[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 19 (Monday, February 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope every senior citizen and every 
disabled American was listening to the presentation made by the Senator 
from Utah and the Senator from Arizona.
  The Reid balanced budget amendment balances the budget, but not on 
the backs of senior citizens. I also think the American public who 
listened to the presentation of the Senator from Utah could recognize 
that this is legal mumbo jumbo, his amendment better than any 
amendment. I am going to give you a lawyer's interpretation of why.
  The American people do not need lawyers telling them what is right. 
The Reid amendment allows the balanced budget to take place, but not on 
the backs of senior citizens. It allows a balanced budget to be treated 
as States are treated, where you protect the pensioners and you allow 
capital construction. It is as simple as that, just like States are 
handled. Just like the State of Utah, just like the State of Arizona, 
just like the State of Connecticut, just like all of the States of the 
country, we have an operating budget and a capital budget. No legal 
mumbo jumbo will take away from the basic tenets of my amendment.
  The Senator from Utah complains that my amendment allows Congress to 
delegate the power to order across-the-board cuts to a congressional 
officer. The Senator from Utah is correct when he says that this 
provision is intended to overrule the decision in Boucher versus Synar. 
The Reid amendment would allow Congress to provide by law that a 
neutral third party, the Comptroller General of the United States, 
could referee across the board. This is the same compromise Congress 
embraced in the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, of which the Senator 
from Utah was one of the major proponents.
  The Senator from Utah and the Senator from Arizona complain that my 
amendment delegates powers to an unelected official, the Director of 
CBO, to make economic determinations. The point of this provision is to 
provide that a nonpartisan, unelected official could make this 
determination. That seems totally reasonable.
  But I find it amazing that the Senators from Utah and Arizona 
complained of ceding power to unelected officials.
  In testimony before the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committees, 
respected constitutional scholars testified that the Simon amendment 
granted the President increased impoundment powers. Section 5 of my 
amendment ensures that this will not happen under my amendment.
  You see, Mr. President, my amendment preserves what the framers of 
our Constitution wanted. They wanted separate but equal branches of 
Government. The Simon amendment makes them unequal and gives all the 
power to the President.
  Now, the Senator from West Virginia and the President pro tempore of 
the Senate has lectured long--11 lectures, each an hour long--talking 
about what happened in Rome when the legislative branch gave up its 
power to the executive branch.
  We are not only going to do it, we are going to do it here in the 
Simon amendment by constitutional amendment. Ridiculous.
  If the Simon amendment passes, some minor bureaucrat, or plural, 
bureaucrats, in the bowels of OMB will be making the decision about 
where cuts will be made. Talk about delegating power to unelected 
officials. They have just won the Olympics.
  They talk about their constitutional amendment. Which one? The one 
that has been floating around for 4 years or the one we are going to 
vote on now that they were forced to amend last week? Which 
constitutional amendment is theirs? Is it the one that has been around 
for 4 years or is it their new one?
  Each one of us, Mr. President, is a politician. But politics, you 
see, is not everything. All of us are loyal to a party, but each has a 
much higher loyalty. It is to that better angel that I wish to appeal 
today.
  The time has come to forget party, forget self, forget all the narrow 
sexual and political interests that divide us. The time has come to 
remember instead that we are united by our duty which lies to our 
country.
  Mr. President, I think that every Member of this body knows that the 
amendment written by Senator Simon will not pass. I have to tell each 
one listening that as much as I respect its author and his goals, it 
should not pass in that form.
  The Senator from Utah categorized those supporting the Reid amendment 
with various names. I do not intend in this body to in any way 
denigrate those who are proponents of the Simon amendment, but we know, 
and I read into the Record at length on Friday what newspapers across 
this country call the Simon amendment. The Baltimore Sun, for example, 
calls it a ``Hoary Old Hoax.'' Others call it a phony.
  These are not names I dreamed up. These are names that newspapers 
categorized.
  I know that it is not the goal of Senator Simon and my friends on the 
other side who support his amendment to bring this Nation to an 
economic crash unequaled by anything since 1929. I know it is not their 
goal to leave this Nation's senior citizens, its disabled, its widows 
and orphans lying ill-fed and freezing in our streets. I know it is not 
their goal to allow this Nation's transportation system, this Nation's 
whole infrastructure to deteriorate to a point where trains could have 
no tracks on which to run, trucks could have no highways on which to 
ride and airplanes no runways on which to land and citizens no building 
in which to conduct the Nation's business.
  I know that is not their goal, but they know that would be the end 
result of this so-called Simon balanced budget amendment which took no 
account of capital spending and Social Security. I think it says reams 
that the Senator from Utah talked a lot about legalities, legal 
complications. I remember when I tried cases. Usually lawyers did that 
when the facts did not support their case. They talked a lot of legal 
gobbledygook when the facts did not support their case. That is why I 
asked the senior citizens and disabled in this country to hone in on 
what the Senator from Utah said because he did not mention Social 
Security, which would be devastated as a result of the Simon amendment.
  Secretary Shalala testified if all programs were reduced across the 
board, the Simon amendment would require $52 billion in cuts to Social 
Security. Need I say more? Social Security is self-funded. Employers 
and employees pay into that fund. It is a separate trust fund.
  They know the result, Mr. President, and they know that as a 
consequence, there is enough common sense, enough fiscal sense to keep 
the Simon amendment from passing. They also know, as do I and every 
Member of this body, that we must reduce the Federal deficit. There are 
programs which will have to go, and not just wasteful or inefficient 
ones. Everyone in this body would like to find waste in spending. 
Certainly it exists. We must seek it out and attempt to kill it. Such 
spending is a small portion of what we expend every year. It has fallen 
to us rather to choose between the good which must fail and the good 
which may survive.
  We face not just in 2001 but right now any number of hard choices, 
and to paraphrase a maxim I learned in school, ``Hard choices make bad 
laws.'' Indeed, they do.
  Originally, perhaps, our Federal system was mostly devoted to defense 
and foreign policy. Mr. President, I think we can agree that there are 
certain functions which have been assumed by this Federal Government 
since the 1930's which the people and the States do not want us to 
forsake. I think we can, I think we do agree that those functions must 
certainly include Social Security and the maintenance of the 
transportation system, including airports, canals, and more, which has 
been and which remain essential to this Nation's continued prosperity.
  We agree on those points and yet we continue to disagree on the 
amendment offered. Why is that? I suspect that many of those who will 
not compromise on this issue, who say they wanted all or nothing take 
that position because they know that nothing is what they will get and 
nothing really is what they want. They do not really want a balanced 
budget amendment passed. They want to be able to say they went home and 
voted for a balanced budget amendment.
  The Senator from Utah recognizes that the best defense is a good 
offense. So rather than trying to talk about the qualities of both 
amendments, all he can do is tend with his legal mumbo jumbo to confuse 
the issue. The fact of the matter is, I believe many people who are 
supporting the Simon amendment do not want anything to pass. They want 
to be able to go home and say they voted for a balanced budget 
amendment. They do not want this body to face the hard choices the Reid 
amendment would entail. They want to be able to say they would face 
them but for the Senators' votes.
  Remember, my amendment makes it doable. It makes it doable. Instead 
of taking responsibility for what they want, they want others to take 
the blame.
  My fellow Senators in both parties, for the sake of our Nation, for 
the sake of prosperity, and for the sake of our oaths and, really, our 
honor, I beg you to listen to reason. I proposed a workable, realistic 
balanced budget amendment, one which would pass this body and easily 
pass the other body and be ratified by the States. The Simon amendment 
is not going to pass here, but if it did, it would not pass the other 
body and I doubt seriously it would pass the States. But mine would 
because the States would be faced with a constitutional amendment that 
would parrot and follow what they have to do every year: A reasonable 
way to getting this country's fiscal house in order.
  Unless you vote for this, the Reid amendment, this debate will 
produce nothing except self-serving speeches, and this Nation will have 
received nothing except empty promises. If you really believe, if you 
really care, if you are really willing to face the hard choices, which 
is our duty to make, then I ask you to join me and support my 
amendment.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Will the Senator yield? I want to correct the Record. 
I made a reference that the Senator from Nevada voted for the 1986 
balanced budget amendment. That is incorrect. He had just been elected 
to the Senate. I apologize for that.
  Mr. REID. I recognized it did not happen, so I was not going to 
correct it.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the power of the purse is no accident, and 
its inclusion in the Constitution of the United States is not there by 
chance. The British constitution, which is an unwritten constitution, 
except for certain documents and statutes and cases in the common law 
courts, is the archetype of the United States Constitution which is the 
oldest written successful constitution in the world.
  Montesquieu knew about the English struggle, the struggle of our 
English forebears to wrest from the monarch the power of the purse and 
to place it into the hands of the elected representatives of the people 
in Parliament, and particularly in the House of Commons.
  Last year, I spoke about the history of the Romans. I made 14 
speeches on the history of the Romans. I did that because Montesquieu 
was very much impressed by the Romans and by their system of 
Government, and it was from the Romans and the institutions of England 
that Montesquieu developed his political and philosophical system of 
separation of powers and checks and balances.
  He believed that the three major departments, the legislative, the 
executive, and the judicial, must be separated in order to preserve 
freedom and liberty.
  Now, Mr. President, I think it is important that we talk about the 
history of England and think, as we do so, as to how we came to have 
the United States Constitution which parallels in so many ways the 
Constitution of England.
  Mr. President, early in the current millennium there were various 
kingdoms and subkingdoms in England. Eventually, the seven main 
kingdoms formed a heptarchy. They were East Anglia, Mercia, Kent, 
Northumbria, Sussex, Wessex, and Essex, and from time to time one or 
the other of these kingdoms would gain the predominance over the rest 
of the kingdoms. It was during the reign of Egbert, who reigned from 
802 to 839, that Wessex achieved domination over all of the other 
kingdoms, and it was under the reign of Edward the Elder when all of 
England was considered to be one kingdom.
  Now, let me begin by stating the names of the kings, the monarchs of 
English history beginning with the Anglo-Saxon and British kings, and 
the first one I have been able to trace in an unbroken line was--and 
these will be spelled differently from the phonetic sound or 
pronunciation of the name--Cerdic, who reigned from 519 to 534; Cynric, 
534 to 560; Ceawlin, 560 to 591; Ceolric, 591 to 597; Ceolwulf, 597 to 
611; Cynegils, 611 to 643; Cenwalh, 643 to 645.
  There was an Interregnum from 645 to 648. Then, Cenwalh was king 
again from 648 to 672; 672 to 673 was under the monarchy of Cenwalh's 
wife, Seaxburg; 674 to 676, Escwine; 676 to 685, Centwine; 685 to 688, 
Caedwalla; 688 to 726, Ine; 726 to 740, Ethelheard; 740 to 756, 
Cuthred; 756 to 757, Sigeberht; 757 to 786, Cynewulf; 786 to 802, 
Beorhtric; 802 to 839, Egbert; 839 to 855, Ethelwulf; 855 to 860, 
Ethebald; 860 to 866, Ethelberht; 866 to 871, Ethelred I; 871 to 899, 
Alfred; 899 to 924, Edward the Elder; 924 to 939, Ethelstan; 939 to 
946, Edmund; 946 to 955, Edred; 955 to 959, Edwig, and 959 to 975, 
Edgar the Peaceful; 975 to 978, Edward the Martyr; 978 to 1016, 
Ethelred II, or Ethelred ``the redeless;'' 1016, Edmund Ironside, the 
son of Ethelred; and 1016 to 1035, Cnut; 1037 to 1040 was Harold 
Harefoot. He was the illegitimate son of Cnut.
  Then 1040 to 1042 was Harthacnut, who was the legitimate son of Cnut. 
He reigned from 1040 to 1042, and we are told that he died ``while 
standing at his drink.'' He was under 24 years of age when he died.
  Beginning on Easter Sunday, 1043, Edward the Confessor reigned until 
January 5, 1066.
  Then on January 6, 1066, Harold II, son of Godwin, became king, and 
he reigned until the Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066.
  William the Conqueror took office on Christmas Day, 1066. He reigned 
from 1066 to 1087. William II, or William Rufus, 1087 to 1100. Then 
Henry I, 1100 to 1135; Stephen, 1135 to 1154; Henry II, 1154 to 1189; 
Richard I, Richard the Lionhearted from 1189 to 1199; John from 1199 to 
1216; Henry III, 1216 to 1272; Edward I, 1272 to 1307; Edward II, 1307 
to 1327; Edward III from 1327 to 1377; Richard II from 1377 to 1399; 
and Henry IV of Lancaster from 1399 to 1413. Then, Henry V, 1413 to 
1422; Henry VI, from 1422 to 1461; Edward IV, 1461 to 1483; and Edward 
V, also in 1483. He was the son of Edward IV, and was murdered in the 
tower by his uncle, Richard III. And along with Edward V, his younger 
brother, the Duke of York, was also murdered in the tower. Richard III 
had the two boys murdered.
  Then Richard III reigned from 1483 to 1485. He was killed at the 
Battle of Bosworth Field on August 22, 1485. Henry (Tudor) VII fought 
in that battle against Richard III. And that battle ended the 30 years 
of war that we know of as the Wars of the Roses.
  Then from 1485 to 1509, Henry VII reigned; Henry VIII reigned from 
1509 to 1547. Henry VIII had six wives: Catherine of Aragon, Anne 
Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, and Catherine 
Parr.
  Following Henry VIII's death in 1547, Edward VI reigned from 1547 to 
1553. He was the son of Jane Seymour. And then from 1553 to 1558, Mary, 
Bloody Mary, who was the daughter of Catherine of Aragon reigned. 
Elizabeth, the daughter of Anne Boleyn, reigned from 1558 to 1603; 
James I of England--he was also James VI of Scotland--reigned from 1603 
to 1625. Charles I, his son, reigned from 1625 to 1649.
  There was an Interregnum from 1649 to 1660, during which Oliver 
Cromwell ruled. In 1660 came the Restoration.
  Charles II reigned from 1660 to 1685. James II reigned from 1685 to 
1688. William of Orange, after he was crowned, jointly with Mary, was 
known as William III. They reigned from 1689 to 1702. Mary's sister, 
Anne, reigned from 1702 to 1714. Then George I, 1714 to 1727; George 
II, 1727 to 1760; George III from 1760 to 1820; George IV from 1820 to 
1830; William IV from 1830 to 1837; Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901; 
Edward VII ruled from 1901 to 1910, and George V reigned from 1910 to 
1936; in 1936, Edward VIII abdicated the crown with the title of Duke 
of Windsor. I remember that very well, 1936. Then from 1936 to 1952, 
George VI reigned. From 1952 to the present time, Elizabeth II has been 
the English monarch.
  Now, Mr. President, I would like now to trace, if I can, the 
development of Parliament and along with it talk about some English 
history.
  Parliament had its roots in the Witenagemote of the Anglo-Saxon 
period.
  The Witenagemote, the small gemots and folkmoots, the magnum 
concilium, and the curia regis, all of these were the base from which 
Parliament in later centuries came into being.
  The Witenagemote was the King's Council. It was made up of the 
important men of the realm, the earls, the sheriffs, the thanes, the 
bishops, the abbots, and it advised the king in matters of war, shared 
with him in matters of the taxation, in dealing with foreign 
governments, and matters involving the military, and so on.
  It was based on the importance of the individuals. It chose the king. 
A smaller council within this larger council was called the Witan. It 
was made up of members of the king's household, some of the more 
important officials, and it was in constant attendance upon the king. 
The king could not disregard the Witan or the Witenagemote. The 
Witenagemote chose the king, usually on the basis of his being 
hereditary and in the line of the family.
  When William I, William the Bastard, who was the son of Robert the 
Devil, the Duke of Normandy, defeated Harold II at the Battle of 
Hastings on Senlac Hill in 1066, William I brought feudalism to 
England, which he implanted on the old Anglo-Saxon institutions.
  There had been some great kings among the Anglo-Saxons. Alfred, 871-
899, was a great king. He was educated, and he fostered a love for the 
arts and education. And he was one of the four brothers who were the 
sons of Ethelwulf, the four brothers being Ethelbald, Ethelberht, 
Ethelred I, and Alfred. Edmund, who was the son of Ethelstan, was 
killed by a thief in his own banquet hall. Edward the Martyr was killed 
by those who wanted to see Ethelred II have the crown. Edward the 
Martyr was treacherously murdered by the supporters of Ethelred II.
  Cnut was the son of Sweyn ``Forkbeard'' of Denmark. And Cnut took to 
himself a temporary wife, Elfgifu. She was the daughter of the Earl of 
Northumbria, and to him and Elfgifu was born an illegitimate son, 
Harold Harefoot.
  Cnut then married Emma, the widow of Ethelred II, and to them was 
born Harthacnut. When Cnut died in 1035 there was a brief Interregnum 
to 1037. Then Harold was made king and ruled to 1040. Harthacnut, the 
legitimate son of Cnut, then ruled until 1042. Edward the Confessor, as 
I have already indicated, reigned from Easter day 1043 to January 5, 
1066.
  Edward the Confessor married the daughter of the Earl of Godwin. 
Edward the Confessor was the son of Ethelred and Emma. When Edward the 
Confessor died on January 5, 1066, Harold II, son of Godwin, became 
king the next day. He only reigned from January to October. He fought 
his brother, Tostig, at the battle of Stamford Bridge on September 25, 
1066.
  At the battle of Stamford Bridge, Tostig had joined forces with 
Harold Hardrada, King of Norway. Both of them were killed in that 
battle of September 25. Harold was victorious. But at that time, he had 
heard that William the Conqueror had invaded the southern part of 
England--and they fought a terrible battle on October 1066. Harold was 
killed in that battle.
  William the Conqueror, William I, became king. He was a Norman, and 
came to England and implanted feudalism. Under feudalism the important 
criterion was based on land holding.
  The old Witenagemote, the King's Council, now became the Magnum 
Concilium, the Great Council. And what originally was the witan, the 
smaller council within the Witenagemote, now became the Curia Regis, a 
smaller council within the Great Council, the Magnum Concilium.
  The membership of the Curia Regis, depended not upon the greatness 
nor the importance of the individual, as was the case in the 
Witenagemote. Land holding was the important criterion, under the 
Magnum Concilium and the Curia Regis.
  The Magnum Concilium was expected to meet about three times a year. 
The Curia Regis that constantly attended the King, followed him 
wherever he went. It was made up of the chamberlain, the justiciar, the 
constable, the chancellor, and other household officers, such as the 
butler and the royal steward. The chancellor was the King's secretary.
  William I died from a fall from a horse. William II was a cruel king, 
and reigned from 1087 to 1100, at which time he was killed in a hunting 
accident.
  Henry, who was in the hunting party, immediately made off and seized 
the treasury, and made himself king.
  Henry I reigned from 1100 to 1135. Under Henry I, the system of 
itinerant justices began. Itinerant justices out of the Curia Regis, 
would go into the various hundreds of shires and villages, which were 
administrative units, and hold court.
  William I had brought the accusing jury, the sworn inquest from the 
continent. Henry I also used the accusing jury. As time went on, the 
King's court consisted of a jury, and the King's justices from the 
Curia Regis. A case could be taken from the shire court or from the 
hundred court, and brought into the King's court by a writ for a fee. 
Writs were used to command that the case be brought before the King's 
court. There was a different writ for each kind of action.
  Henry II, who reigned from 1154 to 1189, was a great king. The petit 
jury became a formal part of the King's court, and offered a 
satisfactory instrument for settling civil and criminal cases. Henry II 
increased the number of itinerant justices. He increased the number of 
writs. He enlarged upon the court of exchequer which had originated 
under Henry I, and which was an outgrowth of the Curia Regis. The 
exchequer court audited the fees, fines, and the revenues collected by 
the sheriffs on behalf of the King. The exchequer court was probably 
called the exchequer court because of the checkered cloth that covered 
the table of accounts.
  Also, Henry II created what was to become the court of common pleas. 
He created this court from the selection of five barons who were 
permanent members of the Curia Regis. And those five barons sat at 
Westminster the year round, and decided cases that were brought into 
the court of common pleas.

