying resolution states: ``The Congress shall
enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which
may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.'' [Emphasis added].
What happens when these estimates of outlays and receipts fail to
come true during the fiscal year? As is ususally the case each year,
Congress is wrong on its economic forecasts. For example, in June 1995
the Congress adopted a budget resolution that anticipated a deficit of
$170 billion in the 1996 fiscal year. In August 1995, the Congressional
Budget Office anticipated a deficit of $189 billion for the 1996 fiscal
year. But the deficit for the 1996 fiscal year was actually $107
billion.
To respond to the usual budget forecast corrections, several of the
majority's witinesses during Judiciary Committee hearings recommended
that Senate Joint Resolution 1 be amended to allow the Federal
Government to establish a rainy day fund or stabilization fund. This
fund would adjust to budget shortfalls or overruns during the fiscal
year.
For example, James C. Miller III, former Director of the Office of
Management and Budget during the Reagan administration, testified:

I would urge you to consider incorporating a ``rainy day
fund.'' Thus, if one year revenues fell short (or outlays ran
over), you could dip into this fund without violating the
balanced budget requirement.

If the experience in the States is instructive, then a rainy day fund
is a necessity for any balanced budget requirement. According to the
American Legislative Exchange Council, 45 States have budget
stabilization funds or rainy day funds to respond to unanticipated
shortfalls in revenue or over-runs in outlays.
The majority, however, ignores the advice of its own witnesses and
the experience in the States, and prohibits the use of a rainy day fund
under this proposed constitutional amendment. Instead of adopting the
Feingold amendment, the majority simply marched forward lock-step in
their no-amendments strategy and tabled the Feingold amendment by a
vote of 60 to 40.

KENNEDY AMENDMENT

Finally, Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to Senate Joint
Resolution 1 that revealed perhaps its most serious flaw. The Kennedy
amendment was a sincere effort to confront the matters of enforcement
of the underlying resolution, which would have limited the enforcement
of the proposed constitutional amendment to Congress.
As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 48, ``the legislative
department alone has access to the pockets of the people.'' Our
Constitution now gives Congress the primary authority, and
responsibility, with regard to the raising and expenditure of outlays.
The proposed amendment would dramatically alter the allocation of
powers set forth in article I, sections 7, 8, and 9.
It risks casting the Federal and State courts in the role of Federal
budget czars deciding in myriad cases whether the Federal budget is
impermissibly out of balance, and where it is, forbidding spending and
ordering what remedies it deems appropriate for the constitutional
violations occasioned by circumstances in which outlays exceeding
revenues in any year without supermajority approval of the Congress.
Although the proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment have
left it silent with regard to the role of the courts in its
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement, that silence is
deafening.
Section 1 of the amendment contains a flat prohibition on total
outlays exceeding total receipts in any fiscal year, except as
expressly authorized by a supermajority in each House of Congress.
Having embedded this mandate in the Constitution, this proposed
constitutional amendment invites the courts to become actively involved
in determining when this constitutional command is being violated and
how such violations are to be remedied.
In the memorable words of Chief Justice Marshall: ``It is,
emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say
what the law is.'' Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S., 1 Cranch, 137, 176
(1803). Since that historic decision, the Supreme Court has had the
preeminent role in articulating the scope and meaning of our
Constitution. The majority report concedes the fundamental obligation
of the courts to say what the law is.
If the proposed constitutional amendment on budgeting were ratified,
the fulfillment of this role by the Supreme Court, and other courts,
could require them to address complex budgetary issues that courts are
ill-suited to resolve. As de Tocqueville wrote more than 148 years ago:
``Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is
not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.'' If the
proposed constitutional amendment were ratified, several of its
provisions would give rise to cases and controversies that the courts
would be called upon to resolve.
Supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment, in fact, desire
judicial involvement and enforcement of its terms. The representative
from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified before the Judiciary
Committee:

[T]here is a legitimate and necessary role for the courts
in ensuring compliance with the amendment. Congress could
potentially circumvent balanced budget amendment requirements
through unrealistic revenue estimates, emergency
designations, off-budget accounts, unfunded mandates, and
other gimmickry. It is our view that the need to proscribe
judicial policy making can be reconciled with a constructive
role for the courts in maintaining the integrity of the
balanced budget requirement.

[[Page S1893]]

In response to questions, the representative of the National
Taxpayers Union, another advocate for the proposed constitutional
amendment on budgeting in spite of its potential to lead to tax
increases in order to achieve balance, observed:

We oppose denying judicial review authority, and believe
that it would be more difficult to enforce the provisions of
S.J. Res. 1 if Congress were to add such language to the
Balanced Budget Amendment.

The representative of the Family Research Council opposed adding
express language on the role of the courts, noting that they ``would
not object to language that would prevent judges from raising taxes''
and observed:

Under our system of government, each branch has certain
limited means to require legal compliance by one of the other
branches. The use of this legal authority is somewhat
dependent on the political will of each branch to exercise
their proper authority. Each branch of government will have
its prerogatives to enforce the amendment, subject to
appropriate checks and balances.

Similarly, in 1995, in response to questions from me, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce noted: ``The BBA would be policed by the same
balance of powers that the Framers so carefully crafted in the
Constitution. Thus, excesses by the Congress would be controlled by
both the executive and judicial branches.''
The former Government attorneys who support the proposed
constitutional amendment and have been called to testify before the
Judiciary Committee over the last several years on the problem of
defining the judicial role have been unanimous about only one thing:
Court involvement is not prohibited by the amendment.
Stuart M. Gerson, a former Acting Attorney General, and William Barr,
the official he replaced at the end of the Bush administration,
differed in what they regarded as the principal dangers posed by
judicial intervention and in how they would seek to reduce the risks of
courts involvement, but they did not say and could not say that the
courts would not be involved in interpreting, implementing, and
enforcing the proposed constitutional amendment were it to be ratified.
Mr. Gerson testified he thought judicial intervention would be
``limited in scope'' but conceded that our constitutional law ``does
not remove the courts from the picture entirely where there is manifest
abuse or disregard of unequivocal legal pronouncements.'' He noted, in
his written statement, that ``there is a category of case--that
involving whether objective statutory terms have been satisfied--which
always has been cognizable and will remain so under the Balanced Budget
Amendment,'' and, in his oral presentation, that ``in those few cases
where a cognizable departure from the specific terms of the amendment
can be shown, courts, indeed must intervene.''
He went on, in response to questioning from Senator Torricelli, to
concede that standing for certain individuals and Members of Congress
is possible under this amendment:

So, the answer to your question is that I think that the
standing of individuals and members of Congress is very
limited. I do concede--that there is a category of cases as
to which I would not deny jurisdiction to the courts to make
certain that the Constitution was being enforced.

When asked by Senator Torricelli, as an example, whether the Senate
sponsors of the proposed constitutional amendment on budgeting would
have standing before a Federal court to bring a suit to compel
compliance with its terms, Mr. Gerson said:

In fact, I think that situation is the most likely
situation in which Congressional standing, which has never
before been recognized, might be recognized and I say so in
my prepared testimony. . . . That is the one situation that
even Judge Bork in the D.C. Circuit recognized might allow
Congressional standing.

The other witness who testified before the Judiciary Committee on
questions of law and judicial review was Alan B. Morrison of the Public
Citizen Litigation Group. He observed:

[I]n the absence of a clear statement of the contrary in
the Amendment itself, it is likely that parties who claimed
that, for example, the requirements for revenue increases in
Section 4 had not been satisfied, could show sufficient
injury to meet the case or controversy requirement in Article
III of the Constitution. The same is true for those objecting
to a Presidential impoundment.

Mr. Morrison thus concluded his testimony:

Senator, you will note that Section 1 of S.J. Res. 1 is not
put in terms of the Congress shall enact and the President
shall sign into law. It's put in absolute terms--total
outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed.
It seems to me that is a very unusual kind of
constitutional command and that despite what the courts have
done in other cases, no person sitting at this table or any
place else in this country can accurately predict what the
courts will do, which is the reason why I say it is so
important that the Congress, in the first instance, assume
responsibility, take it on, of saying what they want about
judicial review and that would be enforced in the courts.

Written testimony was received by the Judiciary Committee from Dawn
E. Johnsen, Acting Assistant Attorney General at the Department of
Justice. In that statement, the current head of the Office of Legal
Counsel indicated that ``primary concern of the Department of Justice
is how a balanced budget amendment would be enforced--an issue that
none of the proposed amendments thus far has adequately addressed.''
The statement continues:

If a balanced budget amendment were to be enforced by the
courts, it could restructure the balance of power between the
branches of government and could empower unelected judges to
raise taxes or cut spending--fundamental policy decisions
that judges are ill-equipped to make.

The Department of Justice testimony also referred to prior statements
by a former Solicitor General for President Nixon and Federal judge,
Robert H. Bork, and another former Solicitor General for President
Reagan and Harvard law professor, Charles Fried. Both men have observed
that judicial self-restraint, based on doctrines of standing and
political questions, did not overcome the possibilities of significant
litigation over interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the
proposed constitutional amendment on budgeting.
The Department of Justice has not varied much from that of Robert H.
Bork, 10 years ago:

In the end, there is a range of views about the extent to
which courts would involve themselves in issues arising under
the balanced budget amendment. Former Solicitor General Bork
believes that there ``would likely be hundreds, if not
thousands, of lawsuits around the country'' challenging
various aspects of the amendment. Similarly, Professor
Archibald Cox of Harvard Law School believes that ``there is
a substantial chance, even a strong probability, that * * *
federal courts all over the country would be drawn into its
interpretation and enforcement,'' and former Solicitor
General Charles Fried has testified that ``the amendment
would surely precipitate us into subtle and intricate legal
questions, and the litigation that would ensue would be
gruesome, intrusive, and not at all edifying.'' Other
commentators, such as former Attorney General William Barr,
believe that the political question and standing doctrines
likely would persuade courts to intervene in relatively few
situations, but that ``w]here the judicial power can properly
be invoked, it will most likely be reserved to address
serious and clear cut violations''.
Former Attorney General Barr may well be right that courts
would be reluctant to get involved in most balanced budget
cases. However, none of the commentators, included General
Barr himself, believes that the amendment would bar courts
from at least occasional intrusion into the budget process.
Accordingly, whether we would face an ``avalanche'' of
litigation or fewer cases alleging ``serious and clear cut
violations,'' a broad consensus exists that the amendment
creates the potential for the involvement of courts in
questions that are inappropriate for judicial resolution.

The proponents and sponsors do nothing to resolve this problem. They
concede that the text of the proposed constitutional amendment on
budgeting is silent with respect to judicial review, contending that
silence ``strikes the right balance.''
Mr. Morrison is correct to challenged the Congress to say what it
intends and what it means in the text of the proposed constitutional
amendment itself. Instead, the majority is leaving to the courts
themselves the determination of the challenges arising under the
proposed amendment and its implementation and what they will hear and
determine. They are to be guided by the vagaries of general,
judicially-created doctrines of justiciability.
The sponsors and proponents also suggest that Congress may revisit
this issue later through implementing legislation. Not only would such
subsequent implementing legislation require agreement in both Houses
and signature by the President or a supermajority override of a
presidential veto, but even if ultimately enacted, it may not be able
to restrict constitutionally-derived judicial power and responsibility

[[Page S1894]]

and may itself be overridden by the commands of article III and this
proposed 28th amendment. Former Solicitor General Charles Fried has
testified that a subsequent legislative effort to limit judicial power,
``itself might very well be unconstitutional.''
Further, as Mr. Barr pointed out in 1995, the State courts are not
limited by the Federal requirement of ``case or controversy'' and its
attendant justiciability doctrines:

Before moving on, I should point out for the Committee one
area that I believe does hold some potential for mischief and
that Congress may wish to address. That is the area of state
court review. The constraints of Article III do not, of
course, apply to state courts, which are courts of general
jurisdiction. State courts are not bound by the ``case or
controversy'' requirement or the other justiciability
principles, even when deciding issues of federal law,
including the interpretation of the Federal Constitution.
Asarco, Inc., 490 U.S. at 617. Accordingly, it is possible
that a state court could entertain a challenge to a federal
statute under the Balanced Budget Amendment despite the fact
that the plaintiff would not satisfy the requirements for
standing in federal court.

Although Mr. Gerson's written statement included the same point,
almost verbatim, the proposed constitutional amendment and majority
report are conveniently silent on this significant dimension of the
judicial review problem. Nowhere do the proponents of this
constitutional amendment confront the problem of uncontrolled judicial
review by State court that has been articulated by their own witnesses
on judicial review, who conclude that ``the State court in such a
circumstance would have the authority to render a binding legal
judgment.''
The proponents' dilemma may mirror that admitted by Mr. Barr at the
1995 hearings: Having acknowledged the concern that courts might order
taxes raised as in Missouri v. Jenkins, Mr. Barr was asked by Senator
Biden whether the proposed constitutional amendment ought not be
revised to include an express limitation on court power and their
authority to order certain types of remedies, Mr. Barr responded:

If I were a Senator, I would put it in the amendment. But
if I felt that would mean the amendment would not pass
because it would generate these arguments, oh, gee, this is
sort of like Eastern Europe, then I would without hesitation
support the amendment as written * * *

The proponents are refusing to confront the possibility of State
court involvement and the possibility that courts in different States
might reach inconsistent determinations or order contradictory remedies
because it is difficult, its discussion might offend, and its solution
might cost them a vote or two.
This is no way to amend the Constitution. Such ambiguity and
conscious disregard of potential problems disserves the process, the
proposed amendment, the American people and, possibly, the generations
to come who will suffer under its unintended consequences.
In court challenges in which a constitutional violation were found by
the court to exist, the question of appropriate remedy will loom large.
Indeed, it is the possibility of judicially-imposed remedies to ensure
compliance with the proposed constitutional amendment's command for
balance each fiscal year that has raised the most concern historically
as Congress considers this matter.
In 1994, Senator Danforth of Missouri successfully modified the
proposed constitutional amendment on budgeting. He sought to restrict
judicial involvement to issuing declaratory judgments unless Congress
specifically authorized another form of relief through implementing
legislation and his amendment was accepted by the floor manager.
In 1995, the Senate likewise modified the proposed constitutional
amendment when the floor manager adopted an amendment proffered by
Senator Nunn of Georgia on judicial review. The Nunn amendment called
for restricting the judicial power of the United States to matters
specifically authorized by implementing legislation.
Neither the Danforth nor the Nunn language nor anything like them was
included in Senate Joint Resolution 1. Indeed, in spite of these past
attempts to limit judicial remedial authority in the proposed
constitutional amendment and the only successful floor modifications to
its text since 1993, the proponents now reject all such efforts.
Instead, the proponents choose to remain silent on the many important
issues surrounding judicial involvement in the interpretation,
implementation and enforcement of the proposed constitutional
amendment.
They try to dismiss Missouri v. Jenkins, 496 U.S. 33 (1990), and the
dangers it portends for this proposed constitutional amendment. In that
case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the power of a Federal District
Court Judge in Kansas City, MO, to order tax increases in order to
improve the public schools. The Supreme Court upheld a district court
order that a local school district levy taxes to raise funds to comply
with the Court's order to remedy unconstitutional school segregation.
This case has spawned concern about what is sometimes referred to as
judicial taxation and the Judiciary Committee has held hearings on the
issue and on suggested legislation in the area in the last several
years. Senator Danforth cited this case in the course of offering his
amendment in 1994:

So after the case of Missouri versus Jenkins, decided by
the Supreme Court, it is clear that under certain
circumstances, the Federal courts have assumed the power to
impose taxes. And my concern was that Missouri versus Jenkins
could be the model for some future action by the Federal
courts.

The authority of the Federal courts to remedy constitutional
violations is broad, as was demonstrated in Missouri v. Jenkins, 495
U.S. 33 (1990). In suits where a constitutional violation of the
proposed budgeting amendment were found, courts would be left to make
similar remedial decisions.
In light of the deliberate omission of limiting language like that
previously included by Senator Danforth and Senator Nunn, the
underlying proposal is more likely to be construed to authorize courts
to enjoin spending, order taxes or issue a negative injunction
maintaining the status. That will appear to be the intention of
Congress. The absence of any limitations on the power of the judiciary
to review and remedy violations supports the interpretation that Senate
Joint Resolution 1 is intended to authorize the courts to engage in
judicial review without the limitations those amendment included.
In the Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary
as ``the least dangerous branch'' because it ``has no influence over
either the sword or the purse, no direction either of the strength or
the wealth of the society.'' He then qualified his description, quoting
Montesquieu as warning ``that `there is no liberty, if the power of
judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. ''
Adopting this proposed constitutional amendment would create
precisely the peril warned against by Hamilton, because it would invite
unelected judges to decide funding policy questions and exercise powers
heretofore largely reserved to the legislative and executive branches.
It would be a mistake of historic proportions.
This is a constitutional amendment that is being proposed. In other
settings in which constitutional rights are being vindicated, when
legislation enacted by Congress did not provide an effective remedy,
the courts have created judicial ones. See, e.g., Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); Davis
v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979); Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).
Thus, if Congress were to adopt enforcement legislation that failed to
provide an effective remedy for violations, the courts might proceed on
their own authority as required to fulfil their constitutional duties.
In addition, the underlying resolution would allow the President vast
authority to deal with implementation, and possibly even to impound,
funds obligated by Congress. The circumstances that would prevail after
ratification of the proposed constitutional amendment on budgeting will
not have previously existed. The President will have a lot to do with
determining how the President's constitutional duties under article II,
section 3, to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully executed,'' and
article II, section 7, to ``preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution'' will be fulfilled.

Section 1 of the proposed constitutional amendment commands that
``[t]otal outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts
for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the

[[Page S1895]]

whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a
specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.'' In any
fiscal year in which it becomes apparent that in the absence of
congressional action, ``total outlays'' will exceed ``total receipts,''
the President would determine how best to proceed and might well
proceed as if required by the Constitution and the oath of office it
prescribes to act to prevent the unauthorized deficit.
This common sense reading of the proposed constitutional amendment is
shared by a broad range of highly regarded legal scholars. Then
Assistant Attorney General (now Solicitor General) Walter Dellinger
testified in 1995 before the Judiciary Committee that the proposed
constitutional amendment would authorize the President to impound funds
to insure that outlays do not exceed receipts.
Similarly, Harvard University Law School Professor Charles Fried, who
served as Solicitor General during the Reagan administration, testified
that in a year when actual revenues fell below projections and a
bigger-then-authorized deficit occurred, section 1 ``would offer a
President ample warrant to impound appropriated funds.''
Others who share this view include former Attorney General Nicholas
deB. Katzenbach, Stanford University Law School Professor Kathleen
Sullivan, Yale University Law School Professor Burke Marshall, and
Harvard University Law School Professor Laurence H. Tribe.
This year the Secretary of the Treasury reinforced this prospect when
he noted in his testimony before the Committee:

Some proponents have suggested that under these
circumstances, the President would stop issuing checks,
including those for Social Security benefits. . . . The
President might also impound funds of his choosing. . . . All
of these potential outcomes are extremely undesirable.

The impoundment power that would be conferred on the President by the
proposed constitutional amendment is far broader than any the
presidential line-item veto authority temporarily granted the President
last year. As Assistant Attorney General Dellinger testified in 1995,
the impoundment authority implied within the proposed constitutional
amendment might allow a President to order across-the-board cuts in all
Federal programs, target specific programs for abolition, or target
expenditures intended for particular States or regions for impoundment.
He testified that he would advise the President that he not only had
the right but the constitutional obligation to prevent the violation of
a constitutional mandate against budgetary imbalance.
The text of the proposed constitutional amendment does not address
these matters. The majority report says that is not the intent of the
Committee to grant the President any impoundment authority and suggests
that ``up to the end of the fiscal year, the President has nothing to
impound because Congress in the amendment has the power to ratify or to
specify the amount of deficit spending that may occur in that fiscal
year.'' The majority report, thus, assumes there can never be an
unauthorized deficit, because Congress always has a theoretical
possibility of stepping in before the last minute ending the fiscal
year and ratify whatever deficit has occurred. Under this construction,
the proposed constitutional amendment is a cruel joke.
Moreover nothing in the proposed constitutional amendment prevents
the Executive from acting to implement its terms. A President may not
be willing to withhold based on a theoretical possibility of what the
President knows or has reason to believe will not occur. Moreover a
President may choose not to risk having all of the expenditures
undertaken by the Federal Government for a portion of a fiscal year
declared to have been expended in violation of the Constitution. It is
more likely that a President, sworn to preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution, would not view the Executive as powerless to prevent
such a result.
Key House sponsors of the proposed constitutional amendment
circulated materials on the role of the Executive that add context to
the majority report's isolated declaration of intent and are consistent
with this view of continuing involvement by the Executive in the
implementation of the proscriptions contained within the proposed
constitutional amendment. Representatives Schaefer and Stenholm
acknowledge that the proposed constitutional amendment is intended to
create ``an ongoing obligation to monitor outlays and receipts'' and to
require the President ``at the point at which the Government `runs out
of money,' to stop issuing checks.''
We also have experience to instruct us. This Administration's senior
advisers have testified both in 1995 and in 1997 that their advice,
against the backdrop of the proposed constitutional amendment on
budgeting having been ratified and an emerging deficit, would be to
terminate or delay expenditures.
James C. Miller III, former OMB Director under President Reagan,
echoed that advice. He revealed legal advice from the Office of Legal
Counsel of the Department of Justice that without congressional
mandated spending priorities, the President could apply across-the-
board reductions in outlays. Finally, he furnished a legal memorandum
on presidential authority to forestall default on the public debt that
was coauthored by a former Assistant Attorney General and head of the
Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan administration that asserts
``the President has inherent constitutional authority to choose which
nondeferrable obligations to pay in the absence of a statute specifying
a priority.''
A memorandum to the Attorney General dated October 21, 1995, that is
now publicly available, reinforces these lines of reasoning:

Although this Office has consistently taken the position
that as a general matter the President does not possess
inherent authority to impound funds, we have carved out an
exception to the general rule for the situation in which the
President faces a debt ceiling and does not have any other
feasible method of raising funds. We have said that in such a
situation, because the President would be faced with
conflicting statutory demands, to comply with the direction
to spend yet not exceed the debt limit, he would be justified
in refusing to spend obligated funds. See Memorandum from
William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Re:
Presidential Authority to Impound Funds Appropriated for
Assistance to Federally Impacted Schools (December 1, 1969).
We believe that the President's power to reconcile
conflicting laws according to his best judgment could be
derived from his ultimate power as Chief Executive ``to take
care that the Laws be faithfully executed.''

