[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:

       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 the 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 the 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

[[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.

                          ____________________