  Richard I, who reigned from 1189 to 1199, Richard the Lion-Hearted, 
busied himself in the Crusades and fought in the Holy Land. As a matter 
of fact, he was on the way back from one of the Crusades in 1192, when 
he was arrested and imprisoned by the Duke of Austria. Richard I was 
ransomed in 1194 by the payment of a ransom, which came from a tax 
levied upon the people of England.
  In 1199, Richard I was killed while making war in France. John became 
King. We remember John mostly by the Magna Carta, which was signed by 
him on the banks of the Thames on June 15, 1215, where he was forced by 
the barons to attach his signature.
  There were 63 clauses in the Magna Carta. These clauses did not 
express any abstract principles; they righted wrongs. They were in 
simple language, language the common people could understand. The Magna 
Carta was the great charter of English liberty. It was reconfirmed in 
1216 and 1217, and became a statute in 1297 when Edward I confirmed the 
charters.
  The Magna Carta, clause XII, provided that there would be no aids, no 
taxes without their having the common consent of the realm--the common 
counsel, I believe, are the exact words--the common counsel of the 
kingdom.
  Chapter XXXIX, which was probably one of the most important clauses, 
provided that no free man should be arrested, imprisoned, exiled, 
banished, dispossessed, or otherwise shorn of his standing except by 
the judgment of his peers and according to the law of the land. That 
``law of the land'' phrase was exceedingly important, because it came 
to be the ``due process'' clause in the fifth amendment of our own 
Constitution and the 14th amendment. Also, as I have mentioned, clause 
XII is very important as we trace the developments in the power of the 
purse, and its being placed into the hands of the commons, the elected 
representatives of the people of England, and into our own legislative 
branch here in Congress.
  Henry IV became King of England as a result of his having been made 
King by Parliament. He reigned from 1399 to 1413. He was the first of 
the Lancastrian Kings, and the power of the purse and the liberties of 
the people of England progressed greatly during the reign of Henry IV 
and the other Lancastrian kings.
  Edward I has been called ``The Father of Parliament.'' Under Edward 
I, Parliament began to take its form--not in its intricate details, a 
form that remained fluid for several years. Edward I summoned the 
``Model Parliament'' in 1295. There had been some rudimentary 
Parliaments summoned earlier. King John had summoned a conference at 
St. Albans in 1213, and Queen Eleanor and the Earl of Cornwall had 
summoned a conference in 1254.
  At King John's conference, there were four knights elected from each 
county. At Queen Eleanor's conference in 1254, there were two knights 
from each county. In 1264, Simon de Montfort called a conference, which 
was to take place in 1265. He instructed the sheriffs to bring to that 
conference two knights from each county, two citizens from each city, 
and two burgesses from each borough.
  In 1295, Edward I held what was known as ``the Model Parliament.'' He 
invited two knights from each shire, two citizens from each city, and 
two burgesses from each borough. He invited the moneyed class, the 
business and commercial interests, the merchants. The King wanted 
money, so he called all branches of society who were in a position to 
supply it. He included the town and rural middle class.
  In 1297, he needed moneys for his wars, and he asked Parliament for 
money. Before the Parliament would grant him the moneys he desired, 
they drew up the Confirmation of the Charters, which incorporated the 
Magna Carta, the Charter of the Forest, and other charters, and he 
signed that Confirmation of the Charters in 1297.
  Then Parliament gave him his money. In the Confirmation of the 
Charters, the king agreed that henceforth there would be no taxes 
granted except by the common consent of the kingdom.
  This was significant for two reasons in particular. One, it meant 
that in the future, Parliament would have to be convened if there was 
going to be any discussion of nonfeudal taxes, and all elements of 
society would be included, and it also was significant for the reason 
that henceforth Parliament would use the power of the purse to redress 
grievances and exact concessions from the king. That was a real 
milestone on the way to the full achievement of English liberty.
  Edward II, who reigned from 1307 to 1327, was deposed by Parliament, 
one of the reasons being that he had misappropriated moneys that had 
been granted him by Parliament.
  Great strides were made in the development of Parliament and in the 
power of the purse during the reign of Edward III. Edward III reigned 
from 1327 to 1377. The Hundred Years War was begun during his reign. He 
declared war on France in 1337. It lasted 116 years, to 1453, although 
called the Hundred Years War. Edward III repeatedly had to ask 
Parliament for moneys to carry on his war with France.
  Parliament learned that it could effectively use this power of the 
purse to exact concessions from the crown, and to bring about a redress 
of grievances, and it used this power of the purse very effectively. 
Money talks. Parliament found that out.
  During the reign of Edward III, the ``Good Parliament'' convened in 
1376. It was during the ``Good Parliament'' that Parliament discovered 
a particularly effective weapon with which to bring the ministers of 
the King into submission. Richard Lyons, who was a customs officer and 
merchant, was impeached, along with other officers for having misused 
their offices. The weapon of impeachment was used effectively by 
Parliament in subsequent centuries.
  In 1377 the first Speaker, so-called, of the House of Commons was 
named. He was Sir Thomas Hungerford. Another very important thing 
happened in the early part of Edward III's reign. Parliament, which had 
met in the Parliament chamber for several years, continued to meet in 
the Parliament chamber, but the knights and burgesses separated off 
from the hereditary Members of the Parliament. The knights and 
burgesses met in the precincts of Westminster Abbey. They would all 
meet together at the beginning of the session of Parliament, but then 
afterwards they separated, the knights and burgesses to meet in 
Westminster Abbey, and the Parliament or what later became the House of 
Lords continued to meet in the Parliament chamber.
  They would meet separately and debate the questions and make their 
decisions separately, and then they would come back into the Parliament 
as they made their final debate and cast their votes. This was very 
important. This was about 1339 to 1341. Certainly, in the early 1340's, 
the Commons became separate from the Lords. As a matter of fact, it was 
in 1340 that the first appropriations were made by Commons, the first 
distinct instance of appropriations ``made by Commons with the assent 
of the Lords.'' They were made first by what we would call the lower 
House.
  In 1407, Henry IV sought to initiate revenues in the House of Lords. 
The House of Commons resisted and said that this would be in derogation 
of their privileges and their liberties. Therefore, Henry IV, in 1407, 
in the presence of both bodies, the Commons and the Lords, said that 
henceforth--henceforth--appropriations would be made, taxes would be 
made by Commons with the assent of the Lords.
  From time to time this procedure was challenged. In 1552, during the 
reign of Edward VI, son of Henry VIII, the Lords passed a bill dealing 
with the treasurer. The Commons resented this, and said that they had, 
through custom, the power to initiate revenue bills.
  They agreed with every detail that was in the bill; they agreed with 
the substance that was in the bill that had been passed by the Lords. 
But just to show that they were not going to ever have revenue bills 
begin in the House of Lords, they passed an entirely new bill 
containing the same substance, the same details as the bill that had 
come down to them from the House of Lords.
  Under the Lancastrian's, as I said a little earlier, the Commons made 
great progress in developing the powers of the purse and vesting that 
power in Parliament.
  Under the Tudors, Parliament did not fare so well. Henry VIII would 
seize church lands and sell them in order to avoid calling Parliament 
into session and asking for money. Elizabeth was very popular, so 
during the reign of the Tudors, Parliament did not fare too well. 
Elizabeth died in 1603 and James I of England became King.
  James I believed in the divinity of Kings. He maintained that the 
King was the deputy of the Lord and that to be disobedient to the King 
was a sin because it was being disobedient to the Lord. He therefore 
made the claim that members of Parliament had no rights except rights 
that were accorded to them by the King. He said that they had been 
debating and meddling in matters that were beyond their scope, beyond 
their capability, and that he, the King, could punish them for 
misdemeanors as much while they were sitting as after the session was 
over.
  The members of Parliament were very incensed about this and so they 
drew up what is known as the Apology of the Commons. They presented it 
to James. In the Apology of the Commons, they asserted that they, as 
members of Parliament, had all the rights and liberties that had been 
customary in England for centuries. That they had a right to debate 
matters of state and they would do so. They said that the voice of the 
people is as the voice of God. Vox populi, vox Dei.
  In 1614, James dissolved Parliament, and Parliament did not meet 
again for 7 years--from 1614 to 1621.
  James had had his problems with Parliament. He was a very arrogant 
monarch. He had arrested Sir Thomas Shirley and imprisoned him for 
debt. Parliament insisted that members of Parliament, while in session 
and on the way thereto and on the way therefrom, were privileged from 
arrest for civil causes. This was a prolonged argument. But finally 
James acceded to the position of Parliament and agreed that members of 
Parliament had freedom from arrest.
  Also, there was a disputed election in 1604 between Sir Francis 
Goodwin and Sir John Fortescue. The King favored the election of 
Fortescue. Parliament decided that Goodwin had won the election. 
Finally, after a great deal of back and forth arguments, King James 
acceded to the rights of Parliament to determine the qualifications, 
returns, and elections of its own members. Never again was that right 
challenged.
  James dissolved Parliament in 1614 and it never met until 1621. When 
it met, of course, the Parliament wanted to discuss the grievances and 
James wanted money. He was very hard up for money. But Parliament 
insisted on discussing the grievances which had occurred throughout the 
past 7 years.
  Sir Edward Coke had his old enemy, the Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon, 
impeached. Bacon was found guilty of taking bribes and was sent to the 
tower.
  The members of Parliament presented to the King what is known as the 
Great Protestation, in which they stated that they had inherited the 
rights of Englishmen from time immemorial and that they had a perfect 
right to debate matters of state; they had a right to freedom of 
speech, which, as far back as Henry IV, in 1407, had acceded to. Henry 
IV, in 1407, had agreed that members of Commons and the House of Lords 
were free to speak their minds in Parliament and were not to be 
questioned in any other court or place.
  Well, a few days later, James, in privy council, tore out the pages--
tore the pages of the Great Protestation out of the journal after 
Parliament had been adjourned.
  James died in 1625. His son, Charles I, succeeded him, and of course 
Charles I believed strongly also in the divine right of kings, and he 
and Parliament became embroiled immediately in their arguments.
  In 1628 Parliament drew up a Petition of Right, and in that petition, 
Parliament stated that arbitrary imprisonment should cease, arbitrary 
taxation should cease, and it set forth certain other liberties that 
had been infringed on. And the Petition of Right is considered another 
great milestone, along with the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.
  In 1629, Charles ordered an adjournment of Parliament from March 2 to 
March 10. When the Speaker started to carry out the order of the King, 
the Speaker was seized and held in his chair. And the doors of the 
House of Commons were locked and three resolutions were passed quickly 
putting the grievances of the Commons on record, after which the doors 
were opened and the King's messengers were allowed to enter to get to 
take the mace. On March 10, Charles dissolved Parliament. Parliament 
did not meet from 1629 to 1640.
  In the meantime, Charles brought back the Lord Deputy of Ireland, Sir 
Thomas Wentworth--Black ``Tom Tyrant.'' Thomas Wentworth believed in 
using ruthless policies. He used ruthless, dictatorial policies in 
oppressing and suppressing the Irish. He had long ago ceased to support 
Parliament. He believed in using tyrannical methods in dealing with 
people.
  He advised Charles I that--inasmuch as the Irish rebellion continued 
and the Scots had moved into some of the northern counties of England, 
Wentworth, who had been given the title Earl of Strafford by Charles I, 
advised Charles to call Parliament into session and take action to 
raise moneys and so on and drive the Scots out of England. Strafford 
advised Charles I that the people of England were anti-Scottish anyhow 
and that they would support the King in moving against the Scots. But 
as a matter of fact, the Scots stayed in the northern counties and the 
people of England applauded the Scots because they did not like Charles 
I. The English reaction was not as Strafford had hoped.
  So, in 1640 when Parliament met, because Charles had pawned the crown 
jewels and sold the crown lands and had exhausted every means of 
raising funds, nonparliamentary funds--he had put the country into 
debt--so he finally, finally had to call Parliament back in session.
  Parliament was not in a mood to give Charles funds. It immediately 
took action against Charles' ministers. The Commons had Strafford 
arrested and brought him before the House of Lords but there was no 
evidence of treason to support an impeachment. Therefore, Commons, 
instead of being able to proceed with the impeachment and having the 
Lords convict Strafford, resorted to an act of attainder which needed 
no evidence of guilt but merely condemned the accused to death.
  Charles I had promised Strafford that he, Charles I, would not see 
him, Strafford, die; that he would save him, he would stand by him. But 
Charles I, out of fear for himself and his family, signed the death 
warrant and, on May 12, 1641, Strafford was beheaded on Tower Hill 
before a crowd of 200,000 people.
  The next year, on January 4, 1642, Charles came down to Parliament 
with 400 swordsmen and entered the House of Commons, intending to 
arrest John Pym and John Hampden and three other leaders. But they had 
heard he was coming and had left, having escaped on the River Thames.
  Charles and his 400 swordsmen, of course, were met with cries of 
protest and they walked out. This was on January 4, 1642. Matters went 
from bad to worse. And on August 22, 1642, Charles unfurled the royal 
standard on the meadows of Nottingham. The civil war was on.
  London, with 500,000 people, and the south and east of England went 
over to Parliament's side. The navy went over to the side of 
Parliament. Charles had strength in the northern and western counties 
among the well-to-do, the large land holders. The Battle of Marston 
Moor was fought on July 2, 1644, and, as a result of that battle, 
Charles lost all of the northern counties of England. The next year, in 
June 1645, Charles' main army was defeated by Cromwell and Fairfax at 
the Battle of Naseby.
  On January 6, 1649, Parliament created a high court of justice to try 
Charles I of England for treason. The court found Charles guilty of 
being a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer, and a public enemy to the good 
people of England and declared that his head should be severed from his 
body. On January 30, just 24 days later, Charles was beheaded in front 
of his palace at Whitehall.
  There was an Interregnum from 1649 to 1660. Oliver Cromwell and the 
army pretty much took over. England was declared a commonwealth, and 
the monarchy and the House of Lords were abolished. In 1654, the army 
wrote a constitution called the Instrument of Government. It declared 
England a protectorate and Cromwell, who had rejected the offer of the 
title of King, was named Lord Protectorate.
  Cromwell died in 1658. His son Richard tried to carry on Oliver 
Cromwell's policies, but Richard was a weak man and was very 
unsuccessful. In 1660, General George Monk, who was commander of the 
British occupation forces in Scotland, came down from Edinburgh and 
took over London and declared for a free Parliament. A free Parliament 
was elected and in 1660 declared that henceforth England should be 
ruled by Kings and Lords and Commons.
  Charles II, son of Charles I who had been on the continent, came back 
to Dover in 1660 and was crowned King. He reigned from 1660 to 1685, 
and it was during his reign in 1679 that the Habeas Corpus Act was 
enacted.
  Charles II died in 1685. His brother, James II, then became King. 
James was an arrogant, weak king, and the Whigs and the Tories invited 
William of Orange and his wife Mary to England to become the 
sovereigns. William of Orange was a grandson of Charles I and Mary was 
the daughter of James II.
  They reached England in November of 1688. In December, James II left 
England forever. He threw the great seal of England into the Thames 
River and took refuge in the court of Louis XIV of France, the Sun 
King.
  In January, the English Parliament drew up a Declaration of Rights 
and offered to make Mary and William of Orange joint sovereigns 
provided they accepted the Declaration of Rights.

  On February 13, 1689, they promised to comply with the Declaration 
and were crowned joint sovereigns. In that Declaration of Rights, which 
was in December of 1689 incorporated into a statute known as the Bill 
of Rights, William and Mary promised and acceded to certain demands set 
forth in that Declaration. Levying of money without grants of 
Parliament was proclaimed illegal, and trials by jury were assured. 
Freedom of speech in Parliament was guaranteed, and excessive fines and 
excessive bail were to end. The Bill of Rights, enacted in 1689, gave 
to Parliament and the people of England supremacy over the Crown.
  The Act of Settlement, which followed in 1701, was enacted to 
guarantee that the Stuart line would never again reign in England. And 
in the Act of Settlement, we find another very important provision, 
namely, that judges were to serve for life, not at the pleasure of the 
King. They could only be removed from office by the action of both 
Houses of Parliament upon proof of bad conduct.
  We have had a brief taste to quench our thirst for water from the 
fountain of English liberty, and we have noted some of the great 
milestones along the way in the form of the great documents--the Magna 
Carta, the Confirmation of the Charters, the Great Protestation, the 
Petition of Right, the Apology of the Commons, the Declaration of 
Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement.
  Let me now, Mr. President, touch upon some of the parallels between 
the English constitution and our own Constitution.
  The first parallel is that of bicameralism--bicameralism.
  Bicameralism, as we have noted, began in the 1340's when the knights 
and burgesses separated from the lords into a separate body, and we saw 
there the House of Commons emerge.
  Now, in our own Constitution, article I provides that, ``All 
legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the 
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of 
Representatives.''
  There in article I, section 1 is the bicameralism which grew out of 
the colonial experience and from the English experience.
  Article I, section 2 provides for the House of Representatives and 
how its Members will be elected based on population.
  Article I, section 3 speaks of the Senate and states that its Members 
will be selected by the State legislatures. At first they were not 
elected by the people. They were selected by the legislatures of the 
States.
  The seventeenth amendment providing for the election of Senators was 
ratified in 1913.
  We will recall that during the reign of Edward III in the year 1377, 
the first speaker so-called was selected for the House of Commons. His 
name was Thomas Hungerford.
  In article I, section 2 provision is made for an election of Speaker 
in the House of Representatives.
  Also, in article I, section 2, it is provided that Members of the 
House shall be inhabitants of the States in which they are chosen.
  Article I, section 3 says that Senators shall be inhabitants of 
States for which they are chosen.
  Now, from where did this come? Well, this came about in England as a 
result of the packing of Parliament by the kings. Sheriffs would 
announce as their nominees, knights who were not residents of the 
counties which they were to represent. Therefore, in 1413 legislation 
was passed by Parliament providing that the members of Parliament 
should reside in the areas that they were to represent, and that act 
was repeated in 1430 and again in 1445.
  Our Constitution therefore picked up on that.
  One of the things that we saw throughout English history was the 
proroguing, dissolving, adjourning of Parliament by the kings. We saw 
that, from 1614 to 1621, no Parliament met. We saw that from 1629 to 
1640, 11 years, Parliament did not meet.
  So the members of Parliament had no opportunity to voice their 
grievances. They had no opportunity to make the power of the purse 
work. And that was cured finally in the Bill of Rights, in 1689, which 
provided that Parliament would meet often. Article I, section 4 of our 
U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall meet annually. So we can 
see the parallel there.

  I spoke a little while ago about Sir Francis Goodwin and Sir John 
Fortescue, and the disputed election involving both men. We saw that 
the outcome was that Parliament won the dispute with King James I. He 
acceded to the position of Parliament that it had the right to be the 
judge of the returns, elections, and qualifications of its own members. 
That right was never again challenged.
  In our own Constitution, article I, section 5, gives each house of 
the Congress the right to judge the qualifications, elections and 
returns of its own members.
  In article I, section 6, Members of the Congress are protected 
against arrest on civil causes while Members are in session, while they 
are on their way to a session, or while they are on their way from a 
session. We traced that back earlier to the matter involving Sir Thomas 
Shirley, who was imprisoned for debt. James I had quite a prolonged 
disagreement with the Commons. But Commons prevailed.
  Article I, section 6, also provides that Members of the House and 
Senate have freedom of speech and debate in either House and shall not 
be questioned in any other place.
  We saw that in 1407, Henry IV acceded to that position on part of the 
Commons, and stated that members of both Houses should be free to speak 
their will. Moreover, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 specifically 
protected freedom of speech in Parliament.
  Article I, section 6, also provides that no person holding any civil 
office under authority of the United States may be a Member of the 
House or the Senate. Under article I, section 6, no Member of Congress 
may accept any office for which the emoluments have been increased 
during the term for which he was elected. That is a separation of 
powers matter, resulting from another parallel in British history, that 
being that the Kings would try to pack Parliaments with their 
favorites--Members of the House of Commons who drew pensions or other 
benefits from the Government. Parliament put a stop to that. And we 
find that provision in article I, section 6 of the Constitution.
  Article I, section 7, provides that bills be passed in both Houses 
and presented to the President. If he agrees to the bill, he signs it. 
If he disagrees, he may veto it. How did that come about?
  Prior to the 14th and 15th centuries, the King, sitting with the 
privy counsel, promulgated the law in the form of ordinances. Later, in 
the time of Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, the knights and burgesses 
presented petitions to the King even without the support of the nobles. 
The King and his ministers might incorporate those petitions into a 
statute. They might change this or that detail, or they might even do 
nothing.
  So the members of Commons, the middle class, the knights and 
burgesses, were able to have their views put into a petition. If the 
King accepted the petition, then he and his ministers would perhaps put 
it into a statute, often with some changes.
  In the time of Henry the IV, bills were substituted for petitions, so 
that the bill contained the statute in the form that the members of 
Parliament desired. When the King received the petition, it was in the 
form of a bill. He could no longer change it. The bill contained the 
statute.
  The bill carried the statute in the form that it was to become law. 
The Kings and their ministers could no longer make changes. The King 
either signed the bill in its entirety, or he could refuse to sign it. 
Therefore, in article I, section 7, we see that bills from the Congress 
go to the President, and he may sign each bill or he may veto it. He is 
not to change it. He has no line-item veto. He is to sign it or reject 
it in its entirety.
  In article I, section 9, we see the power of the purse. In article I, 
section 9: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
consequence of appropriations made by law.'' And this is the milk in 
the coconut, going back to the Magna Carta. As a matter of fact, the 
first rudimentary appropriation occurred in the reign of Ethelred II, 
978 to 1016, in the form of the Danegeld, which was a land tax, and was 
agreed to by the witenagemote. It had certain limitations, the 
limitations being that the tax was to be spent to deal with the 
requirements of the Danish invasion. It was not to be used to pay off 
the previous debts.

  So here was a rudimentary appropriation, which had conditions and 
limitations agreed upon by the witenagemote. By the time of Edward III, 
it was becoming customary to attach conditions to money grants.
  Article I, section 8 provides that Congress shall have power to levy 
and collect taxes. We have traced this power through the centuries. We 
saw it in clause XII of the Magna Carta. We saw it again in the 
Confirmation of the Charters in 1297 at the time of Edward I. We saw it 
in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, which made the Commons supreme 
over the King, because its power over the purse was secure.
  Article III, section 1 provides that judges shall hold office for 
life, and can be removed only for bad behavior. That parallel was found 
in the Act of Settlement in 1701, during the reign of William III--Mary 
had died--and, of course, that provision has come down to us from the 
English model.
  Article III, section 3 provides that no person shall be convicted of 
treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, 
or as a result of confession in open court. The English Treasons Act 
was enacted in 1696, and provided that no person should be indicted or 
tried for treason except upon the testimony of two lawful witnesses.
  Then, of course, the due process clause in the 5th and 14th 
amendments, as I say, really had its origination in the Magna Carta, 
paragraph 39, which said that no freeman should be dispossessed of his 
property, imprisoned, exiled, except by the judgment of his peers and 
``according to the law of the land.'' ``The law of the land,'' that 
phrase appeared from time to time in English history, and the words 
``due process'' in the U.S. Constitution can properly be said to have 
their basis in that phrase.
  The eighth amendment to the Constitution has to do with excessive 
bail and fines.
  The English Bill of Rights declared that there should be no excessive 
bail required and no excessive fines imposed, and we find that in our 
own amendment No. 8 to the United States Constitution. We are protected 
against excessive fines and excessive bail.
  Mr. President, we have been able to follow through the long course of 
the centuries the rights and freedoms and the guarantees of those 
rights and freedoms, long in the English Constitution. And we found 
that the central pillar of that English Constitution, like we found in 
the history of the Romans, was the power over the purse. When the Roman 
Senate gave away its power over the purse to the dictators and to the 
emperors, it gave away its power to check the executive.
  Therefore, we should be instructed by these histories--the history of 
the Romans and the history of the English peoples--that the power of 
the purse is the central strand in the whole cloth of Anglo-American 
liberty. I am somewhat proud to be of English and Scottish descent. I 
do not go around calling myself an Anglo-American. I think there are 
too many of these hyphenated Americans. We are all Americans. We were 
born in this country. I am an American, not an Anglo-American. I am an 
American.
  We should understand that the English model was the root of our own 
system and our Constitution. The colonial governments were built upon 
the English model. The English model of a bicameral legislature was 
translated to the colonies in the form of houses of representatives 
freely elected by the people, and upper houses or councils, the members 
of which were appointed by the Royal Governors.
  The power of the purse did not come to us by chance, and this is such 
a matter of importance that I am chagrined, really amazed, that so 
little attention is being given to the votes that will occur tomorrow, 
so little attention being given by the press--now and then there is a 
column or an editorial--so little attention being given by the Members 
of the two bodies, so little attention being given by the people. In 
the 1830's or 1840's or 1850's, the galleries would have been filled to 
overflowing by people from this city. The carriages would be a dozen 
deep waiting on the outside, carriages that brought interested citizens 
to listen to the debates. The papers would have been filled with 
stories about the balanced budget.
  I cannot conceive of Daniel Webster or Calhoun or Clay or Benton of 
Missouri, any of the great Senators of all time voting for a 
constitutional amendment on a balanced budget. They treasured too much 
this balance of powers and separation of powers, checks, and balances. 
They knew Plutarch, Polybius, Cicero, Demosthenes, Tacitus. They knew 
about classical Greece and classical Rome. They knew about Plato. They 
would never have supported a rape of the Constitution such as we see in 
this constitutional amendment on a balanced budget. They would have 
spoken out against it. And if we had had radios and televisions in 
those days of the 1800's, the airwaves would have been filled with 
protests because this would have been a matter of great moment to the 
people of the country. And it is a matter of great moment to the people 
of the country today. What are we talking about? The Olympics? What 
stories occupy the front pages? Certainly not the balanced budget.
  Let me just simply say that this is a vital matter in its outcome and 
effect on the children and grandchildren of all of us, and to all 
posterity to come. Once this power of the purse, once this Constitution 
has been amended to destroy the separation of powers and checks and 
balances, then we have destroyed our structure of government, we have 
destroyed a Constitution of over 200 years, and the legacy that we will 
hand on to our children will not be something for which they will rise 
up and call us blessed.
  Kipling wrote a bit of verse, ``The Reeds of Runnymede,'' Runnymede, 
where the great Charter was signed by King John in 1215:

     At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
     Your rights were won at Runnymede.
     No freeman shall be fined or bound,
       Or dispossessed of freehold ground,
     Except by lawful judgment found and passed upon him by his 
           peers!
     Forget not, after all these years,
       The charter signed at Runnymede.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time the Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Nevada, Senator Reid.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wonder if I could enter into a dialog with 
my friend from Utah and the President pro tempore of the Senate. I have 
some speakers that would like to come to the floor. I am wondering if 
we could arrange some time during the day so they do not have to come 
and wait around. Senator Feingold, for example, wants to come at 1:30 
for 15 minutes. Does the Senator have a speaker at that time?
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield, I am happy to accommodate the 
Senator. We have four right now who would like to speak, as well. I 
would be happy to alternate.
  Mr. REID. That would be fine.
  (Mr. DORGAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HATCH. Do you have anybody to speak right now?
  Mr. REID. I want to speak for just a few minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Senator Murkowski will be here at 1:15. I ask unanimous 
consent that when he arrives he be given an opportunity to speak.
  Mr. REID. How long does he wish to speak?
  Mr. HATCH. I believe he wants about 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Could I have Senator Feingold speak when Senator Murkowski 
finishes?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. REID. And then Senator Dorgan wishes to speak, and we will 
arrange that.
  Mr. HATCH. Senator Burns would like some time today, so I would ask 
him to get over as soon as he can. And Senator Durenberger would also 
like to speak. I would be happy to work in every way with my friend and 
colleague.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator
  I want to compliment the Senator from West Virginia, the President 
pro tempore, for his wide-ranging accounting of the history of the 
power of the purse. The encyclopedic memory of the Senator from West 
Virginia is truly a marvel.
  Senators and others listening, I am sure were aware that his speech 
dealing with history, including the reign of the British monarchs, was 
without notes, entirely from memory, including the spelling and the 
dates that they held office.
  I wish to compliment the Senator from West Virginia, as well, for his 
stalwart defense of the congressional power of the purse. As Senator 
Byrd has explained, the English-speaking world has vested power over 
taxing and spending primarily with the legislature since before the 
English civil war of the mid-1600's. This decision to lodge fiscal 
powers in the Government unit with ties close to the taxpayer resulted, 
in significant part, from the practical expedient that those 
legislators could most ably assess the ability of taxpayers to 
contribute.
  Shifting this power away from Congress would result in less 
representative democracy. And shifting the powers to the President and 
the courts is exactly what the Simon amendment would do.
  The Danforth amendment to the Simon amendment limits somewhat the 
involvement of the courts enforcing the constitutional amendment. But 
neither the Simon amendment nor the Danforth amendment to the Simon 
amendment limits the powers of the Executive.
  In contrast, section 5 of my amendment explicitly precludes a 
President from claiming new impounding powers. As a consequence, under 
the Simon amendment, the President who has taken an oath to uphold the 
Constitution will have taken an oath to enforce article 1 of the Simon 
amendment. That section says: ``Total outlays for any fiscal year shall 
not exceed total receipts for the fiscal year.''
  If late in the fiscal year, the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget feels the outlays are exceeding revenues, then, under the 
Simon amendment, the President will have the constitutional duty to 
impound funds to prevent a violation of the Constitution. Of course, 
the sad part about that is that the President will also have the 
pleasure of choosing which programs he wishes to cut in order to ensure 
that the Constitution is enforced.
  I say to Senators, especially those who represent small States by 
virtue of population: Which programs would he be most apt to cut? Of 
course, those that would affect small States.

  This power will significantly enhance the power of the President 
relative to the Congress.
  Earlier today, the senior Senator from Utah complained that my 
amendment would run contrary to the fifth amendment rights of due 
process because my amendment prohibits the courts and the President 
from enforcing the amendment. That says it all.
  But it is the Simon amendment, Mr. President, that will threaten the 
rights of American citizens.
  Let me read from the testimony of one constitutional expert, Louis 
Fisher, of the Congressional Research Service before the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. Fisher said:

       Mr. Chairman, you talked about the power of the purse, and 
     one thing that occurs to me that with the fall of the Soviet 
     Union my institution, CRS, is visited all the time by 
     countries in Eastern Europe, and Russia, and other countries. 
     And what they study when they come here and what they are so 
     impressed by is Congress as an institution. They marvel at 
     Congress, a coequal, independent body, capable of checking 
     the presidency, because they are used to a system in which 
     power is concentrated in the executive. . . . 
       And I would say that the power that makes Congress very 
     distinct, particularly from other parliamentary governments, 
     is the power of the purse.

  That is where our Founding Fathers deliberated and with this great 
ability did that to make our system of government very unique.
  Mr. Fisher went on to say:

       And the framers were so familiar to make sure that that 
     power was put in Congress to protect not just Congress as an 
     institution but to protect individual citizens. That is how 
     liberties are protected.
       I think if the balanced budget amendment were adopted as we 
     have said it would give the President new leverage over 
     impoundment and an item veto, moving money around, and that 
     would give the President leverage over you and other Members 
     because the President could use that not just in the 
     budgetary arena but everywhere.
       If the President wants a treaty passed, if he wants a 
     nomination to go through, if the President, as they all do, 
     has a special spending project that he wants, he can come and 
     tell you that there is something in your district that is on 
     the table to be canceled, my budget bureau is looking at it, 
     it looks as though we might have to ax it, but while I'm 
     talking to you I would like just to know what you are going 
     to do next week on the vote on that nominee or on the treaty 
     or spending package.
       And this is leverage that would be so destructive to 
     Congress as an institution, and if Congress is destroyed--I 
     think worldwide we know that an independent legislative 
     branch is a guarantee for individual liberty.
       Just another remark on this issue of respecting the 
     Constitution. I think in recent years we have gotten into the 
     habit of thinking that the court, particularly the Supreme 
     Court, is the guarantor of the Constitution. But I think you 
     know, if you look over the last 200 years, that all three 
     branches participate in that process. I would say in terms of 
     behavior Congress to my mind is at the top in protecting 
     rights and liberties and in respecting the Constitution.