The OLC Memorandum concludes:

Finally, at some point, after all other options have been
considered, consideration should be given to a program of
deferral of obligations and expenditures by the President.
Such a program would provoke considerable public controversy,
perhaps a constitutional confrontation with Congress, and
most certainly would be subjected to legal challenge. On the
last point, although we have not had an opportunity to arrive
at a definitive conclusion, we believe a strong argument can
be made both on statutory grounds and on the basis of his
inherent authority, that the President would have the power
to engage in such a program.

Similar analysis and reliance on inherent Executive authority could
be expected to arise should the proposed constitutional amendment be
ratified and the President faced with circumstances in which the
legislative and executive branches are in gridlock over budgetary or
spending matters or it appears to the President that the prediction for
a balance between expenditures and revenues in any fiscal year is
tilting toward deficit.
The proponents alternatively comment that Congress could specify in
implementing legislation how it wanted the President to proceed in a
budgetary or debt limit crisis. Reliance of subsequent implementing
legislation is risky, at best. Such legislation would be subject to
Presidential veto and the need for a supermajority override in both
Houses. Moreover, such legislation would have to be comprehensive
enough to foresee and control all possible future contingencies to be
effective.
Further, the President's obligation to faithfully execute the laws is
independent of Congress's. That duty is not ``limited to the
enforcement of acts of Congress * * * according to their express
terms, * * * it include[s] the rights, duties and obligations growing
out of the Constitution itself, * * * and all the protection implied
by the nature of the government under the

[[Page S1896]]

Constitution[.]'' In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 64 (1890). If an
unconstitutional deficit were occurring, Congress could not
constitutionally stop the President from seeking to prevent it.
Finally, any reliance on the 159-year old case of Kendall v. United
States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 542 (1838), would be
misplaced. That case can as easily be read to support presidential
impoundment authority under the proposed constitutional amendment on
budgeting. In that case, Congress had ordered the Postmaster General to
pay the claimant whatever sum an outside arbitrator determined was the
appropriate settlement. When the Postmaster General paid a smaller
amount, the Supreme Court held that the Postmaster General could be
ordered to comply with the congressional directive. The Court ruled
that the President, and those under his supervision, did not possess
inherent authority to impound funds that Congress had ordered to be
spent: ``To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see
the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their
execution, is a novel construction of the Constitution and entirely
inadmissible.'' Id. at 611.
If the proposed constitutional amendment were ratified and became a
part of the Constitution, the President's obligation to execute the
laws would arguably have a constitutional fulcrum from which to
leverage. The President could argue that when the constitutional duty
to ensure fiscal year balance came into conflict with a statutory
obligation to expend authorized, appropriated, or obligated funds, the
constitutional responsibility had to be given priority as predicated on
superior authority.
The proposed constitutional amendment's mandate to ensure budget
balance for each fiscal year specifies no role or limitation on the
power of the President. The majority report concedes that
implementation and enforcement will necessarily involve the Executive
Branch beyond the President's obligation pursuant to section 3 to have
transmitted to the Congress a proposed budget prior to each fiscal year
in which total outlays do not exceed total revenues.
The majority report noted:

Both the President and Members of Congress swear an oath to
uphold the Constitution, including any amendments thereto.
Honoring this pledge requires respecting the provisions of
the proposed amendment. Flagrant disregard of the proposed
amendment's clear and simple provisions would constitute
nothing less than a betrayal of public trust. In their
campaigns for reelection, elected officials who flout their
responsibilities under this amendment will find that the
political process will provide the ultimate enforcement
mechanism.

If this proposed constitutional amendment were to become the supreme
law of the land, some future President may well choose to enforce its
terms, in the absence of binding limitations in implementing authority,
to make greater use of Executive Branch discretion and authority than
this Congress has taken the time to consider.
This fundamental shift in the allocation of power and authority among
the Federal branches is neither wise nor necessary. It risks despotism
at the very times when despots are most likely to arise and in which
our fundamental guarantees of liberty and individual freedoms has been
the checks and balances that the branches of our Federal Government
exert over each other.
In spite of these acknowledged problems with the underlying
resolution, the sponsors and proponents voted lock-step to table the
Kennedy amendment without any effort to cure any of the serious
constitutional flaws that it highlighted.
We cannot legislate political courage and responsibility. No
amendment to the Constitution can supply the people's representatives
with these essential attributes. Indeed, the majority report concludes
that the ultimate enforcement mechanism that can lead to balancing the
budget is the electorate's power to vote. That power already exists.
Moreover, the underlying resolution would undercut rather than enhance
our democratic principles of majority rule and separation of powers and
would ultimately lead to a loss of political accountability to the
electorate.
Political courage has been an essential ingredient that has helped us
achieve remarkable deficit reduction over the past 4 years--recent
history that the majority report seeks to ignore. We have succeeded in
reducing the deficit every year of the past four. We have cut the
deficit by more than 60 percent in that time while pursuing sound
economic and strong fiscal policies.
Now we need to stay the course and work in a bipartisan way to make
further progress. We should now be focusing our attention and energies
on the strenuous tasks of building a working consensus on budget
priorities and achieving agreement on how to balance the budget.
This crusade for an illusionary quick-fix by constitutional amendment
only makes that job more difficult. The time and resources devoted to
reconsidering a constitutional amendment on the budget merely serve as
a distraction from the real task at hand.
Let us not be distracted from the true means to deficit reduction:
Let us proceed to consider and adopt a budget and deficit reduction
package consistent with the progress made since 1993. As Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin testified before the Committee on January 17,
``politically, historically, and economically, the forces are in place
to balance the budget. We are not far apart. Now we need to get the job
done.''
Let us not sacrifice the Constitution or our Nation's fiscal policies
to a siren song but turn to the work needed to continue reducing the
deficit without sacrificing our Nation's commitments to seniors,
veterans, education, the environment, public infrastructure and our
fundamental constitutional principles. There is no need for a
constitutional amendment to achieve our goals.
The questions raised during the debate on Senate Joint Resolution 1
will not go away and cannot be ignored. They point to a series of fatal
flaws in proposing to conduct our Nation's economic and budgetary
functions by means of a simply-sounding constitutional declaration. A
recent editorial in the Burlington Free Press said it more succinctly:
``amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget would be like
using a sledgehammer to nail a picket in a fence.''
Two years ago Senator Mark Hatfield's decisive vote against a
constitutional amendment on budgeting was a contemporary profile in
courage. Senator Hatfield had wisdom gained from his years as a public
servant and personal fortitude and integrity that sustained him through
very difficult times before and after that vote. Here was a man and a
representative who was put to the test and not only survived but
emerged as a powerful example for us all.
On February 8, 1995, Senator Hatfield came to this Senate floor to
explain how he would vote. He said:

As I explain my thoughts on the balanced budget amendment,
I want to make it very clear that I believe the deficit must
be reduced and that a balanced budget is worth achieving. It
is possible that I will be the lone Republican to vote
against the balanced budget amendment, but I say now to my
colleagues that I share my party's goals, but happen to
disagree on the means.
The debate on the balanced budget amendment is not about
reducing the budget deficit, it is about amending the
Constitution of the United States with a procedural gimmick.
This amendment that is before Members now puts new Senate and
House rules regarding voting procedures into the
Constitution. It does not balance the budget and gives no
indication of how this might be done. Furthermore, it will
not force Congress to budget responsibility. If indeed this
is an amendment requiring a balanced budget, then how can we
allow Congress to essentially suspend the Constitution with a
three-fifths vote? This was a dangerous idea last year, and
it is a dangerous idea this year as well. What other
constitutional requirements would we like to waive with a
three-fifths vote? Freedom of religion? Free speech? What
other civil liberties shall we waive? A balanced budget
amendment would allow the Congress to ignore the requirement
for a balanced budget and to ignore the Constitution. This
idea of Congress suspending a constitutional requirement cuts
against the separation of powers principle so crucial to the
foundation of the Constitution.
A balanced budget can come only through leadership and
compromise. This compromise must come from each one of us.
But, most importantly, it must come from those we represent--
those who do not want their taxes raised any more than we
want to raise them--those who do not want their benefits cut
any more than we want to cut them. In the end there is no
easy answer, and there never will be. Regardless of the
procedural restraint in place, where there is political

[[Page S1897]]

will to create a balanced budget we will create one, where
there is will to avoid one, we will avoid it* * * .

As I stated during the debate on a balanced budget amendment last
year, a vote for this balanced budget amendment is not a vote for a
balanced budget, it is a vote for a fig leaf.

If I am skeptical about the ability of a gimmick to fix our
budget, I am not skeptical about the ability of the people to
demand and keep demanding that we respond to the budget
challenge with real action. Real action is not a vote for an
amendment to the Constitution which calls for a balanced
budget by the year 2002. Real action is rolling up our
sleeves and getting our fiscal house in order. Real action is
working together, in a bipartisan fashion, to create a
balanced budget, not to simply promise one. Real action means
ending some programs--programs with popular appeal and vocal
constituencies. Balancing the budget will result in an impact
on each and every one of us--do we have the will to do that?
Bipartisan negotiation, leadership, and compromise have
been the cornerstones upon which we have built all effective
decisions on tough issues since the formation of our
Government. Compromises are difficult to reach, but they are
not impossible to reach. We have just received the
President's budget. The ensuing debate on the budget will
provide the chance for the Congress to work together to
balance the Federal programs of this budget. I hope the
Congress does not miss this opportunity to debate the real
issue of balancing the budget. Voting for a balanced budget
amendment is easy, working to balance the budget will not be.
The Congress should not promise to the people that it will
balance the Federal budget through a procedural gimmick. If
the Congress has the political will to balance the budget, it
should simply use the power that it already has to do so.
There is no substitute for political will and there never
will be.

In May 1995, not long after his historic vote and after he had
retained his chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee after being
attacked by fellow Republicans for his vote of conscience and in
defense of the Constitution, Senator Hatfield had occasion to repeat
the following observations about balancing the Federal budget:

I believe that a balanced budget can come only through
leadership and compromise. This compromise must come from
each one of us. More importantly, it must come from those we
represent. In the end, there is no easy answer. If there is a
political will to create a balanced budget, we will create
one, and if there is will to avoid one, we will avoid it.

I am deeply disappointed to learn that the Republican National
Committee has been running attack advertisements in newspapers and on
the radio over the past few days regarding the final vote on this
proposed constitutional amendment. These attack ads are aimed at
blackmailing specific Members of Congress to ignore their consciences
and vote for this flawed constitutional amendment. It is wrong to play
politics with the Constitution of the United States. It is wrong to try
to punish any Member in this body who may choose to vote his or her
conscience on this matter of constitutional proportion with its serious
consequences to our system of checks and balances. I am disgusted by
it.
We should all remember the courageous example of Senator Mark
Hatfield, and vote our own conscience and use our own best judgment on
this matter of constitutional amendment. I commend the Senators who are
not blindly voting for a poll-tested bumper sticker, but who instead
are exercising their best judgment and voting to defeat a seriously
flawed proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
These Senators are those acting with courage.
By our Senate oath of office we each commit to ``support and defend
the Constitution of the United States.'' We owe to our constituents our
best judgment on matters of this importance. We owe to our children and
future generations the protections of separation of powers and checks
and balances from our Constitution that have served us so well without
diminution for political expediency.
Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has approximately 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. Then what is the situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Utah will control 1 hour of debate.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have stated my disagreement with those
who will vote for this. But I also know that many on both sides of the
aisle are moved by their conscience in the way they will vote. I hope
no one will seek to punish them. I hope they do not seek to punish
Members of this body who vote his or her conscience on this matter--I
was concerned to see some of the so-called independent expenditure ads
over the weekend that seek to do just that--whether they have been
Senators on either side of the aisle who express different views today
than they might have expressed another time. I assume they have reasons
for doing it.
I have tried throughout this debate for several weeks now to state my
reasons. My reasons are based, as my reasons are for all votes, on what
is best for the country, what is best for Vermont, what is best for the
Constitution.
None of us owns a seat in this body. Each of us just passes through.
Someday I will be gone, just as every other Member now serving in the
U.S. Senate will be gone. But when I leave I want to be able to say to
my children and my children's children, I did the best I could, and I
did those things that prepared you for the future. My children will
live most of their lives in the next century.
As I have said many, many times on this floor, I worry just not for
those of us who are here at the twilight of this century, but those who
live in the next century and the centuries after, because I expect that
this Nation, having gone through all the terrible things that it has in
its 200 years, and coming back stronger every single time, will be here
long after each of us is a dusty memory. I yield the floor and turn
back to my good friend from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 1
hour of debate under the control of the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, contrary to Senators Reid, Dorgan and
Conrad's contention, exempting Social Security would severely impair
the program. Let me say once again, an exemption would open up a
loophole in the amendment and siphon-off revenues from the trust funds.
Placing the trust funds off-budget will harm the Social Security
Program.
In essence, we would have two budgets, one based on sound principles
of solvency, and the other, the Social Security budget, which is not.
One budget will be required to be in balance unless a supermajority
votes to allow a deficit, the other--the Social Security budget--would
be raided and bloated with unrelated pork projects. This will mean the
end of Social Security as we know it, turning it into the least secure
of all Government accounts.
Congress could pass legislation to fund any number of programs off-
budget, through the Social Security trust funds. The budget could be
balanced simply by shifting programs into the Social Security trust
funds.
The immediate effect of the loophole is that the trust funds would
grow--as projected--but only until 2002, the date the BBA requires that
the budget be balanced. Thereafter, however, the trust funds would stop
growing as all annual surplus funds would be reallocated to pay for
programs that have been redesignated as Social Security. So instead of
growing, from 2002 to 2019, the year the trust funds are estimated to
stop growing, the system will become stagnant in 2002. The result of
the loophole will be the depletion of the trust fund years early.
Exemption of the trust funds from the BBA, ironically, will hasten the
system's difficulties.
Congress has generally been increasing the web of services provided
by Social Security. Consider what will happen when politicians are
faced with the choice between the pressures of budget integrity and the
procrastinating appeal of a Social Security loophole.
The only other possible use for Social Security surpluses would be
for the Government to pay down our staggering national debt. If
projects aren't redesignated, Social Security as discussed earlier,
thereby consuming accumulated Social Security surpluses, surplus
proceeds would be used in the only possible manner that would avoid
section 1's prohibition on outlays exceeding receipts: to make debt
repayments. This sounds wonderful, but in fact creates a dangerous
mechanism for

[[Page S1898]]

the Congress to continue deficit spending. By paying down the debt, the
Congress would provide itself a debt cushion--that is, a gap between
the statutorily limited debt ceiling and the actual paid down debt.
Congress could therefore use this gap to deficit spend, from Social
Security, while avoiding the three-fifths vote required in section 2 of
the BBA to raise the debt ceiling. This is because the accumulated
Social Security surpluses would maintain the gap between the actual
debt and the debt ceiling. Such a spending device completely frustrates
the purposes for which I have introduced the balanced budget amendment.

Also, let us not forget about the troubling future for Social
Security. The Social Security Board of Trustees estimates that by the
year 2070, Social Security is expected to run an annual $7 trillion
deficit. If we include Social Security in our balanced budget
calculations, we will be able to prepare for and budget these massive
shortfalls. Under the Feinstein proposal, we will not be including this
deficit in our budgetary planning. As a result, under any proposal to
exempt Social Security from Senate Joint Resolution 1, in order to
raise revenue and increase the debt ceiling sufficient to cover the
expected Social Security shortfalls in the next century, we will have
to dramatically increase taxes or cut spending in other important
programs, or face an annual three-fifths vote fiscal crisis to avoid
financial default by raising the already staggering $5.5 trillion debt
ceiling.
FICA taxes have grown significantly over time. There is no reason why
this increase would not be accelerated under this loophole. Nor is
there any reason why new Social Security taxes could not be added, such
as a Social Security income tax or a Social Security value added tax.
As this process continues, the loophole created by this exemption could
easily swallow both the spending and the taxing protections of the BBA.
By allowing Congress to redesignate other spending as Social
Security, this loophole would make it easy to balance the budget on
paper without changing anything except accounting methods.
According to Wall Street analyst David Malpass, who recently
testified before the Judiciary Committee,

Financial markets would react negatively to a budget
concept that ignores Social Security.

By passing a balanced budget amendment that excludes Social Security,
Congress would game the system, saying, in effect, that it does not
intend to balance the consolidated unitary Federal budget. For Malpass
and other market analysts, this would be a decidedly negative signal
for financial markets, leading to higher interest rates.
This probable gamesmanship is exactly what must be avoided. The way
to avoid it is to reject this risky exemption gimmick. The best way to
protect retirees and future generations is to adopt a clean strong
balanced budget amendment, free of loopholes. It is the best way to
save our financial situation and protect Social Security.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I want to congratulate my colleague from Utah on all the great work
he has done during this very, very important debate on the balanced
budget amendment.
Mr. President, if recent history is any indication, we know that
promises are never going to balance the budget, good intentions are
never going to balance the budget, renewed commitments are never going
to balance the budget, and pledges of cooperation are never going to
balance the budget. Left on its own, we know that Congress itself will
never balance the Federal budget.
In the 1 minute that I spend delivering this statement, the national
debt will increase by more than $500,000. In the past 24 hours, it has
grown by over $721 million. Over the last three decades, the national
debt has mushroomed to more than $5.3 trillion. The question you have
to ask is, where will it stop? At what point do we say enough?
What will it take to convince Washington that we are strangling the
financial future of our children and our grandchildren with the noose
that is being knotted by our very own hands? Mr. President, after all
the promises, intentions, commitments, and pledges have failed, our
last best hope rests with passage of the balanced budget amendment. In
the name of America's children, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague and yield 1 minute to the Senator
from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his fine
work and debate here on the floor on the balanced budget amendment. I
am going to vote for the balanced budget amendment because I am going
to keep my campaign promise that I made during the election. It is not
a campaign promise that I made lightly.
I have voted for this very same proposal as a Member of the 105th
Congress as a Member of the House of Representatives. I have served in
a State that has a balanced budget requirement. I have been the owner
of a business that has had to balance its budget. I have been a part of
a family that has had to balance its budget.
I think it is important for the future of our children and our
grandchildren that we balance the budget. The only way I see us ever
eliminating deficit spending is to pass a requirement in the
Constitution that says that we have to balance the budget. For 28
years, we have heard from both Republicans and Democrats on the
importance of balancing the budget. That is why I am casting my vote
for a balanced budget amendment today.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague and yield 1 minute to the
distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, want to urge all my colleagues to
vote for the balanced budget constitutional amendment. As the only
accountant in the U.S. Senate, I have been interested in the various
accounting issues that have been brought up as part of this discussion.
I am very disappointed that while accounting techniques are needed to
know exactly where we stand and what to do, there have been a lot of
sham techniques that have been brought up so that some of the people
would have a hook on which to add a no vote--and that is all that they
are.
We need to have good accounting. We need to protect Social Security.
There is no one in this body who does not want us to take care of
Social Security. The way to do that is through a balanced budget
constitutional amendment. We owe it to our kids and to our grandkids.
We owe it to our parents and our grandparents. We have to make sure
that we have a balanced budget to keep this country going forward, with
or without that amendment. I have heard promises here, but I am not so
sure about promises anymore that we would balance the budget, and it is
critical that we balance the budget. I will be counting on everyone to
help on that. I ask for support of the balanced budget constitutional
amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is necessary
to limit the Federal Government's power to mortgage America's future.
It can protect the liberties of the American people for six primary
reasons:
No. 1, our families: Passing the balanced budget amendment will
improve the economic health and stability of all American families.
No. 2, our children's future: Passing the balanced budget amendment
is a very clear-cut vote for our children's economic freedom, instead
of their enslavement, which is what we have been doing to them.
No. 3, retirement security: It will protect Social Security, and it
will stabilize the economy, which will benefit both current and future
retirees.
No. 4, economic strength: The stabilizing effect the balanced budget
amendment will have on the economy is clear.
No. 5, integrity: It will bring immediate credibility to our current
budget negotiations, and it will restore a measure of integrity to our
Government.

[[Page S1899]]

No. 6, the last reason is this stack of 28 unbalanced budgets. The
last 28 years of our country's life have had unbalanced budgets. We
need a constitutional amendment to stop this pile from growing.
Some have stated that all we need is the will to balance the budget.
Well, these 28 budgets are a testament to the fact that our will just
won't do it. It is that simple and that clear.
I have to tell you, one of my favorite quotes is this: ``A democracy
cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until
the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the
Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidates promising the most benefits to the Public Treasury, with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy,
always followed by a dictatorship.''
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200
years. Ours is just a little bit over 200 years, and we are following
that pattern of mortgaging our future, of voting largess for ourselves
and the Public Treasury, and of not being able to put fiscal sanity
into our house to make it a house of order. All we have is, it seems to
me, the same old timeworn, wornout approaches toward the budget that we
have heard for all of these 28 years. It is time to do something about
it.
I yield a minute to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
(Mr. ENZI assumed the chair.)
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise today to express my complete and unreserved
support for Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget
constitutional amendment.
I think it is notable that the balanced budget constitutional
amendment has been designated Senate Joint Resolution 1 for the second
consecutive Congress. Bringing the budget into balance should be one of
the Nation's highest priorities, and this designation demonstrates the
Senate leadership's recognition of that fact. It also demonstrates the
knowledge that, no matter what we do to balance the budget now, we
simply cannot guarantee a balanced budget to future generations unless
the Constitution requires one. A requirement to balance the budget, not
just in statute but in the very document which defines our Nation, will
truly make the Federal Government accountable--accountable to the
American taxpayer of today and to the generations who will inherit this
Nation tomorrow.
Mr. President, future generations are what this debate is all about.
An entire generation of Americans has grown up without ever having seen
a balanced budget. My children are nearly the age I was the last time
the U.S. budget did not run a deficit. In the interim, we have seen
deficit spending become the norm, and, as a result, the debt has
ballooned to $5.3 trillion or roughly $20,000 for every man, woman, and
child in this Nation. If we take the time to look beyond the immediate
future, to a time when our children--and for some of my colleagues,
their grandchildren--stand where we stand today, as parents and
taxpayers, we will see a vision which should frighten us. Unless
something is done, and done soon, interest on the debt will consume a
larger portion of the budget than all the domestic discretionary
programs combined.
Some opponents of the balanced budget constitutional amendment have
said all we need to do is stop deficit spending. This is true, and in a
perfect world it would also be an easy goal to achieve. But we all
realize we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a nation
populated by more than 260 million people, many with dramatically
different expectations of what, if anything, their Federal Government
should do for them. And they elect us to represent those interests.
Unfortunately, for the last 28 fiscal years too many have tried to
please all of those interests at the same time, all too rarely asking,
``What will be the result down the road?''
Mr. President, as I have mentioned, we are now living that result.
The debt has spiraled out of control and a balanced budget has become a
highly desired goal rather than a regular, expected occurrence. While
we are slowly getting closer to achieving that goal, we must not stop
there. Even if we balance the budget by 2002, a timeframe to which even
President Clinton has now agreed, what happens next? What happens when
the names of the 105th Congress become mere memories in our
Nation's history? Who will ensure that balanced budgets will continue
5, 10, 20, even 50 years down the road?

While I would like to believe that balancing the budget in 2002 will
result in all future budgets being balanced, I simply cannot. Balancing
a budget is hard, as many of us who must balance our own personal
budgets well know. Future leaders will be sorely tempted to deficit
spend in order to meet the desires of the people. And much like a
generation ago, they will find it easy to appease everyone. They will
find it easy to say, ``We'll balance it next year.'' The result may
well be another 28 years of unbalanced budgets and increasing debt. To
quote the Spanish philosopher George Santayana, ``Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Without a balanced
budget constitutional amendment, we leave future generations to the
mercy of whether or not their leaders will remember the past.
Mr. President, over the Presidents' Day work period, I had the
opportunity to speak with numerous Idahoans. They are good people who
are very concerned about the future of the United States. During my
week in the State, they overwhelmingly expressed to me that passage of
the balanced budget constitutional amendment was one of their biggest
concerns.
The people of Idaho know how serious the issue of balancing the
budget is, because, like most Americans, they have lived under a State
balanced budget requirement for years. It has forced tough decisions
and, in some cases, prevented Idaho from doing some things the people
wanted to do. But, it has worked. More importantly, for all the
difficult decisions it has required, Idaho has kept it. They have shown
they are willing to make tough decisions in order to keep the budget
balanced. In the process, Idaho has also made sure that its more
important resource, its children, are protected. A recent report
released by the Children's Defense Fund notes that Idaho is below the
national average for the percentage of children living in poverty,
below the national average for the number of uninsured children, and
above the national average in child support enforcement. You see it is
possible to balance the budget and have the government do those things
which the people expect it to do. As a nation, we would be wise to heed
Idaho's example.
As I mentioned before, the people of my home State have shown they
can and will live within a limited budget--on both a personal and
governmental level. The members of the Idaho State Legislature stand
for election every 2 years and must reflect the attitudes of the
citizens of their communities. As in the past, they have passed a
memorial asking Congress to approve the balanced budget constitutional
amendment and send it to them for ratification. Their words bear
repeating as we consider action on this significant step to restore the
confidence of our people:

[[Page S1900]]

legislatures of the several states for ratification, an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring,
in the absence of a national emergency, that the total of all
federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal
year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal
revenues for that fiscal year.

The call for fiscal responsibility is nothing new, it has been
sounded for years. President Andrew Jackson said, ``Once the budget is
balanced and the debts paid off, our population will be relieved from a
considerable portion of its present burdens and will find not only new
motives to patriotic affection, but additional means for the display of
individual enterprise.''
More recently, the American people heard the following words: ``We
must act now to protect future generations from government's desire to
spend its citizens' money and tax them into servitude when the bills
come due. Let us make it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to
spend more money than the Federal Government takes in.''
This sound advice came from President Reagan on the event of his
second inauguration. His words were true then, and they are even more
so now. For since he made that call for a balanced budget amendment to
the Constitution, we have had a dozen more years of unbalanced budgets,
a dozen more years of deficits, a dozen more years of telling our
children and grandchildren that they will have to discover a way to do
what we did not have the courage to do.

Mr. President, when I was mayor of Boise, I not only had to balance
my own personal budget, but I also had to ensure that the city's budget
remained balanced as well. It was a responsibility that required tough
decisions, both on my part and on the part of the good people of Boise.
Together, we had great expectations for our city. We wanted to build
new parks, hire more police officers, build a new fire station, and do
numerous other things to make the city an even better place to live. At
the same time, however, we had to face the fact that we could not have
all our wants, we would have to focus on our needs.
So what did we do? We prioritized and lived within our means. And in
the process we built some wonderful parks, we modernized our
firefighting equipment, and we lowered the crime rate. I would add, Mr.
President, that we did all this and either held the line or decreased
the property tax levy the final 2 years I was in office. As a result of
our efforts, we were voted one of the most livable cities in the Nation
by a national magazine, which called Boise, ``A great place to raise a
family.''
Mr. President, we did all this, and balanced our budget, because we
had to do so. It forced us to be frugal, but more importantly, it
required us to find better and more efficient ways to meet our goals.
And we still met our goals. We managed to do more with less. You see, a
balanced budget does not mean we deny ourselves the ability to do those
things which need to be done. It simply means we must do those things
as efficiently as possible, and not waste time and resources trying to
do things which are not truly important.
Mr. President, before concluding my remarks today, I would like to
address the concerns which have been raised about Social Security.
During my tenure in the Senate, I have supported several efforts to
assist Social Security recipients. It is based on my support for the
Social Security system, and those who depend on the system now and in
the future, that I opposed the maneuvers to add ``specific exemption''
language to the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Doing so, I
believe would have proven to be detrimental to the long-term security
of the Social Security Program.
First, because Social Security is defined in statute, its definition
may be changed by statute. A Social Security exemption to the balanced
budget constitutional amendment would then create an inviting target,
far too inviting in my view, to those who do not want to truly balance
the budget. The Congress, potentially, would be able to change the
definition of Social Security so as to include economic stimulus
programs, health care programs, or any other program which caught the
fancy of the majority of the Congress. These areas could then be funded
by draining the Social Security trust fund while the budget,
technically, remained balanced. The net result would be a rapid
depletion of the trust fund which would endanger benefits for future
retirees.

Second, I think we must look at what a Social Security exemption
would not do. Contrary to what some have claimed, it would not provide
any more protection for the trust fund than now exists. It would not
prevent the trust fund from running a deficit beginning in 2019, just
as it is currently on pace to do. In fact, it would not extend the
solvency of the trust fund by a single day--Social Security would still
be bankrupt by 2029. The Social Security exemption would not do one
thing to save the Social Security trust fund. Only balancing the
budget--and I believe only a constitutional amendment will guarantee a
balanced budget--and reducing the debt, will ensure that we are able to
pay off the Government securities in which the law requires the Social
Security surplus to be placed.
Mr. President, the balanced budget constitutional amendment is
designed to make the Federal Government do something it has not done in
nearly 30 years--take responsibility for its actions now, rather than
passing the buck to our children and grandchildren. In the end, it is
that simple. Are we going to continue to mortgage our children's and
grandchildren's future for the sake of political expediency, or are we
going to accept our responsibility to make the difficult decisions
which come with balancing the budget?
I believe there is only one way to answer that question. We must act
now. It is time for the Federal Government to cut up its credit cards,
prioritize the real needs, ignore the ``wants'' list, learn to do more
with less, and balance its budget. It will not be easy and it will not
be pretty, but it must happen--and we cannot guarantee it will happen
without a constitutional amendment. After 28 years of unbalanced
budgets, we owe future generations the promise that they will not be
forced to live with the results of our mistakes. Passing the balanced
budget constitutional amendment is our downpayment on that promise.
Mr. President, in the 1,697 votes I have cast as a U.S. Senator, the
vote today at 5:15 is the most critical. How critical? The last time
this Nation had a balanced budget, I was 17 years old. Today, I have a
son who is 16. He will be 17 this year. It has been a generation since
we have had a balanced budget. I wish that when I was a 17-year-old,
there had been a law that said you are going to have a balanced budget.
In the State of Idaho, we have a balanced budget requirement in the
Constitution, and what's the upshot of that? After a century, our books
are balanced in Idaho. We have 28 years of unbalanced books here in the
United States. It is time for a balanced budget amendment. I cast my
vote today not only as a Senator, but as a father trying to do the
right thing for my kids.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Tennessee.
(Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.)
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, our generation inherited the freest,
strongest, most prosperous country in the history of civilization.
Within one generation, we are changing that. When historians look back
and ask the question, ``When did the decline of the United States
begin,'' they will point to our generation, because we are the first
generation to spend the fortune of our grandchildren and great-
grandchildren.
But we are told that we don't need to worry about it because we are
in the process of balancing the budget, as evidenced by the President's
latest so-called ``balanced budget.'' But when the analysis comes out,
we see that we are looking at another $69 billion in deficit, and this
so-called ``balanced budget'' is supposed to make all the cuts. But 98
percent of the cuts are in the last 2 years--after the President leaves
office. We know that this is a sham. We know that even if, for a
nanosecond, we did balance the budget in the year 2002, it would not
account for the baby boomers who are going to be retiring in 2010.
Can't we look forward for our Nation's future?
I support the balanced budget amendment and urge immediate passage.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Arkansas.

[[Page S1901]]

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Utah. I rise in strong support today of the balanced budget amendment
to the Constitution. I have three sons. My twin boys, today, are
celebrating a birthday. They are 23 years old. I have an 18-year-old.
In 1984, when I first ran for political office--the Arkansas State
Legislature--I was asked, ``Why would you get into politics?'' I had
three reasons: Jeremy, Tim, and Josh. I didn't know whether I could
make a difference, but I was gravely concerned about the direction our
Nation was going in and, particularly, the way our Nation was growing
in deficits, chronic deficits, and a massive national debt. I wanted to
be able to look them in the eyes and say, ``I did what I could to give
you a nation as good and as prosperous and with as much opportunity as
I have had.''
Well, in less than 2 hours from this moment, I will have an
opportunity to cast a vote. We may not succeed in this balanced budget
amendment, but I will have a clear conscience, and I will be able to
look my sons in the eyes and say that I did what I could to bring a
fiscal sanity to our Nation again.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their words here
today. We are talking about trying to save our country. Frankly, after
58 of the last 66 years of unbalanced budgets, I think it is time we do
something about it.
I yield 1 minute to our distinguished friend, the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of
the amendment. As I have said on the floor numerous times during the
debate, families of this country are hurt to the extent that we don't
balance the budget. Interest rates are higher. That means that loans,
whether it is for a new car or house, a student, or anyone else, are
affected directly by this failure in Washington to balance the budget.

Most importantly, children are hurt. We have a newborn baby in our
family. He was born 5 months ago. The day he was born, he inherited a
responsibility to pay $187,000 in Federal taxes just to pay his share
of the interest on this national debt. That isn't just unfair for my
son, it is unfair for all the children in this country.
Passage of this amendment has to happen. It has to happen now in
order to end the red ink and set us on the right course for fiscal
integrity in the future.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Utah. I appreciate the
leadership he has given to this effort. I think that this issue is
very, very important to our Nation. I think, fundamentally, it is one
of integrity. It is integrity in spending. We have to deal with those
issues day after day. How do we get an unbalanced budget? What happens?
Senators and Congressmen get together and each have their own
priorities. Each believes deeply that some project ought to be funded,
and they cannot agree on which ones should be funded and which ones
should not. So, they get together, they fund them all, and they pass on
the debt to our children.
Some say we don't need a balanced budget--that we should not amend
the Constitution. We have a series of 33 out of 34 years where we have
failed to balance the budget. We have a systemic problem, and we need a
systemic solution. This amendment will bring integrity to the finances
of the United States. I think it is absolutely crucial that we pass it.
I can't believe anything more important will come before this body than
this amendment, and I am in support of it.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from
Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I will vote to pass the balanced
budget amendment. This is a vote for a stronger America, for
responsible Government, and for our children.
In 1982, I approached the constitutional amendment with a certain
degree of skepticism. My vote against the amendment at that time
reflected my belief that Congress could and would correctly eliminate
our budget shortfall. Since that time, however, we have come to a point
of national financial crisis. In 1982, we had a Federal debt of less
than $1 trillion. This year, we have more than $5 trillion in Federal
debt. This debt is crippling our Government's ability to solve our
difficult problems.
Like many, I wish there was a way to make Congress and the
administration balance the budget without amending the Constitution.
But we have tried, over and over and over, and we have failed. These
measures have always fallen short.
We must have in Washington what we take for granted in Montpelier,
VT, and State capitals across the country--a balanced budget.
This Congress must be remembered as the one that made life better in
America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for
yielding to me.
The question has been asked many times during the day: Do you have
the votes? There are 55 Republican Senators who have given their word
that they would vote for a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
There are a number of Democrats who have campaigned for this balanced
budget amendment. If they keep their word, we will pass this
constitutional amendment.
What is to be gained as a result of doing this? The benefits are to
our constituents. We believe that $125 a month could be the benefit
derived from a constitutional amendment through lower interest rates,
more affordable mortgage loans, more affordable student loans, cheaper
automobile loans, and so forth.
Mr. President, if we were to pass this constitutional amendment, we
would finally put some kind of outside restraint on the ability of
Congress to spend the taxpayers' dollars. We need to do that. We have
failed 28 years in a row. It is time to get it done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, this is about leadership. The balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution is about the future of this
country. It is about bold leadership. It is about stepping up to the
challenges that face our Nation and what kind of country we are going
to leave to our children and to our grandchildren.
This is about doing the right thing. This is not about esoteric,
theoretical, and academic issues. This is not about deferring more of
the same that we have deferred for almost 50 years in this country.
This is about stepping up to the real challenges that affect real
people that will have a lasting impact on this country. If we do not
provide the bold, dynamic leadership that this country requires, then
we will pay a heavy price in the future for our inaction. Our children
and our grandchildren will pay a very high price. They will pay a price
that will restrict their opportunities, restrict their future, and
restrict the future of our Nation and the good this country can do for
the rest of the world and for our people over the next 25 to 50 years.
For those reasons, I strongly support this constitutional amendment
to balance the budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, thank you.
Mr. President, as we debate the balanced budget amendment, we would
be wise to listen to the words of one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas
Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson once wrote that ``the question whether one
generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a
question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental
principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to
saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them
ourselves.''
Mr. President, I agree with Thomas Jefferson: It is morally wrong for
one

[[Page S1902]]

generation to burden a future generation with its debts. Yet, that is
exactly what has happened during the past 27 years in America. The
Federal budget has not been balanced since 1969, and as a result, our
national debt has grown to more than $5 trillion. In fact, a child born
in America today begins life with a $20 thousand share of the national
debt. During his or her lifetime, that child can expect to pay $187
thousand in taxes just to cover the interest payments on this debt--
debt he had nothing to do with creating, but debt which will
substantially limit his opportunities in life.
Mr. President, just look at the strain current interest payments are
putting on our national resources. Interest payments consume about 15
percent of the Federal budget, and they are now the third largest item
in the budget--only Social Security and defense are larger. Last year,
we spent a record $241 billion on interest payments to service the
national debt. That is more than double the amount of money the
Government spent on education, training, crime, and transportation
combined.
Mr. President, we cannot afford to continue wasting the taxpayers
money in this fashion. This must stop, and the balanced budget
amendment will help stop it by ending deficit spending and the growing
interest payments on the national debt.
However, the opponents of a balanced budget amendment have put forth
many false arguments to try to confuse the issue. I want to address
several of these arguments one by one.
The most deceptive argument opponents of a balanced budget amendment
use is that this amendment will hurt the Social Security system, unless
Social Security is specifically exempted from the amendment. Mr.
President, nothing could be farther from the truth. If the Social
Security system is left as the only area of the budget which does not
have to come into balance, then future Congresses will have a
tremendous incentive to take the FICA revenues, which currently fund
the Social Security system, and use them to help fund all other areas
of the budget which must be balanced. That would leave the Social
Security system in serious financial trouble.
Second, exempting Social Security from the balanced budget amendment
would further threaten Social Security by allowing Congress to move
programs out of the area of the budget which must be balanced and into
the exempt Social Security system. This would be a heavy drain on the
money originally collected for Social Security.
Finally, the whole point of the balanced budget amendment is to put
an end to deficit spending. But, as the Social Security trustees tell
us, there are massive deficits projected in the system in just a few
short years. Therefore, while the rest of the budget is balanced, the
Government will still be borrowing huge sums of money to pay its
liabilities in the Social Security system. Moving Social Security off-
budget is just another sham put forth by those who do not want to face
the reality that we must stop piling debt on our children and
grandchildren.
The truth is the balanced budget amendment will protect Social
Security by reducing its biggest threat--massive interest payments. If
left unchecked, these payments will dramatically reduce the money
available for Social Security benefits. A balanced budget amendment
will keep interest payments from increasing and will allow more money
to be spent on meaningful programs, including Social Security.
Another argument put forth by opponents of a balanced budget
amendment is that it will transfer power over the purse strings to the
judicial branch of government. This is a serious concern, but one which
is misplaced. One of the reasons why the courts will not become unduly
involved in the budgetary process is the doctrine of ``standing''
contained in article III of the Constitution. The doctrine of standing
requires that a plaintiff has a direct and specific, personal stake or
injury. A ``generalized'' public grievance, such as a taxpayer
adversely affected by macroeconomic decisions, will not be recognized.
Moreover, the courts will owe deference to Congress under both the
``political question'' doctrine and section 6 of the amendment itself
which gives Congress the enforcement authority.
Another objection to the balanced budget amendment is that it does
not provide for a capital budget. The argument here is that just as
most families need to borrow money for large purchases, such as a home,
the Federal Government should also have the ability to borrow money for
capital investments. Those who hold that view, point out that if
families had to live under the same circumstances imposed on the
federal Government by a balanced budget amendment, no one would be able
to purchase a home.
Mr. President, comparing the Federal Government to the typical family
purchasing a home is a very misleading comparison. The Federal
Government has an annual budget of more than $1.6 trillion and the
ability to increase its income at will by raising taxes. There is
virtually no project conceivable which the Federal Government could not
afford to finance without incurring debt. Just consider that we built
the entire interstate highway system on a pay-as-you-go basis. The
price of a home can easily be three times as much as the annual income
of a family, which is why they need to borrow money to purchase it. By
comparison, if the Federal Government wanted to undertake a project
three times the amount of its annual income, the project would need to
cost $4.8 trillion in 1 year. That is simply ludicrous. The truth is
that with the amount of resources at the disposal of the Federal
Government, there is simply no need for a separate capital budget.
The final objection I will address is that the balanced budget
amendment will hamper the Government's ability to stimulate to the
economy during a recession. Mr. President, the truth is that the
Federal Government does not have a very good track record when it comes
to trying to stimulate our economy. Bruce Bartlett of the National
Center for Policy Analysis, points out that since November of 1948,
there have been seven recessions, followed by ``anti-recession''
legislation. In each instance, the recession the legislation was
designed to end was over by the time the legislation was finally
passed. In fact, Bartlett concluded that ``Without exception, stimulus
programs have failed to moderate the recessions at which they were
aimed, and have often sowed the seeds of the next recession.''
Part of the reason for this is that Government jobs are very
expensive to create. President Carter's budget director testified
before the Joint Economic Committee in 1980 that public works jobs cost
between $70,000 and $198,000 per job per year. The truth is, Mr.
President, Congress should not be in the business of trying to micro-
manage our economy. If Congress cannot even balance its own books, why
do opponents of the balanced budget amendment believe Congress can
manage the entire economy?
Mr. President, the decision before us is a simple one. It is a choice
of fiscal responsibility or fiscal foolishness. It is a choice of
protecting our children's financial future or destroying it. It is a
choice of allowing the 50 States to have a say in this matter or
denying them that freedom. In the end, Mr. President, it is a question,
as Thomas Jefferson said, between right and wrong, and I urge my
colleagues to do the right thing and vote for the balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. President, the decision before us today is the most important one
that this Senate will make in the 105th Congress. Let there be no doubt
about it. Since the last balanced budget in 1969, deficit spending has
become a permanent way of life in Washington. The result, as we all
know, is a $5.3 trillion national debt. This debt is costing the
taxpayers of America a quarter of a trillion dollars each year in
interest payments alone. The reality is that without a balanced budget
amendment, deficit spending will continue as usual and our children and
our grandchildren will be left to pay the bill.
Mr. President, now that the debate is over and all of the smoke has
cleared, we are faced with a simple choice between fiscal
responsibility or fiscal foolishness, a choice of protecting our
children's financial future or destroying it, a choice of allowing 50
States to have a say in the matter or denying them that freedom.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

[[Page S1903]]

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the economic arguments for this
constitutional amendment were eloquently stated--lower interest rates,
more jobs, and a higher standard of living for Americans in the future.
I want to emphasize that the moral arguments favor this
constitutional amendment. Mr. President, it is simply morally wrong for
us, year after year after year, to consume the services of government
and to send the bills to our children and to our grandchildren, who
have not had a voice in this body. We must be responsible enough to see
to it that what we want from government today we pay for today. The
fact is that we will not do it without a constitutional amendment, as
evidenced by the heavy stack of unbalanced budgets in front of the
leader of the debate on this issue.
This balanced budget is for our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my friend and
colleague, Senator Hatch, who has put so much effort into this issue.
Mr. President, as the Senate prepares for the final vote on the
balanced budget constitutional amendment, I again offer my support for
the passage of this critical piece of legislation.
Over the course of the last several weeks, I have listened to many of
my colleagues as they have come to the floor to debate the merits or
the detriments of the amendment. I have listened to many of my
constituents during my travels through Colorado, most recently at town
meetings in Colorado Springs, Trinidad, Longmont, Greeley, and Golden.
I also have reviewed mail that has come into my office here in
Washington, DC, addressing this important issue. And I must say I am
greatly pleased by the large number of people who support the balanced
budget constitutional amendment.
As I've indicated, I have been conducting a series of town meetings
in my home State of Colorado. When the discussion turns to balancing
the budget, the majority of Coloradans realize that we can only begin
to address this issue with constitutional authority. I have also
received numerous letters from special interest groups located here in
Washington, DC, asking me to vote against the will of the American
people and against the amendment. Well, I am not going to do that. I
support the balanced budget constitutional amendment and have supported
it since becoming a Member of Congress back in 1987.
I believe this amendment is in the best interest of the future of
this country, and I become frustrated to hear some of the arguments
against this amendment, such as in the letters I receive from special
interest groups. For instance, opponents claim that the amendment would
limit the Federal Government's ability to address short-term economic
crises or threats to our national security. Well, we have heard this
argument on numerous occasions over the past few weeks, as well as over
the years. Many of my colleagues have addressed this issue, and in
fact, we have even voted on several amendments relative to these
concerns.
Section 1 and section 5 of the amendment, as it is currently written
and was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, provide Congress
with the ability to waive the requirements of the amendment, so I do
not find this argument against the amendment to be particularly
compelling.
Another often repeated argument against the amendment claims that
Congress can balance the budget on its own without passing the balanced
budget constitutional amendment. Well, folks, I have been a member of
this institution for 10 years now, and I have yet to see a balanced
budget or one that even approaches balance. In fact, there has not been
a balanced budget since 1969. Congress has even passed deficit-
reduction legislation on numerous occasions in an effort to achieve a
balanced budget, and we still cannot get to a balanced budget.
This constitutional amendment will make the Federal Government
accountable to the Constitution when formulating a budget, and by doing
so, this amendment will force the Federal Government to behave in a
fiscally responsible manner just as more than half of the States are
already required to do.
Again, opponents argue that a balanced budget constitutional
amendment will only lead to devastating cuts to many federally funded
programs. Well, I certainly do not argue that this amendment will not
force Congress and the administration to make some tough choices. Tough
choices need to be made in order to balance the budget. But what is the
alternative?
Because of our inability to balance the budget, we continually run a
deficit each year. Our country currently has a national debt of over
$5.3 trillion--and it is growing--and each and every year the Federal
Government pays interest on this debt. In fiscal year 1996, this
Government spent $344 billion on interest costs, roughly 15 percent of
the entire Federal budget for that year. Let me repeat this. The
Federal Government spent $344 billion on interest costs last year, and
of this $344 billion, not $1 of it went to education, law enforcement,
highways, or even healthcare. At 15 percent of the Federal budget,
interest costs are our third largest expenditure, and it continues to
grow.
What does this mean? It means that our national debt is strangling
the rest of the budget. My friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, has
been on this floor each and every day of this debate arguing in favor
of this amendment, and I believe he best put this whole issue of
interest payments in perspective. If my colleagues will indulge me, I
would like to reiterate some of my colleague's comments from a couple
of weeks ago because I think they need to be continuously repeated in
order to drive home the importance of balancing the budget and ending
the escalation of our national debt.