  It is precisely to avoid this diminution of powers of the Congress at 
the expense of the executive branch that section 5 of my amendment 
provides that Congress and only Congress shall enforce the Reid 
amendment when it becomes part of our Constitution. The Simon amendment 
fails to protect against the power grab by the executive branch, and 
this is, in my opinion, a fatal, fatal flaw.
  Mr. HATCH. Once again Senator Reid argues that Simon/Hatch implicitly 
grants to the President authority to impound funds, to suspend the 
operation of spending measures, or to rescind earmarked funding 
measures.
  Admittedly, the law of Presidential impoundment is far from clear. 
However, the plain meaning and the structure of Senate Joint Resolution 
41, buttressed by its legislative history, indicate that the amendment 
does not grant to the President any additional authority, and, in fact, 
is intended only to circumscribe Congress' taxing, borrowing, and 
spending powers.
  Specifically, section 1 of Senate Joint Resolution 41 directs that 
outlays exceed receipts only if three-fifths of both Houses of Congress 
vote so provide. The only mention of the President is in section 3, 
which requires that the President submit a balanced budget to Congress 
for each fiscal year.
  This view is supported by the committee report and prior floor 
debates, which make it clear that the amendment grants to the President 
no new additional authority.
  Finally, section 6 of the BBA mandates that Congress promulgate 
enforcement legislation. This is a strong indication that Congress, and 
not the President, has the exclusive authority to establish a mechanism 
to ensure a balanced budget. The President's constitutional role is 
limited to enforcing that legislative mechanism.
  In any event, impoundment authority is probably irrelevant. Although 
the Supreme Court has not decided the issue whether the President 
possesses constitutionally inherent executive impoundment authority, it 
has held that the President may not impound funds when Congress 
mandates that the sums be spent. Kendall v. United States ex rel 
Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524 (1838). See State Highway Comm. v. Volpe, 
479 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1973); Nat'l Council of Community Health 
Centers, Inc. v. Weinberger, 361 F.Supp. 897, 900 (D.D.C. 1973).
  This implicitly supports the position that, even if the President 
possesses limited impoundment authority, Congress could protect its 
constitutional and institutional prerogatives by promulgating detailed 
enforcement legislation pursuant to section 6.
  Once passed, such legislation would trump any conflicting 
presidentially created enforcement procedure such as impoundment 
because the President must enforce the law Congress creates.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend from Vermont if he wishes to speak?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Nevada, as he 
knows, because he was here, I have waited for the last 2 or 3 hours 
hoping to get a chance to make a short statement which will probably 
take me about 10 or 11 minutes, at best.
  Mr. REID. Is this in relation to the balanced budget amendment?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I would simply ask whose time would the Senator want to 
use?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Byrd have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator from 
Vermont that the Senator from West Virginia has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. On the Simon amendment?
  Mr. REID. We have divided up the time by four, and he used 2 hours 
and 1 minute. We each have 2 hours and 15 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, maybe I should vote with Senator Simon so I 
could have more time to talk about this.
  Mr. REID. I thought my colleague said his statement only took 10 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am sure--yes, I will seek to be recognized for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise that the Senator from 
West Virginia controls 13 minutes for the remainder of the day under 
the previous unanimous consent agreement. The Senator from West 
Virginia would control that time.
  Mr. REID. I am sure Senator Byrd, if he needs more time--we can work 
something out if he personally needs more time. So, unless there is 
some objection, go ahead and use Senator Byrd's time. If he needs more 
time, we will work that out.
  I note for the Senator this is very tight because Senator Murkowski 
is due here about 1:15.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inquire of the Senator from 
Vermont if he is seeking recognition and, if so, under what provisions 
of time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for 10 minutes under 
the time controlled by Senator Byrd, the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Vermont is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. We have heard everybody from the Founders of the 
Constitution to eminent columnists quoted in this debate on the 
balanced budget amendment. I have read these quotes. I have read the 
columns. I have read the various editorials. But I thought, considering 
the fact that some of the debate on both sides has become somewhat more 
simplistic, I would draw my inspiration not from the CBO or OMB or GAO. 
I thought I would go to that famous philosopher, the Cowardly Lion in 
the Wizard of Oz.
  Balancing the budget is not about baseline and sequesters. To quote 
the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz, it is about courage. Let me 
tell you what he might say about this debate:

       What makes a king out of a slave: Courage.
       What makes the flag on the mast to wave? Courage.
       What makes the elephant charge his tusk, in the misty mist, 
     Or the dusty dust,
       What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage.
       What makes the Sphinx the seventh wonder? Courage.
       What makes the dawn come up like thunder? Courage.
       What makes the Hottentot so hot?
       Who put the ape in apricot?
       What have they got that I ain't got? Courage!

  Mr. President, the Cowardly Lion finally got his courage. Now, we 
ought to get a little. We do not need a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. There are only three ways to lower our budget 
deficit--cut spending, raise taxes, or a combination of both. And the 
last time I looked, Congress has all the constitutional authority to do 
these.
  As the Cowardly Lion points out, courage is not something given to 
you. It comes from within.
  Since the beginning of Reaganomics, the White House, with too much 
complicity from Congress, has been living in a dreamland in Oz, a 
dreamland where we could spend more, tax less, and still balance the 
budget. Anybody outside of Congress and outside the administration knew 
that was impossible. And $3 trillion of debt later we know all too well 
that Reaganomics was an economic nightmare.
  Fortunately, the American people gave Congress a wake-up call in 
1992, and they voted for a change. Working with President Clinton, 
Congress has begun to get our fiscal house in order. Last year, 
Congress passed the largest deficit reduction package in history, and 
the annual deficit fell over $35 billion. Over the next 2 years, annual 
budget deficits are estimated to decline even further. The last time we 
had 3 years of declining budget deficits was when Harry Truman occupied 
the White House.
  We must continue to work toward a cure for the deficit disease. But 
we are not going to do it by selling the American people a snake-oil 
remedy. Congress must face our spending choices honestly. We have to 
make tough and painful decisions.
  The balanced budget amendment, if approved, would let Congress off 
the hook. But not the American people who would then be at the mercy of 
spending decisions that had been taken out of the hands of their 
representatives. In fact, some might call the balanced budget amendment 
a full-employment lawyers benefit package. The amendment could triple 
the number of lawyers in this country, a sobering thought if ever there 
was one. And even then, these lawyers would be unable to handle all the 
court cases we would see under a balanced budget amendment.
  Here is the stark reality of what would happen under the balanced 
budget amendment, just in one small State, my own State of Vermont. 
Across-the-board spending cuts are going to hurt the most vulnerable in 
my home State. The Treasury Department estimates that these blanket 
reductions would cut, per year, $1,068 for the average Social Security 
recipient, $759 for each person on Medicare; $439 less for each 
Medicaid recipient. We would cut money to fight crime, to build 
highways and bridges, to protect the environment and educate our 
children--all of that would be cut.
  The balanced budget amendment, if we have courage, is unnecessary. 
But it is also dangerous. It would demean the Constitution, would 
endanger our economy, and throw the budget process into the courts. The 
U.S. Constitution is perhaps the most treasured document of governance 
in history. Its system of checks and balances and individual rights is 
genius in its elegance and its simplicity.
  Those who would alter this charter have a very, very heavy burden of 
proving the merit of amendments. They must prove the amendment has so 
much merit that it could bring about this change after 200 years of a 
Constitution that has worked so well. I think the proponents of the 
balanced budget amendment have not met this burden. The balanced budget 
amendment would invite the worst kind of cynical evasion and budget 
tricks. The overwhelming temptation will be to exaggerate estimates of 
economic growth and tax receipts, underestimate spending, and use all 
kinds of accounting ruses.
  You think we have a separate set of books now? This amendment is 
going to amaze even the best accountants. We have seen far too much of 
this as Congress wrestled to meet past statutory targets. With Congress 
facing a constitutional mandate, you are going to see bobbing and 
weaving moves that make the Olympic slalom races look like they are a 
straight line.
  In passing a constitutional directive that will inevitably encourage 
evasion, we invite scorn not only toward Congress, but toward the 
Constitution itself. Let us not debase our national charter in a 
misguided political attempt to show the American people that we finally 
mean business on the deficit. The way we prove that we mean business is 
to pass specific, politically painful legislation that reduces our 
debt.
  Look at the economic disaster that could occur during recessions. 
Deficits rise because tax receipts go down and various government 
payments, like unemployment insurance, go up. This amendment requires 
that taxes rise or spending falls. As Herbert Hoover discovered back in 
1930, that is precisely the wrong medicine at the wrong time.
  Of course, the amendment's sponsors tell us a supermajority, 60 
percent of both Houses of Congress, could waive the balanced budget 
requirement at any time. What they are saying is that a minority of 40 
percent, can control the economic destiny of this country. I vote for 
majority control, not for minority control. Our economic policy has to 
be flexible enough to accommodate an ever-changing economy, an 
impossible task when 21 States in the Senate, 21 States of whatever 
size, could hold the budget hostage in times of economic emergency.
  As I said before, the balanced budget amendment will surely throw the 
Nation's fiscal policy into the Federal courts. That is the last place 
issues of taxing and spending should be decided.
  This amendment flatly states that ``total outlays for any fiscal year 
shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year * * *'' Who is 
going to determine an ``outlay'' or a ``receipt''? What happens if 
revenue projections are off and outlays do exceed receipts? Does the 
President then have the unilateral authority to cut programs? Do the 
courts? The amendment is a full-employment opportunity for lawyers in 
this country.
  The President and a minority of Congress would undoubtedly clash 
about answers to all these questions, and the Federal courts would be 
called upon to decide them as a matter of constitutional law--perhaps 
in thousands of taxpayer lawsuits brought by individuals challenging 
particular Government funding decisions across the country. Answering 
these questions could take years, working their way up to the Supreme 
Court, before a final decision is made.
  Constitutional scholars like Larry Tribe and Robert Bork may not 
agree on many things, but one thing they do agree on is that a balanced 
budget amendment would flood the courts with unwieldy, unmanageable 
lawsuits to straighten out the budget years after the fact.
  They also agree that it will kick massive responsibility for how tax 
dollars are spent to unelected Federal judges.
  A balanced budget amendment is not a cure for the deficit disease, 
but a prescription for controversy and gridlock among the branches of 
Government. It would grossly alter the separation of powers that has 
stood for over 200 years as a testament to our Founding Fathers' 
wisdom. The debts of voodoo economics will be paid off by future 
generations. Do we really want to inflict posterity with voodoo 
constitutionalism as well?
  Let us put an end to this debate on a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution. Congress needs to move beyond this gimmick--a gimmick 
that is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous. We need to begin 
debating the real issues facing the American people--health care 
reform, welfare reform, the crime bill and specific deficit reduction 
measures. And we need to do it now.
  Let us not trivialize the Constitution with Government-by-gimmicks.
  I retain the remainder of Senator Byrd's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under a previous agreement, Senator Hatch 
has yielded 15 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish you a good morning, and my 
colleagues as well.
  I rise today in opposition to the amendment pending offered by my 
distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid. As we reflect on the 
issue of a balanced budget, Mr. President, I can not help but recall in 
1986 unloading the mail on the Capitol steps with a number of other 
colleagues. That mail was a public outcry concerning the merits of a 
balanced budget.
  Today we are addressing that same issue, as it remains unresolved. 
Just a few days ago, we had an opportunity to see another truckload of 
mail come in from all over the country with regard to the balanced 
budget and the necessity of recognizing that, indeed, what we are faced 
with is a fiscal crisis.
  While I listen to my distinguished colleagues consider various 
criticisms regarding the balanced budget amendment, I cannot help but 
reflect on the bottomline reality, and that is that we are now 
borrowing in excess of $200 billion--as a matter of fact $212 billion--
to pay interest on our accumulated 4.5 trillion dollars' worth of debt. 
Many of my colleagues seem to think that this can go on for a 
considerable length of time or that we could correct it by initiating 
specific spending cuts.
  But history indicates, Mr. President, that we simply do not have the 
self-discipline to do that. We do not have the self-discipline to 
address the entitlements, to freeze the entitlements, reduce the rate 
of growth of the entitlements. We have very little discretionary 
spending left, so now we are jockeying around again to find some other 
alternatives.
  There are basically two alternatives. Perhaps some of my friends 
would suggest that given enough time, we are going to come up with a 
third one. There is a third way. You either increase revenues or reduce 
spending.
  The balanced budget amendment would mandate a balanced budget. And it 
puts the responsibility where it belongs as opposed to using the excuse 
that somehow we should have the self-discipline that we do not have. I 
think we are at a crucial time relative to the economic viability of 
our Nation, because this simply cannot go on and the significance of 
this debate is that we have an opportunity to do something about it 
now.
  The amendment pending by the Senator from Nevada purports to be a 
substitute for the balanced budget amendment that I am cosponsoring 
with Senators Simon and Craig. Yet, even a cursory reading of the 
amendment shows that this amendment in itself will not even remotely 
serve to balance the budget.
  Quite the contrary, if this amendment is adopted, we will have 
abandoned once more any hope of our Nation's deficit coming under 
control, for this amendment is so transparently flawed that it is 
impossible to believe that it is being offered as an alternative to a 
balanced budget amendment. If this substitute is adopted, it will be 
proof positive that this institution again will stop at nothing to 
avoid facing our fiscal responsibilities.
  Mr. President, the central element of this substitute is the 
requirement, and I quote:

       Total estimated outlays of the operating funds of the 
     United States for any fiscal year shall not exceed total 
     estimated receipts to those funds for that fiscal year.

  In defining--and I do not think we have really reflected on this--in 
defining ``operating funds,'' the substitute excludes so-called capital 
investments. Well, Mr. President, what are capital investments? As the 
President's budget analysis correctly recognizes:

       The classification of spending into investment or current 
     outlays is a matter of judgment.

  Who is going to exercise the judgment on whether spending should be 
placed in the operating budget or the capital budget? Should this 
language be included in the Constitution, I am certain that we will 
have endless debates between the Congressional Budget Office, the 
Office of Management and Budget, and every agency of Government in 
trying to decide the appropriate allocation of spending between capital 
and operating expenses.
  Mr. President, for several decades, the Federal budget has included 
general classifications relating to capital and operating expenses. In 
general, capital investments--and this is what is excluded in this 
amendment--capital investments have included physical investment in 
terms of research, development, education, and training. The National 
Performance Review contained a far narrower definition of investment to 
include only common commercial-type products used to support the 
delivery of Federal services--office buildings, computers, hospitals, 
automobiles, and similar physical products.
  However, the National Performance Review [NPR], excluded investments 
in military weapons systems and bases, as well as special purpose 
capital projects such as the space station and dams.
  Mr. President, some economists would contend that human capital 
investments--and mind you, capital investments are excluded--human 
capital investments should be included in capital spending on the 
theory that such necessities as childhood immunization, maternal 
health, and substance abuse treatment programs all promote less costly 
future health problems. That is true. But the list of capital human 
investment projects is absolutely endless, and we all know it. Yet, 
they are excluded in the sense of coming under capital investments.
  The loopholes that such an exemption creates would, in essence, make 
the amendment meaningless, Mr. President.
  There is another aspect of this capital investment exception that I 
would like to discuss, and that deals with the issue of how to treat 
grants to States and local governments. Currently, for some grants to 
State and local governments, the recipient jurisdiction, not the 
Federal Government, ultimately decides whether the money is used to 
finance the investment or current operating expenses. How will the 
Federal Government categorize these grants?
  Currently, community development block grants are classified in the 
Federal budget as physical investment even though some of these grants 
may be spent for operating current programs. By contrast, general 
purpose fiscal assistance is classified as current spending, although 
some of the money may be spent by recipient jurisdictions on physical 
investments. We will have an endless debate on these issues with no 
practical solutions should the current amendment be adopted.
  As anyone can see, the capital investment exception contained in this 
substitute could be used to effectively take hundreds of billions of 
dollars of Federal spending simply off the table and give the American 
people the illusion that the Federal budget is being balanced. In fact, 
if we use the historical definition of Federal investment outlays that 
is included in the President's current budget, $239 billion of Federal 
investment would not be counted as Federal spending in the fiscal year 
1995 that we are soon to consider.
  In other words, under the proposed Reid substitute, the Federal 
budget deficit for fiscal year 1995--$176 billion--just disappeared, 
went into thin air because we decided not to count so-called capital 
investments. This is simply an accounting gimmick and nothing more, and 
the American people will not be deceived by this subterfuge.
  The exclusion of investment capital from the budget calculation will 
not reduce spending. It will not save us a single dime in the amount of 
interest we will have to pay out to service that $4.5 trillion debt. 
What it will do is feed cynicism about the budget process as practiced 
in our Nation's Capital.
  One other thing, Mr. President, and that is the exclusion of Social 
Security and disability insurance spending. This is very troubling 
because section 4 of the substitute excludes outlays from the Social 
Security and disability insurance trust funds from being counted in 
determining whether the budget is balanced.
  What this section of the substitute does is for the first time in our 
history enshrine in our Constitution a program created by statute, in 
this case the Social Security and disability insurance programs. I 
assume the authors of this substitute think it is unnecessary to count 
Social Security outlays because the program is currently running a 
surplus. But as we all know, Mr. President, in the next 30 to 35 years, 
that surplus could very well turn into a deficit. How are we to then 
account for so much spending? Will we just go on another borrowing 
spree unfettered but any limits?
  Finally, Mr. President, we do not have to wait 30 years to address 
the trust fund issue? We only have to look down the road to fiscal 1996 
with regard to disability insurance trust funds. Let me quote from the 
administration's budget.

       The balances of the Social Security disability insurance 
     trust funds are expected to be exhausted in 1996.

  Mr. President, all of us know that over the next year we are going to 
reallocate payroll tax rates to ensure that disability insurance trust 
funds do not go into bankruptcy. Yet under the substitute amendment we 
are considering, there is no urgency to change the formula. A deficit 
in the fund can be made up by simply borrowing--again more borrowing--
and it will simply not be counted as part of the deficit. In addition, 
it is certainly possible that we could add other programs to the 
disability fund to cover medical services now provided by Medicaid or 
the Indian Health Service or children's health or any one of a series 
of social insurance programs. And under this substitute, these programs 
would not be covered under the balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. President, this substitute should be rejected. It would 
exacerbate public mistrust of Congress and would in this Senator's 
opinion make it simply impossible to ever get us out from under the 
mountain of debt that threatens to bankrupt this Nation.
  Mr. President, I am sure that many of the American people wonder just 
what kind of witchcraft we are up to here when we talk about a budget 
process that is anything more than revenues and expenses. The American 
public simply does not understand how this process can go on in the 
sense that we go through the budget; we have our revenues; we have our 
expenses; and then everything else we need we add to the deficit. The 
American public is interested in the reality of fiscal responsibility. 
That suggests you balance your checkbook, and if you do not have it in 
your account, your checks bounce.
  So, Mr. President, we are spending 14 percent of our budget 
currently--14 percent--on interest on that debt. We are borrowing to 
pay that debt, about $212 billion in interest. It simply cannot go on, 
Mr. President. We have seen what Gramm-Rudman 1 has done, Gramm-Rudman 
2; we have seen the 1990 tax proposals, and we have changed each time 
the circumstances under which these legislative corrections were 
intended so that we could continue to spend, so that we could continue 
to add to the deficit.
  The reality is the American people know, Mr. President, we are going 
to have to pay the piper. And we are passing an opportunity on now as 
we consider the merits of a balanced budget amendment simply to a 
future time when we are going to have a crisis, and it is going to be 
that much more difficult to take care of.
  So I would urge that my colleagues reject the pending amendment from 
my good friend from Nevada and support the Craig amendment which is the 
balanced budget amendment.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, I know that many people are concerned 
with the effects that this may have on the vulnerability of States and 
various programs, but I can tell you the people of my State are more 
concerned about the survival of our system and are willing to make 
sacrifices if necessary to get Government back on track, back to fiscal 
responsibility, and there has to be a time to do it. I suggest this is 
the time.
  Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article which 
appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, Friday, February 25, in a section 
under the Anchorage Times, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Anchorage Daily News, Feb. 25, 1994]

                            Stop Us, Please

       As Congress moves forward on a proposed amendment to the 
     U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, one 
     can detect a plea for help from the nation's Capitol. It's 
     like the desperate message of the serial killer written on 
     the wall of his latest victim: ``Stop me, before I kill 
     again.''
       The fact of the matter is Congress has been slowly killing 
     this nation with its inability to control spending. The 
     numbers are staggering a $4.5 trillion national debt, 
     expected to be over $6 trillion before the end on this 
     decade. Six trillion dollars, by the way, is 
     $6,000,000,000,000--and that's borrowed money on which 
     taxpayers must pay interest each year. Over the next five 
     years, interest on that borrowed money will amount to some 
     $1.2 trillion.
       Think of all the domestic programs, defense expenditures, 
     health care, education improvements, whatever, that $1.2 
     trillion could buy. Instead it must go to interest payments 
     on the deficit.
       For decades politicians have pledged to do something about 
     the horrible spending spree situation. The nation has seen 
     promise after promise come and go. Well-meaning plans, like 
     the Gramm-Rudman balanced budget law of the last decade, 
     appeared sincere but wound up accomplishing nothing.
       Entitlement programs like Medicare and other federal 
     programs to fund highway construction, fight crime, support 
     education and so forth have continued to grow despite the 
     best intentions of the administration and the Congress.
       The balanced budget amendment would be a drastic solution. 
     It would require the federal government starting in the year 
     2001 to balance spending and revenues each year. Only by a 
     vote of three-fifths of both the House and Senate could 
     spending exceed revenues in any particular year.
       As a constitutional amendment, rather than a law, the court 
     would have the authority to force Congress to fulfill this 
     obligation. The amendment would work, but it would be 
     painful. An estimated $400 billion to $500 billion would have 
     to be trimmed from annual federal spending by 2001, unless 
     massive new taxes are levied.
       For the balanced budget constitutional amendment to pass it 
     will take a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate and 
     House. Then three-fourths of the states will have to ratify.
       The Clinton administration and key Democrats in Congress 
     are marshaling their supporters to stop the amendment. They 
     don't want to be constrained from spending more money to 
     implement new domestic programs. Many special interest groups 
     are also out in full force to derail the move.
       Alaska's congressional delegation needs to hear the 
     sentiment of Alaskans. Let Sens. Ted Stevens and Frank 
     Murkowski and Rep. Don Young know they have your support to 
     balance the budget.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would conclude by stating that this editorial is 
pleading to the Congress of the United States to address the 
opportunity before us to stop this process of runaway, fiscal 
irresponsibility and take the medicine now by adopting a balanced 
budget amendment.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Feingold].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could, just as matter of parliamentary 
inquiry, Senator Craig and I--I am sure with the concurrence of Senator 
Simon--would like to make this afternoon a little more orderly. After 
Senator Feingold finishes, Senator Craig is going to address the Senate 
for a reasonable period of time, 15 or 20 minutes, whatever, and then 
after that, if Senator Burns is available, he would come and speak. 
Following that, we would arrange time for the Senator from North Dakota 
to speak. That would give Senators notice of what might take place in 
the next hour or so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Nevada 
for his leadership in bringing forward this amendment.
  I rise to support the amendment of the Senator from Nevada and to 
oppose Senate Joint Resolution 41. But in doing so let me, first of 
all, say that the sentiment behind the balanced budget amendment is a 
very real and very legitimate one. I especially want to indicate that 
with regard to the sincerity and effort by the senior Senator from 
Illinois. I know he is doing it for the right reason. I know he is 
doing it because he wants to eliminate our Federal deficit, and he 
believes that this amendment is the way to do it.
  It comes out of a very legitimate frustration that the American 
people have about the way the Federal Government runs up debts and 
deficits and just has not adopted the discipline of paying as you go, 
the most commonsense principle that you find when you talk to your 
constituents.
  I noticed during the 1992 campaign that the balanced budget amendment 
was often linked with two other proposals, the notion of a line-item 
veto and the idea of term limits. These were the three you always got 
questions about, and the reason was that they are simple answers, I 
think really almost pseudo answers, to the real question.
  Mr. President, the real question that the people in all 50 States are 
asking is why is there so much spending and so much waste at the 
Federal level? That is why this debate is here today. In my view, the 
only real answer to that question is that we have to continue to do 
what we started to do last year in this Congress, and that is to start 
identifying specific cuts and making those cuts. We did that to the 
tune of $500 billion.
  But I wish to emphasize that, of course, that was only a start, and 
nothing better than a start, because we still have annual deficits and 
the debt is going up. We all know that. The problem is that this 
amendment is a simplistic solution to that problem that will not work. 
In fact, I think the balanced budget amendment will make it more likely 
that we will go back to having higher deficits and make it more likely 
that we will have an even worse Federal debt in the coming year.
  The actual issue before us today is, should we pass Senate Joint 
Resolution 41 or should we amend that provision as the Senator from 
Nevada has suggested by something that makes a little more sense?
  It seems to me, having listened to the debate for a couple of days, 
that the Senator from Nevada is far closer to having a proposal that 
makes sense than does the original proposal. I think the Senator from 
Nevada has minimized some almost bizarre consequences that can occur if 
we were to pass Senate Joint Resolution 41 as it now reads.
  First of all, through the leadership of the Senator from Nevada and 
his amendment, there has been some real effort on the floor to deal 
with the fact that Senate Joint Resolution 41 could heavily involve 
courts in an area they have never been--deciding what cuts and what 
taxes we should have in order to achieve a balanced budget. I know that 
the sponsors of the original joint resolution may want to amend it as 
well to reflect that concern. I think the leadership of the Senator 
from Nevada has helped clean that part of this issue up.
  Another big difference between Senate Joint Resolution 41 and the 
proposal of the Senator from Nevada is the distinction between capital 
and operating budgets. As has been said many times on this floor, we 
want to use the examples of the balanced budget requirements of the 
States and the local governments, but at those levels a distinction is 
made between capital budgets and operating budgets. If a local 
government wants to build a golf course and they can determine that by 
charging green fees over 10 years they can pay for it, they can proceed 
to do so under a budget that distinguishes between capital and 
operating budgets.
  As I understand it, the original proposal here would make that 
impossible. The Federal Government could not plan in this way, as our 
local governments do, and still comply with the balanced budget 
requirement.
  I also appreciate the fact that the amendment of the Senator from 
Nevada takes Social Security out of this thing. I believe Social 
Security is a contract with the American people. I believe that those 
who paid into the system were promised that if they paid in they would 
get the benefit when they became eligible. I do not think we should 
leave that to chance. And in that sense the Senator from Nevada has a 
much more honest and a much more assuring proposal for those that 
worked hard for this country and for all of us who now expect to have 
their benefits protected.
  The Senator has also made a lot more sense in the original proposal 
when he takes out this idea of requiring a supermajority to get 
anything done in this body. The majority leader made a good point the 
other day when he pointed out that if you like the filibuster just in 
the Senate, wait until you see what it will look like after you get 
done with having to have a 60-percent vote for any change such as the 
California earthquake emergency legislation, a measure that would have 
required a vote of over 60 as I understand it under the original 
proposal.
  Finally, I want to give a lot of credit to the Senator from Nevada 
for identifying and getting rid of what I think is one of the worst 
provisions in Senate Joint Resolution 41; and that is the idea that to 
actually eliminate a Federal tax expenditure, a tax loophole, that you 
will not just have to have a majority of the Senate any more, but a 
majority of those actually seated--a higher number than normal, another 
sort of supermajority.
  If our goal here is to reduce the Federal deficit and actually 
balance the budget, why would we require more votes than normal to 
close a tax loophole? It will not be enough just to get a majority of 
90 Senators or who are here. You would have to have a majority of all 
the Senators seated.
  For any tax expenditure out there, whether it is the tax breaks given 
to the Puerto Rican drug companies, accelerated depreciation, tax-loss 
farming for farmers--a provision we got rid of a few years ago 
fortunately--or the three martini lunch, it will not be enough just to 
have the votes you have most of the time to eliminate them. You would 
have to get, in effect, a supermajority. Why would this be something we 
would want to have in a constitutional amendment to try to get rid of 
our deficit problem?
  These tax expenditures are just as big a problem in our Federal 
Government spending habits as are other wasteful spending programs. For 
example, until we got going in the last budget, a corporation could 
deduct a salary above $1 million for a corporate executive. It was a 
deduction. Under this amendment, without the change suggested by the 
Senator from Nevada, you would need a special majority to get rid of 
that provision. We saw how hard it was just to get a raw majority. We 
needed the Vice President of the United States to come in here to break 
the tie. So you would have a very odd result without the Reid 
amendment. The result is Social Security is not protected but you give 
extra special protection to the tax benefits that are particularly 
likely to help the wealthy.
  So, for all these reasons, Mr. President, I believe that the Senator 
from Nevada has a far better provision, a more honest provision, and 
one that is more likely it work.
  But I also want to take this opportunity to express my reservations 
about the whole idea of a balanced budget amendment. I was presiding 
the other day, as you are now, Mr. President, when I heard the Senator 
from Illinois saying that it does not really matter if the effective 
date for the balanced budget amendment is 2000 or 2001 because he said 
no one is going to wait. He listed the various Senators who were not 
going to wait to get the job done. I agree. The Senator from Illinois 
won't wait.
  I am afraid last year I saw a number of people out here who will wait 
and wait a good long time before they actually start voting for some of 
the spending cuts we have. They had opportunity after opportunity to 
vote for those cuts last year, and if you look at the record, many of 
those who are the strongest advocates for the original provision are 
among those who almost never voted for spending cuts.
  The greatest risk with regard to getting a balanced budget is that we 
will lose our focus. It is very easy in a legislative body to lose your 
focus because there are so many issues. Sometimes you can almost 
purposely lose your focus. So you don't have to really face the tough 
questions, so you don't have to really deal with the fact that cutting 
the Federal deficit is an extremely painful process where you cannot 
possibly come out with everyone liking it.
  That is the real danger. In fact, earlier this year in early January 
there was a report in the Washington Post that there was a big debate 
going on within the White House itself. That debate was whether or not 
they should just put deficit reduction behind us; a comment made by 
some was we did that last year. I think there is a great risk that it 
will be left behind. It is unclear who won that debate at the White 
House. There are some good signs. The President's budget looks tough. I 
think there should be more cuts but it definitely includes some tough 
budgeting that can bring the deficit down even further. But there are 
some bad signs. I thought one of the bad signs was when the President, 
in his State of the Union, said he was going to take defense cuts off 
the table, that there would be no more defense cuts.
  So, I am really not sure where we are heading on the issue of further 
cuts that are needed, and I think the greatest risk here is not the 
failure to pass the balanced budget amendment but that this body, now, 
this year, and the other House as well, would say we did that last year 
even though the debt is still rising, and the deficit needs to come 
down more.
  So, to evaluate the purpose and the effect of Senate Joint Resolution 
41, you have to look at it in context. What will it do now? The context 
now is the 1995 budget proposal. The battle is to identify the 
priorities within that proposal to get the cuts it has proposed and 
perhaps to get more cuts. Then the question becomes will the passage of 
the balanced budget amendment help or hurt our efforts to bring the 
deficit down in the coming year? I am convictioned, after listening to 
the debate and talking to people back home, that the balanced budget 
amendment as originally proposed will make it less likely that we will 
do what we were sent here to do--to bring the deficit and the debt down 
now.
  This has been the way it has looked to me since listening to the 
people during the 1992 campaign. At that point I heard a lot of talk 
about the balanced budget amendment, but it was my conclusion that we 
did not need a balanced budget amendment; we needed a balanced budget. 
I, like many other candidates, proposed a plan that would have 
eliminated the Federal deficit in 5 years. Some of it taxes, a lot of 
it spending cuts, 2-to-1 margin spending cuts to taxes. About half of 
that plan has already become law because of the efforts of the Clinton 
administration.
  I found that some of those cuts are not very easy to get, like 
getting rid of the space station or the Trident missile. We won few of 
them, and identified more cuts to make, and added some of those to our 
list. We found, for example, that if we go to the $1 coin instead of 
the dollar bill we can save $2 billion. It is an ongoing process of 
identifying things that can be cut and actually enacting the specific 
cut.
  That is why I participated in the development of the Kerry-Brown 
plan, 1 of 15 Senators to join in. I did not like all of the things in 
that proposal but that was part of the process, to come together. 
Everybody puts their specific cuts on the table and says, OK, I am not 
happy with all of this you--but it is a team process. We did the same 
thing with a group led by Senator John Kerry.
  All of these efforts had one thing in common that the balanced budget 
amendment completely lacks, and that comes down to one word: 
specificity. The balanced budget amendment does not begin to tell you 
how we are going to achieve the balanced budget it purports to cause to 
happen.
  The way you can tell when you are actually doing the job on the 
balanced budget issue is when you start getting phone calls, and those 
phone calls should not be saying way to go on passing the balanced 
budget amendment. They should say how can you let us down. Anytime 
somebody is saying to you how could you let us down you are not doing 
anything. Until you have a wool farmer come up to you in your district 
and say how could you Russ Feingold, propose cutting the wool and 
mohair subsidy, or until you have a retired Federal employee call you 
up and say how can you delay my COLA; until you have that, all that you 
have done is talk.
  That is my concern. This proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 41, does 
not tell us how we are going to get the job done, much like the Gramm-
Rudman bill, which also did not work. What it does is play unwittingly 
into a tendency in a legislative body to go with fads. Issues become 
fads.
  I saw this in the State senate when I was in the Wisconsin 
Legislature. There was a huge hubbub about the drug problem for about 6 
weeks. It seemed like every member of the senate had a proposal to deal 
with the drug nobody. We passed a few of them. Then we did not talk 
about the issue for 6 or 7 months. We saw the same thing with 
education. I have seen it time and again where people think that they 
have done something but they don't finish the job.
  I think the passage of the balanced budget amendment would turn this 
issue much deficit reduction into more of a fad than a genuine effort.
  In effect, if I can use a football analogy, this is punt. We are 
punting the ball with the balanced budget amendment when we now have 
the ball and can actually gain yardage by cutting spending. What we are 
saying in effect is, to the American people, is when we get the ball 
back later on from the States, we will figure out what we are going to 
do to cut spending. And I think that is the worst possible outcome.
  We, in effect, will say we will tell you the specifics later on when 
we have the ball again. To me, Mr. President, this is a total evasion 
of our current responsibility. If you want to cut a program to save 
even a few million dollars in the next few years, the response will be 
why do that, it is such a little amount, and we have to eliminate the 
whole thing in a few years anyway, let us not bother with it. It will 
be a blank check and not deal with the small and large items over the 
next few years.