As my friend from Utah stated once before, the Federal Government
spent more money last year on net interest payments than it did for the
combined budgets of the Department of Commerce, the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the
Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Labor, the
Department of State, and the Department of Transportation. Our
inability to balance the budget over the years has contributed to an
enormous debt which requires more money to service annually than we are
able to put toward the combined budgets of ten departments within the
Federal Government.
If we do not get a handle on the budget, we will continue to add to
our national debt. In the long-term this debt, and the costs that
accrue in interest, will endanger the funding for those programs that
truly need, deserve, and require Federal funding. Of course, as this
problem continues to escalate, it will be our children and our
children's children who will be forced to deal with this problem. It
will be they who will be hurt by low levels of funding--all because we
did not seize the opportunity to pass the balanced budget
constitutional amendment.
And yet, there are still those who oppose the balanced budget
constitutional amendment--who think that Congress can balance the
budget on its own. Well, we have not done so in the last 28 years, and
without this amendment I see no possible way that we can do so. If we
were able to pass a budget plan this year which would balance the
budget by the year 2002, without the constitutional requirement there
is nothing to stop future Congresses and future administrations from
implementing unbalanced budgets.
And each year we fail to balance the budget, we run a deficit. These
deficits will continue to add to the debt, increasing it and the size
of the interest payments on the debt we leave to our children. It is
estimated that in the year 2002 the interest payments will be $412
billion. It will continue to increase thereafter unless we find the
fortitude to control our spending.
You know, as legislators we should realize that our constituents
expect certain things of us and of the Federal Government, and they
rightly should. They trust us when we pledge our support for
legislation such as this, and

[[Page S1904]]

they have a right to expect our support when the time comes to vote.
All of us meet with constituents and constituency groups, and barely a
day goes by that we do not hear someone asking for our support for
funding for certain programs or to work to increase funding for others.
However, the fact of the matter is that money is scarce, and if we
continue to run deficits and add to the national debt, it is going to
become increasingly difficult to fund programs at the level they need
and deserve.
This body is going to vote on the balanced budget constitutional
amendment, and it makes me angry to think it may fail to pass--once
again by possibly only one vote. It makes me angry because this
legislation and all of the same debates will continue to come up in
future Congresses until one Congress has the good sense and courage to
pass this measure and send it on to the States where it rightly belongs
for ratification. As Members of the United States Congress, we often
think that we know best on every single issue. Well, this is an issue
we should send to the States and the American people, to finally
provide them with the opportunity to debate the merits of this
amendment and allow them to have the final decision.
Mr. President, for 3 weeks we have seen every chart, we have viewed
every graph, we have heard every point of view, and in some cases we
have looked for every hole in which to hide in an effort to scuttle the
balanced budget amendment.
In my view, the American people are not buying any more excuses, nor
should they. The American people know that their elected leaders, just
like the wage earner in their household, cannot spend themselves into
prosperity. Regardless of our own personal and varying views in this
Chamber, one inescapable question remains. That question is: Do we
trust the people of this Nation? By not passing this amendment we are
telling them that we do not trust them, that we don't trust them to do
the right thing in making decisions that will affect our lives. We,
from our lofty perch in the U.S. Senate, will relieve them of the
decision by not letting them discuss the balanced budget amendment in
their State legislatures and in their hometowns. No one knows if the
necessary 38 States would actually ratify the balanced budget
amendment. But to not even allow the citizens of our home State the
opportunity to review it, I find rather arrogant on our part. Let's not
insult our constituents with that denial. They do not take this issue
lightly any more than we do. But they also know that eight balanced
budgets out of 66 years simply isn't good enough for America.
Let's pass this important bill and give this Nation a chance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, any time a contemporary generation is
engaged in the business of consuming the resources of generations yet
to come, they are in the business of abrogating the freedom of
generations yet to come. This democracy was formed in a war for
economic freedom and independence. As you look to the children yet to
come, we are in the business of robbing them of the choices and the
freedoms we have known as American people. The balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution is an act that must be engaged in in
order to preserve the freedoms that we have known as Americans for all
those generations yet to come.
My mother and father kept 80 percent of their wages to raise their
family. My sister will keep 46 percent, and her children will keep 16
percent. They will not be free as we know it.
We need to pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 or 2 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding and
compliment him on his leadership on this very important issue.
Here we are having the same debate on the same issue and the same
reversal of positions by Senators who have previously supported this
amendment--the same excuses and the same problems. We don't have a
balanced budget amendment. Two years ago the opponents of the balanced
budget amendment said a constitutional amendment isn't necessary in
order to achieve a balanced budget; that, in fact, the constitutional
amendment is only an enforcement mechanism, but it isn't the balanced
budget plan itself. They admonished Republicans by saying, ``Show us
your plan. Show us your plan.'' The President, in the State of the
Union Address in February, expressed the same sentiment. He said,
``Rewriting the Constitution isn't necessary to balance the budget. All
we need is your vote and my signature.'' Exactly, Mr. President.
Republicans delivered a balanced budget plan last year statutorily. We
delivered a plan. We delivered it to the President of the United
States. The President demonstrated with the swift stroke of the pen the
need for a balanced budget amendment because he vetoed that
legislation.
History has proven that a force greater than politics is necessary in
this institution in order to achieve a balanced budget. History has
proven the repeated failures of statutory attempts to balance the
budget. The last time we had a balanced budget was in 1969. We have
only had a balanced budget five times since 1950. In fact, we have
debated this amendment, in the last two decades, in 1982, 1986, 1990,
1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, and now here in 1997. And guess what? We don't
have a statutory balanced budget. The fact is the opponents of the
balanced budget amendment understand that you can't have a
constitutional amendment without achieving a balanced budget.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it now appears that the balanced budget
amendment will pass or fail by a single vote. If the amendment is
defeated, I would venture that there is a greater chance that UFO's
will land on Earth tomorrow than there is that the Federal Government
will actually balance its books by the year 2002. It is unlikely that
Congress and the President will ever balance the budget without a
constitutional requirement to do so.
Two years ago, President Clinton vetoed a balanced budget--the first
balanced budget to pass Congress in 26 years. Not one Senate Democrat
voted for the plan. And of course, since it would have taken 67 votes
in the Senate to override the President's veto, the balanced budget
never became law.
President Clinton now says he has changed his mind--that he is for a
balanced budget, but once again his support is conditional: we have to
wait until after he leaves office to make 98.5 percent of the savings
required to get there. Until then, it is business as usual. The
President would create six new entitlement programs, costing at least
$60 billion over the next 5 years. He would have us increase total
Federal outlays by $827 billion over that period. We can do all this,
yet somehow the deficit magically disappears in 2002.
I am reminded of the old Peanuts cartoon when Lucy promises time and
again to hold the football still for Charlie Brown, only to pull it
away at the last minute. Every Republican Senator will vote for this
amendment. A few Democrats will vote for it, too. An overwhelming
majority of the American people want us to pass it. Yet President
Clinton and most Senate Democrats ask us to trust them--they do not
need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
How do we know that, in 3 or 4 years, when it finally comes time to
get serious about deficit reduction under the Clinton budget, they will
not yank away their support for a balanced budget again?
Mr. President, we must pass the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the last time we had a balanced budget in
this country, as my colleague from Maine has pointed out, was 1969. I
happened to be at that time a senior in college. I turned 50 this year.
It has been a long time. A lot of things have happened

[[Page S1905]]

since 1969. The one thing that has not happened is for this Congress
and the President to balance the budget.
It is, frankly, time that we stopped spending our children's money.
It is time we stopped spending our grandchildren's money and great-
grandchildren's money. We need to balance the budget. Within the next 2
hours, I intend to cast a ``yea'' vote for a balanced budget amendment
to the Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Utah.
I will quote Ronald Reagan, who said in 1985:

Almost 50 years of deficit spending has finally brought us
to a time of reckoning. We have come to a turning point, a
moment for the hard decisions. If not us, who? If not now,
when? Let us make it unconstitutional for the Federal
Government to spend more than the Federal Government takes
in.

A very simple notion. Ronald Reagan, our President, said this in
1985. It is 1997, and we have not yet taken the action the American
people have asked us to take, to make it unconstitutional to mortgage
the futures of our children and grandchildren. That is the vote today.
The Republicans are going to keep their promise. We will be back again
until we win this fight so that when we leave this place, we will know
we have done our duty to protect the future of this great country that
so many people have died to defend.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Texas.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
I think this is a very significant day. We had a very blessed event
over the weekend at my house. We had our fifth grandchild. And when
little Mollie Elizabeth Inhofe was born, I say to Senator Thurmond, she
inherited a $20,000 personal debt. I remember it was only a year before
when little Jase, our fourth grandchild, was born. He inherited a
$19,000 debt. So it is going up every year.
When I look over, I see Senator Hagel from Nebraska. You do not have
to go back just to the Reagan administration. If you go back long
before that, one of our very fine Senators, Carl Curtis, had an idea
that he would balance the budget by getting the States to preratify it.
It was an ingenious idea, and it did not work, even though in the State
legislature, I was the first State legislator to get it preratified.
So we have something we are faced with today that we have been
fighting for 20 or 25 years. This is our opportunity to do it. If we do
not do it now, I do not think we will be able to do it in the near
future. This is a moral issue, Mr. President, we have to meet.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his excellent
statement.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair. I appreciate that.
I am honored to be able to address this body today once again on the
importance of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
Balancing the budget is simply no longer an option. The future of our
children literally hangs in the balance. Every day we spend debating
this issue, we add billions of dollars to the deficit. We have to give
ourselves the tools to be able to assure that we can stay in balance.
This is an astounding fact, but in the February issue of Nation's
Business they state that unless Government spending policies are
altered, the average--the average--net tax burden on Americans born
between 1960 and 1993 will soar from the current 34 percent to 85
percent of their lifetime incomes. That is 85 percent lifetime income
going to taxes. It is thoroughly reprehensible to allow our children to
be taxed at this rate simply because we do not have the courage to do
what is right.
How can we do this to our children? It is imperative that we pass a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution for the kids.
I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield a couple of minutes to the
distinguished Senator from Idaho, who has led the fight for this
amendment in the House, along with Congressman Stenholm and, of course,
played a pivotal role in leading the fight for it each time we brought
it up in the Senate as long as he has been here, Senator Craig.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. I thank the senior Senator from Utah
for his tremendous leadership on this issue and the hours of debate he
has conducted in the Chamber in behalf of the passage of a balanced
budget amendment to our Constitution.
Mr. President, I feel compelled to rise one more time to discuss how
the Social Security trust funds would be treated under the balanced
budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1.
Unfortunately, day after day, we hear reference made to what the
Congressional Research Service supposedly said about this subject.
It is about time to put these issues to rest, once and for all.
Therefore, Congressman Charlie Stenholm and I submitted several more
questions to CRS.
We asked CRS to compare, in several areas, the impact of two
different kinds of balanced budget amendments: One that excluded Social
Security from budget calculations, as several amendments to Senate
Joint Resolution 1 would have; and one that counts all Federal spending
in the budget, as does Senate Joint Resolution 1 as reported.
I ask unanimous consent that a table summarizing the results of this
memo be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Summary of CRS Memo to Senator Craig and Congressman Stenholm, February
26, 1997

CRS Analyzed five Balanced Budget Amendment proposals: S.J.
Res. 1/H.J. Res. 1 (consensus bipartisan) which requires
government-wide budget calculations; S.J. Res. 12/H.J. Res.
50 (Dorgan/Pomeroy) and the Reid Amendment, which would
exclude Social Security from budget calculations. CRS
conclusions:

EFFECTS OF BBA PROVISIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.J. Res. 12/
S.J. Res. 1/ H.J. Res.
H.J. Res. 1 50/Reid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change the current method of investing
Social Security surpluses in Treasury
securities?................................ No No
Allow the drawdown (as planned in the 1983
law) of Social Security trust funds to pay
for promised benefits?..................... Yes Yes
Repeal current statutory ``firewalls''
protecting Social Security balances?....... No No
Protect Social Security by requiring a \3/5\
vote to change the law and deplete Social
Security balances?......................... Yes No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. CRAIG. There are compelling reasons for not excluding Social
Security from budget calculations. Some Senators may feel there are
good reasons for that exclusion. Some Senators may feel there are good
reasons to vote against Senate Joint Resolution 1.
But this table and the CRS memo it summarizes convincingly show that
several of the reasons offered for voting against Senate Joint
Resolution 1 simply do not stand up.
In three key respects, S.J.Res. 1 and the amendments to exclude
Social Security, such as the Reid and Dorgan amendments, would operate
identically.
First, neither approach would change the way Social Security
surpluses are invested in Treasury bonds. Some have called that raiding
the trust funds. But the Social Security Act required that from the
start, because Treasury bonds are the safest investment in the world.
If the Social Security trust funds are being raided today, and if
that so-called raiding continued under Senate Joint Resolution 1, then
it would also continue under the Dorgan, Reid, and Feinstein
amendments.
Those amendments don't change the law in this area.
So there's no reason here to vote for those amendments and against
Senate Joint Resolution 1.

[[Page S1906]]

Second, consistent with its two previous memos, this new CRS memo
confirms again that the following is equally true for both approaches:
The Treasury will redeem Treasury bonds held by the Social Security
trust funds; the Treasury will repay cash borrowed from the trust
funds; and the trust funds will pay out benefits as promised.
I want to emphasize the consistency of CRS here.
The February 5 CRS memo was misunderstood and misrepresented. Some
continue to make the misstatements today.
CRS clarified that misunderstanding in a February 12 memo. But the
misstatements continue.
This newer CRS memo makes it clear that, if there were a problem
drawing upon Social Security surpluses in the future under Senate Joint
Resolution 1--and there is not--then the same problem would exist under
the Reid and Dorgan amendments.
So there's no reason here to vote for those amendments and against
Senate Joint Resolution 1.
Third, neither version would overturn the current law that protects
the balances of the Social Security trust funds.
Under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, there are points of order--
a 60-vote point of order in the Senate--against any legislation that
would change trust fund outlays or receipts in a way that would erode
the balances in the trust funds.
So there's no reason here to vote for those amendments and against
Senate Joint Resolution 1.
Fourth, in a fourth key area, one version, Senate Joint Resolution 1,
would take the current, statutory process of protecting the Social
Security balances, and elevate it into the Constitution.
Senate Joint Resolution 1 prohibits any change that would increase
deficits or reduce surpluses--including those in the Social Security
trust fund balances.
The Dorgan, Feinstein, and Reid amendments, by contrast, would allow
the Social Security trust funds to run unlimited deficits.
Whether you have been for or against amendments excluding Social
Security from the budget calculations, those amendments did not pass.
Now, if you really care about Social Security, you will still vote
for Senate Joint Resolution 1 on final passage.
Under the status quo, we will add another $3 trillion to the national
debt over the next 10 years.
Does anyone think that adding nearly another $3 trillion to the debt
is good for Social Security?
The debt is the threat to Social Security. The debt is the threat to
our children and their standard of living.
Passing the balanced budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, is
the answer.
I ask unanimous consent that the following be included in the Record:
A copy of the CRS memo we recently received and bipartisan materials we
distributed analyzing the various CRS memos.
There being no objection, the memoranda was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Clubb--Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget

crs--the rest of the story

Social Security Trust Funds and the BBA
The Congressional Research Service has prepared a memo in
response to questions from Rep. Stenholm and Sen. Craig,
comparing several key operations of the Social Security trust
funds under two different kinds of balanced budget amendment
to the Constitution.
The February 26 CRS memo compared S.J. Res. 1 (and it
companion, H.J. Res. 1) on the one hand, with S.J. Res. 12
(and its companion H.J. Res. 50, as well as the Reid
amendment #8). S.J. Res. 1 requires a balanced ``unified''
budget (i.e., total federal outlays would not exceed total
receipts), while S.J. Res. 12 would exclude Social Security
from budget calculations.
The CRS memo confirms that the treatment of the Social
Security trust funds would be identical in several key
ways under both versions.
Neither version would change the current law requirement
that trust fund surpluses must be invested in U.S. Treasury
securities. Under either version (as well as under current
law), that requirement could be changed by amending the
Social Security Act.
Neither version would affect the legal obligation of the
Treasury to repay these borrowings to the trust funds when
the appropriate time came to draw down trust fund surpluses
and make promised benefit payments. (This would occur when
Social Security is projected to start running annual deficits
in 2019, while it still retains an accumulated surplus.) This
is the issue raised in connection with the much-discussed and
disputed CRS memo of February 5.
Neither version would change or overturn provisions in the
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 that protect the balances in
the trust funds. The BEA includes points of order--including
a 60-vote point of order in the Senate--against any
legislation that would change trust fund outlays on receipts
in a way that would erode trust fund balances.
The CRS memo pointed out one difference in the impact of the
different amendments:
S.J. Res. 1 essentially would elevate the BEA protections
to constitutional status, by requiring a 3/5 vote to approve
any change that would increase deficits or reduce surpluses,
including those in the Social Security trust fund balances.
The February 26 CRS memo should put some issues to rest, once
and for all
Whatever preference one may have on any other basis, the
``drawdown'' issue is not a reason to prefer S.J. Res. 12,
nor a reason to vote against S.J. Res. 1.
The February 5 CRS memo was incorrectly cited as saying
that, beginning in 2019, S.J. Res. 1 would make it harder to
draw down accumulated trust fund surpluses in order to pay
promised Social Security benefits. No matter how that memo is
interpreted, CRS has now made it crystal-clear: Both S.J.
Res. 1 and S.J. Res. 12 (Dorgan-Reid) would have exactly the
same impact on Social Security drawdowns and benefit
payments.
Whatever preference one may have on any other basis, the
issue of the Treasury borrowing the Social Security surpluses
is not a reason to prefer S.J. Res. 12, nor a reason to vote
against S.J. Res. 1.
This process has been variously characterized as ``raiding
the trust funds'' versus ``investing Social Security
surpluses in the safest investment in the world''. But either
way, one thing is clear: Neither S.J. Res. 1 nor S.J. Res. 12
would change in any way the process of investing trust fund
surpluses in Treasury securities.
The DEBT is the threat to Social Security--and to other
priorities and to our future standard of living. Under
current trends, over the years 2002-2007 (the first 6 years
in which the Balanced Budget Amendment would be effective),
the amount of federal debt held by the public will increase
by $1.47 trillion. No one can argue that another $1.47
trillion in debt is good for Social Security.
Reasonable persons can disagree over which version,
overall, offers the better protection for Social Security.
But the only way to ensure any protection for Social Security
is for Congress to pass a strong, effective Balanced Budget
Amendment and send it to the states for ratification.
____

Congressional Research Service,

Library of Congress,

Washington, DC, February 26, 1997.
From: David Koitz, Specialist in Social Legislation,
Education and Public Welfare Division, and Johnny H.
Killian, Senior Specialist in American Constitutional
Law, American Law Division.
Subject: Treatment of Social Security under the Balanced
Budget Amendment.
This memorandum is in response to four specific questions
you and Representative Charles Stenholm raised with regard to
five pending legislative measures to adopt a constitutional
amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. These measures
include H.J. Res. 1 and S.J. Res. 1, both of which prescribe
a ``unified'' balanced federal budget that would count all
receipts and outlays of the federal government. H.J. Res. 50
and S.J. Res. 12, and an amendment to S.J. Res. 1 by Senator
Reid, offered on February 24, 1997, would not count the
receipts and outlays of the Social Security trust funds for
purposes of satisfying the requirements of the balanced
budget amendment. Your questions and our responses follow.
Question #1. What differences, if any, would the different
amendments mentioned above have on the ability of the Social
Security trust funds to invest annual surpluses in Treasury
bills?
Answer: The five measures all include the same language
requiring approval of ``three-fifths of the whole number of
each House'' to increase the portion of the federal debt held
by the public. However, none of the bills places a limit on
raising the government's gross federal debt, which includes
both debt held by the public and debt held in government
accounts such as the Social Security trust funds, or on the
portion of the debt held in government accounts. Therefore,
there would be no restrictions beyond those of current law
that would explicitly limit the investment of surplus Social
Security income in the Social Security trust funds.
Current law (P.L. 104-121) does place an explicit limit of
$5.5 trillion on the government's gross debt, and this
potentially could constrain the Secretary of the Treasury
from purchasing additional federal securities for the trust
funds with surplus Social Security income if the amount of
outstanding gross federal debt bumps against this ceiling.
Whether this explicit limit on gross federal debt would be
continued, raised, or abolished in the event of passage of
any of the pending measures to create a constitutional
limitation on publicly-held debt is a matter of conjecture.
Question #2: What differences, if any, would the amendments
have on the obligation of

[[Page S1907]]

the federal government to redeem the Treasury bills held by
the Social Security trust funds?
Answer: Section 201 of Title II of the Social Security Act
provides for a drawdown of the Social Security trust funds to
pay for benefits and administrative expenses of the program.
None of the five bills explicitly hinders the operations of
this section of law.
Question #3: What differences, if any, would the different
amendments mentioned above have on the ability of the federal
government to increase the limit on the debt held by the
public in order to borrow money to redeem Treasury bills held
by the Social Security trust funds if the receipts of the
federal government other than Social Security revenues are
not sufficient to cover the outlays of the government other
than Social Security and redeem Treasury bills held by the
Social Security Administration.
Answer: The five measures all include the same language
requiring approval of ``three-fifths of the whole number of
each House'' to increase the portion of the federal debt held
by the public. Hence, if it were necessary to borrow money
from the public over and above this limit in order to cover
non-Social Security outlays and make good, as well, on
government securities held by the Social Security trust
funds, all five measures set forth an identical prohibition.
As with any debt ceiling limitation set by law, if the
government's income were less than its outlays and the
Treasury Department had reached a legal limit on borrowing
set forth by one or another of the proposed constitutional
amendments, the operations of the federal government as a
whole would be jeopardized. How any single program or
function of the government would be affected is a matter of
conjecture. Although there appears to be some flexibility
under current law with respect to continuing certain
essential services in the event of a debt ceiling impasse,
there is nothing in the five pending measures or in current
law that would prioritize expenditures to be made from the
Treasury in that event. Whether the enactment of any one of
these five proposed constitutional amendments would best
facilitate attaining the necessary three-fifths approval of
both Houses to increase the publicly-held portion of the debt
or the passage of tax increases or spending reductions (or
both) to obtain the resources to make good on the liquidation
of Social Security trust fund securities also is a matter of
conjecture.
Question #4: What differences, if any, would the different
amendments mentioned above have on the ability of Congress to
enact legislation increasing outlays from the Social Security
trust funds or reducing revenues into the trust funds without
obtaining a vote of three-fifths of the whole number of both
Houses as required under the amendment.
Answer: H.J. Res. 1 and S.J. Res. 1 would require a vote of
three-fifths of the whole number of both Houses to enact
legislation to reduce federal receipts or increase federal
outlays, including Social Security receipts and outlays, in
any year (in the absence of offsetting measures). These
limitations would not apply under H.J. Res. 50, S.J. Res. 12,
and the amendment by Senator Reid since the definition of
total receipts and total outlays under these measures would
exclude the receipts and outlays of the Social Security trust
funds.
However, none of the five measures would preclude the
operation of the so-called Social Security ``firewall'' rules
enacted in Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 that permit points
of order to be raised against measures that would erode the
balances of the Social Security trust funds. Presumably, they
would act as an impediment, as they do today, to legislation
that would reduce Social Security receipts or increase
expenditures (without offsetting measures). Although in the
House a simple majority may override any objection raised
against such measures, it takes three-fifths approval of the
whole Senate to do so.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last week several Senators and
Representatives held a bipartisan, bicameral press event on the Capitol
Grounds. Among other things, we received a letter, signed by more than
250 economists, endorsing the balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution. The letter was put together by the American Legislative
Exchange Council, the largest bipartisan individual association of
State legislators in the country.
These economists, from both sides of the political aisle, have signed
an open letter to Congress, asking us to approve the balanced budget
amendment. Both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals,
they have based their support of the balanced budget amendment upon
sound reasoning and a concern that America's future will be crippled if
Federal deficits are allowed to continue. Among the signatories are
James Buchanan, a Nobel laureate in economics, as well as William E.
Simon, who served as Secretary of the Treasury from 1974 to 1977.
The balanced budget amendment is not a partisan issue--it is an
economic and moral issue. We need to recognize that through deficit
spending we are selfishly spending on ourselves today the earnings that
will be confiscated from future generations without their consent or
knowledge.
The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution imposes procedural
constraints on the making of budgetary choices. It doesn't take away
the power of the Congress to spend or tax. The amendment requires only
that the Congress and the Executive spend no more than what they
collect on taxes.
The effects of the balanced budget amendment would be real as well as
symbolic. Elected politicians would be forced to act responsibly and
make fiscal choices within meaningfully constructed boundaries.
Congress would be faced with important decisions regarding the
financial fate of programs sooner rather than later. In its simplest
terms, the balanced budget amendment amounts to little more than
honesty in budgeting.
It is time to acknowledge that mere statutes that claim to control
Federal spending or deficits have failed. It is time to adopt
constitutional control through a balanced budget amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter that was
signed by over 250 economists who believe that Congress must place
constitutional restraints on spending.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

American Legislative

Exchange Council,

Washington, DC.
An Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Economists.
It is time to acknowledge that mere statutes that purport
to control federal spending or deficits have failed. It is
time to adopt constitutional control through a Balanced
Budget Amendment. In supporting such an amendment, Congress
can control the federal government's spending proclivities by
setting up control machinery external to its own internal
operations, machinery that will not be so easily neglected
and abandoned.
Why do we need the Balanced Budget Amendment now, when no
such constitutional provision existed for two centuries? The
answer is clear. Up until resent decades, the principle that
government should balance is budget in peacetime was a part
of our effective constitution, even if not formally written
down. Before the Keynesian-inspired shift in thinking about
fiscal matters, it was universally considered immoral to
incur debts, except in periods of emergency (wars or major
depressions). We have lost the moral sense of fiscal
responsibility that served to make formal constitutional
constraints unnecessary. While we can't legislate a change in
political morality; we can put formal constitutional
constraints into place.
The effects of the Balanced Budget Amendment would be both
real and symbolic. Elected politicians would be required to
make fiscal choices within meaningfully-constructed
boundaries; they would be required to weigh predicted
benefits against predicted tax costs. They would be forced to
behave ``responsibly,'' as this word is understood by the
citizenry, and knowledge of this fact would do much to
restore the confidence of citizens in governmental processes.
Important decisions (such as the fate of entitlement programs
facing financial insolvency) would be faced sooner rather
than later.
It is important to recognize that the Balanced Budget
Amendment imposes procedural constraints on the making of
budgetary choices. It does not take away the power of the
Congress to spend or tax. The amendment requires only that
the Congress and the Executive spend no more than what they
collect in taxes. In its simplest terms, such an amendment
amounts to little more than ``honesty in budgeting.'' If we
as people want a certain program, we--not future
generations--should pay for it.
Of course, we always pay for what we spend through
government, as anywhere else. But those who pay for the
government spending that is financed by borrowing are
taxpayers in future years, those who must pay taxes to meet
the ever-mounting interest obligations that are already far
too large an item in the federal budget. The immorality of
the inter-generational transfer that deficit financing
represents cries out for correction.
Opponents of the BBA often suggest that Congress and the
Executive must maintain the budgetary flexibility to respond
to emergency needs for expanding rates of spending. This
prospect is fully recognized, and the Balanced Budget
Amendment includes a provision that allows for approval of
debt or deficits by a super-majority vote of those elected to
each house of Congress.
Opponents also make the case that the BBA in no way
accounts for needed capital spending which is more
appropriately funded through debt finance. In the ideal non-
politicized world that BBA opponents imagine, it may be
correct to include a capital budgeting provision. But just as
politics intruded to destroy the Keynesians' vision of using
deficits and surpluses to rationally counter the business
cycle, so too politics would intrude

[[Page S1908]]

here. In this case, we can well imagine all sorts of creative
accounting and politicking to make non-capital expenditures
be labeled as such.
The past four decades demonstrate that debt finance is
simply a way to fund short-term, not long-term benefits.
Since the early 1960s, while deficits have risen
tremendously, long-term federal investments (excluding
defense) have remained at about 6 percent of GNP. But short-
term federal benefits have risen from about 6 percent of GNP
to more than double that. Politicians have used the trillions
in deficit financing over the past decades to finance short-
term benefits, not long-term.
When all is said and done, there is no rational argument
against the Balanced Budget Amendment. Simple observation of
the fiscal record of recent decades tells us that the
procedures through which fiscal choices are made are not
working. The problem is not one that involves the wrong
political leaders or the wrong parties. The problem is one
where those whom we elect are required to function under the
wrong set of rules, the wrong procedures. It is high time to
get our fiscal house in order.
We can only imagine the increase in investor and business
confidence, both domestic and foreign, that enactment of a
Balanced Budget Amendment would produce. Perhaps even more
importantly, we could all regain confidence in ourselves, as
a free people under responsible constitutional government.
(Signed by 253 economists.)

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, recently, the citizens of Idaho, through
their elected representatives in the State legislature, called upon the
Members of the U.S. Congress to pass a constitutional amendment
requiring a balanced budget. This is further proof that Idahoans are
acutely aware of the devastating impact 28 deficits in a row and 36
unbalanced budgets in 37 years have had on our country.
If asked, the overwhelming majority of Idahoans would say it is not
right to saddle every child born today with nearly $200,000 in
additional taxes just to pay interest on the national debt.
Most Idahoans would say it is not right to rob future generations of
the opportunity to participate in a vibrant, growing economy. They
understand the implications of the Congressional Budget Office's words,
that without changes in current tax and spend policies, the Federal
``debt would exceed levels the economy could reasonably support.''
Most Idahoans can see the debt is the threat to Social Security and
that no program, no matter how important, can survive the squeeze of
increasing interest payments on the debt--$344 billion in fiscal year
1996.
Idahoans have known for years that balancing the budget would have an
immediate positive impact on American families. In 1982 I was
encouraged by Idahoans to vote for BBA. If the BBA would have passed
then, the national income would be at least 5 percent higher today,
according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Idahoans understand passing the BBA would put more than $1,500 a year
into the pockets of American families--per DRI-McGraw-Hill, and others.
The citizens of Idaho are hard working, wise, and astute in their
understanding of the need for the BBA. They know you don't need to be
clairvoyant to see what the future holds if our current course of
fiscal irresponsibility is maintained.
Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of Idaho
Senate Joint Memorial No. 102 be printed in the Record at the end of my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is do ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. CRAIG. Idaho is not the only State in the Union with wise
citizens who have requested Congress send them a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution. Yesterday, along with a bipartisan group
of Senators and Representatives, I accepted a letter delivered by the
bipartisan American Legislative Exchange Council in which nearly 600
State legislators from across the country urge Congress to approve a
Federal BBA.
These State representatives have eloquently articulated the momentous
nature of, and need for, the BBA. They state that we ``will be faced
with many historic opportunities to advance the American dream of
freedom, opportunity and prosperity. But none will be as significant as
enacting and sending to the states for ratification a Constitutional
Balanced Budget Amendment.''
Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of the
American Legislative Exchange Council's Open Letter from State
Legislators to Congress be printed in the Record at the end of my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 2.)
Mr. CRAIG. As is pointed out in this letter, congressional passage is
just the first step--next, during ratification, in State capitols and
coffee shops, the American people would begin one of the greatest
debates ever, one of the greatest civics lessons ever, on the size and
scope of their Federal Government.
Mr. President, 70 to 80 percent of Americans are calling on the
Congress to pass the BBA and provide them with the opportunity to, once
and for all, put our fiscal house in order. It is unconscionable for us
to ignore that call.
The wisdom of our Founding Fathers is evident in the construction of
our Constitution. They reached a delicate balance by creating a
document strong enough to ultimately hold the States, with all their
competing interests, together, yet with a mechanism allowing the
flexibility necessary for future generations to deal with the
unforeseen circumstances they knew would develop.
The Constitution of the United States vests the ultimate
responsibility to approve or disapprove constitutional amendments with
the people, as represented by their elected State legislatures. Mr.
President, it is time that Congress tap into the wisdom displayed by
Idahoans, the Nation's State legislators, and our country's Founding
Fathers by passing Senate Joint Resolution 1 and sending the balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution to the States for ratification.

[Exhibit 1]

Legislature of the State of Idaho, Senate Joint Memorial No. 102

Whereas, the annual federal budget has not been balanced
since 1969, and the federal public debt is now more than five
trillion dollars, or twenty thousand dollars for every man,
woman and child in America; and
Whereas, continued deficit spending demonstrates an
unwillingness or inability of both the federal executive and
legislative branches to spend no more than available
revenues; and
Whereas, fiscal irresponsibility at the federal level is
lowering our standard of living, destroying jobs, and
endangering economic opportunity now and for the next
generation; and
Whereas, the federal government's unlimited ability to
borrow raises questions about fundamental principles and
responsibilities of government, with potentially profound
consequences for the nation and its people, making it an
appropriate subject for limitation by the Constitution of the
United States; and
Whereas, the Constitution of the United States vests the
ultimate responsibility to approve or disapprove
constitutional amendments with the people, as represented by
their elected state legislatures; and opposition by a small
minority repeatedly has thwarted the will of the people that
a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution should be
submitted to the states for ratification; now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the members of the First Regular Session of the
Fifty-fourth Idaho Legislature, the Senate and the House of
Representatives concurring therein, That the Congress of the
United States expeditiously pass, and propose to the
legislatures of the several states for ratification, an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring,
in the absence of a national emergency, that the total of all
federal appropriations made by the Congress for any fiscal
year may not exceed the total of all estimated federal
revenues for that fiscal year; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is
hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this
Memorial to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives of Congress, the congressional
delegation representing the state of Idaho in the Congress of
the United States, and to the Secretary of State and the
presiding officers of both houses of the Legislatures of each
of the other states in the Union.

[Exhibit 2]

Open Letter From State Legislators to Congress

Dear Member of Congress: As members of the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) we would like to take
this opportunity to welcome the 105th Congress. It is both an
exciting and challenging time to be an elected official in
this great nation.
During the next few years, you will be faced with many
historic opportunities to advance the American dream of
freedom, opportunity and prosperity. But none will be as
significant as enacting and sending to the states for
ratification a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment.
As state legislators who must balance our state budgets
each year, we understand the

[[Page S1909]]

difficult choices you will face. Unfortunately, as the past
29 years have shown, it has been impossible for past
Congresses to withstand the political pressure of special
interests and make the tough choices necessary to balance the
budget. Clearly, the federal budget process is broken and
needs fixing. As the experience in the states shows, balanced
budget amendments work, and a federal Balanced Budget
Amendment is the only way to guarantee the fiscal integrity
of this nation and a solvent future for our children and
grandchildren. Therefore, we call on you to exercise the
courage and fiscal responsibility to stand up to the special
interests who are willing to place their interests ahead of
the nation's future.
We hope that the 105th Congress will make the Balanced
Budget Amendment its first priority. The nation cannot afford
to wait. The federal government cannot continue to borrow
from future generations to pay for current consumption. If
deficit spending is not curbed now, when it can be done
sensibly and gradually, it will have to be done under
desperate circumstances. The only way to ensure that programs
like Social Security and Medicare are there for us and our
children is to set a course of fiscal responsibility today.
As you may know, ALEC is the nation's largest bipartisan,
individual membership association of state legislators, with
nearly 3,000 members. ALEC is dedicated to the Jeffersonian
principles of individual liberty, limited government and the
free enterprise system. We believe that reducing the
devastating $5 trillion national debt is central to these
principles and critical to the strength of the nation's
economy.
The historic opportunity to provide a brighter, more
prosperous future lies in your hands. We in the states are up
to the challenge and ready to ratify the Balanced Budget
Amendment. This is not about whether you are a Democrat or
Republican or a liberal or conservative--this is about what
you must do for the future of this great nation. It is up to
you to make the right choice for this country, the fiscally
responsible choice--pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
(Signed by 572 State Legislators.)

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, years ago, we changed our Constitution to
assure that never again in this Nation would we have human bondage. We
changed our Constitution to allow women to vote. Today, we are asking
this Senate to allow the American people to once again change the
Constitution to step away from fiscal bondage or the risk of a bankrupt
Government, to take off the backs of our children and grandchildren the
burdensome, overpowering debt that we are causing them to accumulate.
Yes, it is time once again that we ask the American people to change
their Constitution to require us to balance the budget, to bring fiscal
sanity to our Government, and to ensure the stability of this country,
its economy, and the American dream for future generations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from
Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Utah, Mr. President.
Mr. President, the old words come back to haunt us almost during
these times of debate, especially over the issue of a balanced budget.
I quote the words of Thomas Jefferson when he was speaking to the
Framers of the Constitution. He expressed these words of his concerns
regarding debt:

We, Congress, should consider ourselves unauthorized to
saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them
ourselves.

Why is it so hard to understand that the Federal Government should
balance the budget when State governments and county governments and
city governments do? Why is it that we cannot accumulate or mandate to
carry reserves in each line for a rainy day? That is not too hard to
understand, and that is what we are talking about here, responsibility
and the integrity of Government to function.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
Let me, too, thank the leaders who have been in the Chamber for some
time.
Again we are asked to vote on a balanced budget amendment. This is
the most important and vital action that any of us will take this year
if we are to be financially and fiscally responsible. This is more than
just a balanced budget. This is more than just arithmetic. It is more
than numbers. It has to do with character. It has to do with our
willingness to face up to the realization that you cannot keep spending
more than you take in.

It has to do with debt. We now have a debt of $5.5 trillion, which we
have put on our credit card for young people to pay. Our card is maxed
out. It has to do with interest payments. Probably, next year, the
largest item on the budget will be interest on the national debt--$270
billion a year in interest.
It has to do with priorities in the Government. We have not had to
choose what we think is most important for Government. We have simply
said, ``Let's do it and put it on the tab.'' That is not responsible
for any of us.
It has to do with smaller Government. There is a relationship between
how much money you spend and how much Government you have. I can tell
you, the folks in my State would like to have less central Government,
less activity. It has to do with savings for families, if we can reduce
the interest payments on their cars and on their kid's college.
It is the right thing to do. I am proud of the 55 Republicans who
will vote ``aye'' and 11 Democrats who will join them to vote ``aye''
on this issue. I am proud of the fact that Members of this institution
have talked the talk, and now are ready to walk the walk. That is
important for us to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator
from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I, too, would like to pay tribute to our
Republican leadership in this great battle, this epic battle where we
try to achieve some financial stability for future generations, more
especially the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch.
There were some comments that were made by a scholar over 200 years
ago about the fall of the Greek Republic. It was prefaced by this
statement:

When historians look back upon great civilizations, they
invariably identify a time when society chose growth or
decay.

Such is the time today in this body. And this scholar said this about
the fall of the Greek Republic:

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has
been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the
following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith, from
spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency,
from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from
dependency back again into bondage.

And then he made this prediction, which I think applies to the vote
that will be forthcoming:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the voters discover that they can
vote themselves largess from the Public Treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits, with the result that a democracy
always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed
by a dictatorship.

I think those are sobering thoughts. Can our American system meet the
challenges of future generations? We will have that vote this
afternoon. The voters did not vote for a majority to continue down that
path that was followed by the Greek Republic. That is why we need the
balanced budget amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South
Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank and commend the able Senator
from Utah for his outstanding leadership in this matter. Why do we need
a constitutional amendment? We have not balanced this budget but one
time in 36 years, eight times in 64 years. The Congress has failed to
perform its duty. Therefore, we need a constitutional amendment that
will make the Congress balance its budget. That is the only way I know
to do it. A constitutional amendment will demand--demand--that the
Congress balance the budget.

Several years ago, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I
authored a similar amendment and got it

[[Page S1910]]

through the committee and passed it through the Senate and sent it to
the House. And who killed it? The Speaker of the House, Mr. O'Neill,
and the Democratic leader of the House, Mr. Wright, led the movement to
kill it. The Democrats don't seem to want it--certainly a majority of
Democrats.
There are some good Democrats, and I ask them to join us, pass this
constitutional amendment, and protect the people of the United States.
We cannot keep on going like this. We are going in debt, debt, debt.
The only way to stop it is to pass a constitutional amendment to make
the Congress balance the budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. I now yield 1 minute to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support the constitutional amendment. I
know you have a hard time seeing me over the big stack of budgets which
have not been balanced. I support this amendment because I think
Congress needs the discipline, the discipline itself to live within its
means.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the city of Philadelphia, the Arlen
Specter household, all have to live within their means. If I don't, I
end up in a bankruptcy court. Regrettably, the history of our
Government has been that we have spent more than we have taken in and
have run up deficits, and that is why the discipline is necessary.
I think it is very useful to have the pendency of the balanced budget
amendment, which has led many to say, ``Well, we don't need the
amendment. We can balance the budget without the amendment.'' And if
that provides an incentive to balance the budget without the amendment,
that is all to the good.
But even if we do balance the budget, and, so far, the signs are not
very promising based upon what the President has submitted, it is fine.
But the discipline is necessary in the long run, and that is why I
support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I now yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my voice to the
chorus of support for adding a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution.
For a generation, this Government has spent billions more than it has
received, all the while talking, always talking, about the urgent need
to balance the Federal budget. History has borne out the facts: No
matter how well-intentioned the debate, Congress has failed for the
past 28 years to balance the budget.
Since coming to the Senate 12 years ago, I have listened to those who
oppose a balanced budget tell the American people that all we need is
courage to get our fiscal house in order. Yet, year after year,
Congress runs up billions upon billions on the public credit card that
must be paid for by future generations. What right do we have to ask
our children and grandchildren to pay for today's excesses?
Mr. President, the time for talk has passed. Now is the time for
action.
Like most Americans, I am outraged that interest on the debt has
become the third largest item in the Federal budget. According to the
President's budget for fiscal year 1998, the U.S. Government will spend
$250 billion in net interest costs, which makes up nearly 15 percent of
the total budget. That means, we spend four times more on interest than
we do on education, training, and employment combined. We spend 10
times more on interest than we spend on the administration of justice.
We are the greatest Nation on earth, and yet we spend more retiring
debt than we do on educating our children? This is madness and it must
stop.
Mr. President, it does not have to be this bad. If we pass a balanced
budget we can give families relief by reducing interest rates on
borrowing for items like home mortgages and school loans. A typical
family would save $1,500 per year in interest payments. Think of how
that money could be put to better use: saving for a college education,
investing in a secure retirement, or maybe enjoying a long anticipated
vacation.
Sadly, the path to a balanced budget is now being blocked by
determined and enthusiastic partisan gamesmanship. Opponents of a
balanced budget have decided to play on the fears of seniors. In words
which recall last year's shameless mediscare campaign, the balanced
budget amendment is attacked and misrepresented--all while the national
debt whirs wildly out of control.
Mr. President, I will spend exactly one sentence answering this
Social Security red herring. The best way to ensure the solvency of the
Social Security Program is to balance the budget now. Clever
legislative shell games will not add a single day to the life of Social
Security, only a balanced budget will do that.
So the decision is ours. Do we want to balance the budget or not. And
if not now, when? Our children want to know.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the balanced budget
amendment.
Mr. President, the American people are rightfully skeptical that this
Congress will balance the budget, not only in 7 years but for every
year thereafter. Why are they skeptical? For a generation, for a
generation we have failed our children and grandchildren by piling up a
mountain of debt to the tune of over $5 trillion. So the American
people are saying, ``If you need some assistance in doing the job, why
don't you mandate--so that you have no discretion--mandate that we have
a balanced budget in the future?'' It is the only way to protect our
country. It is the only way to have a country fit to live in for our
children and their children.
We all know what has happened. The debt is the third largest item in
the Federal budget. We are spending more on retiring the debt than we
are on educating our children. It is time to call it to a halt, to get
our fiscal affairs in order.
Mr. President, a constitutional amendment to require us to do the job
each year, for the future, is the only way to achieve this goal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode
Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, when the Federal Government spends more
than it collects in tax revenue, then it must borrow the difference.
And when it keeps borrowing, that adds to the debt.
When we have run up, as we currently have, a $5 trillion national
debt, what we are really saying is that is a bill we are passing on to
our children and our grandchildren to pay. Currently, for a family of
four, the national debt amounts to $80,000, namely $20,000 for every
individual in that family, all four individuals.
As has been mentioned, the interest on the debt is now the third
largest item in the Federal budget. This means that money we are
spending on interest on the debt is not available for Head Start or
health care or better education or improving our parks or all the
things we want.
So, Mr. President, this amendment, balanced budget amendment, which
we are voting on will not solve all our problems, but it will be a big
step forward, and I hope it passes.
Ms. SNOWE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from
Maine for yielding. I take this opportunity to thank Senator Hatch for
his tremendous leadership, day after day, on the floor of the Senate,
leading the battle on behalf of the American people and for the future
generations of America who are going to have to pay the price if we
don't get this done. If we lose this vote today by one vote, which is
what the predictions are, and projections, then the headline tomorrow
should be: ``It Was Business as Usual in Washington Again. The American
People Lost.''
Mr. President, 80 percent of the American people want the budget
balanced. If you think, in 1969, the last