  Mr. President, to conclude, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his 
leadership. I want to read two comments. One is from the New York Times 
and one is from my constituents. The first was in an article last 
Friday entitled ``Beyond Budget Debate Hyperbole.'' There are comments 
by Peter Peterson, who wrote a book entitled ``Facing Up: How to Rescue 
the Economy From Crushing Debt and Restore the American Dream.'' Many 
people thought that Mr. Peterson, given the title and work of his book, 
would be very enthusiastic about this balanced budget amendment 
proposal:
       The balanced budget amendment's sponsors say it would put 
     pressure on the Government to find ways to bring its accounts 
     into balance.

  But Mr. Peterson is ambivalent about that argument. ``Its great 
virtue would be its symbolism,'' Mr. Peterson writes. ``But we must be 
aware that in that very symbolism there is also a danger. It might 
persuade us to think we have solved our problem and thus divert our 
attention from the real business at hand: making choices.''
  That, Mr. President, is what I mean by specificity. This is all about 
making the tough choices, not just changing a few words in the 
Constitution without real effect.
  Finally, Mr. President, the best messages I always get are from my 
constituents. This is one from a couple in Wonewoc, WI, who say:

       Greetings, Senator:
       The front page of the State Journal carries the story of 
     the drive to have a balanced budget amendment. First it was 
     that Gramm-Rudman-Hollings nonsense and now this.
       The people send men and women to Congress to make the hard 
     choices, to be counted on to take tough votes even if it 
     hurts at next election time. We do not send them to Congress 
     to hide behind some automatic gimmick with the nerd excuse, 
     ``We would like to do more, but our hands are tied by the 
     balanced budget amendment.''
       We all want cuts in spending but not this way.

  So those are the words that probably have the greatest impact on me. 
These folks elected me to come out here and make the tough decisions, 
not hide behind an excuse.
  For that reason, I urge the adoption of the Reid amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me speak briefly to a couple of 
comments the Senator from Wisconsin has made today as it relates to his 
concern about a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. I want 
to have the Senator's attention for a few moments, if I could, because 
I find it unique that the basis of his reaction and therefore rejection 
of this process is to suggest that we are not specific enough in how we 
would arrive at these areas that we have delineated on a section-by-
section basis.
  How does the Constitution speak to being specific about the right of 
free speech? It does not list a thousand ways in which free speech 
shall be obtained in our Nation. What it says is that this is a 
principle and this is a right that is established, and we expect our 
Government to carry it out because it is a right of the people. 
Thousands of pages of civil law later, and a variety of court tests 
that even go on today, free speech is adhered to--not that our Founding 
Fathers were so specific in the beginning, but because it was a right.
  I think the Senator is every bit as concerned as I am about fiscal 
responsibility, and I in no way in my comments want to impugn his 
record in the time that he has been here. His votes in this area have 
been excellent. He and I have joined in a variety of areas to cut the 
budget. But what we might disagree on is the approach. This is why, 
after 14 years--not just a gimmick and not just a passing fancy, but 
after 14 years of efforts and hearings and hearings and votes and 
votes--we now have Senate Joint Resolution 41. This is the work product 
of over a decade. Why? Because with the American people, balancing the 
budget has never been a fad; it has never been a fancy. They are 
growing alarmed at a Congress who apparently views it as neither or 
they would have done it. They just do not believe in it. For over five 
decades now, we have seen the accumulation and phenomenal debt 
structure; yet, today, the Senate and House combined have no real 
answer for it. Ronald Reagan did not do it, George Bush did not do it. 
In fact, they added to the debt. We added to the debt during that time. 
It must be a ``we,'' because the House and the Senate and executive are 
all involved.
  Well, some Senators are saying, ``Gee whiz, give Bill Clinton a 
chance. Look at all he has done in such a short time.'' Maybe we should 
say: All he inherited that had already made some cuts in 1990, and look 
at the taxes he added to it that helped drive down the deficit a little 
bit.
  Mr. President, this talks about Bill Clinton's toughest budget yet. 
It talks about the 115 cuts in spending, or the $700 million that would 
be cut if we adhered to all of those 115 cuts in spending. In a $1.5 
trillion budget, it is but the blink of an eye; yet, at the same time, 
well, the President asks for a near $150 billion increase in the 
Import-Export Bank and almost a $200 billion increase in the Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt Commission. Excuse me, those are hundreds of 
thousands--a doubling of that commission that has gone on since 1955 
trying to figure out what would be an appropriate memorial for Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt when all we would have to do is put a sign over the 
bridge: Entering the legacy of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 
largest bureaucracy in the world. That would not cost over $100,000. It 
would be just a little paint and a little time.
  When it comes to rhetoric about balancing budgets, the citizens of 
this country have just about had enough. It is not a fad with them, it 
is a reality. It is a reality of 14 years of effort here in Congress by 
people like myself and Paul Simon and Orrin Hatch and Strom Thurmond 
and Dennis DeConcini. We are not engaged in a fad, nor are we engaged 
in fraud. What you have before you is an amendment to the Constitution 
of our country, which for that 14-year period has done all of this, Mr. 
President. It has selected over 3,000 pages of hearing record this year 
alone before the Judiciary Committee itself. It collected all of these 
pages of hearing testimony. You see, it is business afoot that we have 
taken very, very seriously, because you do not just tread lightly into 
the Constitution. You do not go in and adjust the single greatest 
rudder on the ship of the United States. You do it with great caution 
and, I hope, with great concern.

  There is another amendment on this floor. The New York Times called 
it a fig leaf. If it is a figleaf, I suggest that any Senator wanting 
to wear it best not because it will not cover much and it could greatly 
embarrass them.
  It is an amendment with not one day of hearings, not one page of 
record, but thought up in the back room of some Senator's office as an 
illusion. Their tactic was to allow someone to escape a tough vote. Let 
us be honest. If you want to vote for a balanced budget amendment, vote 
for the one that has 3,000 pages of hearing record, the examination of 
constitutional scholars, and the endorsement of 250 economists from 
around the Nation. Do not vote for something that was brought up in the 
11th hour that represents nothing but an effort to avoid the issue. 
That is reality. That really is the bottom line. We can run, but we 
cannot hide from our responsibility, and our responsibility always has 
been to vote up or down on the issues, to go home and tell our 
constituencies why we did or why we did not.
  Oh, we can wring our hands and go home and say it did not have a 
capital budget in it; it was going to wipe out Social Security; it was 
going to dry up defense. Or you could go home and say all of those are 
legitimate matters and responsible issues that ought to be inside a 
budget, and I was voting for my grandchildren and for the fiscal 
stability of this country and nothing ought to be off budget. We all 
have to make these tough votes.
  That is the honest answer. But we have some gamesmanship on the floor 
that is or, I should say, has no second at this moment.
  Let me say how important this is from my point of view, from the 
point of view of 3,000 pages of testimony over a decade of time before 
the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees. And I do this although 
the Senator from Nevada is off the floor. I asked his permission to do 
so, so that it would not appear to be something done behind his back.
  I have here four pages of questions that I have submitted to the 
Senator from Nevada on a section-by-section basis. I have asked him to 
respond to this so that we can put it in the Record because, while 
these questions have been answered about this amendment, no questions 
have been answered about his amendment.
  I think if this is going to be a responsible debate, if he does not 
want the New York Times to call it a fig leaf, if he does not want Leon 
Panetta to say, ``Oh, well, we are going to drum up some substitute to 
give a few folks cover,'' then he really better answer the questions 
like, section 1: Whose estimate is to be used to establish estimated 
receipts? Would Congress have to approve the receipts estimated? If the 
Reid amendment does require the Congress to continue to pass annual 
concurrent budget resolutions, can you explain why you chose to place 
the relatively new statutory requirement into the Constitution? If not, 
what alternative mechanisms do you envision?
  Those are clearly legitimate questions. I do not think that kind of 
detail ought to be in an amendment. There is not a constitutional 
scholar who believes it ought to be that way. And our Founding Fathers 
intentionally were general in the nature of how they phrased the 
specific right of the American citizen.
  But clearly there ought to be this, and this is 3,000 pages of case 
record that is an important part of any legislation we pass and, as you 
know, Mr. President, is especially an important part of a 
constitutional amendment.
  Why? Well, for all the reasons I have just given. But there is 
another very important reason. We hope that our amendment will pass the 
Senate and that the identical amendment will pass the House and that 
three-fourths or 38 States required to ratify it would then begin what 
I said last Thursday to be one of the most important debates in the 
history of our country on a State-by-State basis in the halls of every 
legislative body of our State legislatures. They will constantly refer 
in the debate to these records. They will research what Congress meant 
by section 6: ``The Congress shall enforce and implement this article 
by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and 
receipts.'' They will read that. They will then turn to this because 
they, too, will want to know before they pass the amendment what 
happens if the Reid amendment passes with none of the kind of committee 
record and hearing record that is appropriate.
  Well, I guess it is guesstimate or it is a very busy Senator from 
Nevada running around the country from legislature to legislature 
trying to tell them what he meant. Or if a few constitutional scholars 
come up and say, ``Well, you know, Senator, I really think you should 
have said it differently,'' do we dare at that point send out to the 
State legislatures a notice saying, ``Oh, by the way, we have asked for 
a slight modification in the resolution that you are considering as an 
amendment to the Constitution?''
  Has that ever happened before when the Congress of the United States 
sends out an amendment for State legislative ratification? No, I do not 
think so.
  The reason it did not happen was that it was never a fig leaf or a 
cover or a fad. It was always a well-thought-out, well-researched, and 
well-written document. Why? Mr. President, we are dealing with the 
Constitution.
  You know this body passes a lot of law in the course of a year. 
Several years ago Senators, all wise and just in their thinking, passed 
a luxury tax thinking they would raise a few dollars by it, and what 
they found out was it ended up costing the Treasury money because it 
threw so many people out of work because, human nature being what it 
was and is, you were not going to hoodwink the taxpayers, and they 
avoided it by changing their buying habits, plain and simple. We just 
revoked it a year ago. We just revoked it. And how did we do it? We did 
it by 51 votes or a majority vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We 
had made a mistake.
  I did not happen to vote for it in the beginning, but we, meaning 
collectively the Congress, had made a mistake. When we make mistakes 
here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, we can change them with 51 votes 
or a majority vote.
  That cannot be done with a constitutional amendment. Once we send it 
to the States and if 38 States ratify it, you just cannot go, ``Whoops, 
I made a mistake.'' In my opinion, and in the opinion of a good number 
of constitutional scholars embodied in this committee record file and 
in the 250 economists whose names I put into the Congressional Record 
on Friday, they will also say that, if you pass the Reid amendment, you 
might just be caught in the business of saying, ``Whoops.''
  Let me explain a little bit about why I believe that. Under the Reid 
alternative, it is possible to continue to run deficits as large or 
larger than our current deficits. How could it be? This is a balanced 
budget amendment. Is it not on auto-pilot? Do we not just get there in 
6 years?
  Under this amendment we do except under extremely extraordinary 
circumstances. But enacting a balanced budget amendment that would 
allow us to continue to burden future generations with a rapidly 
increasing debt is possible under the Reid amendment. All you have to 
do is redefine capital budget. What is a capital budget? Is it bricks 
and mortar? Well, in most State legislatures it is. In most State 
legislatures that do capital budgeting and bond the expenditure of that 
budget, they do it to build roads, they do it to build buildings, they 
do it in the acquisition of long-term investment that will last a 
generation.
  Well, there we go--generation, future, thinking into the future. Why 
not on WIC? Why not on food stamps? That is a capital investment in the 
future of our youth.
  Well. Under the Reid amendment, the Congress with 51 votes could so 
define under section 6 of his what it is all about. Therein lies one of 
the great and gaping loopholes of this Senator's amendment.
  In Analytical Perspectives, page 109, it reads: ``Does the Reid 
alternative contemplate a capital budget of--'' and what they are doing 
is reflecting on the physical capital nature of a budget of State 
governments versus current Federal expenditures. And guess what they 
came up with. They have suggested that under the Reid amendment you 
could have an $89 billion capital budget. Well, that sounds about 
right. Or you could have a $123 billion capital budget. Why the 
difference? It is change in definition, broadening of the definition. 
Or you could have a $191 billion capital budget. Or you could have a 
$233 billion capital budget under the Reid amendment.
  And yet, he is standing on the floor of the United States Senate with 
some of his colleagues, looking the American people in the eye and 
saying: ``Pass my balanced budget amendment. Mine is the workable 
one.''
  What about enforcement? We were not willing to walk away from it. In 
ours, we were willing to say, ``Yes, the courts have a role. No, they 
do not have the right to increase taxes. They do not have the right to 
say where the money ought to be spent.''
  But there is a necessary mechanism when you are dealing with the 
Constitution, and that is for the courts to say whether you are or 
whether you are not. Not to say how you are or how you are not, but to 
say that you are. And that is exactly what we do in this process. We 
made sure that that became a part of it and all they can do is to 
declare--and that is a very important enforcement mechanism.
  The Reid amendment walks away from that very approach. In fact, they 
would simply say that the Congress itself is the enforcer.
  Oh, my goodness, do we not understand history just a little bit? Do 
we not recognize how proper we have been with the passage of different 
other balanced budget laws in the last two decades and how skillfully 
we enforced them? We enforced them all the way into a $4.5 trillion 
debt. Because, when the decisionmaking got tough, the Congress 
chickened out.
  Therefore, it is phenomenally important that we arrive at an 
amendment that is enforceable; that does force this body on this floor 
to make the tough votes, not to walk away, not to redefine, not to skip 
lightly through the loopholes that now have the Reid amendment looking 
like a substantial portion of Swiss cheese.
  Well, those are some of the important issues involved. Now let me 
talk about another issue for a moment, and that is the issue of Social 
Security, an issue that is extremely important to all of us. It is an 
issue that deserves legitimate consideration, not that it is just 
Social Security, but because Social Security embodies a lot of other 
very important issues when this comes to spending and priorities.
  There are some who will say they will not vote for the amendment that 
I support--the Simon-Hatch-Craig-Thurmond amendment--because Social 
Security is still on and in the budget; that you have to take Social 
Security out of the budget; that you will use the trust funds and the 
revenue in those trust funds, better known as reserves, to balance the 
budget and that that would be a fiscal travesty.
  What they do not say is that the reserves that are there today, and 
under the Social Security law when it was created, allow only the 
Government to borrow from the reserves; and every extra dime that is 
there today building for the year 2003 when the reserves will peak and 
the baby boomers will start reaching out for their Social Security 
check, all of that money is borrowed, now loaned to the Government to 
offset spending.
  The Senator from North Dakota on Friday spoke a great deal about it 
and based part of his support for the Reid amendment on the fact that 
it takes Social Security off budget. He used the year 2003 as that 
moment in time.
  Well, what is it? It is a moment in time in which we all have to get 
honest about what we are doing right now--which is terribly unfair to 
the Social Security trust funds--and that is we are spending against 
them. We are borrowing the money and we are continuing to borrow every 
dime that goes out. And the year of reckoning in the year 2003 is when 
that money has to be paid out. If I am here--and I do not know I will 
be--we are going to have to face some tough decisions.
  Today, without a change in budgeting, those decisions would have to 
be made. Under a balanced budget amendment, such as the kind that 
Senator Simon and I have proposed, that decision would still have to be 
made.
  But here is the reality of Social Security that nobody wants to talk 
about. And that is the reality of the current Social Security tax on 
employers and employees and the revenue flow it is bringing in versus 
the baby boom population that will soon be entering in the Social 
Security network system. And when D-day comes--D-day means when there 
is not any money left and there are hundreds of billions of dollars 
worth of checks to go out--that day, based on our actuarial studies and 
the current tax for Social Security, is the year 2025. Oh, it is a long 
way off. No, it is not. It is about 30 years off. That is not very far 
off, if you are going to make decisions that embody not $1 billion but 
$1 trillion. And we ought to be busy right now making sure that when 
this day comes, there is going to be revenue there.
  How do you do it? You force prioritization. You say you cannot spend 
here, you ought to spend over here, or you should not spend as much, or 
you ought not be taxing this much, or maybe in some areas you ought to 
be asking for more revenue.
  The only way you get there, according to some of the actuarials who 
are fearful of us unable to meet this day, is you have to bring it 
inside a balanced budget. To simply leave it on the outside ignores the 
fact and covers it under this fig leaf of illusion that denies the 
reality of those very kinds of tough decisions.
  I am absolutely amazed that anyone would come to this floor and say 
we are going to deal in a fiscally responsible way with Government 
expenditures, except in all of these areas we will move off budget 
because we do not want to deal with them because they are political hot 
potatoes.
  Not once have you heard me say--nor will you hear me say, because I 
believe it is not necessary to do it--the words ``cut Social 
Security.''
  But if you move it off budget, it no longer serves as a pressure to 
serve the right kind of prioritizing of other Federal expenditures to 
assure that Social Security will remain solvent, not just in the year 
2003 but in the year 2025.
  I am truthfully amazed, Mr. President, that anybody would suggest 
that you are going to hold Social Security secure and leave it off 
budget.
  We are a rich nation today. We are, without question, one of the 
richest nations in the world. Because we are rich, we can be 
phenomenally giving--and we have been. We spend hundreds of billions of 
dollars a year on the poor and the less fortunate, all in the hopes of 
lifting them up and causing or providing for them a better environment 
in which they can achieve. But the only reason we are able to do that 
is because we are rich. And the only reason we are rich is that we can 
still pay the interest on the $4.5 trillion of debt that we have 
already borrowed.
  The day we cannot pay the interest we turn from a rich nation to a 
poor nation. That can occur literally overnight. And when that occurs 
all of those programs, from Social Security, to food stamps, to shelter 
for the homeless will be up and in question because there simply will 
be no money left to provide for them at the level that was expected of 
them.
  That is the fundamental argument behind why all issues have to be 
inside any budgeting process. It is, without question, one of the major 
loopholes, along with capital budgeting, that has been provided in the 
Reid amendment. We have held no hearings on the Reid amendment, there 
is no committee record, and therefore it has limited basis for support 
other than the kind of support that would be gained if it is in fact 
only a fig leaf or a stalking-horse.
  Tomorrow evening we will vote on the amendment that has been worked 
for over a decade by Senators Simon and Hatch, myself and Senator 
Thurmond. We will vote on an amendment that is embodied here in over 
3,000 pages of committee record. We will vote on an amendment that is 
clearly simple and straightforward in its language, and forces this 
Congress, for the first time in its 200-plus year history, to examine 
why it is and what it does. And no fig leaf nor any phony piece of 
alternative will serve us better. That is the choice. It is so simple 
and yet it is so difficult.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a Washington Times article of 
February 28, and a list of ``Questions for Senator Reid'' be printed in 
the Record, and reserve the remainder of my time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Balanced Budget Ammunition

       If proponents of the balanced budget amendment are looking 
     for the strongest arguments for their proposal, they need 
     look no further than President Clinton's proposed budget for 
     fiscal 1995.
       Contrary to the president's boast that this is the 
     ``toughest budget'' ever sent to Congress, it would increase 
     spending for some of the most unnecessary, wasteful and 
     ineffective programs in the government.
       With the administration forecasting that the budget deficit 
     will be $235 billion this year and close to $200 billion next 
     year, asking for more money for programs that are proven 
     failures is the height of irresponsibility. Yet this is what 
     the White House has done.
       While it is true that the budget calls for eliminating 115 
     largely minor spending programs as well as a number of other 
     cuts, these cuts are sheep masquerading in sheep's clothing.
       The 115 items would save only $700 million in annual 
     outlays out of a $1.5 trillion budget. And even if all of the 
     proposed cuts were approved, overall spending under Mr. 
     Clinton's budgets would still be $110 billion more next year 
     than it was last year.
       In fact, the best-kept news media secret in Washington 
     today is that while the president cuts some spending programs 
     with one hand, he expands many more with the other. Among 
     them:
       The Economic Development Administration: This $265 million 
     lending agency has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in 
     bad loans and failed business schemes. EDA has been gouged by 
     waste, fraud and abuse, with no evidence that it has helped 
     any local economy, but Congress insists on keeping it alive. 
     Mr. Clinton's proposed increase: $78 million.
       The space agency: Maintaining a space program is important 
     to America's future in technology and science, but in a time 
     of record deficits it is hard to make a case for spending 
     increases. Mr. Clinton wants to increase the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration's $14.2 billion budget 
     next year by $228 million.
       The Appalachian Regional Commission: This 1960s-era 
     antipoverty agency has been singled out by the General 
     Accounting Office, Congress' auditing arm, as one of the 
     government's most ineffective programs. Much of its $149 
     million budget is devoted to pork-barrel spending for road 
     construction, with little evidence it has had any impact on 
     poverty. Mr. Clinton would boost its $149 million budget by 
     $31 million.
       Legal Services Corp.: This $400 million agency is a vestige 
     of the anti-poverty programs of the 1960s. Its purpose is to 
     provide legal assistance to the poor, but this jobs program 
     for lawyers has had little or no effect on alleviating the 
     old War Department thought it would use in wartime. It has 
     been on virtually every budget-cutting list as a highly 
     expendable program. Incredibly, Mr. Clinton's budget calls 
     for preserving the program and proposes to cancel its $1.3 
     billion accumulated debt and add it to the deficit.
       ``If you can't get rid of the national helium program, what 
     can you get rid of,'' asks Rep. Christopher Cox of 
     California.
       Community Development Block Grants: Readers of this column 
     know about the excesses of this Housing and Urban Development 
     Department program. Enacted to help low-income communities, 
     much of its funds have gone to wealthy towns like Newport 
     Beach, and Palo Alto, Calif., and Stamford, Conn., to build 
     tennis courts and bike trails and to renovate movie theaters.
       Overall, Mr. Clinton is asking for nearly $400 million more 
     for all community development programs.
       The budget is loaded with hundreds of other programs that 
     would either have their spending hiked or preserved, when 
     they should be cut or zeroed out:
       The $208 million International Trade Administration would 
     get another $40 million; the Census Bureau $24 million more; 
     $20 million for U.S. Travel and Tourism promotion; and $24 
     million for the Boat Safety program.
       The Export-Import Bank, whose loans to other nations 
     benefit Fortune 500 companies, wants its credit account 
     outlays boosted from $472 million to $600 million. Mr. 
     Clinton agreed.
       Even the never-ending Franklin Delano Roosevelt Commission, 
     established in 1955 to develop a memorial for FDR, is down 
     for $347,000 this year and another $170,000 next year.
       If the continued existence of these and many hundreds of 
     other nonessential federal expenditures isn't reason enough 
     for adopting a balanced budget law, what is?
                                  ____


  Questions for Senator Reid Regarding Reid Balanced Budget Amendment 
           Prepared by Senator Larry Craig February 28, 1994


                               section 1

       1. Whose estimates would be used for establishing 
     ``estimated receipts''?
       2. Would Congress have to approve the receipts estimate?
       3. Does the gentleman believe that his amendment will 
     require an annual concurrent budget resolution? Would this be 
     the mechanism for arriving at the Constitutionally required 
     estimates?
       4. If the Reid amendment does require that Congress 
     continue to pass annual concurrent budget resolutions, can 
     you explain why you chose to place this relatively new 
     statutory requirement into the Constitution? If not, what 
     alternative mechanism(s) do you envision?
       5. Is there anything comparable to the debt limit provision 
     of S.J. Res. 41 that would prevent the use of rosy scenario 
     estimates to comply with the amendment in form only?
       6. Would the President have any role in a decision to 
     approve deficit spending? Would this role include approving 
     estimates?
       7. Would the estimates be required before the beginning of 
     the fiscal year?
       8. As economic and fiscal circumstances change during a 
     fiscal year, would section 1 require revisions of the 
     estimates? Would Congress be required to pass a new 
     concurrent resolution to revise the estimates?
       9. What would happen if Congress did not establish or did 
     not provide for the establishment of the Constitutionally 
     required estimates?