[[Page S1911]]

time we had a balanced budget, the year after that the debt was $369
billion, and the people said then, ``We don't need an amendment, all we
need to do is get the job done, have the courage to do it.'' The debt
is now $5.3 trillion.
The President says we do not need an amendment; we just have to have
the courage to do it. He submits a budget to us out of balance which
will add half a trillion dollars to the debt in the next 5 years, $70
billion out of balance in the last year. It is business as usual in
Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I now yield to the junior Senator from
Maine for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to urge Senate approval of the
balanced budget constitutional amendment. Some have argued that a
constitutional amendment is not needed to ensure a balanced budget, but
history clearly demonstrates that, despite good intentions, we will not
get the job done absent the constitutional requirement.
Every President during the past two decades has pledged to balance
the budget. In 1970, President Nixon said that he would recommend a
balanced budget by 1971. President Ford pledged to achieve a balanced
budget in 1976. In 1978, President Carter pledged to move rapidly
toward a balanced budget. In 1983, President Reagan talked of achieving
a balanced budget by the end of the decade. The list goes on and on.
The simple fact is that the road to our huge national debt has been
paved with good intentions. The old saying that ``we have met the enemy
and it is us'' has never been more applicable.
I know the pressures on Washington to spend money, even borrowed
money. By and large, each Congress sets out to be fiscally responsible,
but our national debt still grows. The truth is that experience has
taught us that even in good times, we need the discipline of a
constitutional amendment.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I now yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma very
much. Let me say to all the Senators on our side who are here, I am
very proud to be here with you, and I am exceptionally proud that every
single Republican Senator is going to vote for this constitutional
amendment. I think the American people ought to make note of that.
I also call to your attention, in case you wonder why we are losing
this amendment today--if we do--that 72 sitting Senators, 72 out of the
100 who sit, have voted for this constitutional amendment, or one just
like it. Now, isn't it intriguing that at one time or another, 72 could
vote for it, but today only 66 will find their way clear to vote for
it?
It seems to me games are being played with the American people,
without any question. If 72 voted for it before, I say to Senator
Cochran, how come only 66 today? Are we better off? Are we more apt to
get a real balanced budget today? Has our President sent us some budget
that should renew our faith and our hope that we will do it ourselves?
The budget the President sent us starts with a deficit of $106
billion, and our accounting department tells us, when we are finished
with 5 years of cuts under his budget, the deficit is still $70
billion. What a dramatic budget. It should renew our hope and our faith
that we can do it and that Presidents can lead us, right? Wrong. It
means that we ought to have a constitutional amendment, there is no
question about it. We won't do it.
For a nation that was born in tax revolutions where we said, ``No
taxation without representation,'' I close this debate by saying, why
should we tie the hands of our children and leave them a legacy of debt
when they cannot be represented because we refuse to pay our own bills?
That is why we need a constitutional amendment. We should not burden
our children with a legacy that says no prosperity, no growth, a life
of taxation to pay our bills, because 72 Senators heretofore have voted
for a constitutional amendment like this.
But games are being played so that today, it will lose, once again.
I close with, isn't it a curious turn of events that it loses by one
vote each time? Perhaps those watching this debate might wonder, how
does that happen? Well, I tell you how it happens. Members of the
Senate on that side of the aisle tell their voters one thing, and when
it gets right down to voting, either a President or their own leaders
talk just enough of them out of it to make us lose by one vote. We
ought to be proud we are not on that team.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I now yield 2 minutes to the senior
Senator from Florida, Senator Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I want to express my disappointment that
we are apparently on a path which will lead to yet another defeat of a
balanced budget amendment. This could be seen as a lack of commitment
to balance the budget.
My hope is that it will be seen instead as a message that a
significant minority in Congress does not think a balanced budget
amendment is necessary to achieve a balanced budget.
That without the discipline of a balanced budget amendment, the
President and Congress will redouble our efforts to get to balance in
2002 and to remain in balance in future years.
I agree with critics who say we can balance the budget by 2002
without a constitutional amendment. That same statement could have been
made at virtually any time since our last balanced budget in 1969. We
have not done so.
CBO projections indicate that without changes in our current budget
policies, the deficit will rise to $280 billion by 2007, nearly
reaching the levels we experienced during the late 1980's and early
1990's.
The President's budget as submitted for the next 5 years and analyzed
by CBO, projects that the deficit will jump from our 1996 level of $107
billion to $145 billion in 1998. The deficit will stay near that level
until 2001.
This trend line is not a reassuring trumpet blast of commitment to a
balanced budget. I hope that my colleagues are correct in saying we can
keep the budget balanced without a constitutional amendment.
We are about to be put to the test.
Most States have a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget.
As Governor, I operated under a balanced budget. I can say with
experience that it has served my State well. It would also serve our
Nation well.
There are numerous State legislatures asking that we in Congress
submit a balanced budget amendment to them.
In the short time that State legislatures have been in session this
year, 4 have passed resolutions asking Congress to approve a balanced
budget amendment; another 21 States have introduced resolutions asking
for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
We owe the States an opportunity to decide whether we should amend
the constitution to put an end to the growing Federal debt that this
country has been building.
And although we have made tremendous progress over the past 4 years,
we still have a large and expanding annual deficit.
Our national debt is expected to reach $5.4 trillion at the end of
this fiscal year.
One concern that many of my colleagues have expressed is their
concern for how Social Security would fare under a balanced budget
amendment.
My personal feeling is that establishing the principal of a balanced
budget during normal periods, such as most of the years since 1982,
would strengthen the Social Security system.
If we had passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982, the first year
in recent history that one was considered and defeated, we would have
$2.9 trillion less in debt held by the public than we do today.
The interest on this portion of the Federal debt alone totaled $190
billion in 1996. Last year, that amount was more than enough to pay for
all Medicare expenses. Instead this money was dissipated on interest
payments.

[[Page S1912]]

That same $190 billion in interest payments on the additional debt
accrued since 1982 could have paid for over half of all the money the
Federal Government spent last year on Social Security retirement
benefits.
Let us look at Social Security from another angle--in 1982 the total
interest on the Federal debt was $85 billion. In that year, all Social
Security benefits were $156 billion.
The interest payment equaled about half of the Social Security
benefits for that year.
In 1996, the total interest in the Federal debt was $241 billion and
Social Security retirement benefits were $350 billion.
The interest payment in 1996 equaled about three-quarters of the
entire outlay for Social Security retirement benefits.
Yearly interest payments are growing faster than yearly Social
Security payments. This trend is not good and we must put an end to it
now.
Passing the balanced budget amendment now is critical to the future
health of our Social Security system.
Let me ask you--would our country be better off spending tax dollars
to service the Federal debt or for needed programs like Social
Security?
I believe the money would be better spent on Social Security.
The budget deficit has become a permanent fixture in our Nation's
fiscal policy.
While there are those who say Congress can, without a constitutional
amendment, balance the budget, history has shown this not to be the
case.
A disturbing example of the lack of resolve to balance the budget
occurred last Thursday evening when we extended the aviation tax to
September 30--ignoring losses of $5 billion in Federal revenue for the
aviation trust fund because of lapses in the aviation tax during 10 of
the last 14 months.
Five billion dollars lost for American aviation safety.
We extended the tax to September 30 knowing that a report on whether
the current tax should be replaced by a user fee system is not due to
Congress until October 1997.
We voted to terminate the ticket tax on September 30, raising the
strong possibility of another lapse at the end of this fiscal year with
the excuse that we should wait for the report. Why did we do this?
We did it for budget scoring purposes.
By allowing the tax to expire on September 30 before reinstating it,
our Budget rules will claim to create almost $6 billion in ``new''
revenue every year after September 30, 1997, for a total of over $30
billion between then and September 30, 2002.
It is for this kind of creative accounting that we send people to
jail in the private sector.
Some 40 percent of the revenue increases in the President's budget
from 1997 to 2002 come from this scoring gimmick.
The President and the Congress must be strong in their resolve to
achieve balance through tough decisions rather than through creating
fictional new revenue or spending cuts.
This archaic and destructive maneuver is exactly what undercuts
public confidence in our ability to balance the budget with real
numbers and rational policies.
With failures like this in mind, and after witnessing numerous
attempts by Congress to enact legislation to force itself to tighten
its fiscal belt, my conclusion is that we must pass an amendment to
constitutionally mandate a balanced budget. It is imperative that we
not lose this opportunity.
Madam President, the failure to pass a balanced budget amendment
today would be a grave mistake.
For too many years we have delayed the hard decision until tomorrow.
Well, Madam President, tomorrow has come. It is our generation's duty
to ensure that we pay our national bills rather than asking our
children and grandchildren to do so.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his
valiant fight on his side of the aisle to help make this a reality. We
really appreciate him and honor him today.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, first, I commend the distinguished
Senator from Utah for his great leadership on the floor of the Senate
in support of this resolution to require a balanced budget.
Let me just say, we have heard Senators come to the floor and point
out that this puts in jeopardy the Social Security beneficiaries of
America. We have heard others claim that this amendment forces us to
consider investments in capital spending the same as operating
expenses, as a matter of budget policy. We have heard one thing after
another used as excuses for voting against this resolution.
But let me say, I am for protecting Social Security beneficiaries. I
am for doing whatever we need to do to help ensure that those who
depend on Social Security can be confident that they are going to get
the benefits to which they are entitled, whether this resolution passes
or not. And for budget policy, you just have to look at the plain
language of this resolution. It says:

The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by
appropriate legislation which may rely on estimates of
outlays and receipts.

We are not giving away the power to decide budget policy and
mechanics and whether you have a capital budget or another kind of a
budget. The point is, this is national policy, if this passes, that we
will live within our means. It is just as simple as that and just as
nonscary as that.

Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I call on the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, my friend and colleague from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I believe we need to have this balanced
budget amendment adopted by the Senate. As I see what is happening now
in terms of the controllable expenditures of the United States, I see
that next year we will spend about as much money for interest on the
national debt as we will to maintain our defenses.
There is pressure on us across the whole spectrum for control of
expenses. We need a Coast Guard. We need the National Park Service. We
need the FBI. Think of all of the controllable expenses in the
departments that we fund. Every year we have to say cut more, cut more.
Why? Because the interest continues to mount on the national debt,
until we get it in balance.
So, if for no other reason than that, I believe the Senate should
pass this amendment so that we can get a handle on the interest we must
pay on the national debt. It continues to go up because the deficit
continues to go up. That must be controlled, Madam President. I am
proud to join my friend, Judiciary Chairman Hatch of Utah, in
supporting this amendment.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from
Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, thank you very much.
I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Utah, for his
outstanding leadership on this issue. He has brought to the floor of
the U.S. Senate the budgets from 28 years of unbalanced budgets. They
represent about, oh, I would say, close to 8 or 9 feet of a stack of
papers that has really impaired the capacity of this Nation to move
forward.
But I would like to mention another problem with that barricade of
paper. Whenever you can just displace the cost of doing government to
the next generation, you are not forced to make the innovations and
improvements that you need to make.
Most of us have noted that, in the recent years, the most dynamic and
workable solutions to our problems have come from the States. It is
because they operate with balanced budgets. They cannot just spend
money they do not have and pass the bill to the next generation.
Necessity being the mother of invention, the discipline of a balanced
budget improves the quality of Government we get. It not only makes
sure that we have liberties which would otherwise

[[Page S1913]]

be forfeited if we grow bigger and bigger Government, but it also
improves the quality of what Government does by saying we have to
constantly look at what we are doing. We have to innovate and create
instead of appropriate just to get better service with limited
resources.
So the quality of our life now, the quality of Government we receive,
and the integrity of the next generation is at stake. We must pass a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to add discipline to our
system which would drive creativity and improvement in what we do.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from
Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Madam President, what message does it send to the American people
when we vote ``no'' on the balanced budget amendment?
First, it says that Congress prefers its own judgment over the
judgment of the people. This is not a vote to enact the balanced budget
amendment. This is a vote to send it to the people to see if they want
a balanced budget amendment. Why should we put our judgment ahead of
the people?
Second, it is an exercise in political power that says that political
power is more important than the desires of the people. Clearly, 80
percent of the American people have said they want fiscal
responsibility and believe it can only be achieved through a balanced
budget amendment.
Third, it continues a system that allows us to vote public benefits
to the very people who keep us in office while placing the burden of
paying for those benefits on people who cannot vote for us. Therefore,
it gives us the natural inclination to vote for those benefits and pass
on the obligations to people in the future.
Finally, we avoid the moral tradition of sacrificing for posterity.
Instead, we ask posterity to sacrifice for us. That is wrong.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, in the last hour we have had 37 Senators
for the balanced budget amendment who have spoken here on the floor. I
think that sends about as powerful a message as we can. But I would
like to end with our remaining time going to the distinguished chairman
of the Budget Committee who deals with these matters all the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One and one-half minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my good friend from Utah for yielding the
wrapup minutes to me.
Frequently we use a word to describe what we are all for--that is
``freedom.'' I would like to suggest that the constitutional amendment
is about freedom, because to the extent that Government grows and
grows, freedom diminishes and diminishes. To the extent we tax and tax,
the freedom of our people diminishes.
It has been said that all significant achievement occurs because a
man or a woman is free. That is why America is so great. That is why we
have achieved so much.
So it seems to me that today we have a very historic vote. I honestly
believe those who have twisted the last arm and got this where we will
lose by one vote once again are those who are frightened about the
concept of less Government rather than more. They are the ones who want
more Government rather than less or at least they want the opportunity
to have more Government rather than less. For they see Government as
the achiever rather than individuals who maintain more of their freedom
if they are taxed less and if Government is smaller.
So to me, it is a very interesting philosophical debate. Those who
will vote for it say we trust--we trust--people, we trust families, we
trust States, we trust individuals, and we trust decisionmakers at the
home level. The others are saying, we are not sure of that. We want to
reserve the option to continue to incur debt and let Government grow
and grow. I believe it is clear. I wish we would win today. I am sorry
we will not. I think I understand why. I hope the American people do. I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There now will be 30 minutes under the control
of the Democratic leader or his designee.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished
minority leader.

Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael
Carrasco, of the Judiciary Committee staff, be permitted privileges of
the floor during the duration of the debate on Senate Joint Resolution
1.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to begin by complimenting the
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator
from Vermont, for his extraordinary leadership on this debate over the
last several weeks. His effort on the floor is appreciated by all of
the Members of our caucus. While I am not surprised at his
demonstration of leadership and his work on this legislation, as he has
demonstrated on so many occasions, we are deeply indebted to him.
I must also express my gratitude to the senior Senator from West
Virginia, Senator Byrd, and Senator Dorgan, Senator Reid, and many
others who have done so much to represent our concerns time and time
again over the course of the last 4 weeks of debate on this particular
issue.
I had hoped, Madam President, that the next time Congress voted on a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I could support it.
Instead, we are faced with the same deeply flawed amendment that was
rejected last year.
This did not have to be. We had scores of opportunities to fix it, to
protect Social Security, to provide for the possibility of a capital
budget, to build into this amendment the flexibility to protect our
Nation in times of war, disaster, or regional or national economic
emergency. But every one of those opportunities--every one--was
rejected along party lines. I have been astonished during the debate to
hear some of my colleagues say they will vote for this amendment even
though, in their words, it is not perfect.
In fact, one of my colleagues came up to me recently to say, ``We
shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good when we legislate.''
Well, that is often true in other matters. But when it comes to the
Constitution of the United States of America, Madam President, we
should demand perfection. This is not a campaign position paper we are
talking about changing. It is the most inspired, the most important
political document in the history of this country.
People have died to defend our Constitution. Every Senator here has
taken an oath to protect it. We may rarely achieve perfection. After
all, we are human. But when we are dealing with the Constitution of the
United States of America, we should never knowingly settle for anything
less--not now, not ever. No, this amendment is far from perfect. Under
this amendment, we now know that Congress would be required--not just
permitted, but required--to raid the Social Security trust funds to run
the Government. That isn't my opinion; that is the conclusion of the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and the Office of Management
and Budget.

Social Security is now running huge surpluses because of the 1983
bipartisan agreement that rescued the program. We all look back with a
great deal of satisfaction at that particular vote and the actions
taken, on a bipartisan basis, by the Congress at that time. The heart
of that agreement was a plan to set aside funds for the baby boomers'
retirement that we know are going to be needed. This year, that surplus
is $78 billion. By the year 2002, it will reach $104 billion. By 2019,
when many of the baby boomers start to retire, the Social Security
trust funds will have built up a $3 trillion surplus, which will be
desperately needed to pay those retirees, including this Senator.
But if we pass this version of the balanced budget amendment, none of
those funds will be available to pay those Social Security benefits--
not $1. Social Security could be paid only

[[Page S1914]]

from taxes raised in the same year, not from surpluses built up years
before. That means when the baby boomers retire, Congress would have to
raise taxes dramatically or slash Social Security benefits deeply, or
both, to accommodate the circumstances that we will be facing at that
time.
Madam President, this isn't conjecture; this is the analysis given to
us by virtually every credible budgetary source to whom we have gone
for counsel and advice on this important matter. So what was our
response? Well, our response was to offer amendments to resolve that
problem. Our amendments said if we are going to build up that trust
fund to $3 trillion and know full well that we are going to have to
draw down that trust fund at some point in the future, let's take every
precaution to ensure that it will be there. We offered amendments to
protect it.
Now, our Republican colleagues defeated every single amendment as it
was brought up in committee and on the floor. Again, our Republican
colleagues argued that this is not something we should really worry
about. Misusing the Social Security trust funds to pay for other
Government programs is not just bad accounting, it's bad faith.
Combining the Social Security trust funds with the rest of the budget
doesn't pay off the deficit; it just masks its size. It allows us to
claim that the budget is balanced when we know really it isn't. When
they claim we have a balanced budget in the year 2002, we are going to
increase our debt by $130 billion.
Madam President, this isn't the way we ought to legislate. This isn't
simply a question of making perfect the amendment. It becomes clear
that this amendment is not perfect in any fundamental way when one
analyzes how it would work.
In my view, this amendment, as it is presented right now, is
duplicitous. Social Security has never been a day late or a dollar
short. It is the most successful social program in the history of our
country. For millions of older Americans, it is the difference between
living in dignity and living in fear and poverty. A balanced budget
amendment should not force us to break that historic contract. It
should be honest in how it accounts for and uses the Social Security
trust funds.
While misuse of the Social Security trust funds is my gravest
concern, I am also deeply troubled that this amendment would limit, for
all perpetuity, how Congress can treat large-scale capital investments.
Let there be no misunderstanding here. If this amendment passes, any
proposal to create a capital budget would be declared unconstitutional.
If a project could not be paid for in one year, it could not be
undertaken. Capital investments, such as roads, bridges, and water
projects strengthen our economy for the future. It seems to me that it
would be profoundly unwise for us to pass an amendment that forbids
even consideration of a capital budget. It would threaten the very
economic competitiveness that we all say we desire. Again, we offered
amendments to correct this flaw, to allow for the possibility of a
capital budget, and, again, they were defeated--every single one along
party lines--in committee and on the floor.

The majority leader suggested a willingness to provide for a capital
budget, only after it was clear that he didn't have the votes without
it. While I welcome such sudden openness, we have not yet seen any
solid proposals from the other side in this regard.
Madam President, I just ask the question: If virtually every State
recognizes the importance of distinguishing between a capital budget,
long-term investments, and operating costs, why is it that we don't see
the need to do so as well? If every family and every business were
required to pay off every mortgage and investment every year, I
question whether any of them could sustain that kind of requirement or
that kind of an economic procedure. Yet, that is exactly what we are
suggesting must be our course of action, for all perpetuity, for the
Federal Government. We can't even consider the possibility of a capital
budget under the amendment as it is drafted right now.
Another serious flaw with this amendment has to do with our national
security. Section 5 of this amendment jeopardizes our ability to
prepare for situations that we know will require intervention, such as
in the Persian Gulf. For Congress to waive this amendment, the United
States ``must be engaged in military conflict.'' Let me restate that.
For us to be eligible for the exception under this constitutional
amendment, we already have to be fighting a war in order to tap
resources that may be required to fight that effort. In Desert Shield,
we needed to build up before the conflict. We stipulated that the
conflict was imminent. As a result, we were able to be prepared when
the conflict came in Desert Storm. To say that there has to be a
conflict before we can provide legislative support, in my view, is
extraordinarily poorly worded and ill-founded.
None of us, today, would want to look the men and the women we sent
to the Persian Gulf in the eye and say that we want you to go fight
first, and we will support you later. We want you to go put your lives
on the line and, at some point after you start fighting, we will get
around to providing you with the necessary resources.
Madam President, that is exactly what this amendment says. I hope
that everybody will think very carefully about whether or not we want
to commit to section 5 of this constitutional amendment. No, this
amendment isn't perfect, and it is not as good as it could have been,
and it is clearly not good enough to include in the Constitution of the
United States of America. So I, with many of my colleagues, am left
with the inescapable conclusion that we must vote against it.
At the same time, I think it is imperative that we redouble our
efforts to actually balance the budget, rather than just talk about it.
Madam President, in the last couple of days, I have been dismayed at
some of the remarks made by some on the other side with regard to the
budget process. I thought we had an understanding that we were going to
work toward a budget agreement that would allow us to meet our
deadlines by April 15.
Instead, now we are playing politics on the other side with a budget
agreement, telling the President to come forth with a second budget
agreement, prior to the time those who are complaining have even come
with a first one.
I hope we can quit playing political games with the budget process
and get in that room and do what we are supposed to do in the Budget
Committee to balance the budget. Let's start working through this
budget process tomorrow. Let's start meeting the deadlines set into
law. The committee hasn't met in 2 weeks. I think it is high time to
demonstrate some real leadership here. When it comes to the budget
process, that ought to start with a date certain for a markup on the
budget itself.

We have come a long way. We have a record now that we can look back
on with some pride, having reduced the deficit from $290 billion in
1993 to $107 billion this year. We need to go the rest of the way, and
we can do so only if we continue to reduce spending as successfully and
aggressively in the next 5 years as we have in the recent past.
I am troubled, frankly, not only with the fact that we have not seen
any proposal on the part of Republican Members with regard to a budget
itself, but by the tax proposal being proposed now by the majority
leader. It would create a deficit of over $1 trillion in the next 20
years to pay for new tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit those who
don't need them at all. If these new tax breaks were to pass, they
would cost $500 billion over the first 10 years and $750 billion over
the next 10 years, at a time when we ought to be reducing the deficit,
reducing the debt, and coming together in a bipartisan way to resolve
our differences.
It must be difficult for South Dakotans to understand how some of
those who argue that we need to pass a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget can turn around and offer tax breaks that add more
than $1 trillion to the deficit.
I might remind my colleagues that, even if we balance the budget, we
have a $5.5 trillion accumulated debt that we have not yet paid down.
Eliminating the deficit is only the first step. We still have the debt.
If Senators continue to complicate our situation by offering tax
measures that contribute massively to the deficit we are facing

[[Page S1915]]

over the next few years, it is hard to believe that they are really
serious about fiscal responsibility.
My expectation today is that this amendment will fail. But if I am
wrong, if somehow it passes, then I am confident that it will fail when
it is sent to the States for ratification. As Americans learn more
about the consequences of this ill-considered proposal, I hope that
Congress will ultimately resolve to work through the many deficiencies
in this amendment, and correct it in ways that we have suggested time
and again on the Senate floor.
David Ramsey was a member of the Continental Congress that adopted
our Declaration of Independence. He said, ``The adoption of the
Constitution was a triumph of virtue and good sense over the vices and
follies of human nature.''
It was, in fact, that rarest of events, the triumph of the perfect
over merely the good. For 208 years, Congress has defended that triumph
of the perfect over the good when it comes to the Constitution. It is
our solemn responsibility now to uphold that standard.
When it comes to the Constitution, we should settle for nothing less
than perfection.
Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator
from South Dakota.
Madam President, for those who want to know where this Constitution
was written, it was written in a small room in Constitutional Hall
called the Assembly Room. Fifty-five white men wrote the Constitution
over 200 years ago. George Washington's chair is still at the front of
the room because he presided over the writing of the Constitution. His
chair is still there if you want to go see where George Washington sat
as they drafted the framework for our form of government. George
Washington was the fellow who was reported to have said, ``I cannot
tell a lie'' about cutting down the cherry tree.
I was thinking about his chair when I saw it in this room, and about
the cherry tree, and lies, and about political wafflers when we get
involved in a discussion of this type. This is a very, very important
discussion.
In the debate in the last couple of hours, one would think it is
about balancing the budget. It is not that. It is about altering the
Constitution of the United States. It is now 4:32. If, by some magic,
we could by 4:35 amend the Constitution just like that, at 5 o'clock
nothing would have changed with respect to this Government's deficit or
debt.
This is about altering the Constitution. The question is, shall we do
it? And, if so, how shall we do it?
We voted on a constitutional amendment last week to balance the
Federal budget. I offered it. It got 41 votes. Almost all--except two--
on that side of the aisle voted against it. Had they voted for it, we
would have had a constitutional amendment to balance the budget passed
by this Chamber. It was identical to the one they offered, with one
exception: It said you can't count the over $1 trillion in Social
Security trust funds to pretend you have balanced the budget.
Based on all the crowing that I hear, one would think, if a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget is passed, the budget
will be balanced. Of course, that is not the case. The budget will be
balanced when you make individual spending and taxing decisions to
balance the budget.

In 1993, I cast a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate for a deficit
reduction package. It was a hard vote. The politically easy vote was to
say, ``I am gone. I am on vacation. Count me as no because I do not
want the baggage that comes with having to vote to reduce the budget
deficit.''
We passed that by one vote. And we didn't get one vote from that side
of the aisle--not a bit of help, not a bit of help from the people who
now stand on this floor and crow about how much they want to balance
the Federal budget. And the budget deficit came down 60 percent.
We paid an enormous price for casting that vote. It was a price I was
willing to pay. I am glad I cast the vote. And that is the way you
reduce the budget deficit.
How do you eliminate the budget deficit? Well, amending the
Constitution, if you do it the right way, will help. And I am willing
to do that. We had a vote on it last week. I offered the substitute
that would have amended the Constitution the right way. But I refused
to alter the Constitution in a way that will allow the Federal debt to
keep increasing when they say it is in balance.
I have asked repeatedly, and there is no answer to it, why do the
managers of this constitutional amendment pretend to the American
people that if they pass it and then pass a budget that accomplishes
it--when they pass this budget and then claim the budget is in
balance--why will the Federal debt keep increasing? Why, in the very
year that they claim the budget is in balance, will they be required to
increase the Federal debt limit by $130 billion, in that year alone?
Why? Why, if the budget is balanced, will the Federal debt keep
increasing?
I have asked that a dozen times, and no one has answered it. Why has
no one answered it? Because it is a fiction. This constitutional
amendment, the way it is crafted, is a fiction. It misuses over $1
trillion in Social Security trust funds to pretend they are balancing
the budget, and, in fact, it is not balanced. In fact, the Federal debt
will keep increasing. That is why they can't answer the question.
It is one more chapter in a book of fiction. But this is a chapter of
fiction that they intend to put in the Constitution of the United
States.
In North Dakota they want a balanced budget. I have voted for
balanced budgets. But in North Dakota they understand the virtue of, if
you are going to do something, doing it the right way. There is the
right way and the wrong way. The proposal here is the wrong way.
This is a country that seems obsessed sometimes with instant
gratification and quick fixes.
Madam President, I ask for 30 more seconds.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield such time as he may consume to
the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. There is a mentality that would have us believe sometimes
that instant gratification is paramount--quick fixes, fast foods,
Minute Rice, instant coffee, instant pudding, Jiffy Lube. Hook the
budget to the Constitution and pretend you have balanced the budget,
but have the Federal debt keep increasing. It fits right in with the
whole genre of quick and easy fix--no trouble at all.
The American people know better. There is the right way to do things
and the honest way to do things. Yes, we ought to balance the budget.
And when we have taxing and spending decisions on the floor of the
Senate to do that, join us and help us to it.
I am amazed that those who come here speaking the loudest about this
issue will come on one of the largest spending bills that will come
before this body, the defense appropriations bill, and say, ``No, we
are not spending enough. We want to add $10 billion more, and we insist
that you spend it.''

I am amazed that those who come to this floor and talk about
balancing the budget are also the ones who come and say, ``And, by the
way, we want $500 billion in tax breaks.'' They propose plans
suggesting $30,000-a-year tax breaks for those that have $250,000 a
year in income. Why? I guess they think we can afford it. Do you know
that every dollar of tax break will be borrowed and will add to the
Federal debt in that plan? These are the people who are now suggesting
we alter the Constitution the wrong way in order to pretend that we
have balanced the budget.
Madam President, we ought to balance the budget. Yes. Last week I
even offered a constitutional amendment to do so drafted the right way,
drafted in a way that it will not misuse the Social Security trust
funds. But we ought not, no matter what the price--any of us--ought not
stand up and say, ``Well, it doesn't matter. We are just amending the
Constitution of the United States. It may not be perfect. Yes, it may
cause some problems for Social Security. But let's do it anyway.''
The 55 people who wrote the Constitution of the United States
provided for a way that it might be amended. But they always assumed, I
suspect, that we would do the very best we

[[Page S1916]]

could to make sure this document is perfect, or is as near perfect a
document for the governance of this country as is possible.
This is the greatest democracy on the face of this Earth. I get a
little tired of people talking about how awful this place is. Most
people around the globe want to come here because they understand the
torch for freedom and the beacon of hope in this country still burn
brightly for all the rest of the world. It is a remarkable place. And
when we alter the Constitution--and I am prepared to do so--let us make
certain we do it the right way.
I appreciate very much the Senator from South Dakota yielding.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to the
ranking member, the senior Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. I want to thank the distinguished Democratic leader for
yielding me a few minutes of time as we finish up the debate on this
important constitutional question.

By our Senate oath of office we each commit to ``support and defend
the Constitution of the United States.'' That is our paramount duty and
a responsibility that I certainly cherish in this opportunity to
represent the people of Vermont here today.
A constitutional amendment on the budget poses dangers to Vermont and
threatens the constitutional principles that have sustained our
democratic form of Federal Government over the past 200 years.
Separation of powers, checks and balances, and majority rule are not
constitutional guarantees to be altered without serious deliberation.
The real question this year is not whether to reduce the deficit, but
by how much and what cuts to make in order to bring the budget into
balance. That is the hard work that lies before us.
As President Clinton declared in his State of the Union Addresses:
All we need to balance the budget is for Congress to pass a bill and
for his signature. We do not need to change the Constitution of the
United States.
The time and resources devoted to reconsidering a constitutional
amendment on the budget merely serve as a distraction from the real
task at hand. Let us not be distracted, again, from the true means to
deficit reduction: Hard work, hard choices, and bipartisan cooperation
with the President.
Political courage has been an essential ingredient that has helped us
reach the level of deficit reduction that has been achieved over the
past 4 years. We cannot legislate political courage. We must summon
that ingredient from ourselves.
In addition to being unnecessary, there are six key reasons why
adoption of this proposed 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution
would, in the words of Treasury Secretary Rubin, ``be a terrible,
terrible mistake.''

risks to the economy

First, this amendment could be economically ruinous.
During recessions, deficits rise because tax receipts decline while
various Government payments, like unemployment insurance, increase. By
contrast, the amendment would require disastrous raises in taxes or
cuts in countercyclical spending during a recession or depression.
As Treasury Secretary Rubin testified: ``a balanced budget amendment
could turn slowdowns into recessions, and recessions into more severe
recessions or even depressions.''
Our economic policy--especially as we attempt to compete and adjust
in an increasingly global economy--must be flexible enough to allow
each generation of Americans and each Congress and President to deal
with changing economic conditions as they see fit in serving the best
interests of the Nation and our citizens. Yet, this proposal would
impose an inflexible prescription on all future generations of
Americans in perpetuity.

it increases the risks of government shutdown and default

Second, this constitutional amendment would vastly raise the stakes
and risks to taxpayers and all citizens of a Government shutdown and
default. We now have the experience of a year ago to gauge just how
great these risks would be to our economy.
Under the supermajority requirements in the proposed amendment, a
minority of Members, either from a particular region or sharing a
political philosophy, could force the U.S. Government into default
unless they got their way--just like a handful of House Members in 1995
tried to force President Clinton to accept their balanced budget plan
by refusing to vote to raise the debt limit.
This proposed constitutional amendment would prevent the Treasury
from taking the same measures it did during the 1995 budget crisis to
avoid a default. Without that flexibility, the Government also would be
unable to ensure on-time Social Security checks or Medicare and
veterans benefits.

an invitation to constitutional crisis

Third, this proposed constitutional amendment risks seriously
undercutting the protection of our constitutional separation of powers.
No one has yet convincingly explained how the proposed amendment will
work and what roles the President and the courts are to play in its
implementation and enforcement. Constitutionalizing the budget and
economic policy would inevitably throw the Nation's fiscal policy into
the courts, the last place issues of taxing and spending should be
decided under our system.
The effect could be to toss important issues of spending priorities
and funding levels to the President or to thousands of lawyers, filing
hundreds of lawsuits in dozens of Federal and State courts. If
approved, the amendment would let Congress off the hook by kicking
massive responsibility for how tax dollars are spent to the President
or to unelected judges.

it erodes the fundamental principle of majority rule

Fourth, this proposed constitutional amendment undermines the
fundamental principle of majority rule by imposing a three-fifths
supermajority vote to adopt certain budgets and to raise the debt
limit.
Our founders rejected such supermajority voting requirements on
matters within Congress' purview. Alexander Hamilton described
supermajority requirements as a ``poison'' that serves ``to destroy the
energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or
artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto to the
regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.'' These
supermajority requirements are a recipe for increased gridlock, not
more efficient action.
The amendment's supermajority requirements would permit minority
factions to extort pork barrel projects or extreme legislation as their
price for avoiding a Government shutdown and default. Do we really want
to allow 40 percent plus one of the Members in either the House or the
Senate to hold the budget hostage to their demands?

it is a pig in a poke

There is much truth to the axiom that the ``devil is in the
details.'' This proposed constitutional amendment uses such general
terms that even its sponsors and proponents concede that implementing
legislation will be necessary to clarify how it will work.
What will this implementing legislation say? We will not find out
until we see this implementing legislation. The questions raised that
still lack satisfactory answers are many: What programs will be off-
budget? What role will the courts and the President have in executing
and enforcing the amendment? What will be considered compliance with
the amendment? How much of a deficit may be financed and carried over
to the next year? Many other questions still await answers going to
core matters that are critical to our understanding of what this
amendment means.
Congress should not be asked to amend the Constitution by signing
what amounts to a blank check. Nor should any State be asked to ratify
a pig in a poke.
In the interests of fair disclosure, Congress should first determine
the substance of any implementing legislation, as it did in connection
with the 18th amendment, the other attempt to draft a substantive
behavioral policy in the Constitution.

it fails to protect basic commitments to our citizens

Sixth, this proposed constitutional amendment fails to live up to the
commitments we have made to our citizens. It uses the annual surplus in
the Social Security trust fund to mask the

[[Page S1917]]

true size of the Federal budget deficit for years to come. This is
wrong.
In addition to using the Social Security trust funds, this proposed
constitutional amendment could short-change our seniors who depend on
Medicare, our veterans who depend on service benefits, and our children
who depend on nutrition programs. We have made commitments to our
seniors, our veterans, and our children. But this amendment fails to
honor our commitments. This is unacceptable.

conclusion

We Vermonters pride ourselves on being able to apply Yankee common
sense in sorting the sensible from the fanciful, and this proposed
constitutional amendment lacks common sense, Yankee or otherwise.
One of the newspapers in my State observed: ``Amending the
Constitution to require a balanced Federal budget would be like using a
sledgehammer to nail a picket in a fence. The picket might stand, but
at great risk to the fence.''
Even the short span of 2 years since the last debate on this
amendment has brought forward changed fiscal and budget circumstances
and new insights into the implications of amending the Constitution in
this way.
Let us not proceed with a view to short-run popularity, but with a
clear vision of our responsibilities to our constituents and the Nation
in accordance with our venerable and venerated Constitution.
Madam President, for the last 4 weeks, I have been saying over and
over again to Senators, think about what we are doing. This country,
which has a Constitution the envy of all other democracies on Earth,
has amended that Constitution only 17 times since the Bill of Rights.
In that 17 times, one of those amendments was to repeal an earlier
mistake, the amendment on prohibition.
Madam President, during that time, we have had civil wars, invasions
of our Nation, the War of 1812, terrible world wars, Korean war,
Vietnam war, depressions, recessions, earthquakes, natural calamities,
expansion of our Nation. With all these changes, most of which were
far, far greater than anything we see today, we resisted the temptation
to amend the Constitution. We resisted the temptation to tinker with
our Constitution, and we always came out a stronger nation.
We hear talk about Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson borrowed twice
the budget of the United States for the Louisiana Purchase. Can you
imagine what this country would be like had he not had the foresight to
do that? Or can you imagine what this country would be like had he had
the same constitutional amendment and not been able to borrow the money
for the Louisiana Purchase? Where would this Nation be?
I hear one Senator come in the Chamber and talk about Senators who
appear to change their position. I would point out that I heard no
criticism from him of the three Senators who had opposed this
constitutional amendment and now support it.
I hear a Senator come in the Chamber and say we need this to balance
the budget, and yet that same Senator has done nothing to bring out of
his own committee a budget, even though the law requires him to do so,
within the next month.
Madam President, we do not need a bumper-sticker, sloganeering
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We can just have enough
courage to face up to the special interest groups of the left and the
right and balance the budget ourselves. That is what we need.
So many of those who are hollering for this sound like the lion in
``The Wizard of Oz.'' They are seeking courage. If we do not have the
courage to do what is right, then we do not belong here. But I am
afraid that some who want this are simply looking for something that
will reflect the passing poll of the moment. The Constitution of the
United States is not a passing poll of the moment. The Constitution of
the United States is the bedrock of this Nation. It is why we have the
strongest democracy in the world. It is why, incidentally, we have the
strongest economy in the world.
Instead of running down our economy, instead of running down our
Constitution, instead of adding something that looks good on a public
opinion poll but does not look good on the test of time, we ought to do
what is right: bring down the deficit by the hard votes, not by
tinkering with our Constitution. Let us not slap this bumper sticker on
the greatest Constitution ever written. It is beneath the Senate. It is
beneath the House of Representatives. But, more importantly, it does
great disservice to the finest Constitution democracy has ever had.
Madam President, am I correct that the time of the Democratic leader
has expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 30 minutes under the control
of the majority leader or his designee.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume
of my 30 minutes, but I do want to reserve the closing 5 minutes for
the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. So after 25
minutes, if I am still going, I hope the Chair will give me that
notification.
I should like to begin, Madam President, by expressing my
appreciation to all the Members of the Senate. We have been debating
this issue now for a month or more. It has been a good debate. Every
Senator has had an opportunity to express himself or herself, and I
think the debate for the most part has been good--troublesome to me
sometimes and discouraging in some of the things I have heard said, but
still the Senate has worked its will in terms of having the time that
we needed to debate this very important issue and to offer amendments.
I thank particularly the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator
Hatch of Utah, for the great work he has done, for the long hours, in
fact--yes, hours--he has spent in this Chamber speaking in response to
comments from other Senators, commenting on the amendments that have
been offered. He has done an outstanding job. If for no other reason, I
hope we would pass this amendment because of the great work and the
commitment he has to this effort and to this constitutional amendment.
I thank him for his great work.
Also, Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming,
Senator Bryan of Nevada, a Democrat who has been involved, and 10 other
Democrats who have been committed to this constitutional amendment
requiring a balanced budget, who have had the courage of their
convictions to stand up and support this constitutional amendment and
make speeches in behalf of it.
Senator Coverdell has done an outstanding job in working with the
people from all over this country, through the land, who are interested
in supporting this amendment. Senator Snowe has done a great job in
helping make sure that we had Senators who were aware of the time who
would come to the floor and make their statements. Many others have
done a great job. I wish to recognize the work they have done because a
lot of time, a lot of thought, a lot of great speeches have been made
as we have come to the conclusion of this debate on the constitutional
amendment for a balanced budget.
Thomas Jefferson has been mentioned a lot here in the debate. As a
matter of fact, as I just came from the majority leader's office, I was
thinking about the fact that it was in that very room--yes, that very
room--that the House of Representatives met in 1801 and took 36
ballots--36 ballots, would you believe it--to elect Thomas Jefferson of
the United States over Aaron Burr. How close they came to making a
mistake.
I think that this, too, is of such historic significance. We should
not make a mistake here today and not pass this amendment. We should
vote for it. And the impact would be monumental--perhaps not as
monumental as electing Thomas Jefferson, but certainly would have
impact on the future of all Americans for years and years to come. It
is historic.
I am very proud that we have kept our word to the American people
that we would fight for this amendment, that we would bring it to a
conclusion, and that we would try to get it added to the Constitution
so that we would

[[Page S1918]]

have the guarantee, the additional leverage, the backbone that is
needed to have in fact a balanced budget. So we have kept that
commitment, and all Americans will have a brighter, more prosperous
future when we pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced
budget.
I noted the comments earlier today that 55 people wrote the
Constitution. Well, 55 Republican Senators, every Republican Senator,
will vote for this amendment today, and a minimum of 11 Democrats. It
is bipartisan. We do know that this needs to be done. We need to get
that additional vote that would give us the 67, and I think maybe that
is still possible before all is said and done on this constitutional
amendment.
Just yesterday, we had additional proof of the need for this
constitutional amendment. Six Presidents, over 1,400 Members of
Congress, and approaching 1,000 Senators over the years have made an
effort to get a balanced budget agreement, but through 28 years and all
these Congressmen and Senators--and I want to make sure I have the
exact number on the Senators. I think that number is high. We have had
well over 1,500 Congressmen and Senators who said we should have a
balanced budget, but we have not had one. We have not achieved one in
28 years--good intentions by men and women, but it has not happened. It
looks like we will not have it for at least a couple of more years, at
the most not until the year 2002. And, yet, in the President's budget
that was sent to us, we find deficits do not go down, they go up by
over $25 billion in the next fiscal year.

We find that, instead of having tax relief for working Americans, you
have a net tax increase in the President's budget. And, worst of all,
98 percent of his so-called budget savings, or spending restraints,
would come in the last 2 years, after the year 2000, after the turn of
the century, after this President is gone--proof positive, once again,
that there is not yet a sufficient commitment by the President to get a
balanced budget agreement. Without this constitutional amendment, I
still have my doubts as to when it will happen.
Now, the Senator from North Dakota commented earlier about how he had
voted for a budget that reduced the deficit. Look, if everybody will
agree just to raise taxes and keep raising taxes, I guess you could
reduce the deficit. Of course, at some point there is a point of no
return. When I hear from my own son, who calls me and says, ``Dad,
look, I am working hard, I have 55 people working for me, but 50
percent of everything I make is going to taxes, why is that? What are
you going to do about it?'' You know, that has an impact on me. The
solution to balancing the budget is not to raise more taxes, as
happened in 1993; it is to control spending for the interests of our
children and for all Americans.
Social Security--when all else fails, bring up Social Security. I
have heard it for years. I have been worried about it over the years,
and I have cast some votes that made it clear that I do not want Social
Security to be threatened or abused in any way. This amendment will not
do that. In fact, the only thing that we could do that would threaten
Social Security is that we not get a balanced budget. That is how we
would get in trouble with Social Security.
By the way, if it is so critical, if it is, in fact, something that
should not be included in the budget, why does the President, year
after year, including this year, include Social Security in his budget?
This is absolutely a diversion, and it is unfair to the seniors in this
country that we try to scare them by indicating in any way that this
would affect Social Security. The reverse is true. I will take my stand
and stake my defense of Social Security against anybody's record in
this body.
Americans support this constitutional amendment. That is why you hear
all these diversions. That is why you hear, ``Well, but for this,''
``Yes, but,'' ``Maybe, but I cannot do it unless you do that.'' The
American people are overwhelmingly for this.
Senator Cochran, my colleague from Mississippi, and I are for it and
our constituents are for it; in my State, over 80 percent. So it is
relatively easy for us. But we are also for it because we believe
increasing debt is the wrong thing to do.
Let me just read some of the excuses we have heard over the years.
The truth of the matter is there are a few Democrats who do not want a
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. They just do not want
it. But they have said: ``Well, I would be for it except we want a
Republican Congress to show their plan first,'' or, ``We want to wait
until after Republicans have passed a budget plan,'' or, ``Only if you
exempt Social Security,'' or, ``Yes, you must exempt emergency
spending, you must exempt veterans, you must exempt housing.'' How
about an amendment by Senator Wellstone to exempt all education,
health, and welfare; exempt all college aid and training? They would
exempt all law enforcement, exempt the Tennessee Valley Authority, and
highways, bridges, dams, roads, buildings, ice skating warming huts,
and pork. They would exempt 77 percent of the nondefense, noninterest
budget, if you went through that. And the list goes on, one excuse
after another.
Anybody who is looking for an excuse not to be for a balanced budget,
looking for an excuse not to be for a balanced budget amendment, they
can find it, they can find something to hide behind. But the American
people, I believe, see through that. They have watched for years. They
know that it has not been happening. They are worried about the
interest on the national debt. They are worried about the future of the
economy in our country. They know this should be done.