                               section 2

       1. Would the amendment provide an incoming President with 
     the option of submitting a budget later than the first Monday 
     in February, as President Clinton did last year?


                               section 3

       1. Can the gentleman explain why his amendment provides 
     Congress with less discretion in choosing whether or not to 
     relax budget discipline during slow growth than it has under 
     the Budget Enforcement Act? (The BEA provides that Congress 
     may vote to suspend the discipline of the BEA if CBO projects 
     negative growth for two consecutive quarters or if the 
     Commerce Department finds that actual growth was less than 1 
     percent for two quarters.)
       2. Why did the gentleman choose a lower threshold in 
     determining a recession in order to waive the amendment 
     (projected growth of less than one percent) than the 
     threshold for a vote on suspending the BEA (projected 
     negative growth)?
       3. Is it the Senator's intent that his amendment will 
     supersede the provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act of 
     1990 and prohibit a BEA vote of Congress to suspend the 
     budget discipline of the BEA during times of slow growth?
       4. Can the Senator explain how the provision for suspending 
     the amendment would operate during periods in which there is 
     no Director of the Congressional Budget Office?
       5. Can the Senator explain why the amendment would be 
     waived for two fiscal years after a determination that 
     economic growth has been less than 1 percent, even though the 
     economy might be in an expansionary phase during the second 
     fiscal year after the determination?
       6. Can the Senator explain why he granted the Director of 
     CBO, an unelected, minor official, the authority to determine 
     whether or not the provisions of a Constitutional amendment 
     should be waived?


                               section 4

       1. Why did the Senator choose not to define the term 
     ``capital investment'' in his amendment?
       2. What is the Senator's understanding of what would be 
     considered a ``capital investment'' under his amendment? 
     Would it include spending for scientific research and 
     development? The construction of government office buildings? 
     The purchase of military hardware? Would it include spending 
     for grants to state and local governments for capital 
     expenditures? What about grants such as Economic Development 
     Administration grants that may be used for both capital and 
     non-capital items? Does the Senator believe, as the Chairman 
     of the House Government Operations Committee does, that 
     capital expenditures should recognize ``human capital'' such 
     as job training, education and head start?
       3. Would there be any restraint on the type of items that 
     were included in the capital budget or the magnitude of 
     borrowing to finance capital expenditures comparable to the 
     restraint placed on states through bond ratings?
       4. What impact would the Section of the Reid amendment have 
     on the treatment of capital expenditures which currently are 
     subject to the discretionary caps in the BEA? Does the 
     amendment implicitly or explicitly exempt programs from the 
     BEA caps? If not, would we have two sets of accounting in 
     which capital investments are off-budget for purposes of the 
     Constitution, but subject to caps and sequesters under 
     statutes?
       5. Is there any restriction on what could be defined as 
     ``outlays of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund''? 
     Could Congress fund Medicare, veterans benefits, civil 
     service and military retirement or other spending from 
     outlays of the OASDI Trust Fund?
       6. Does the Senator's amendment make any provision for the 
     years in which the Social Security trust fund will face cash 
     shortfalls?
       7. Is there anything in the Senator's amendment that would 
     prevent Congress from cutting Social Security benefits?
       8. If the definitions of OASDI receipts and outlays would 
     be restricted by the amendment, would Congress be prohibited 
     from establishing new OASDI benefits and/or changing the 
     trust fund's funding mechanisms?


                               section 5

       1. Can the Senator explain why he chose to include in his 
     amendment language overturning the Supreme Court case of 
     Bowsher vs. Synar regarding the fundamental Constitutional 
     doctrine of separation of powers by allowing Congress to vest 
     the executive authority to order uniform cuts in an officer 
     of Congress?
       2. Does the Senator believe that it is appropriate for 
     Congress to overturn a Supreme Court decision through a 
     Constitutional amendment without the benefits of hearings?
       3. Is it the Senator's understanding that this section 
     prohibits absolutely any judicial enforcement of the 
     amendment unless Congress passes legislation explicitly 
     granting a role to the courts?
       4. What is the meaning of the phrase ``appropriate 
     legislation enacted by Congress''? If Congress passed no 
     implementing legislation, does the black letter of the 
     amendment preclude any enforcement?
       5. Would the provision allowing Congress to enact 
     ``appropriate legislation'' allow Congress to pass 
     legislation denying any judicial standing under the 
     amendment, contrary to the provisions of Article III of the 
     Constitution?
       6. Does the provision granting Congress the ability to 
     ``delegate to an officer of Congress the power to order 
     uniform cuts,'' allow Congress to pass legislation requiring 
     across-the-board cuts in Social Security?
       7. Could Congress choose to exempt any programs from the 
     uniform cuts that could be ordered under the amendments, or 
     does the phrase ``uniform cuts'' mandate the inclusion of any 
     or all programs?
       8. Would the ``officer of Congress'' have any discretion in 
     determining which programs would be subject to uniform cuts?
       9. What examples of an ``officer of Congress'' does the 
     Senator contemplate could order uniform cuts? Could the 
     Secretary of the Senate or the Doorkeeper of the House or the 
     Architect of the Capital order cuts?


                               section 6

       1. Why did the gentleman choose to make Section 5 (which 
     overturns Supreme Court decisions on separation of powers and 
     allows an officer of Congress to order uniform cuts) and 
     Section 6 of the amendment effective immediately?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the father of three children, I worry 
about the effect of continued deficit spending on future generations of 
Americans. As a Senator from South Dakota, I fear what a future of 
mounting national debt will do to the quality of life of the people I 
represent and to the standing of our country in the world. For these 
reasons, I will vote in favor of the balanced budget amendment.
  For the past 25 years, our Federal budget has not once run a surplus, 
or even been in balance. Rather, in every single year since 1969, the 
Federal Government has spent more money than it has taken in. The tab 
for that reign of self-indulgence is finally coming due.
  During the 1970's, these deficits did not pose a significant threat 
to the Nation's economic future, and they were largely ignored. Over 
the next 12 years, the deficit almost quadrupled, ballooning from $73.8 
billion in 1980 to over $290 billion in 1992. During the period, the 
deficits were noticed, but not seriously addressed.
  Today, in this debate on a balanced budget amendment, we are being 
forced to face the consequences of our inaction. Quite simply, we are 
building a legacy of debt for our children and grandchildren, and 
hamstringing our ability to address pressing national priorities.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the national debt now 
stands at $4.4 trillion. This means that the Federal Government owes 
more than $17,000 for every U.S. citizen, adults and children alike.
  And this debt is not just a dark cloud looming in the distance. It 
has a very real and devastating effect now on the Government's ability 
to meet the immediate needs of its citizens and invest in the future.
  Like private citizens, the Government must pay interest on its debt. 
For fiscal year 1993, we paid $198.8 billion in net interest, the 
second largest expenditure in the Nation's budget. This sum represents 
money that could have been used to stimulate job creation, invest in 
new technologies, protect our environment, maintain our defense 
capabilities, enhance the quality of life of low-income seniors, expand 
educational opportunities and reduce the deficit.
  To remedy our fiscal situation, we must stop spending beyond our 
means. This will not require the emasculation of important domestic 
priorities, as some suggest. What it will require, however, is a 
commitment on the part of the Government to pay for the programs we 
want and to stop doing the things we do not really need to do.
  Families understand the concept of fiscal restraint. They know that 
when money is tight, they will have to forgo vacations and put off 
buying a new car. They are accustomed to paying for the important 
things first--food, medical care, housing, savings for college--and 
then thinking about other expenditures. Parents are also sometimes 
forced to say ``no'' because what their children want is too expensive 
or not really needed at the time.
  It is time for Government to learn a few lessons from America's 
families. Government must learn to set budget priorities and to pay for 
these priorities. It also must learn to say ``no'' to special interests 
when the programs they advocate are too costly or don't fit within the 
Nation's spending priorities.
  Living within a budget is never easy, as families well know. There 
are many worthy programs which depend on Federal funds and which have 
the support of many in Congress. But for the sake of our Nation's 
economic well-being, and for the sake of our children and 
grandchildren, we must decide which programs we are willing to pay for 
and which ones we are not.
  Some of my colleagues feel, as does President Clinton, that we can 
make these tough budget choices without amending the Constitution. I 
wish they were right, but history indicates that they are not.
  Since I began serving the citizens of South Dakota in the Congress, 
there have been six laws passed to constrain Federal spending and 
reduce the deficit. Quite obviously, none has worked. Each time these 
laws required tough budget choices--choices that would have been 
politically unpopular--Congress and the President found ways to get 
around them.
  Our Nation can no longer afford to evade these choices. To do so 
threatens our status as a world power and the standard of living for 
future generations. Too much is at stake for us to settle for the 
status quo.
  According to the General Accounting Office, it is imperative that the 
Government take action now to address our budget deficit. By the year 
2020, most of the baby boom generation will have retired, and those 
retirees will be supported by a smaller working population. In order to 
ensure that we can meet our commitments to future retirees without 
jeopardizing the standard of living of working men and women, we must 
seek to maximize economic growth during the early 21st century. Our 
current budget deficit is eating away at that growth and undermining 
our economic potential.
  It is true that some progress on the deficit has been made. Last 
year, President Clinton and the Congress worked together to enact a 
budget plan that will reduce the deficit by almost $500 billion over 5 
years. I supported this plan because it was a good first step toward 
addressing the deficit. Indeed, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the recent upswings in the economy are due largely to passage 
of this plan.

  If we could continue to achieve meaningful deficit reduction in this 
manner, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would not be 
necessary. Unfortunately, however, there is ample reason to question 
whether Congress and the President would be able to muster the 
collective political will to push through another far-reaching deficit 
reduction proposal. As it was, last year's plan passed the Congress by 
only a few votes--1 out of 100 in the Senate; 2 out of 434 in the 
House.
  A balanced budget amendment will provide the fiscal discipline our 
Nation must have in order to meet the needs of the present generation 
without bankrupting those of the future. Sworn to uphold the 
Constitution, Congress and the President will be forced to make the 
further tough decisions our bire budgetary situation demands.
  By adding a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, we as a 
nation are embracing the principle that Government should not spend 
beyond its means. This is a principle worthy of inclusion in the 
document that sets forth the limits of governmental power and protects 
the rights of individual citizens.
  Thomas Jefferson, who supported placing limits on the Government's 
borrowing power in the Constitution, put it this way: ``We should 
consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and 
morally bound to pay for them ourselves.'' That wisdom rings 
particularly true today.
  Requiring the Government to operate within its budget does not mean 
that all important new initiatives or existing programs will have to be 
abandoned or gutted. Nor does it mean we would be forced to renege on 
our current obligations to America's seniors. For my part, such a 
requirement would not lessen my commitment to providing universal 
health care coverage, protecting Social Security, or meeting other 
basic needs of our citizenry.
  The balanced budget amendment would not take effect until 2001. The 
means that Congress and the President will have 7 years to address the 
current deficit and reach a consensus on our Nation's budget 
priorities. We will have time to find ways to live within our means and 
still meet existing obligations to our citizens, particularly the 
elderly. In addition, gradual reduction of the deficit over a period of 
years will prevent unnecessary shock to the economy.
  I believe the key to keeping America strong is to invest in our 
future while spending within our means. A balanced budget amendment 
will not do this for us, but will make us do it for ourselves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois, Senator Simon.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield myself so much time as I may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I am not going to speak at length right now 
on the Reid amendment. I have indicated already I think it has just 
massive loopholes in it, in what is called capital expenditures, and 
the fact that it has no enforcement mechanism. My staff has checked out 
the loophole for periods of low economic growth and of the past 44 
years, in 22 years that would have been another loophole in that 
particular amendment.
  I would like to take a few minutes now to analyze an editorial that 
appeared in the New York Times today in opposition to the amendment 
that Senator Craig and I and others are sponsoring. Let me add my 
appreciation to Senator Craig. He has been a real workhorse on this and 
I have really appreciated his willingness to dig in.
  Let me just quote a few sentences from the New York Times editorial. 
Among other things it does condemn deficits. It says, ``borrowing 
threatens to siphon money away from businesses.''
  Borrowing not only threatens to siphon money away, it is siphoning 
money away. The Concord Coalition study--and I have been impressed by 
the economic research that goes into their studies even though I do not 
agree with every conclusion that they have--said if it were not for the 
deficit the average American family income today would be $50,000 
rather than $35,000. And that is because of the borrowing that takes 
place from the Federal Government that has replaced business spending. 
Then they say, ``At current growth rates, Congress can run deficits and 
still keep the debt growing less quickly than incomes.''
  Whoever wrote this editorial just took a look at the next 2 or 3 
years and did not look at the outyears. In the outyears it goes up and 
up and up and up.
  Then they say, ``But the biggest danger lurking in a balanced budget 
amendment has to do with the way Congress keeps its books. The Federal 
budget lumps together ordinary spending for farm subsidies or 
administrative salaries, and long-term investment for mass transit or 
scientific research.''
  It is very interesting that the last year we had a balanced budget 
was 1969. That was the year we landed a man on the Moon. We did not 
borrow money for the space program. We did it on a pay-as-you-go basis. 
There is nothing we cannot do on a pay-as-you-go basis. We built the 
Interstate Highway System on a pay-as-you-go basis. And as far as mass 
transit, I would be willing to vote for a 2-cent or 3-cent gasoline tax 
increase for mass transit. But there is no justification for issuing 
bonds for mass transit. If we had a 2-cent or 3-cent gasoline tax for 
mass transit, that would significantly increase the amount of money 
spent in mass transit in New York City and Chicago. I do not know about 
Bismarck, ND, Mr. President--but for many of our urban areas.
  Then they say, ``at risk will be spending on education, training, and 
infrastructure.'' It is very interesting. Look at the last 12 years, 
what we have spent in the last 12 years. If you adjust for inflation, 
education went down, minus 8 percent. Yes, in nominal dollars we went 
up, but inflation went up more rapidly. Other things, defense--which a 
lot of people think is a big growth item--went up 16 percent. 
Entitlements went up 32 percent, largely because of health care and 
growth in numbers. But the big growth item is interest, it went up 91 
percent.
  What if we had a balanced budget amendment 12 years ago? Education 
clearly would have done better than it did. So that argument just is 
specious.
  It says, ``Though the 1993 budget law should keep deficits tame for 
now, they are expected to soar again by the end of the decade. But the 
villain is almost entirely health care costs.''
  There is no question health care costs are part of it. But the big 
villain is payment for this debt. We have from 1980 through 1993 spent 
$1.7 trillion on interest. That is over a 13-year period. In the next 5 
years, we will spend $1.7 trillion on interest. That is a huge thing on 
the backs of our children and future generations.
  What is interesting in the New York Times editorial is what is not 
mentioned. They do not mention the threat of monetizing the debt. I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the 
Times, and from OMB, their table that shows this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SIMON. The Presiding Officer, Senator Dorgan, has heard me speak 
about this several times now. It says that someone born when I was 
born, 1930--I was born in 1928, I will spend about 30 percent of my 
lifetime income on taxation. But when you get down to future 
generations and, if you assume every projection in terms of their 
projection on what is going to happen to the economy, and that shows 10 
years of solid growth without a dip, and second we are going to save 
all the money they say we are going to save on health care--and I hope 
we do but I am not that optimistic--but they say future generations, 
even with this assumption, 66 to 75 percent of lifetime earnings of 
future generations will go for taxation.
  Mr. President, that is just not going to happen. We are going to 
start printing money before that happens, and this whole question of 
monetizing the debt is not addressed at all. That is a huge, huge 
cloud, dark cloud on the horizon for us.
  And then the second thing that they do not address at all in this 
amendment is our reliance on foreign individuals and foreign 
governments to buy our bonds; 17 percent of that ownership is publicly 
acknowledged. In addition, there are individuals and governments that 
do not want it known publicly, and they hide it. They hide it largely 
because, in their own countries, there are laws against them taking 
money out of the country. So it is hidden.
  At the very least, it is 17 percent. The reality is you cannot for 25 
years in a row borrow money for spending more than you take in without 
having bankers question what you are going to do and, at some point, 
those international bankers are going to question it.
  Lester Thurow, a distinguished economist who came from, I regret to 
say, Mr. President, South Dakota rather than North Dakota--he came from 
Montana originally. His parents lived in South Dakota. The Presiding 
Officer is more on top of this than I am.
  Lester Thurow says the question is not if foreign governments and 
individuals are going to withdraw their money from us; the question is 
when they are going to do it.
  I see my colleague from Idaho rising.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield? The Senator has made an extremely 
important point as relates to who finances our debt structure. Of that 
17 percent today, that represents in interest payments about $40 
billion a year in interest on debt that goes overseas to foreign 
investors.
  As I last checked, I think our foreign aid was $20.3 billion, or 
somewhere in that range. The thing that I find ironic about this is 
that we spend about $20 billion plus in foreign aid, and we like to 
think that most of it goes to the poor and the downtrodden, and yet the 
$40 billion we pay in interest to foreign investors goes to the most 
wealthy. It is the bankers, it is the wealthy class that has the money 
to invest in our debt structure that gets all of the money back. So we 
pay over two times as much to the foreign wealthy as we are able to put 
out in foreign aid to the foreign poor. Why? Because of debt.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague, and I will simply say, his figures 
are too conservative. The reality is, if you take 17 percent of roughly 
$300 billion, you are talking about $51 billion that goes overseas, and 
that does not count the hidden ownership. No one knows what that is.
  But the point that you make is absolutely valid. The big foreign aid 
we have is foreign aid not for the poor but for those--I am curious 
where you got the $41 billion figure. That must be from net----
  Mr. CRAIG. Apparently it is. In this debate, I would not dare say, 
well, it is only a few billion. But in that business, it really is, 
tragically enough.
  Mr. SIMON. Even assuming your figures, the reality is this is roughly 
twice as much----
  Mr. CRAIG. That is the point.
  Mr. SIMON. As foreign aid that goes to those who are poor.
  Mr. CRAIG. As you just mentioned, it goes to an entirely different 
class of people.
  Mr. SIMON. Absolutely. The point is well taken.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                       [From the New York Times]

                        A Wrongheaded Amendment

       When the Senate votes tomorrow on a constitutional 
     amendment, proposed by Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, that 
     would require Congress to balance the Federal budget, the 
     outcome will be close. Such an amendment would be a political 
     mistake. It would allow a mere 40 out of 100 senators and a 
     similar minority in the House to block legislation that would 
     create a deficit. And because the amendment includes no 
     enforcement procedure, it would drag courts where they do not 
     belong--into routine budget disputes.
       Fiddling with the Constitution could be defensible if a 
     mighty public purpose were at stake. But Mr. Simon's 
     amendment, and substitute versions also up for voting, would 
     engrave into the Constitution a standard--zero deficits--that 
     makes little economic sense. The deficit, as measured by 
     Congress, takes no account of inflation, no account of 
     growth, no account of recession and no account of the value 
     of public investment.
       Yes, the Federal deficit over the last 15 years has been 
     too high. When the Government spends more than it taxes, it 
     borrows the balance. Borrowing threatens to siphon money away 
     from businesses that would have used it for plants and 
     equipment. When this happen, the private economy is left less 
     productive--a blow to our children's living standards.
       So Federal borrowing must be contained. But at what level? 
     For several reasons the answer is not necessarily zero. 
     Consider the impact of growth. As incomes rise, individuals 
     can afford to carry more debt. At current growth rates, 
     Congress can run deficits and still keep the debt growing 
     less quickly than incomes. Or consider the impact of 
     inflation. Inflation eats away at the economic value of 
     government bonds that individuals hold. At current rates of 
     inflation, Congress could run a $100 billion deficit without 
     raising the real value of the debt.
       But the biggest danger lurking in a balanced budget 
     amendment has to do with the way Congress keeps its books. 
     The Federal budget lumps together ordinary spending (for farm 
     subsidies or administrative salaries) and long-term public 
     investment (for mass transit of scientific research). Forced 
     to cut out hundreds of billions from the deficit, Congress 
     will be driven to eliminate big-ticket investments whose 
     payoffs are far into the future and preserve lower-cost 
     giveaways to politically powerful special interests. At risk 
     will be spending on education, training and infrastructure.
       The proposed amendment also poses a threat when the economy 
     turns sour. During downturns, tax revenues fall off, sending 
     the budget into deficit. Under the amendment, Congress would 
     be required to cut spending and raise tax rates--throwing the 
     economy into a steeper tailspin. The only way out is for 
     three-fifths of each house to suspend the amendment--a vote 
     that would be nearly impossible to achieve until the economy 
     had slipped badly.
       Though the 1993 budget law should keep deficits tame for 
     now, they are expected to soar again by the end of the 
     decade. But the villain is almost entirely health care costs. 
     The answer to that is health care reform, not a destructive 
     constitutional straitjacket.