I do think that a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced
budget is an amendment that is worthy of going into the Constitution.
Surely, Thomas Jefferson objected, back in the beginning of our great
country, and would object now, to the debt we are building up--
trillions of dollars. If we do not get a balanced budget--in fact, even
if we do get a balanced budget agreement--the debt will probably still
go up by close to $1 trillion. When will it end?
It brings to my mind the statement we have heard before, ``If not
now, when? If not us, who?
If we are not prepared to step up and pass this constitutional
amendment now, we are admitting, based on what we have seen from the
President's budget proposal this year, it is not going to happen any
time soon. The deficits annually will begin to build up and to build up
again, and so will the debt.
We are stealing from the future of our children. They are the ones
who are going to pay the price for this, and I feel very strongly that,
if we put this in the Constitution with the protections that are there
so that if we do have economic problems or if we have a national
emergency, there is a way to get out. There is the three-fifths vote--
60 votes. We get 60 votes around here quite often.
We want to make it tough. If you make it so easy that you can just
have a vote and it will all just be wiped aside, you know Congress will
do that. Congress has proven time and time again they will do that.
In the past, we have tried to pass statutes that would guarantee that
we get a balanced budget, and it has not happened, because what has
happened? We come along and we say we are going to exempt all these
various and sundry things. Or, if it really gets tough, like we did
with the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, we just move the date. We just pass
another statute. As long as it is just a bill, as long as there is a
way to avoid the tough decision, I fear the Congress will take
advantage of that.
We have proven here in this body, in the past 6 months, we can work
together. We can be bipartisan. We can be civil to each other. And,
when we work in a bipartisan way, when we put our minds to it, we can
produce results.
Last year, there we were passing these issues, many of them that had
been in the making for years, like telecommunications and welfare
reform, health insurance reform. We did not pass them by narrow
margins. We passed them by wide margins. Once we made up our mind we
would, we did it in a bipartisan way. That is one of the lessons I
learned. I am glad this is bipartisan. But I note also we must get one
more of the 34 Democrats in order to pass this constitutional
amendment.
A second lesson I have learned recently is good intentions just have
not worked. It is not enough. You need this additional leverage.

[[Page S1919]]

So, I urge my colleagues here today, be proud of what we have done.
Make sure we are going to live up to the commitments that we have made
to the American people. Join the American people. I want us all to have
the courage of our convictions and be prepared to vote yes or vote no,
if that is what we think is right. But I do think we also should take
some lessons from our constituents. They have it figured out. They
support a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget
overwhelmingly. Why can we not get it through this institution?
I believe the House will take this issue up in the next month or so,
and I believe they will pass it. Some people have their doubts about
that, but I still have confidence they will. And when they do, we will
take another look at considering this issue if, in fact, it does not
pass this afternoon. But this is an issue that will not go away.

In fact, if you look at the Constitution, the last amendment that was
added to the Constitution was actually pending for, I think, 200 years;
the 27th amendment to the Constitution. It was language for years and
years. Finally the State of Michigan ratified it and it became the 27th
amendment. I hope we do not have to wait that long for this amendment,
but we are going to pass this amendment and, if we do or we do not, I
am going to work with the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee. We are going to try to find a way to get a balanced budget
agreement. But I believe that this additional requirement in the
Constitution will guarantee that we will do that job.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the majority leader for his leadership on this
particular issue. He has been a leader on this issue ever since I have
been working on it, I have to say, both in the House and in the Senate.
I am proud of him.
Look, we have heard from the minority and the minority leader that
the perfect balanced budget amendment would exempt all capital
expenses, however defined; Social Security, however defined; military
responses or buildup, however understood, crime control; times of
economic downturn; national disaster or emergency; education; nutrition
programs, and so forth and so on. Gee, what is left under this
proposal, under the minority leader's proposal? It is pretty apparent
they don't want a balanced budget amendment. They do not want a fiscal
mechanism that will make it more difficult for them to increase taxes,
to pay for more expensive programs or to increase the debt to pay for
more expensive programs. What's left? Just interest expenses? Well,
that's a perfect balanced budget amendment if you want to keep
spending.

It was admitted today that if we had a ``capital budget exemption,''
we would have a ``balanced budget'' today. I guess that's so. That's
perfect. If you want to keep spending and borrowing, that's perfect. In
other words, if you want to keep the status quo, that is the way to do
it: Just hide everything in a loophole, and then you can say you
``balanced'' the budget. No, we don't need this kind of perfection.
What we need is a real-world solution, one that will make a difference.
I have to say, I am doggone tired of the demagoguery on Social
Security. You would think these people here on the other side against
this amendment are the only ones who care about Social Security. Let me
tell you something, I care about it. I watched what it did for my
folks. I know exactly what it does, and I don't want to ever see it
hurt, and neither does anybody else who is voting for this amendment,
and that is the vast majority of people in this body.
You are doggone right we like Social Security, and we are tired of
the demagoguery. Every time they are losing, they try to bring up a
Social Security amendment to hide behind, because they don't want to
cast the right vote, and they know it, we know it, and, ladies and
gentleman out there in the country, you know it, too. I am tired of it.
It is not right for them to continually hide behind these phony issues.
Can you imagine having Social Security cast aside outside of the
balanced budget amendment and its protections, standing there all alone
so that anything could be called Social Security? Once that game
starts, forget Social Security.
These people who are arguing that are the foes of Social Security. If
they really cared for Social Security, by gosh, they would be passing
this balanced budget amendment and getting spending under control. It
is about time to get rid of the demagoguery, and I am tired of it.
Let me also say, I was quite upset today to hear in the closing
remarks the minority leader come out here again and start using a
distortion of the Congressional Research Service. I was asked outside,
``Have you lost confidence in the Congressional Research Service?'' by
one of the leaders in the media. Of course we have not, because they
made it clear that the interpretation was not as the minority leader
has been saying. As a matter of fact, we made that clear on the floor.
There should not even have been a question about it.
The CRS memorandum dated February 5 that my colleague was alluding to
did not conclude in any way whatever that the balanced budget amendment
would harm Social Security. All the CRS memorandum concluded was that
assuming the Social Security surplus survived to the year 2019, the
year Social Security would start running annual deficits, this previous
accumulated surplus could be used to help pay for future deficits, but
only if it is offset by revenues or budget cuts. Of course, we could
also vote to suspend the balanced budget rule for a year if that was
truly necessary. That is a considerably different position from what
has been demagoged throughout this debate.
Despite what my friend asserted, under the balanced budget amendment,
assets of the Federal Treasury could be drawn upon to ensure payments
to beneficiaries when the system starts running annual deficits.
Senators Domenici, Mack, and I also received a letter from the CRS
supporting my provision. The nonpartisan Concord Coalition, founded by
the late Paul Tsongas, a Democrat, and Warren Rudman, a Republican, has
also addressed this issue. In a memorandum dated February 18, 1997, the
coalition concluded that the Senators' position that if the balanced
budget amendment does not exempt Social Security it will somehow
nullify the trust fund surpluses and prevent payment of benefits to
retired baby boomers is nonsense.

Let me quote further. This is what the Concord Coalition says:

What the BBA would do is to raise national savings and thus
make Social Security, along with a myriad other claims on
tomorrow's economy, more affordable. It would be ironic,
indeed, if concern about funding Social Security, whether
real or pretended, turns out to be an issue that sinks the
balanced budget amendment. Let's be clear, the balanced
budget amendment would in no way honor the status of the
Social Security trust funds.

The real issue here is, how are we going to fund the Social Security
trust funds when the system becomes insolvent around the year 2019,
2029 for sure? The answer depends on the national debt. It is the size
of the national debt that threatens the Social Security program, and, I
might add, we are adding to that national debt one more unbalanced
budget, and that is the one for fiscal year 1998. That is it. This is
the President's budget on top of these 28 other unbalanced budgets that
we have been pointing out throughout this debate.
Only if we pass the balanced budget amendment will we preserve Social
Security, and that is the truth in this debate, and I am tired of the
demagoguery.
Just think about this national debt. Forty-six days ago, when the
Judiciary Committee began the debate on the balanced budget amendment
in the 105th Congress, I used a debt clock ticking off thousands of
dollars each second to illustrate the magnitude of our country's
growing debt. As we have debated Senate Joint Resolution 1 for the past
46 days, that clock has continued to run, and our national debt has
increased in that period of time, that 46 days, $25 billion, while
these folks are talking about ``we just have to have the will to do
it.'' Tell me where the will is in the last 29 years, including next
year's budget. That is the President's budget. It is unbalanced, by the
way.
Madam President, I don't know about other States, but in Utah, 25
billion

[[Page S1920]]

bucks is a lot of money. In fact, with that money, we could send every
man, woman, and child in Utah to the University of Utah, pay their
tuition, room, board, and books.
To give you the magnitude of that debt, let me give you an idea of
how much money we are talking about. With $5.3 trillion, which is our
national debt today, you could paper Washington, DC, with 100 dollar
bills corner to corner with enough left over to give a block grant to
every State of about $6.3 billion. You could also purchase every new
automobile ever sold in the United States and still have enough left
over to purchase every airline ticket ever sold for travel in the
United States.
The U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving and U.S. Mint would need
37\1/2\ years at its current rate of printing to print and coin enough
money to equal $5 trillion.
Madam President, $5 trillion stacked in pennies would reach all the
way to the planet Jupiter. Give me a break, will you?
All disposable personal income in the United States does not approach
$5 trillion--all disposable income.
If all the home equity in the United States was applied to the
national debt, there would still be a half trillion dollars of debt
left over. That is what a mess this is, and we have these people
saying, ``Let's just do it and the President will sign it.''
Give me a break. Here is the President's budget right there, on top
of the other 28 other unbalanced budgets.
Madam President, $5 trillion would consume all the wages and salaries
earned by every American for 18 months.
Unfortunately, without the constitutional discipline offered by
Senate Joint Resolution 1, the downward deficit spiral is likely to
continue. The point is underscored by CBO's most recent projection that
in the year 2002, total Federal debt will exceed $6.8 trillion. Come
on, it's time to wake up. I wonder what some people are thinking, I
really do.
Well, I don't mean to demean the Senator from Vermont who has had to
make almost every argument against it today by himself. He did have two
or three others come over.

Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator would yield, it would be OK if I win,
though. I will not lie.
Mr. HATCH. He said we won 14 or so votes, it is time for him to win
one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.
I heard this language, by one of the Members of the Senate, that we
are just interested in a quick and easy fix, like instant rice, like
Jiffy Lube, like instant coffee. A quick and easy fix, my foot. We do
not believe that the only way to solve problems is by increasing taxes
every time, which is exactly what happened here when this President
took over. That is not the way to do it.
This stack of books is a wall standing between us and fiscal
responsibility and balanced budgets. The bricks in this towering wall
are the unbalanced budget submissions for the last 28 years, 28 years
of strapping debt on to the backs of our children, a towering wall of
overspending the hard-earned money of the American people, a towering
wall that demonstrates that the score for special interests is 28, the
American people zero.
Some people say, all we need is the will. Well, this towering wall
represents 28 straight years of the failure of will and the failure of
responsibility--now, 29. It is higher than I am, and that is two
stacks, not one. Before we are through, if we do not do something about
a balanced budget amendment, these will go all the way to this ceiling.
The President's actions, evidenced by his budget submission and his
allies' work in defeating the balanced budget amendment here in the
Senate, suggests that we are just putting another brick on this wall.
Frankly, I believe we will never get past this wall without a
constitutional requirement to balance the budget.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATCH. Yes.
Mr. NICKLES. You just placed the President's budget for this year on
top. Am I correct in saying that last year the deficit was $107
billion, forecasted for 1997 to be $116 billion, and then in 1998,
under the President's budget--this is by the Congressional Budget
Office----
Mr. HATCH. His budget.
Mr. NICKLES. It goes to $145 billion, and then in 1999 to $142
billion, and the year 2000 to $135 billion? Isn't that the report that
we just had from the Congressional Budget Office? We have 4 years of
deficit increases under the President's proposal?
Mr. HATCH. That is correct. In the last 2 years we are going to cut
98.5 percent in order to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002.
Anybody believes that, boy, do I have something to sell for you.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. HATCH. Yes.
Mr. NICKLES. Isn't it correct that under the President's budget,
actually the deficit next year, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, will be $24 or $25 billion more than if we did not pass a
budget? In other words, his budget actually increases the deficit for
the next 4 years in relationship to present law?
Mr. HATCH. If we did just what we are doing now, the Senator is
right, we would be a lot better off than the President's next 5-year
budget. He is saying that is a balanced budget. I do not believe we
will get all the way to a balanced budget and stay there without a
constitutional requirement. I think this stack of books proves it.
Every time somebody says, ``Let's just do it''--I have heard that for
21 straight years now, ever since I came to the Senate. I will tell you
something; we are not just doing it.
To all those who say we can balance the budget without the
constitutional requirement, I say to Democrats and the President that
this towering wall of irresponsibility is limiting our young people's
future. I am convinced we cannot do it without putting a fiscal
mechanism in to cause us to stand up and vote to do what is right. It
is a wall of irresponsibility that is limiting our young people's
future. We must do something about it now.
Mr. President, you fought against the balanced budget amendment. I
have to say, this big wall here is going to cause us pain through the
rest of our lives unless we pass a balanced budget amendment. I am
saying to the President right now, and to our colleagues on the other
side, let us tear down this wall of unbalanced budgets and let us do
what is right. If we will, everybody will benefit from it.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final
passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass? The yeas
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 34, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

YEAS--66

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

NAYS--34

Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg

[[Page S1921]]

Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The galleries are advised that
expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the Senate
Chamber.
On this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays are 34. Two-thirds of the
Senators voting, a quorum being present, not having voted in the
affirmative, the joint resolution is rejected.
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 1) was rejected.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am disappointed with the Senate vote. I
am disappointed for the American people, especially younger Americans,
and our children and grandchildren. They were the ones who lost in this
defeat. I hope our younger voters will take notice of who was on their
side and who was not, the next time they vote.
The sad reality is that the bridge to the 21st century is likely to
be washed out in a flood of debt. I hope I am wrong and that we will
now work to enact a real plan to get to a balanced budget. I hope that
those who have killed the balanced budget amendment this time will
actually work to balance the budget. But I must admit, I am not too
hopeful that we will get to balance and stay there without the force of
a constitutional requirement to do so. This year we will add another
budget to this mounting stack of fiscal irresponsibility.
When we began this Congress, less than 2 months ago there, were 68
Senators who had either previously voted for this amendment--the exact
same amendment, or who had promised during their recent campaign to
support it. I believed that we could count on them to keep their
promises. Yet, only moments ago, only 66 votes were cast in favor of
fiscal discipline. Those two missing votes are the difference between
passing the balanced budget amendment and adding still more failed
budgets to this pile of 28 straight years of deficits.
As disappointed as I am, however, I am also very proud of my
colleagues who stood up and were willing to vote to protect our
children and grandchildren from worsening the crushing burden of debt
that has already been loaded on their backs. Senate Joint Resolution 1
began this Congress with 62 cosponsors, Mr. President. That is an all-
time high. We have now had two consecutive Congresses in which the
Senate missed approving the balanced budget amendment by a single vote.
There can be no doubt that support for this much-needed measure is
growing.
I am particularly proud of, and grateful to, the 11 courageous
Democrats who did the right thing and voted for fiscal responsibility
and accountability in spite of President Clinton's opposition. Among
them, Senators Bryan, Graham, Robb, Moseley-Braun, Kohl, Breaux, and
Baucus deserve special recognition as they are all original cosponsors
of the balanced budget amendment. Let me also recognize Senator Biden,
the former ranking member of the Judiciary Committee who also voted for
the amendment, and Senators Harkin, Landrieu, and Cleland.
As you can see, Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is a
bipartisan effort. The 11 courageous Democrats joined with all 55
Republicans in the Senate to support what we understand is necessary if
the budget is to truly be brought into balance. Unfortunately for the
American people, the 34 Democrats who voted against the balanced budget
amendment were just enough to defeat it.
Two years ago I stood here after a very similar vote and promised
that we would not give up the fight for our children's future. This
year we returned stronger than ever. And so I make the same promise
again, we will be back! We will be back and we will continue to gain
strength until we enact the balanced budget amendment and finally,
after decades of excuses, broken promises, and more deficits, we will
balance the budget.
Mr. President, an effort such as the one we have been involved in
over the past month requires the time, talent, and commitment of a
large number of people. While I cannot name them all, I would like, at
this time, to extend my gratitude to the Senators and staff who were so
instrumental.
Let me first thank our majority leader for his pivotal role. Senators
Craig, Thurmond, and Domenici of course, have my admiration and thanks.
I am also especially grateful to Senators Nickles, Coverdell, Mack,
Grassley, Gramm, Snowe, Abraham, and Thomas. Last, but certainly not
least, I would like to thank our new Republican colleagues: Senators
Enzi, Hagel, Hutchinson, Allard, Collins, Sessions, Brownback, and
Roberts. The energetic support of the newest Members of the Senate
bodes well for the future prospects of the balanced budget amendment.
Let me also thank Senator Leahy, the new ranking member on the
Judiciary Committee and the minority floor manager during this debate,
for his cooperation and courtesy.
Finally, I would like to single out some of the staff members who
worked so long and hard on this matter: Damon Tobias with Senator
Craig; Bill Hoagland, Austin Smythe, and Jim Capretta of Senator
Domenici's Budget Committee staff; Tom Geier with Senator Snowe; Bryan
Reardon with Senator Abraham; Mitch Bainwol with Senator Mack; Doug
Badger and Hazen Marshall of Senator Nickles's majority whip office;
Kyle McSlarrow and Carl Parks with Senator Coverdell; Andy Vermilye
with Senator Bryan; Russ Sullivan, Mike McGinn and Barbara Ramey with
Senator Graham; and Rob Brazil with Senator Robb; and last but
certainly not least, David Hoppe, Alison Carroll and Keith Hennessy in
the majority leader's office. Let me also thank Bruce Cohen and Ed
Pagano of Senator Leahy's Judiciary Committee staff.
Last, Mr. President, I would like to thank the very special people
who have worked with me on this issue: Manus Cooney, Sharon Prost,
Shawn Bentley, Larry Block, Paul Larkin, Steve Tepp, Paul Joklik, Troy
Dow, Eric Sampson, Jennifer Carrico, Allison Vinson, and Irosha
Ratnasekera. Many staffers have worked long and hard in the most
dedicated fashion, I thank them all for their devotion to duty and to
our country.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the distinguished
manager of the resolution and chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The
Senator from Utah is a tough opponent and one who I know is committed
to and sincerely believes in this proposed amendment to the
Constitution. He has certainly done everything that he could and spared
no effort to persuade the Senate to pass this proposal.
As the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, I look forward to
working with him on important legislation and nominations through the
remainder of this Congress.
I want to thank the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle
for his leadership on this issue. He helped set the tone of the debate
early on, when he articulated the standard that we should apply when
considering a proposal to amend the Constitution.
I want to thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Byrd. I said in my opening
statement at our first Judiciary Committee hearing on January 17 that
we would be privileged to have Senator Robert C. Byrd with us during
this floor debate to instruct all of us on these historic matters.
Senator Byrd did not disappoint. Indeed, his challenge to the
proponents to explicate their proposal and their failure to do so
provided the fulcrum on which this debate has turned.
I want to commend those Members who had the courage to look behind
the title of the proposal and help us focus on its dangers and
vagaries. In particular, I thank all those who came forward with such
thoughtful amendments. Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Durbin,
and Torricelli from the Judiciary Committee, and Senators Boxer,
Wellstone, Reid, Bumpers, and Dorgan each offered amendments that
raised important issues and added greatly to the debate.
I want to thank Senators Lautenberg, Sarbanes, Conrad, and Glenn for
their contributions and their full participation in this historic
debate.
I commend those cosponsors of the resolution who nonetheless offered

[[Page S1922]]

amendments, spoke in favor of various amendments, or voted not to table
the amendments that were offered. I hope that they will continue to
think about the problems that have been raised with the proposed
constitutional amendment.
I want to thank the organizations that have provided invaluable
information and insights into this debate. In particular, I would like
to thank Charles Loveless and Edwin S. Jayne, of the legislation
department at AFSCME, who spearheaded the Coalition on Budget
Integrity, and Robert Greenstein and Ellen Nissenbaum, of the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, who spearheaded the Center's research on
this proposed constitutional amendment. I also thank Eugene Lehrmann
for his important testimony on behalf of the American Association for
Retired Persons. I commend the 150 organizations that made up the
Coalition on Budget Priorities for the hard work of each of their
representatives and all of their volunteers.

I also commend Professors Robert Eisner of Northwestern University,
Robert M. Solow of MIT, and James Tobin of Yale University and the
1,060 economists from around the country who came forward with a joint
statement to condemn the proposed constitutional amendment.
Finally, I thank the Senate staff for its dedication and
professionalism during the debate on this proposed constitutional
amendment: Larry Sein and Jonathan Adelstein from Senator Daschle's
staff; James English and Peter Kiefhaber from Senator Byrd's staff;
Caroline Chambers and Jeremy Bates from Senator Dorgan's staff; Michael
Myers and Melody Barnes from Senator Kennedy's staff; Kevin Cronin from
Senator Feinstein's staff; Sumner Slichter and Michael O'Leary from
Senator Feingold's staff; Tom Faletti from Senator Durbin's staff; Eric
Shuffler from Senator Torricelli's staff; Jim Ryan from Senator Reid's
staff; Bill Dauster and Jodi Grant from Senator Lautenberg's staff; and
Julie Kehrli and Carlos Angulo from Senator Sarbanes' staff. From
Senator Hatch's staff, I would like to thank Manus Cooney, Sharon
Prost, Shawn Bentley, Paul Larkin, Larry Block, Steve Tepp, and Troy
Dow. I was assisted, in particular, by Ed Pagano and Michael Carrasco.
As in so much that I do, my counsel Bruce Cohen was indispensable.
This effort would not have been successful, however, without the
attention and efforts of hundreds and thousands of concerned Americans
who want to balance the budget while preserving the Constitution and
the guarantees that it provides. Their calls and letters made the
difference. This is their victory.

____________________