      TABLE 3-3. LIFETIME NET TAX RATES UNDER ALTERNATIVE POLICIES      
                            [In percentages]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Health 
                                                                  care  
                                                       With      reform 
   Generation's year of birth     Before     After    health      but   
                                  OBRA93    OBRA93     care      faster 
                                                      reform      cost  
                                                                growth  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1900...........................      23.6      23.6      23.6       23.6
1910...........................      27.2      27.2      27.2       27.2
1920...........................      29.0      29.0      29.1       29.1
1930...........................      30.5      30.6      30.9       30.9
1940...........................      31.6      31.9      32.4       32.2
1950...........................      32.8      33.2      34.0       33.5
1960...........................      34.4      35.0      35.9       35.2
1970...........................      35.7      36.5      37.6       36.6
1980...........................      36.0      36.9      38.2       36.7
1990...........................      35.5      36.5      38.3       36.2
1992...........................      35.4      36.3      38.3       36.0
Future generations.............      93.7      82.0      66.5       75.2
Percentage difference: future                                           
 generations and 1992..........     165.1     126.0      73.9      108.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we had an agreement before Senator Simon 
arrived that Senator Dorgan could speak next for 15 to 20 minutes. So I 
will preside while he does that, off my time.
  Mr. SIMON. That is perfectly acceptable to me.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I was unaware and I accept that agreement 
certainly because we want to keep the debate moving. I ask the Senator 
from Oklahoma be able to follow immediately following the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized for 20 minutes followed 
by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, thank you very much for your courtesy.
  I have listened with interest to this debate about the constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget.
  This debate is now 1 week old. And I want to mention that I was 
reading last evening a small book that I am sure Senator Simon has 
read, since he reads everything. It is a book written by Mr. Fulghum 
entitled ``All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.''
  He points out that the lessons you learn in kindergarten are enduring 
lessons. They really are all that you need to know. Mr. Fulghum says 
the lessons are: Share everything; play fair; do not hit people; put 
things back where you found them; clean up your own mess; do not take 
things that are not yours; say you are sorry when you hurt someone; 
wash your hands before you eat; flush; and when you go out into the 
world, watch for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
  I read his book a couple of times because the lessons are simple but 
pretty straightforward. The lesson for this debate, I suppose, is do 
not take things that are not yours. We are literally spending resources 
today that are not ours. They are our children's and our 
grandchildren's. But we are avoiding tough choices and we keep spending 
our children's resources.
  We have an addiction to debt. It is not just Government debt that is 
a problem. Our country is addicted to debt. It is not just Government, 
but individuals, too. Go home and open your mail tonight and see if you 
do not have another credit card company asking you to please accept 
some of their credit so you can go deeper into debt. You are even 
preapproved.
  Corporate debt has risen astronomically. Consumer debt has risen 
astronomically. Federal debt and Federal yearly deficits have increased 
at an alarming and dangerous pace.
  But when Congress tries to cut the deficit, we get into these awful 
partisan wrangles about whether this remedy is better than that remedy. 
Do we cut spending? If so, which programs do we cut? Do we raise taxes? 
If so, which ones? These debates can be agonizing.
  This Senate is now considering two constitutional remedies. Some feel 
very strongly that any constitutional remedy is inappropriate. They 
believe very strongly that this is a terrible mistake. My friend, the 
Senator from West Virginia, [Mr. Byrd], a Senator of legendary service 
around here, someone for whom I have the highest respect, feels very 
strongly that any constitutional approach is fundamentally wrong.
  I do not share that view. I did share it some years ago when I came 
to Congress. I do not share it any longer. I believe we must find the 
strongest possible solution to force this country's fiscal policy into 
some kind of balance.
  The question is, what remedy will we use? I am definitely going to 
vote for the substitute amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada, 
[Mr. Reid]. But even if Senator Reid's amendment fails, I am willing to 
vote for the constitutional amendment offered by Senator Simon. I do 
not believe those who brought the Simon amendment to this floor really 
believe that they are offering us the Old Testament; it is the word; it 
is the word that is unchangeable; it is the only word. No, that is not 
the case.
  The Senator from Nevada has offered constitutional language that 
would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, but would 
make several changes in what is offered by Senator Simon.
  I would say to my colleagues that I, too, have had reservations about 
changing the Constitution in any way. I revere that document. I think 
all Senators do.
  We have seen different attempts to change the Constitution, and I 
have resisted them--flag burning amendments, prayer amendments, 
abortion amendments. I have said, ``I'm sorry, I just don't think we 
ought to change the Constitution in that way.''
  But as we have gone through these debates year after year after year, 
our fiscal policy has been dangerously out of balance, with seemingly 
no hope of getting it under some control. We are now suggesting a 
constitutional amendment to force us to control our budget.
  A constitutional amendment? I agree with that. Is the Reid amendment 
an appropriate amendment? Yes, I think it is. Is the Simon amendment an 
appropriate and good amendment? Yes, I think it is, too.
  I do not think that you must be in a position of saying I will vote 
for one and then against the other, or I will support the other and not 
the one. Let me describe why.
  The Reid amendment includes a provision dealing with Social Security 
that I drafted. That is an improvement, in my judgment, over the Simon 
amendment.
  The Senator from Idaho has argued that my provision makes balancing 
the budget easier. It is exactly the opposite in fact. If you take 
Social Security out of the constitutional amendment, you require a 
higher threshold, a higher standard, a greater amount of effort to get 
this budget into some balance. As the Simon amendment now stands, you 
conceivably could have a $100 billion yearly surplus in Social Security 
and a $100 billion yearly operating deficit in the rest of the budget. 
Under the Simon amendment you would be perfectly in balance. But you 
would not have forced the savings necessary in the Social Security 
system. The Social Security system is saving up for some lean years to 
come. If the rest of the Government runs a deficit, we will defeat the 
purpose of the Social Security surplus.
   In 1983 we passed a Social Security reform bill that increased 
Social Security taxes, the most regressive of all taxes. We changed the 
retirement age from 65 to 67 and made a number of other adjustments in 
the system. We deliberately decided that we needed to build up a 
surplus between now and the year 2035--so that we would have a balance 
to use when the baby boomers retire.
  At the end of the Second World War all these folks came out and 
produced the biggest crop of babies in the history of this country. The 
baby boomers, the war babies they call them. When they retire, we will 
have the maximum strain on the Social Security system.
  In 1983, we decided we had to save for that day, so we created a 
Social Security system that deliberately runs a surplus. This year the 
surplus is between $64 and $70 billion.
  You can say, the Federal deficit is x, but if you do not add the 
Social Security surplus to x, you are not speaking honestly.
  This chart shows the real budget deficit according to the President's 
budget. Next year it will be $171 billion. But the honest number is 
$241 billion, because we are using $70 billion in Social Security 
surpluses to show a lower deficit. If you exclude the Social Security 
surplus, the deficits grow year by year: $242 billion, $266 billion, 
$272 billion, all the way to the year 2004 when our budget deficit will 
be $503 billion.
  This problem is not getting better. This problem is getting worse.
  That is why the Reid amendment, which excludes the Social Security 
surplus, is preferable. I appreciate very much the Senator from Nevada 
including my provision excluding Social Security.
  This next chart shows what the debt will be if you count the assets 
of the Social Security trust funds. We will have a $4.9 trillion debt 
in 1995. In 1999, our debt will be $6.3 trillion. By the year 2004, we 
will owe around $8 trillion.
  Some would try to justify this debt by reminding us that families 
borrow. They ask, ``Do you know a husband and wife who pay off their 
car the day they buy it? Do many families write a check to buy a 
house?''
  No. They borrow that money. That is true. But when the family buys 
the car and goes into debt, it has to make incremental payments every 
single month to reduce the debt. When a family buys a house and goes 
into debt, that family must make incremental payments every single 
month to reduce the mortgage. No one in this Chamber can name a single 
month since 1980 in which the public debt has fallen. In every month 
since then, the debt has risen. That is why I conclude we need a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  The Reid amendment, some say, is weak because it makes an exception 
during a recession. It would enable the Government to help the economy 
grow out of a recession. I do not see this as a liability. That 
provision is an asset.
  Others complain that the Reid amendment has a capital budget 
capability in it. That is not a problem for me. In my judgment, that is 
an asset. That is what the States do. And that is what private 
corporations do.
  So the Reid balanced budget amendment is an amendment that I can and 
will easily support.
  I bet that if you skip ahead 100 years from now and read the 
financial history of the United States, you will look back at this past 
decade and a half, and you will say, ``What on Earth were those men and 
women serving in the Congress thinking about? How on Earth could they 
have believed that they should do what they did, spend about 24 percent 
of the gross national product, raise about 19 percent in revenue, and 
charge the remaining 5 percent to the kids. How on Earth could they 
have hooked their entitlement programs to inflation so they were 
automatically increased and then have indexed their tax system so that 
it did not adjust for inflation, and have created this tremendous 
imbalance? How on Earth could they have believed that they were going 
to get out of that mess?''
  A constitutional amendment will end budget business as usual. And let 
me emphasize that we have made massive constitutional changes before. 
For years in this country women could not vote. Do you not suppose that 
back in the 1860's, 1880's, 1890's people would say, ``Why should we 
give women the right to vote? Things are just fine the way they are. 
Nobody is complaining. It is just fine.''
  We had a time in this country when it was just fine to own a slave. 
At least that is what they thought. The Supreme Court even said it was 
fine. At the time people thought, ``Well, gee, I think we are doing the 
right thing. This does not seem wrong.''
  Our country has done many things that did not seem wrong at the time. 
This country's current fiscal policy is one of them.
  A couple of years ago, a professor of history at Yale, named Paul 
Kennedy, wrote a book called ``The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.'' 
He evaluated the rise and fall of civilizations, of societies, and 
tried to understand why that happened. Over long periods of history, 
countries rise up, and become rich and powerful. When they do that, 
they reach outward, and they extend their interests to other parts of 
the world. When they extend their interests, they try to secure those 
interests, and they build up their military forces to protect those 
interests. Inevitably, another country rises up and competes. And 
because the first country is using all of its money to defend its over-
extended interests abroad, it does not make the economic investments 
necessary to sustain its future, and it falls.
  I mention this because we have to make some choices if we are to 
sustain our long-term prosperity.
  The Senator from Nevada has offered a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. I am going to vote for it.
  If the Reid amendment does not pass, the Simon amendment will be 
before us. I will likely vote for it. I want us to decide now, not 
tomorrow, not next year, not a decade from now, that my children, when 
they go into the job market, are going to find a growing economy. I 
want America to remain a land of opportunity. And that is simply not 
going to happen under the current set of circumstances.
  This President has done more than his recent predecessors to cut our 
deficit. He proposed a gutsy plan last year to Congress, and I am proud 
I voted for it. Some of it was very controversial. I understand that. 
But it does not take me 5 seconds to stand up and take credit for 
voting for that plan. It was the right thing. It raised some taxes, 
yes. It cut some spending, yes. It was certainly tough, but I voted for 
it. I am proud of that.
   Even with that tough medicine, we do not now see a blueprint for 
reconciling our entitlement programs and other spending with our 
revenues. Even with what we did last year, we do not have a plan for 
the future of this country. That is why I am convinced we must impose 
on ourselves the discipline of a constitutional balanced budget 
amendment.
  We could put this in the Constitution at 5 minutes after 3 this 
afternoon and it will not make one nickel's difference in the deficit. 
We will have to make changes to comply with the Constitution. We are 
going to have to make difficult choices. But putting this requirement 
in the Constitution, as either the Reid amendment, or the Simon 
amendment would do, will require us to do the right thing for our 
children and for our country.
  That is why I am pleased to stand today in support of what the 
Senator from Nevada has offered the Senate: a constructive, 
appropriate, well-written, thoughtful constitutional amendment. And I 
hope that when we vote on that at 3 o'clock tomorrow the Senate will 
approve the proposal of the Senator from Nevada.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada for his courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 10 
minutes off the time of the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate my 
colleague and friend, Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, for his 
statement. Especially his statement in which he said he was going to 
vote for the Reid amendment and that, if it should not pass, he intends 
to vote for the Simon amendment. I happen to prefer the Simon 
amendment. It is my intention to vote against the Reid amendment in 
favor of the Simon amendment. But I want a balanced budget amendment to 
pass.
  I think it is vitally important that we take some steps today and 
tomorrow to make it pass.
  I also wish to compliment my friends and colleagues, Senator Simon, 
Senator Craig, Senator Hatch, and Senator Thurmond, for their 
leadership on this issue. Senators Hatch and Thurmond I have had the 
pleasure of working with for some time, and they have been diligent in 
their efforts to try to pass a constitutional balanced budget 
amendment. We did pass it on the floor of the Senate, I believe, in 
1982 by a couple of votes. We have tried a couple of times subsequent 
to that and have been short a couple of votes. My guess is, Mr. 
President, this will be a very close vote and, in all likelihood, will 
be decided by one or two votes.
  So every single vote is important. This is probably one of the most 
important votes that we will cast this year.
  It is interesting to note the significant history of this debate. I 
would love to find that the vote that was cast in 1994 will be a vote 
to pass the balanced budget amendment for the second time in the 
Senate, and hopefully the House will concur.
  I also, Mr. President, would like to compliment Senator Byrd for his 
tenacity, for his commitment, and for his dedication in opposition. He 
is very persistent. I happen to appreciate somebody who is willing to 
stand up on difficult issues and express themselves very forcefully, 
and certainly he has done so.
  I also had the opportunity to participate in some of the hearings 
that Senator Byrd conducted last week. I felt maybe those hearings were 
a little unbalanced. They were certainly constructed to advocate 
Senator Byrd's position in opposition to the balanced budget amendment. 
I appreciate that, although I disagree with the results. I mentioned 
that to Senator Byrd and also to some of the witnesses.
  Mr. President, I became concerned after listening to some of the 
witnesses that Senator Byrd had the one day I attended--Secretary 
Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, made some very 
draconian statements. She said that if we pass the balanced budget 
amendment we will take the ``care'' out of Medicare and we will take 
the ``security'' out of Social Security. I happen to disagree. 
Secretary Brown of Veterans Affairs was there, and he said that if we 
pass this, we are going to gut programs for veterans. We would have to 
have an 11.2 percent reduction in veterans programs and not even be 
able to fund programs for service-connected veterans.
  I could not help but think the administration is really mounting a 
hype campaign against this amendment that is not sustained by facts or 
reasonable analysis.
  I also serve on the Budget Committee, and we had Secretary Bentsen 
and OMB Director Panetta before the committee. They were talking about 
how great it is that the deficit is declining substantially. Last year, 
in January 1993, CBO estimated the deficit for 1995 would be $284 
billion, and in January 1994, CBO estimated that the deficit will be 
$171 billion. That is an improvement of $113 billion in 1 year.
  I will insert for the Record an analysis of where that $113 billion 
comes from.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          NEW SPENDING IN THE CLINTON BUDGET PLAN, INCREASES ABOVE 1994 LEVELS                                          
                                                                [In billions of dollars]                                                                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          1995             1996             1997             1998             1999            Total     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crime bill initiatives:                                                                                                                                 
    Budget authority..............................            2.466            4.333            5.049            5.553            6.581           23.982
    Outlays.......................................             .736            2.324            3.925            4.982            6.449           18.416
Head Start:                                                                                                                                             
    Budget authority..............................             .700            1.400            2.100            2.800            3.500           10.500
    Outlays.......................................             .463            1.204            1.872            2.567            3.266            9.372
Housing vouchers:                                                                                                                                       
    Budget authority..............................            1.339            1.408            1.478            2.658            3.138           10.021
    Outlays.......................................             .456            1.003            1.633            2.301            3.064            8.457
NIH:                                                                                                                                                    
    Budget authority..............................             .517             .999            1.501            2.024            2.569            7.610
    Outlays.......................................             .758            1.429            2.118            2.820            3.343           10.468
Title 1 education:                                                                                                                                      
    Budget authority..............................             .667             .909            1.152            1.397            1.642            5.767
    Outlays.......................................             .029             .583             .899            1.151            1.395            4.057
National service:                                                                                                                                       
    Budget authority..............................             .275             .784            1.012            1.285            1.610            4.966
    Outlays.......................................             .165             .504             .908            1.189            1.468            4.234
Dislocated workers:                                                                                                                                     
    Budget authority..............................             .347             .746            1.047            1.047            1.095            4.282
    Outlays.......................................             .415             .797            1.184            1.497            1.594            5.487
WIC:                                                                                                                                                    
    Budget authority..............................             .354             .704             .956            1.035            1.184            4.233
    Outlays.......................................             .316             .674             .925            1.017            1.161            4.093
Goals 2000:                                                                                                                                             
    Budget authority..............................             .595             .895             .895             .895             .895            4.175
    Outlays.......................................             .141             .605             .916             .981             .987            3.630
NIST growth:                                                                                                                                            
    Budget authority..............................             .415             .569             .859             .887             .902            3.632
    Outlays.......................................             .157             .411             .687             .887             .986            3.128
IRS tax modification:                                                                                                                                   
    Budget authority..............................             .295             .803             .841             .787             .610            3.336
    Outlays.......................................             .244             .671             .829             .849             .718            3.311
SSI processing:                                                                                                                                         
    Budget authority..............................             .327             .156             .668             .743             .862            2.756
    Outlays.......................................             .371             .516             .700            1.046            1.145            3.778
Highways:                                                                                                                                               
    Budget authority..............................             .323             .323             .168             .168             .168            1.150
    Outlays.......................................             .621            1.475            1.767            1.767            1.846            7.476
Homeless programs:                                                                                                                                      
    Budget authority..............................             .427             .177             .177             .177             .177            1.135
    Outlays.......................................             .286             .408             .676             .933            1.072            3.375
All other increases:                                                                                                                                    
    Budget authority..............................            5.803            7.087            8.034            8.609            9.438           38.977
    Outlays.......................................            3.019            6.435            8.372            9.871           10.870           38.567
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total:                                                                                                                                            
    Budget authority..............................           14.856           21.293           25.937           30.065           34.371          126.522
    Outlays.......................................            8.177           19.039           27.411           33.858           39.364          127.849
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                  SOURCE OF DEFICIT CHANGE SINCE PRESIDENT CLINTON TOOK OFFICE                                                                  
                                                                                    [In billions of dollars]                                                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year 1993      Fiscal year 1994      Fiscal year 1995      Fiscal year 1996      Fiscal year 1997      Fiscal year 1998        Total 1993-98   
                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Amount    Percent     Amount    Percent     Amount    Percent     Amount    Percent     Amount    Percent     Amount    Percent     Amount    Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO deficit baseline (January 1993)...       310   .........       291   .........       284   .........       287   .........       319   .........       357   .........     1,848   .........
CBO deficit baseline (January 1994)...       255   .........       223   .........       171   .........       166   .........       182   .........       180   .........     1,177   .........
                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Deficit change..................       (55)  .........       (68)  .........      (113)  .........      (121)  .........      (137)  .........      (177)  .........      (671)  .........
                                       =========================================================================================================================================================
Sources of deficit change:                                                                                                                                                                      
    Spending cuts\1\..................         4          -7         4          -6        (5)          4       (20)         17       (39)         28       (56)         32      (112)         17
    Tax increases\2\..................         0           0       (28)         41       (46)         41       (56)         46       (66)         48       (67)         38      (263)         39
    Debt service......................         0           0        (1)          1        (2)          2        (7)          6       (13)          9       (20)         11       (43)          6
    Economic changes..................         0           0       (13)         19       (15)         13       (12)         10       (14)         10       (25)         14       (79)         12
    Technical and other\3\............       (59)        107       (31)         46       (45)         40       (27)         22        (5)          4        (9)          5      (176)         26
                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................       (55)        100       (68)        100      (113)        100      (121)        100      (137)        100      (177)        100      (671)        100
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\OBRA 1993 discretionary and mandatory spending cuts minus higher outlays for emergency unemployment compensation and supplemental appropriations for flood relief.                           
\2\OBRA 1993 tax increases.                                                                                                                                                                     
\3\Technical reestimates (deposit insurance, revenues, and medicare/medicaid) and OBRA 1993 debt service savings.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Note.--Details may not add due to rounding.                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                
Sources: CBO January 1993 report, CBO September 1993 report, CBO January 1994 report.                                                                                                           


------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Year              Revenues    Outlays    Deficits  Gross debt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1960.......................         92         92         0      290,525
1961.......................         94         98        (3)     292,648
1962.......................        100        107        (7)     302,928
1963.......................        107        111        (5)     310,324
1964.......................        113        119        (6)     316,059
1965.......................        117        118        (1)     322,318
1966.......................        131        135        (4)     328,498
1967.......................        149        157        (9)     340,445
1968.......................        153        178       (25)     368,685
1969.......................        187        184         3      365,769
1970.......................        193        196        (3)     380,921
1971.......................        187        210       (23)     408,176
1972.......................        207        231       (23)     435,936
1973.......................        231        246       (15)     466,291
1974.......................        263        269        (6)     483,893
1975.......................        279        332       (53)     541,925
1976.......................        298        372       (74)     628,970
1977.......................        356        409       (54)     706,398
1978.......................        400        459       (59)     776,602
1979.......................        463        504       (40)     828,923
1980.......................        517        591       (74)     908,503
1981.......................        599        678       (79)     994,298
1982.......................        618        746      (128)   1,136,798
1983.......................        601        808      (208)   1,371,164
1984.......................        667        852      (185)   1,564,110
1985.......................        734        946      (212)   1,816,974
1986.......................        769        990      (221)   2,120,082
1987.......................        854      1,004      (150)   2,345,578
1988.......................        909      1,064      (155)   2,600,760
1989.......................        991      1,143      (153)   2,867,537
1990.......................      1,031      1,253      (221)   3,206,347
1991.......................      1,054      1,324      (270)   3,598,993
1992.......................      1,091      1,381      (290)   4,002,669
1993.......................      1,153      1,408      (255)   4,352,000
1994.......................      1,251      1,474      (223)   4,690,000
1995.......................      1,338      1,509      (171)   4,995,000
1996.......................      1,411      1,577      (166)   5,314,000
1997.......................      1,479      1,661      (182)   5,656,000
1998.......................      1,556      1,736      (180)   6,003,000
1999.......................      1,630      1,834      (204)   6,375,000
2000.......................      1,706      1,931      (226)  ..........
2001.......................      1,783      2,039      (256)  ..........
2002.......................      1,868      2,156      (288)  ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, some people will say that $113 billion 
reduction was a direct result of the deficit reduction package that 
passed last year. My colleague from North Dakota said he was proud to 
have voted in favor of that package. I was proud to have voted in 
opposition to it because it contained over $2 in tax increases for 
every $1 of spending cuts. For fiscal year 1995, the spending cuts that 
were projected by CBO as a result of last year's package totaled $5 
billion. The tax increases totaled $46 billion; plus $2 billion in debt 
savings. Economic changes were $15 billion and technical and others 
were $45 billion; in other words, we are not going to spend so much 
money on S&L's.
  But the point I am making is that of the $113 billion, only $5 
billion of it was spending cuts. I might add for the Record we are 
ultimately not going to have $5 billion in spending cuts because we 
just passed an urgent supplemental that is going to increase spending 
by $8.5 billion.
  So finally there are not going to be any spending cuts according to 
CBO, in 1995. Also, Mr. President, there are no spending cuts in 1994 
or in 1993. In the first 3 years of this administration there are no 
spending cuts whatsoever. In 1993, there was a $4 billion spending 
increase. There was also a $4 billion spending increase for 1994. So, I 
did not support the Clinton tax package because I did not feel it was 
balanced.
  My point is that some of us who really and truly believe in deficit 
reduction and really and truly believe in achieving a balanced budget 
did not feel as though the package that passed last year was very 
balanced. It was loaded with taxes--retroactive taxes in some cases--
and spending cuts that are very heavy in the outyears. Most of the 
spending cuts do not occur until after the next Presidential election.
  Mr. President, the reason I bring up spending is because I see that 
as a real source of the problem. Federal spending has ballooned in the 
past several decades. Some people say it has grown just in the last 12 
years. No it has not.
  I will insert this chart for the Record, but in 1960, we spent less 
than $100 billion--actually $92 billion; in 1970, we spent less than 
$200 billion. I might add for my colleagues, this includes Social 
Security. In 1980, we spent a little less than $600 billion. Ten years 
later, in 1990, that more than doubled; we spent $1.2 trillion. 
Actually, it was $1.253 trillion. So we more than doubled in the next 
10 years, between 1980 and 1990.
  In the year we are looking at now--1995--we will spend $1.5 trillion. 
By 2000, we will spend $2 trillion. Federal spending continues to 
escalate at a very rapid rate. To me, that is the problem. We had 
massive tax increases last year, but you see the total deficit 
continuing to expand.
  As a matter of fact, in President Clinton's first 4 years, according 
to his budget estimates, the national debt will increase $1.3 trillion. 
If you looked at the next term, or the next 4 years, the national debt 
will increase from about $4 trillion in 1992 to $6.4 trillion in the 
year 1999. That is an increase of $2.4 trillion between 1990 and 1999.
  So the Federal debt, given the tax package that passed last year, 
given the so-called spending cuts that have happened, will actually 
increase by $2.4 trillion between the year 1990 and 1999. That is 
according to CBO. I will insert these for the Record, also.
  What does that mean? When we talk about trillions of dollars, I think 
it is hard for most people to comprehend. Basically, it means that the 
Federal debt, per capita, is $17,000 for every man, woman, and child in 
the United States. That is a figure we can grasp--$17,000 for every 
single man and woman and child in the United States. In 1980, it was 
about $4,000. So it increased dramatically and continues to increase 
dramatically in the next 4 to 8 years. That is the reason we need to 
pass the balanced budget amendment.
  I agree with my colleague from North Dakota that that does not mean 
we have solved the problem. It means that we in Congress are going to 
have to make difficult decisions that may not be popular, and they may 
result in some politicians being defeated. But we have to make some of 
those difficult decisions. Forty-eight States have provisions in their 
constitutions that require a balanced budget. We should have it in the 
Federal Constitution, as well.
  Some of my colleagues say we have already made dramatic spending 
cuts. If you look at the total growth in spending, you see we really 
have not touched the mandatory spending. Again, Senator Dorgan 
mentioned that in his comments. Yes, we had budget agreements in 1990 
and 1993 that limit or freeze discretionary spending, but we really 
have not grappled with the so-called uncontrollable spending, the 
mandatory spending in the Federal budget. I doubt that we will, until 
we are forced or required to by the Constitution. This is spending that 
will increase automatically by law, unless we change the law.
  It is going to take some congressional courage of both Democrats and 
Republicans to make that happen. But it has not happened. It did not 
happen throughout the 1980's. It did not happen under President 
Reagan's administration or under President Bush's administration, and 
it has not happened under President Clinton's administration.
  I am concerned about some of the things proposed for the future, 
because when we look at some of these charts, they do not include 
health care reform. I notice that President Clinton has a lot of new 
spending in his budget, not even in the entitlement categories. He 
wants to spend $127 billion in new spending over and above 1994 enacted 
levels. I will include a table of those increases for the Record, as 
well.
  While a lot of people say we need to cut spending, they do not vote 
that way. We had a vote on the floor of the Senate a couple weeks ago 
to cut spending by $94 billion, and we could not get a majority vote 
for it. We had a vote on the floor about the same time on an urgent 
supplemental. Some of us wanted to pay for it, and we got 43 votes. 
They said, ``We want to help the people who are victims of the disaster 
in California, but we do not want to pay for it.'' So we added $8.5 
billion to the national debt.
  Some of us really believe we need to cut spending. Some are more than 
willing to make difficult votes to do so. But I think it may take a 
constitutional amendment to enable us to get 50 votes to make that 
happen.
  This amendment does not prescribe how we get there. It says you 
cannot spend more than you take in. That means legislators have to make 
difficult decisions.
  I am also concerned about other new spending that the administration 
has proposed. There are now proposals in the Clinton health program 
that say the Federal Government should pick up 80 percent of the health 
costs for retirees between the ages of 55 and 65. That will only 
explode in costs. There are also new long-term disability benefits and 
new prescription drug benefits. There are massive new subsidies for 
business. President Clinton is going to subsidize small business and 
big business.
  Big businesses will not have to pay any more than 7.9 percent of 
their payroll cost for health care. Right now, it may be 15 and 20 
percent. Who is going to make up the difference?
  Small business will pay 3.5 percent. The Clinton benefit package is 
estimated by the CBO to cost about $6,000 per family. If they only have 
to pay 3.5 percent, then the taxpayers are going to have to make up the 
balance.
  Mr. President, this administration is calling for a lot of new 
spending. I believe it is irresponsible because it is not paid for. I 
look at these previous votes that we have had on a balanced budget 
amendment and I see that the national Federal debt continues to 
escalate every time. I would like to think we would pass it now instead 
of coming back and debating this on the floor 2 years, or 4 years from 
now, and instead of saying we have $4.4 trillion debt, we have a $6-
point-something trillion debt.
  The debt now totals $17,000 for every person in the United States. I 
would hate to think we will be debating this again when it is $25,000 
per person, or $30,000 per person, or when it is $40,000 per person.
  Mr. President, this, in my opinion, is the most critical vote we will 
cast in the Senate, certainly, this year. Again, I wish to compliment 
Senator Simon, Senator Hatch, Senator Craig, and Senator Thurmond, and 
all of the colleagues that have shown the courage to take a strong 
stand on this issue. I think it is vitally important, and I hope my 
colleagues will concur with our vote tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Simon). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, I wish to congratulate the author of 
this amendment, the Presiding Officer in the chair for the moment, and 
Senator Craig from Idaho. I think it is an excellent proposal and has 
been already reflected in the discussion on this floor. It is probably 
the most significant vote that we will cast in this session of the 
Senate. Hopefully, it will pass and, if it passes, it will be the most 
significant action which this Congress has taken in literally decades 
in order to get its house in order and the fiscal house of this Nation 
in order so that we may pass on to the next generation a stronger and 
more vibrant nation than we received when we took the position of 
responsibility that we have here today as Senators.
  That is the test which I think any generation must put itself to in 
evaluating how it addresses its role in history. Do we, as a 
generation, pass on to our children and succeeding generations a 
stronger and more vibrant country?
  The answer today to that question would be no. Under the numbers that 
have already been discussed here and the proposal sent up by the 
President in his budget submission, it has been pointed out that a 
child born today will pay 82 percent of his or her earnings in taxes; 
that a person born between the period 1950 and today will pay over 60 
percent of his or her earnings in taxes. It is only the generation born 
before 1950 that is going to pay a third of its earnings in taxes.
  It is certainly not an appropriate legacy for our generation to be 
passing on to the next generation a tax burden of 82 percent. It 
undermines the capacity of the next generation to obtain prosperity and 
live the type of lifestyle which our generation has been fortunate 
enough to have.
  So this balanced budget amendment comes forward in a very critical 
time so that we can put in place the laws that are necessary and the 
actions that are necessary within this Congress in order to bring down 
that heavy burden on the next generation in the area of taxes.
  A lot of people have spoken today who have had reservations about 
this amendment and have said that it is inappropriate to introduce it 
into the Constitution because it will violate the authority of the 
Congress. The power of the Constitution comes not from the Congress or 
from the people who serve in the Senate or the House; the power of the 
Constitution comes from the people. That is fundamental to our form of 
government. It is a ``we the people'' form of government.
  When you look at the Constitution, that is a living, breathing 
document that was structured in a way by our forefathers so that the 
people when they desired it to be changed could do so through the 
amendment process. This amendment is consistent with that authority 
which is retained in the people.
  Let us remember that should we pass this joint resolution out of this 
Senate and should it be passed out of the House and, therefore, should 
it be sent back to the States for ratification, it would still not be 
law until it had been ratified by 38 States, and that would engender a 
tremendous, vibrant, and appropriate debate across this country as to 
the appropriateness of a balanced budget amendment. That debate would 
be good. It would be excellent, and it would involve the people of this 
Nation in deciding their future and whether or not they wish to tie 
this to the Constitution.
  If the Congress wished to abate that debate and take steam out of the 
initiative, the Congress could do so with relative ease by putting in 
place legislation which would address the long-term deficit--do what we 
are supposed to do anyway. But we have not done that. We have not done 
it for 25 years, and I doubt that we will do it in the immediate 
future.
  But if the Congress wished to in some way mitigate the impetus for 
passage of this amendment at the State level, it could do so by 
undertaking its obligation to manage the deficit appropriately and 
manage the finances of the Nation appropriately but, in the 
alternative, should the Congress not undertake that, should it not put 
in place the appropriate actions to mitigate the initiatives, then it 
would probably pass the 38 States, and should it pass the 38 States, it 
would be the people speaking and the people amending the Constitution, 
and that is where the authority rises, and that is where it should be.
  We, as a nation, really do have an obligation and we, as a Senate, 
have an obligation to give our children the same opportunity for 
prosperity for their capacity to have a fine and excellent lifestyle as 
we have had, but we have robbed our children of that capacity due to 
our irresponsible actions in the area of managing the fiscal policies 
of this Nation.
  Everyone has pointed out that this constitutional amendment will not 
immediately correct that problem. But what we also all understand is 
that this constitutional amendment will put in place the mechanisms 
which will force this Congress over the  long run--it will not happen 
immediately, but over the long run--to take the action which is 
responsible and which is appropriate to assuring the prosperity and the 
financial solvency of this Nation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator's 5 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the President and yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator may need 
to the distinguished Senator from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. President, I would like to speak primarily today on the question 
of judicial taxation. But at the outset, I want to express why I 
believe a constitutional amendment is appropriate in dealing with the 
question of the budget.
  A number of people have raised the question of whether or not this is 
appropriate for the Constitution. They say that we should just go ahead 
and legislate and that by putting a balanced budget amendment in the 
Constitution it is doing something that is not necessary and is not 
really appropriate for constitutional language.
  I take the opposite view. The fact is that we have not done a good 
job of balancing the budget. We never do it. It used to be thought that 
countercyclical spending was the way to operate an economy--that at the 
down times in the economy, we would run deficits; and in prosperous 
times, we would run a surplus; that over a period of time, it would 
balance out.
  We do not do that. We do not even begin to. In good times and bad 
times, the times of recession and times of great prosperity, we go on 
year after year after year and never running a surplus, always running 
a deficit, and the result of this is that in a very short period of 
time, 20 years, the national debt has gone from under a $\1/2\ to $4\1/
2\ trillion. We are not capable of dealing with the budget deficit 
under the present structure in which we are working.
  But I believe that there is a special reason why this is appropriate 
for a constitutional amendment, and that is that our constitutional 
structure was designed by our Founding Fathers to protect those 
elements in our society who would not be protected by a simple 
democracy. So we built into our Constitution a system of checks and 
balances.
  Why do we have a system of checks and balances? We did it to protect 
those people who are minorities, those people who are from various 
regions of the country that might be underrepresented to make sure that 
the majority does not run roughshod over them.
  The same is true with respect to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of 
Rights could be called an undemocratic document because it says that 
regardless of what the majority says, minorities are protected. 
Peoples' liberties are protected even if they are a minority of one.
  The present state of affairs in our country is that we have a 
forgotten and totally unprotected minority, and that forgotten and 
unprotected minority is our children. The unprotected group in this 
country are the people who are not beneficiaries of the largess of the 
Federal Government, the people who are not the beneficiaries of the 
very popular entitlement programs, the people who are not receiving 
checks from Uncle Sam, our children, our grandchildren, and generations 
yet to come with whom we are saddling a debt which is now $4\1/2\ 
trillion and which is growing every day without any sign of doing 
anything to try to bring that debt under control.
  So I believe that when there is a portion of our populous that is 
suffering because of the way we are conducting our affairs, we should 
look at the Constitution and see if there is not some way to provide 
some protection for our posterity.
  That, as a matter of fact, was part of the reason for the 
Constitution, in the preamble, to secure the blessings of liberty for 
our posterity. Well, what has happened to our posterity?
  I remember a number of years ago when Paul Volcker was the Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve Board, he met with the Senate Finance Committee 
and we were discussing then the problem of the Federal deficit. Paul 
Volcker said that running deficits year after year is like consuming 
arsenic; like arsenic poisoning. He said:

       Arsenic poisoning does not kill a person instantly. It 
     kills a person over a long period of time by making the 
     person weaker and weaker and weaker. So it is with the 
     deficit. So it is with the mounting national debt. It is not 
     something that kills us instantly, usually; it is something 
     that makes us weaker and weaker and weaker.
  So older people in our country and middle-aged people in our country 
can enjoy the largess of the Federal Government and not really worry 
about how weak as a country we are going to be 10, 20, 30 years down 
the road. We can say, ``Well, that is for our children to worry about. 
That is for our grandchildren to worry about.'' And therefore, our 
children and our grandchildren are being disadvantaged by the way we, 
who are older, are conducting our own affairs.
  So when there is a vulnerable part of our population, that is exactly 
the time when we should be looking at our Constitution to ask 
ourselves: Are we doing a sufficient job of protecting that vulnerable 
population? Right now, we are not doing a sufficient job of protecting 
our children and generations to come. So it is time to address that in 
the Constitution. That is precisely what this proposed amendment would 
do.
  I have had a problem with the proposed constitutional amendment, and 
I want to tell the Senate what the problem is and what we are going to 
do about it. The problem which I have seen is I have been concerned 
that if we were to pass a constitutional amendment relating to a 
balanced budget, the effect of the constitutional amendment could put 
in the hands of the judiciary the power to reach a balanced budget. In 
other words, my concern was that a Federal judiciary, a Supreme Court 
in particular, that is an activist court at some future time could take 
the position that if Congress does not do the job of meeting the 
requirements of the balanced budget amendment, then the court would do 
that job in the place of Congress.
  A lot of people have said,

       Well, that is ridiculous. A court would never do that. A 
     court would never assume such a power, to create a balanced 
     budget. A court would never get into the business of ordering 
     taxes or ordering specific spending cuts.
  However, just a few years ago, a Federal district court in Kansas 
City, MO, held that it had the power to order tax increases in order to 
improve the public schools of Kansas City in connection with a 
desegregation case.
  Last night, as a matter of fact, for people who watch ``60 Minutes,'' 
there was a program about the Kansas City school district and what 
happened as a result of the Federal court ordering increased taxes and 
increased spending on a school district in the amount of $1.2 billion 
for the Kansas City, MO, school district.
  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.
  This is not, incidentally, a new concern. The Senator from Illinois, 
who is managing this constitutional amendment, was good enough to chair 
a hearing in the Judiciary Committee a year or 2 ago about a proposed 
constitutional amendment that I had offered with respect to judicial 
taxation. That was a much broader amendment than the change in the 
language which we are dealing with in connection with this 
constitutional amendment.
  But, in any event, it has been an issue that I have been wrestling 
with, and as a result of that wrestling and as a result of discussions, 
especially with the Senator from Illinois and his staff and the Senator 
from Utah and his staff, the result has been a modification in the 
language of the proposed constitutional amendment to provide as 
follows:

       The power of any court to order relief pursuant to any case 
     or controversy arising under this article shall not extend to 
     ordering any remedies other than a declaratory judgment or 
     such remedies as are specifically authorized in implementing 
     legislation pursuant to article VI.

  Let me first make a comment about what this change in language does 
not do. This language is not intended to expand the subject matter 
jurisdiction of the Federal courts. This language is not intended to 
manufacture a case or controversy under article III of the 
Constitution, where one would not otherwise exist. We do not intend by 
adopting this language to create a new form of case or controversy.
  The hurdle that litigants must be able to clear with respect to a 
justiciable case would continue to exist. A case or a controversy would 
still have to exist in the future, just as it does today.
  But the reason that this language was put in was concern about what a 
future court might do in expanding what has traditionally been the 
understanding of what a case or controversy is. In the last 30 years or 
so, the Supreme Court of the United States has done that.
  It used to be thought that the Federal courts did not have 
jurisdiction over reapportionment cases. It used to be thought that the 
business of drawing congressional district lines or legislative 
district lines was not a matter that a court would do; that the court 
would say that is inherently a legislative responsibility and that it 
was not something that a court would do.
  Well, in the 1960's, the Supreme Court of the United States got into 
the business of reapportionment cases in Baker versus Carr. So the 
definition of the kinds of cases the Federal courts would handle was 
expanded.
  It used to be thought that Federal courts did not have the taxing 
power. Well, in Missouri versus Jenkins, the court said that well, 
under certain circumstances, anyhow, the courts do have the power to 
tax. And because of this expansion of the understanding of what courts 
can now deal with--what meets the qualifications with respect to 
standing and justiciability and political question and all of the other 
barriers that used to keep cases out of the courts--because of this 
expansion I, for one, was concerned that a future Supreme Court would 
expand the understanding of case or controversy.

  So, to repeat, it is not the intention of the authors of this 
language to expand the definition of case or controversy. It is not the 
intention to expand the presented state of the law with respect to 
cases that meet the subject matter jurisdiction qualifications to get 
into Federal court. Rather, what we are talking about is strictly the 
question of remedy. If, at some future time, some Federal court were to 
hold that some litigant is appropriately before the court, then we are 
saying that the remedies the court can order are declaratory judgment 
and that is it--not the power to issue an injunction, not equitable 
relief, not the power to order the increase of taxation or the cutting 
of spending. But only--only--the power to enter a declaratory judgment, 
again providing that it is a real controversy.
  We also say that if Congress sees fit in implementing legislation to 
grant the courts additional powers, then those additional powers could, 
of course, be assumed by the courts. I do not think Congress would do 
that, but we leave open that possibility.
  This language, which has now been accepted by the managers of the 
bill and which will be incorporated into the constitutional amendment 
that we will be voting on tomorrow, solves the problem of opening up 
the possibility of court-ordered taxation or court-ordered spending 
cuts. In order to sew this up and to make sure that what we intend is 
actually done, my office has contacted two constitutional scholars 
representing, really, both ends of the spectrum with respect to liberal 
and conservative constructions of the Constitution. We asked Judge 
Robert Bork, and also Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, 
their views of what we have done.
  Judge Bork said:

       The grant of the power to order a declaratory remedy, 
     limited as it is in this language, does not give rise to 
     judicial discretion to fashion any other order or injunction 
     or expand jurisdiction.

  And Professor Tribe told us,

       I do not agree with the argument that the power of 
     declaratory judgment which is being granted here could be 
     used as injunctive power or permit the judiciary to meddle 
     with Congressional powers. That concern is dealt with in this 
     language, which is explicit.

  So, again, it is our purpose in offering this language with respect 
to judicial taxation and judicial orders with respect to spending that 
the courts have no such power, and that is the analysis that has been 
given us, both by Judge Bork and by Professor Tribe. I am confident, 
therefore, that the language which has been accepted by the managers 
does deal with this important issue.
  Some people might say, well, if the courts are not going to have the 
power to tax and the courts are not going to have the power to order 
spending cuts, why do it? Does the constitutional amendment, then, 
accomplish anything?
  My answer to that question is yes, it does, because in most cases, 
throughout the history of the United States, it has been assumed that 
courts do not have the power either to perform article I powers under 
the Constitution--that is the legislative powers--or to order Congress 
to do so. It has generally been viewed that the operation of the 
Congress in exercising its constitutional responsibilities has been off 
limits with respect to Federal court orders. The fact that Federal 
courts have been very reluctant to get into the business of supervising 
Congress because of the separation of powers does not mean that article 
I of the Constitution is a nullity. It does not mean that Congress, 
therefore, is an ineffectual organization.
  The reason the Congress operates in accordance with its 
responsibilities under article I of the Constitution is not that we 
fear a court order. The reason is we have taken an oath to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States and, therefore, the fact that we have 
explicitly taken from the courts the power to tax and the power to 
order spending cuts in the enforcement of this constitutional amendment 
does not render the amendment a nullity. If it does, then all of 
article I of the Constitution would be a nullity, because it is not 
enforced by the courts.
  So what we are left with, I think, is an amendment that is cured of 
the problem that I saw in it, the problem I was concerned about, the 
problem that unless it had been remedied would lead me to vote against 
the constitutional amendment. I am now going to vote for it. I am going 
to vote for it because I am confident that this amendment does not put 
in the hands of the Federal courts the power to tax and the power to 
spend but, rather, this constitutional amendment provides some 
additional discipline on the Congress of the United States in spending 
the people's money, and most particularly in spending money that we do 
not even have, money we are borrowing from our future.
  It is, in my opinion, the appropriate role of the Constitution to do 
just that, and I will vote for the proposed amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is yielded 15 
minutes.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, my 
friend from Utah, for the time.
  We have had a lot of complex arguments about this issue here in the 
last several days. For me, it boils down to a very simple argument, and 
it is a very simple principle, the principle of: Do not spend more than 
you earn. It is something I was taught as a child and something I 
attempt to teach my children and something I hope will be passed on in 
our family from generation to generation. If you spend more than you 
earn, you are going to get in trouble.
  Yes, you can go out and borrow, but then you begin to start paying 
interest and that interest will accumulate. Pretty soon, the interest 
will start eating up a significant portion of what you make. Pretty 
soon, you will dig yourself into a hole from which you cannot emerge. 
It will affect your standard of living. It may affect your very 
livelihood. So you shouldn't spend more than you earn.
  That is a principle I would guess almost all parents in America try 
to pass on to their children. It is something that every head of 
household knows he or she has to live by, or risk financial ruin. It is 
something every businessman and every business woman in America knows 
they have to live by and discipline themselves to, or it risks failure 
of that business.
  It seems that is something every institution in America has to live 
by, except the Federal Government. Only the Federal Government has 
ignored that principle of do not spend more than you earn.
  There is no question that the situation we face with our current 
deficit and our current national debt is urgent. We all know the budget 
has only been balanced once in the last 30 years. As a result now, our 
national debt, because of the accumulation of debt that is added every 
year from deficit spending, has now reached more than $4.5 trillion; 
that has generated an interest payment in this fiscal year of over $200 
billion--$200 billion of this year's receipts from taxpayers will have 
to be paid on interest alone. It will not go for infrastructure 
development, it will not go for medical research, it will not go for 
social programs, it will not go to meet human needs, it will not go to 
defense, it will not go as a return to the taxpayer of their hard-
earned dollars. It will simply be paid on interest, and that interest 
debt is going to continue to mount year after year. It is something 
which our children are going to have to inherit.
  For those who think making an attempt today to balance the budget is 
going to impose hardship on our population, they ignore the hardship 
that is being imposed on us today, the things that we cannot invest 
money in--education, health, environment, welfare, defense, whatever it 
might be, capital investment--we cannot invest that money because it 
simply is being paid on interest--more than $200 billion for fiscal 
year 1994.
  If that money were just returned to the taxpayer and invested in the 
private sector, it would have a significant positive impact on our 
economic performance as a nation.
  I admit that amending the Constitution is not an easy matter, nor a 
matter that we should take lightly. It is one of the most serious acts 
of which the Congress is capable because it alters the fundamental 
compact between our Government and its people.
  But I would also argue that the accumulation of debt threatens the 
very endurance of that compact, the very endurance of what that compact 
was meant to achieve in the first place. That compact was not only an 
agreement between the Government and the people, but an agreement 
between us and future generations so that they can carry forward that 
dream that our Founding Fathers envisioned.
  Just this past Friday, I was in Philadelphia for a business meeting 
and I had some time at lunch, jumped into a cab and went over to 
Independence Hall to, once again, stand in the room where our Founding 
Fathers struggled and drafted that document that has formed the basis 
for the governing of our people. Once again, I was inspired by the 
stories of the tour guide and by the atmosphere and being present in 
that room. I realized the gravity of what we were attempting to do 
here: Amend that document which has so well served this Nation for more 
than 200 years.
  But I also realized that the Constitution is a living document. It is 
not a sacred document. It is a living document, a document that ought 
to be examined to see if it can be improved or modified. Our Founding 
Fathers, as we know, just 2 years after enactment added 10 amendments. 
No one argued then that the document was so sacred that it could not be 
changed. Since that time, we have added 17 more. Amendments should not 
be added unless they are a matter of great national importance, and I 
believe what we are debating today is one of those matters of great 
national importance.
  I do not think it is out of line to say that Congress has lost a 
great deal of respect and a great deal of credibility with the American 
people. We have promised what we cannot deliver, and one of the things 
that we have promised is that we can handle this deficit without 
something as dramatic and as serious as amending the Constitution; that 
we can legislatively deal with this problem. We have promised the 
American people time and time again that we will give them a balanced 
budget; that we will eliminate this Federal deficit and we will even 
begin perhaps paying down the national debt.
  We have spent the full measure of trust that this institution has 
with the American people on that promise. But the spending habits of 
Congress, it seems, are just too entrenched. I believe we have not 
delivered because rather than an ideological battle, this has something 
to do with power: The power of the purse, the power of appropriation, 
the power of spending the peoples' money, and we do not want to give 
that power up because deficit spending has always made great political 
sense.
  It is wonderful to be able to tell groups that come into our office, 
``Well, we will see what we can do.'' It is much tougher to say, ``That 
is a worthy idea and I, perhaps, could give you some support but, you 
see, I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the  United States and 
that requires that we pay for that idea. We can either pay for it by 
finding a program to eliminate or reduce and, therefore, free up some 
money and pay for this new idea, or we can pay for it by asking you to 
pay more in taxes to cover it.''

  That is honest legislating. That is accountability to the people that 
we represent. But instead, we are able to politically promise a benefit 
without inflicting any sacrifice or commitment on the part of the 
American people to pay for that benefit until future generations. And 
so we can easily skirt through our term or terms of office without 
facing up to the reality that someone is going to have to pay that 
bill. ``Oh, we will let another politician worry about that in their 
term. I will just get through my terms of office here and push that 
down the line; other generations can pay for it.''
  The future has no vote in the current election, and so we pass on 
that accountability and responsibility.
  We have had before us a whole series of promises to pay that debt. 
When I came here in 1981, the Congress had just finished efforts in 
1978 and 1979 to legislatively balance the budget. We have now had a 
whole series of tax reduction acts and tax recovery acts and budget 
acts and on and on. I am not here today to assign blame or 
responsibility for not doing the job. I am here today to say, let us 
put the past behind us, let us face this problem together and let us 
try to do something about it.
  There are those who say the amendment before us that Senator Simon, 
Senator Hatch and others are offering is not a silver bullet; that it 
will not automatically solve our problems. They note that Congress 
could still engage in deceptive budget practices. They say that a 
constitutional amendment will be no substitute for courageous choices.
  My response to that is this: First, this amendment, by requiring a 
supermajority, three-fifths, to add new debt, would permanently tilt 
the rules of the budget process toward restraint, and we need that 
tilt. We need that restraint.
  Second, I believe, it would transform the nature of our commitment to 
a more responsible budgeting process. It is one thing to vote for a 
deficit, but it is quite another to vote to violate the Constitution of 
the United States.
  We stand here at the beginning of every term of Congress, and when we 
are sworn in, we place our left hand on the Bible and our right hand in 
the air and we swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. 
That is a sacred trust. That is a commitment that we make to ourselves, 
to the people we represent, and to our maker. And it is no light matter 
to simply say, ``Well, we'll find a loophole,'' or ``We'll work around 
that pledge or that commitment.'' Anyone who would trivialize that 
commitment, I would say, is unworthy of holding public office. Anyone 
who would violate a constitutional pledge would betray any promise, any 
trust, and I think they will discover a storm of outrage from the 
public that they had pledged to represent.
  Our voluntary restraint cries, our legislative action cries have rung 
hollow, because too many of those promises have ended in 
disappointment, and too many of those promises have been broken. We 
regularly waive statutory restraints. In fact, the Congressional Budget 
Act, which was one of those promises, has been waived since its 
enactment in 1974. The Congressional Budget Act has been waived more 
than 600 times. Over the past 15 years, Congress has passed, at least, 
five new laws designed to either create a balanced budget or enforce 
budgetary discipline.
  We have heard the promises made from this floor, the floor of the 
House of Representatives, and I will not repeat those because they are 
embarrassing. The statements made by Members--by all of us--this will 
do the job, we finally got a handle on the deficit --yes, it is not 
responsible to keep spending more money than you earn. So, therefore, 
this latest act is going to take care of the problem.
  David Gergen, who is the President's adviser, wrote an interesting 
column in U.S. News & World Report, June 1, 1992. Listen to what he 
said:

       The politicians of this country have now exhausted a raft 
     of different options to bring our Federal finances under 
     control--deficit limits, tax increases, caps on domestic 
     spending, cuts in defense spending--but the Nation's budget 
     remains shamefully out of whack.

  He went on to say:

       The time has come to recognize that the right thing to do 
     is something we have long resisted: Amend the Constitution so 
     that Congress and the President are required to balance the 
     budget.

  That is a statement with which I agree. I do not know if David Gergen 
still agrees with it. He is now advising this President, and this 
President opposes what we are doing. But just 1\1/2\ years ago, David 
Gergen said something that I think instinctively we all know to be 
true. The right thing to do is something we have long resisted; that 
is, amend the Constitution so that we are required to balance the 
budget.
  Now, the critics say the sky is falling. The President's point man, 
Robert Rubin, said, ``We need to save the country from this disaster.''
  The White House claims that the only way to get a balanced budget is 
through dramatic tax increases or draconian spending cuts. They said 
that tax hikes would throw us into a recession. That is the first time 
I heard the White House say that. I am glad to hear them acknowledge 
that particular point. When it comes to raising taxes or gutting the 
Pentagon's budget, I do not question that the President speaks with 
some authority. And I am glad to know that he has belatedly 
acknowledged that raising taxes is akin to playing recession roulette. 
But the truth is we do not have to raise taxes or gut spending programs 
to balance this budget.
  A whole raft of plans have been proposed. I introduced last year the 
families first bill which simply places a cap on overall Federal 
spending. Right now, Federal spending is growing at about 4.5 percent a 
year. If we cut that in half, we could reduce the deficit to zero in 8 
years.
  We can get from here to there. It does not have to be the Coats plan. 
I think the first bill is a viable way of dealing with that, of 
reordering some of our priorities, and I have spoken on that act on 
this floor before. But it shows that the budget can be balanced by 
limiting the growth of Government spending--not massive cuts in 
Government spending but by limiting the growth or forcing us to live up 
to our obligations; and if we, as a people, say we need that particular 
program of Government or expenditure of Government, then we must be 
willing to pay for it.
  The cap proposal that I have offered creates a Commission like the 
Base Closing Commission, and then backs it up with a sequester across 
the board.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator from Indiana 
has expired.
  Mr. COATS. I wonder if I could have 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will yield 4 additional minutes of my 
time to the Senator.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator and commend him for his leadership on 
this important issue. It has been a joy to work with him on it.
  The point is that we do not have to gut Federal spending. We can get 
from here to there. We have ample time to get from here to there. The 
amendment is crafted so there is an emergency exit in case of a 
national security emergency. It is not the draconian, destroy-America 
process that some would have us believe.
  Now, Mr. President, I stated earlier that I came to Congress in 1981, 
so I have only been here 13 years. When I came, we were running a $78.9 
billion annual deficit and our national debt stood at $994.3 billion, 
less than $1 trillion, 13 years ago. It took this country over 200 
years to reach the first trillion dollars of debt. I stand here today, 
13 years later, and the national debt is $4.5 trillion--4.5 times 
higher than when I arrived--and I am a junior Member of this 
institution.
  That is a legacy of which I am ashamed of. And, yes, I can point to 
all the votes for balanced budget amendments and I can point to 
taxpayer hero awards and bulldog of the Treasury; I have the trophies 
in my office. I can point to those votes, but I am ashamed that 13 
years our national debt has risen from under $1 trillion to $4.5 
trillion.
  Now, we can stand here and point the finger. Republicans can say the 
Democrats controlled the Congress, and therefore it is their fault. 
Democrats can say the Republicans had the White House, and it is their 
fault. I think we ought to stop pointing any fingers and say we have a 
major problem facing us today. What are we going to do about it? Are we 
going to blame each other or are we going to do something about it?
  For those who like to claim that historically we do not have a basis 
to do what we are doing, I say just look at the history of the past 13 
years. Look at the promises. Look at the failed promises. Look at the 
failed efforts of Congress to do something  about this. We are led to 
no other conclusion than that a constitutional amendment and swearing 
to uphold that Constitution is the only way we are going to bring 
fiscal accountability and discipline to this process. It is the only 
way we can save ourselves from ourselves.

  It is too tempting to pass programs to give people benefits and not 
worry about how it is paid for, not have to face them and say you have 
to pay more in taxes if that is what you want, or you have to eliminate 
spending in another program to pay for it. It is too tempting 
politically, and we are not going to solve this problem unless we are 
forced to do it constitutionally.
  Would it not be a joy to look people in the eye and say, ``It is a 
good-sounding program, but I am sworn to uphold the Constitution and I 
cannot do it unless we pay for it.''
  I do not want this destructive legacy on my watch. I cannot imagine 
any Senator would want this destructive legacy on his watch. We have an 
opportunity tomorrow; we have an opportunity to do what we all know we 
should do. It is time to end this charade of saying we have the will to 
do it. We do not. We have proven we do not have the will to do it. We 
never will have the will to do it. We need the backbone guaranteed to 
us by swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
  We betray moral commitments because we place an unfair burden on the 
future. This is a destructive legacy we are leaving because it is a 
Congress without courage. The courage will come when we vote tomorrow 
on a real amendment to balance the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional 4 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for his generous time.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I wonder if, with my friends who are managing this bill 
with me in the Chamber today, we could arrange some sequence of time so 
that Members are not waiting around. It is my understanding the 
Republican leader is going to speak for 5 minutes or so.
  Mr. DOLE. That is right, in leader's time, for 3 or 4 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I understand that. And then following that, it is my 
understanding that Senator Heflin has been granted----
  Mr. SIMON. At that point, I will yield 15 minutes to Senator Heflin.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Twenty.
  Mr. SIMON. Twenty minutes to Senator Heflin, and then 20 minutes to 
Senator Graham. And then the Senator and I are both yielding, even 
though he is speaking against both of us, 30 minutes to Senator 
Bumpers.
  Mr. REID. Fifteen minutes each; that is right.
  Mr. SIMON. All right.
  Mr. REID. So that should get us through the next hour or so.
  Mr. SIMON. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if we could make that by 
unanimous consent request so we will each know about what time we are 
going to be able to speak.
  Of course, the leader has his own time, but I ask unanimous consent 
that following the minority leader's 5 minutes, there be 20 minutes 
allocated from Senator Simon to Senator Heflin; and following that, 
there be 20 minutes to the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], also 
allocated by Senator Simon.
  Mr. SIMON. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. And following that, 30 minutes allocated to me, 15 
minutes from Senator Simon and 15 minutes from Senator Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Was leader time reserved? I do not want to use any of their 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Leader's time was reserved.


                           Order of Procedure

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous-
consent request that was just granted be amended to allow Senator 
Mathews to speak after Senator Graham for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SIMON. That is perfectly acceptable to me. In fairness to our 
colleague, Senator Bumpers, who was here----
  Mr. REID. I talked to him about that. I explained that to him.
  Mr. SIMON. All right. I have no objection.
  Mr. REID. I cleared that with Senator Bumpers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I have long supported the constitutional 
amendment requiring a balanced budget. When I first came to the Senate, 
the first bill I introduced and the first bill that I introduce at the 
beginning of each succeeding Congress is a resolution calling for a 
balanced budget constitutional amendment.
  I think the adoption by the committee, or at least the proposed 
adoption, regarding the courts, through the language, ``The power of 
any court to order relief pursuant to any case or controversy arising 
under this article shall not extend to ordering any remedies other than 
a declaratory judgment of such remedies as are specifically authorized 
in implementing legislation pursuant to this section'' is a good 
addition.
  I want to raise some questions, and then I would like to perhaps have 
Senator Reid respond after I recite them and get some specific 
clarification regarding to what his proposal will do.
  I like his idea concerning Social Security. I think it ought to be 
off-budget.
  But in reading the amendment, I have a number of questions that arise 
in my mind. First, the Reid proposal, as I understand it, would 
eliminate section 2 of the Simon amendment, which is:

       The limit on the debt of the United States held by the 
     public shall not be increased unless the three-fifths of the 
     whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an 
     increase by rollcall vote.

  The other provision that seems to be omitted is dealing with 
taxation:

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

  I think those are mistakes.
  The primary purpose of the national debt is to act as an enforcement. 
If you went astray somehow, and came down to the time of raising the 
debt limit, we all know that there are drastic consequences if it is 
not raised. The requirement of a three-fifths vote to raise the debt 
limit is an enforcement provision that is in our amendment. I have some 
reservations about the omission of that mechanism in the Reid 
amendment.
  I am troubled by certain language, in the Reid amendment, and maybe 
it can be explained. There are phrases like ``estimated'' and 
``operating funds.'' Under the Simon amendment, the language ``total 
outlays'' and ``total receipts'' do not lend themselves to an 
interpretation other than ``total.'' But when you get into issues on 
``estimated,'' does this mean that Congress has the authority to define 
what estimated outlays will be? Does this mean that Congress will have 
the right to define what ``operating funds'' will be? Do operating 
funds include payment of interest and debt service? Do operating funds 
include entitlement payments? Do operating funds include such matters 
as weapons that over a long-term basis, such as an aircraft carrier----
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. HEFLIN. I will finish, and then I will come back to you and ask 
the questions.
  Those things concern me as to whether or not they are within the 
power of Congress to legislate and define. Therefore, that presents a 
question of a loophole that could be used.
  Of course, the issue that is raised by a lot of us is this issue of 
the suspension if a declaration of war is in effect. Under the Simon 
amendment, it is waived; it is not automatic. This makes it automatic. 
Then it provides, ``If the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, 
or any successor, estimates that the economic growth has been or will 
be less than 1 percent for 2 consecutive quarters during the period of 
those 2 fiscal years.'' I interpret that to mean that over a 2-year 
period, which is 24 months, if estimated in the last 6 months of that 
24-month period, there would be economic growth less than 1 percent; 
therefore, it would go into effect. That seems to me to be very 
difficult for anybody to estimate what the growth will be 18 months in 
advance. We estimate economic growth in calculating what revenues will 
be, and that sort of thing, 12 months in advance. But to try to do that 
for 18 months in advance seems to cause some problems. Maybe I do not 
understand this fully.
  Then, under the total estimate receipts of operating funds that shall 
be derived, these are the exclusions from net borrowing. Under the 
Simon amendment, net borrowing is excluded. I do not understand what 
the word ``net'' means, and I would like to know that.
  Then, you exclude the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Fund, 
that being Social Security. I was under the impression that also the 
highway trust fund and aviation trust fund would be excluded. But I do 
not see that. Maybe that has been changed.
  The words ``capital investment'' is a question that raises a lot of 
concern with a lot of us. What is a capital investment? Is a capital 
investment highways? Is it a building? Is it an aircraft carrier? Is it 
a B-2 bomber? I do not know. These things, again--if this is subject to 
definition by legislation as to what it would be, there is that danger, 
as I see it, that it could be a loophole.
  Then the issue of delegation to an officer of Congress the power to 
order uniform cuts. This is given to an officer of Congress rather than 
to an officer of the executive branch. Constitutionally, we can do 
whatever we want to. But, historically, the matter of execution of the 
laws has been carried out by the executive branch.
  Then, we have the issue regarding what are some essential functions. 
In my State, we have what is called proration. If revenues do not meet 
appropriations then we prorate, cut across the board. But there are 
certain essential operations of Government that are not cut--police 
forces, the judiciary. There are certain operations of Government that 
are not subject to a uniform cut across the board. I see the language 
``by appropriate legislation delegate the power to order uniform 
cuts.'' Perhaps that is broad enough. I am not sure what section 6 
really means when it says that ``sections 5 and 6 of this order shall 
take effect upon ratification.''
  I would like to go over these things and ask Senator Reid, if he 
would, to explain some of these. I still have not made up my mind how I 
am going to vote on his amendment.
  Senator Reid, are the terms ``operating fund'' and ``estimate,'' 
subject to congressional definition?
  Mr. REID. I respond to my friend from Alabama that we have 
significant experience with capital budgets. We have set forth in the 
Federal budget capital expenditures. We have used that for some 40-odd 
years and, of course, all State governments--not all, but virtually 
all--use the capital budget. We have significant experience with which 
to direct our implementing language relating to capital budgets. So I 
think that would be fairly easy, I say to my friend.
  Does that answer the Senator's question?
  Mr. HEFLIN. Well, we are dealing with the Constitution here, and we 
are dealing with words of estimation and the statutory construction 
that is given to it. I have some question as to what these words mean, 
what is included within it. We are dealing right now with--you say 
``total estimated outlays for operating funds.'' I am not sure that the 
experience of what has been done in the past when adopting a new 
constitutional amendment, the constitutional amendment is not subject 
to the language that is contained therein, not necessarily the 
experience of the past.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alabama that my response is, as I 
have indicated, estimates used for establishing estimated receipts 
which, for example, under my amendment would be provided by the same 
sources that would provide them in furtherance of section 6 of the 
Simon amendment which states ``The Congress shall enforce and implement 
this article by appropriate legislation which may rely on estimates of 
outlays and receipts.''
  So if the Senator has trouble with the word ``estimates,'' then you 
should look at the underlying Simon amendment, because it also uses the 
word estimates.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I am cognizant of that, and that causes me some concern 
with regard to the Simon amendment, also. Like the words operating 
funds--again, what is operating funds? What is excluded from operating 
funds, and what is included with them? That is a concern of mine.
  Mr. REID. I respond by saying that, as I have indicated, virtually 
every State has an operating budget and a capital budget. Senator Ford, 
a former Governor of Kentucky, came and spoke at some length about how 
he conducted business when he was the Governor of Kentucky, and it was 
easy to determine the operating budget and the capital budget. Even 
though we do not separate them in our own Federal budget, the GAO and 
the Congressional Budget Office have, for many years, done studies to 
determine where the capital expenditures are in the Federal budget. So 
this is not illusory. This is something actually in the work that we 
have done for many years.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Let me go ahead to some of the other things, since we are 
short of time here.
  On this estimate of a recession under any fiscal year and the first 
fiscal year thereafter, are we dealing with a 24-month period, 
basically?
  Mr. REID. As the Senator knows, we work on a yearly budget, and what 
is contemplated here is that sometime during one of those 2 years of 
the Congress, if there are 2 successive months where the growth is less 
than 1 percent, then that is where this would kick in.
  And it would be according to where it came during that 2-year cycle, 
recognizing that it would probably only affect one yearly budget 
because we work on a yearly budget.
  Mr. HEFLIN. The way I read the language, the article shall be 
suspended for any fiscal year which is for 1 year and the first fiscal 
year thereafter. We, of course, are dealing with a budget that is 
adopted prior to the fiscal year. In other words, the Senator thinks it 
can be less than 2 years?
  Mr. REID. I think it would be hard to make it for 2 years. It would 
be very difficult because CBO does not project recessions. They never 
do. They just do not do it. Their projections are otherwise. So it 
would have to be somewhere during that.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Under this they would be required to, would they not?
  Mr. REID. I do not think they would be required to. I say they have 
not done it in the past. I assume we could get them to start doing that 
even though it would be extremely difficult to do that.
  Mr. HEFLIN. You adopt a budget in advance. The budget is in advance 
of a fiscal year. Section 2, for example, says not later than the first 
Monday in February the President shall submit for the fiscal year 
beginning in that calendar year. You are adopting a budget in advance 
of the beginning of a fiscal year. So that causes me concern, whether 
or not we are forcing the CBO to have to make projections for a period 
of 24 months in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year.
  Mr. REID. I would say to the Senator from Alabama it is my belief 
that this provision could kick in during a year and then the next 
fiscal year is when, in fact, we would have to do something. I think 
that is quite clear that is how it would work. I think under the 
current budgeting methods and processes we use it would work quite 
well.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Let me ask the Senator about section 4 where he uses the 
words ``total estimated receipts of the operating funds shall exclude 
those derived from,'' and it says ``net borrowing.'' In the Simon 
amendment, it includes borrowing derived from borrowing. I do not 
understand exactly what is meant by ``net'' there. Would the Senator 
explain that to me?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to.
  The budget experts have told us that the word ``net'' is the 
appropriate term of art to use, that it comes out to the same monetary 
number that is in the Simon amendment. They just felt the word ``net'' 
is a better term of art.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Usually ``net'' means you subtract from gross and gross 
borrowing subtracted from some figures may mean the same thing. I am 
just curious.
  Mr. REID. That question has been raised and we were told by the 
experts that the word ``net'' is a better term of art; however, it 
accomplishes the same thing as the underlying Simon amendment.
  Mr. HEFLIN. All right.
  Now, what interpretation can we give of capital investments? What is 
the definition and what would be inclusive and what would be exclusive, 
and what guidelines would we use in determining what capital 
investments are?
  Mr. REID. If I could respond to my friend, as I have indicated, we 
feel there is sufficient experience in the State and even in the 
Federal legislation to give us significant direction.
  I refer, as the esteemed former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme 
Court knows, that John Marshall wrote on a number of occasions but I 
think never any more concisely than he did in the McCulloch versus 
Maryland case where he said:

       The Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the 
     subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all 
     the means by which they may be carried into execution, would 
     partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely 
     be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be 
     understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires 
     that only its great outlines should be marked, its important 
     objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose 
     those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects 
     themselves * * * We must never forget that it is a 
     constitution we are expounding.

  I would just reiterate to my friend the main difference between the 
Reid amendment and the Simon amendment is that we are suggesting that 
capital expenditures not be included to balance the budget, Social 
Security be off budget and there be a provision for recessionary times. 
That is the main difference.
  There is a limit, as Justice Marshall said, that you can put in this 
document. We have given, as he has suggested, an outline. We allow for 
implementing legislation. We feel there is significant history.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will indicate that the time yielded 
to the Senator from Alabama has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator 5 minutes from my 
time.
  Mr. HEFLIN. All right.
  My fear is that this is subject to legislative definition. If it is 
subject to legislative definition, then we can have a broad group of 
expenditures that would come under the category of capital investments. 
If it is in any way related to affect something that is fixed or of a 
capital nature, it allows for a lot of leeway, and I am fearful that it 
would be subject to a loophole. How can we, in effect, close that 
loophole if it be such a loophole?

  Mr. REID. Far from to try to argue legalities with my friend from 
Alabama who is the legal mind of the Senate I would say this, however, 
that if the Senator has any questions, any problem with the language of 
my amendment, then he should tremble at the Simon amendment. The reason 
I say that is they have indicated they are going to correct all these 
problems, problems related to capital expenditures, problems related to 
Social Security, all these problems they are going to correct by 
legislation.
  So, my response is, as I have indicated here on this floor a number 
of times before, Senator Hatch on Thursday or Friday last said that he 
felt that we would carry out our constitutional mandates.
  My response is that, yes, the Reid amendment will have all the teeth 
that the Simon amendment has. Both amendments rely on future Congresses 
to abide by its oath to uphold the Constitution. The Simon amendment 
relies on future Congresses to define new terms, the limit on the debt 
of the United States held by the public. That term is nowhere defined 
in law now. The debt limit defined in title 31, section 3101 of the 
United States Code, is an entirely different concept. What would 
prevent the use of creative accounting to define the new limit, and 
would prevent the Congress defining certain types of borrowing out of 
the new limit.
  The answer is that it is the sworn duty of Congressmen to uphold the 
Constitution to prevent that. The answer is the same for my amendment.
  I also suggest to my friend from Alabama that one of the terms used 
in the Simon amendment is fiscal year. I lock in a specific date, the 
first Monday of February. Fiscal year could be changed by legislation. 
It could be changed by a day, a month, a quarter, a year.
  So, I believe, and I know based upon my time here in the U.S. Senate, 
that the senior Senator from Alabama is really concerned about 
legalities, but I would respectfully suggest to my friend, the legal 
scholar of this institution, that any problems that are seen in the 
Reid substitute are certainly replete through the Simon amendment.
  I think the Senator and the other Members of this body have to rely 
on Members of the U.S. Senate to conduct themselves in a manner 
consistent with the Constitution, whatever it might be.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the Senator yielding 
the extra time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield 1 minute 
of my time and for it to be credited against me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I simply want to commend the colleague from 
Alabama for what he pointed out. There are massive loopholes here and 
the one particularly he started off with. We permit estimates. You have 
to have estimates. But we say that revenue has to match outlays. The 
Reid amendment says estimated revenues have to match estimated outlays. 
What you are talking about is either revenues and outlays have to match 
or estimates have to match. Those are huge differences, and I 
appreciate the comments of my colleague from Alabama.
  Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to my colleague from Florida, 
Senator Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I appreciate my good friend and colleague from Illinois providing me 
this time to discuss the balanced budget amendment, primarily from the 
perspective of its significance as an intergenerational contract.
  But before I proceed to that, I would like to rise in defense of an 
American who hardly needs to be defended, the great third President of 
the United States, Thomas Jefferson.
  In an earlier debate, it was stated that Thomas Jefferson, had he 
been in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, would have 
proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States at that 
time very similar to the one that we are now debating.
  Thomas Jefferson said:

       I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our 
     Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for 
     the reduction of the administration of our Government to the 
     genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional 
     article taking from the Federal Government the power of 
     borrowing.

  President Jefferson's fidelity to that principle has been questioned 
because, as President of the United States, he requested of Congress 
and Congress granted the authority, first, to attempt to purchase the 
Floridas, east and west Florida, then in the possession of Spain. And 
when his emissaries were unable to accomplish that objective but had 
the even greater opportunity to make the Louisiana Purchase, he 
authorized them to do so and requested of Congress the funds to pay for 
that substantial addition to the size of the United States of America, 
a purchase which virtually doubled the size of our Nation and protected 
U.S. economic interests that were still then under threat by European 
empires.
  It has been stated that that act of President Jefferson created a 
hypocrisy relative to his earlier professed opposition to Federal 
Government borrowing.
  I would like to rise in defense of President Jefferson. When 
President Jefferson became the President of the United States in 1801, 
the national debt was $80.713 million, largely a result of the Federal 
Government assuming the debts of the then individual colonies, 
subsequently individual States, which had accumulated in the successful 
fight of the American Revolution.
  When President Jefferson left the Presidency 8 years later, including 
the indebtedness which had been secured for purposes of the Louisiana 
Purchase, the debt of the United States was $53.173 million. He had 
reduced the national debt by approximately $27 million, almost half 
during the course of his 8 years as President.
  His influence, however, did not end when his Presidency ended. The 
American political figure who is most linked in history with Thomas 
Jefferson was his successor President and a great son of the State of 
our Presiding Officer now, Andrew Jackson.
  I am pleased to report that during Andrew Jackson's administration 
the national debt for the first and only time in American history was 
virtually eliminated. In 1835, at the end of President Jackson's 8-year 
period of Presidency, the national debt was $38,000.
  Now that is a commitment to intergenerational responsibility, to 
balancing the budget each generation at a time. That is not a position 
which has left us as we are now some almost 200 years since the 
Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. It is a concept which lives today.
  I would like, Mr. President, to read from a letter and ask unanimous 
consent to have it printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. This is a letter I received, dated February 14, from Mr. 
Dean Thompson, of Indian Harbour Beach, FL. Mr. Thompson wrote me as 
follows:
       Dear Senator Graham: I urge to you vote ``yes'' for the 
     balanced budget amendment, S.J. Res. 41.
       I am a retiree, nearly 74 years of age and fully realize 
     that many of us retirees will suffer financial loss by 
     passage of the balanced budget proposal. I don't see any 
     other solution, after many years of lip service, Congress 
     cannot and will not take the drastic action needed to get our 
     financial house in order.
       Whatever the sacrifices, we will survive and our children's 
     children will be the better because of it.

  I agree with Mr. Thompson. There is no issue, Mr. President, which 
raises the issue of intergenerational conflict more sharply than the 
question of Social Security.
  Social Security was enacted in the depths of the Depression with an 
important but simple goal, and that was to lift that group of 
Americans, older Americans, who had, to the largest extent of any group 
in our Nation, fallen into abject poverty, out of that poverty by 
providing them with an economic foundation for their retirement years.
  In my own State of Florida, Mr. President, during the 1930's, prior 
to Social Security, the State of Florida provided the great sum of $8 
per month as the economic support for its indigent elderly.
  It was to give that group of Americans some security and respect that 
Social Security was adopted. We are now the trustees of that contract 
for our older Americans.
  What have we done with that responsibility? Until the early 1980's, 
Social Security was a pay-as-you-go system. Each year, the Congress 
would appropriate the funds from the trust fund or, if necessary, from 
general revenue that were required in order to pay that year's outflow 
of funds from Social Security. Recognizing that that system was placing 
Social Security in jeopardy, in 1983, we adopted a major reform, which 
had the goal of bringing Social Security into an actuarially balanced 
system, balanced over three generations.
  Since that time, we have been collecting substantially greater funds 
than are required to meet current obligations, recognizing the fact 
that beginning at the end of the first quarter of the 21st century many 
Americans who were born in the period immediately after World War II 
would themselves become Social Security beneficiaries and would impose 
tremendous demands on the system. And thus, we have been building up a 
surplus in order to prepare for that time when large numbers of 
Americans will be expecting to receive their Social Security benefits.
  The current projections are that by the year 2024, which is 
approximately the year in which Social Security demand will begin to 
exceed receipts, we will have a Social Security surplus approaching $5 
trillion.
  What are we doing with this tremendous surplus that is being 
developed? Are we handling it like a pension fund? Are we putting it 
aside into secure conservative investments so that the proceeds will be 
there when the demand arrives? No, that is not what we are doing, Mr. 
President.
  What we are doing is funding the national debt in large part with 
those surpluses. What we are doing is taking the proceeds which have 
been made available for purposes of securing the economic future of 
older Americans and we are investing them to fund the Federal deficit.
  By accumulating the massive national debt, we are weakening our 
future ability to meet the obligations that we are incurring on behalf 
of older Americans.
  Our late distinguished colleague, Senator Heinz, referred to it as 
embezzlement. The current chairman of the Senate Finance Committee has 
used a blunter term. He calls it thievery. I use a third term. I call 
it intergenerational warfare.
  What we are doing is absolutely assuring that we are going to be 
placing our children in conflict with our grandchildren and our 
grandchildren in conflict with our great grandchildren. Because, when 
the day arrives in approximately 2024 when this debt will have to be 
paid, we are going to face a massive combination of increased taxes, 
reduction in spending and other programs, and reneging on the promises 
made for Social Security. We are putting off to the next three 
generations an enormous intergenerational warfare if we do not reverse 
what has happened in the last 25 years, which is the continued 
development of a culture of indebtedness and a culture of putting off 
to the future, our obligations.

  I would like to quote the conclusion of a statement made to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee on February 17, by Mr. Robert J. Myers. Mr. 
Myers served in various actuarial capacities with the Social Security 
Administration from 1934 to 1970. He was the chief actuary for the last 
23 of those years.
  In 1981-82 he was Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, and in 
1982-83 he was Executive Director of the National Commission on Social 
Security Reform, which led to the changes that I alluded to earlier.
  What did Mr. Myers say about the current state of Social Security and 
the urgency of the passage of a balanced budget amendment? He stated:

       In my opinion, the most serious threat to Social Security 
     is the Federal Government's fiscal irresponsibility. If we 
     continue to run Federal deficits year after year, and if 
     interest payments continue to rise at an alarming rate, we 
     will face two dangerous possibilities. Either we will raid 
     the Trust Fund to pay for our current profligacy, or we will 
     print money, dishonestly inflating our way out of our 
     indebtedness. Both cases would devastate the real value of 
     the Social Security Trust Fund. Regaining control of our 
     fiscal affairs is the most important step we can take to 
     protect the soundness of the Social Security Trust Fund. I 
     urge the Congress to make that goal a reality and to pass the 
     balanced budget amendment without delay.

  In conclusion, in my judgment the most compelling case for taking the 
action that I hope we will take tomorrow is what is happening in 1994. 
What is happening in 1994 is that there is no plan for further deficit 
reduction in the context of future increases in our deficits.
  Much has been made of the fact that, by virtue of the action that we 
took in August of last year, there is now going to be a reduction below 
the estimate in terms of future annual deficits. And that is good. That 
is very good.
  However, what is less well understood is the fact that after 1998, 
deficits will start to rise again. This first chart shows the changes 
that have occurred as a result of our actions in August. This orange 
line would have been the deficit reduction line had we done nothing. 
The green line indicates what, in fact, is going to occur, which is a 
substantial reduction below what was estimated.
  However, I note that the orange line projects out for an additional 5 
years beyond what the Office of Management and Budget is presently 
projecting, based on August 1993 actions. This is what the 
Congressional Budget Office projects will be the trend line over the 
next 10 years, and that is that after 1998, when the budget reaches a 
point of $180 billion annual deficit, it will start to rise. And by the 
year 2004, just 10 years from now, we will be back at annual deficits 
of $365 billion a year.
  There is no plan to deal with the implications of that  decline and 
then rapid increase in budget deficits as we enter the 21st century.

  Second, there is the argument against the amendment that, if we adopt 
this amendment it is going to cause pain; that it will result in some 
increased taxes, or it will result in some reduction in spending. The 
answer to that is, ``Of course.'' That is the whole purpose. If we 
cannot use this amendment as a driving force to accomplish the result 
of reducing the deficit, all we are saying is we are prepared to let 
our children and grandchildren pay our bills.
  Like many Members of the Senate, I have recently received a document 
from the administration which outlines the impact of this budget 
reduction on my State of Florida, and I agree with the statements that 
are made in this document.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that document printed in the Record 
immediately after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. That document just underscores what the consequences will 
be if we do not adopt this amendment. I assume the logic of that 
statement of the consequences of adopting this amendment is that we 
should not adopt this amendment and that we should not balance the 
budget; that we should continue to do the easy thing, which is to let 
our children and grandchildren pay our costs.
  Finally, if there ever was a year in which we should be substantially 
reducing the deficit, it is 1994. Most of the arguments against this 
amendment have been predicated on extreme years of fiscal stress on our 
Nation: Times of war, times of depression or recession. This is neither 
a time of war nor a time of depression or recession. In fact, this is a 
time of booming economic growth. Unemployment has fallen sharply, down 
nearly a full percentage point since 1993. Housing starts rose 25 
percent between July and December. Spending for durable equipment is 
expanding at its fastest pace since 1972. Inflation is low, prices rose 
just 2.7 percent in 1993, the smallest increase since 1986.
  Last month, for the first time in more than 4 years, consumer prices 
were virtually flat. The economy is so strong that the Federal Reserve 
has raised interest rates and threatens to do so again.
  If we cannot balance our budget, if we cannot show some serious 
movement in deficit reduction in a year like 1994, when are we ever 
going to do it? Yet we are proposing to have the ninth largest deficit 
in the almost 205-year history of this constitutional Government in 
1994. If we cannot do better than that in 1994, when are we ever going 
to do better?
  Mr. President, I believe if we do not have a plan for deficit 
reduction over the next 10 years in place in 1994, if we do not have 
the courage to face the reality that there is going to be some pain and 
sacrifice required in order to accomplish this objective--as Mr. 
Thompson has recognized in his letter--and if we do not get discipline 
in a boom year such as 1994, I ask when will we ever have that 
discipline?
  My answer is we are not likely to have that discipline unless we do 
what most of our States have done, and that is to place into our 
national Constitution an intergenerational compact which says this 
generation is going to pay its bills. We will not ask our children to 
do it for us. That, in essence, is what this amendment is about.
  This amendment says to our older Americans, we are going to be 
faithful to our trust in the Social Security System and we are going to 
bring our deficits under control. We are going to be reducing the 
national debt. We are going to be solidifying the economic foundation 
for your future.
  An opportunity such as we have tomorrow does not come frequently. I 
believe if this Senate adopts a balanced budget amendment such as the 
amendment that has been presented by our colleague from Illinois, it 
will pass the House of Representatives, it will pass the requisite 
number of States, and we will have been able to say to our children and 
grandchildren that we were, as Thomas Jefferson requested, prepared to 
take that action necessary in order to secure their economic future; 
that we are prepared today, in 1994, to make the difficult choices and 
understand the sacrifices that will flow from that choice because it is 
our obligation to do so.

                               Exhibit 1


                                      Indian Harbor Beach, Fl,

                                                February 14, 1994.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: I urge you to vote ``yes'' for the 
     balanced budget amendment, S.J. Res 41.
       I am a retiree, nearly 74 years of age and fully realize 
     that many of us retirees will suffer financial loss by 
     passage of the balanced budget proposal. I don't see any 
     other solution, after many years of lip service, Congress 
     cannot and will not take the drastic action needed to get our 
     financial house in order.
       What ever the sacrifice, we will survive and our children's 
     children will be better off because of it.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dean F. Thompson.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

         The State of Florida and the Balanced Budget Amendment

       What does a Balanced Budget Amendment mean to the State of 
     Florida? While supporters offer a lot of tough talk, few 
     proponents spell out the details of how they would achieve 
     this laudable goal. The Director of the CBO, Robert 
     Reischauer, has indicated--and this administration agrees--
     that any discussion of a balanced budget amendment must be in 
     the context of an honest discussion about the program cuts 
     and tax increases necessary to achieve such a balance. 
     According to Reischauer, ``it would be a particular folly to 
     pass a balanced budget amendment and ignore the need to 
     expeditiously enact legislation that would offer some hope of 
     complying with it.'' Make no mistake, balancing the budget 
     would require tough choices and cost Florida billions.
       In order to encourage a more realistic, responsible debate, 
     the Treasury Department has analyzed five possible routes to 
     a balanced budget in 2000. These projections do not include 
     the contractionary impact on the economy that might accompany 
     a sharp rise in taxes or reduction in spending over such a 
     short period of time. In this sense, these are very 
     conservative estimates of the cost of such an amendment to 
     the people of Florida.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I simply want to commend our colleague, the 
cosponsor of this legislation, for his excellent statement. So Members 
may know what procedures are under the unanimous-consent agreement, 
Senator Mathews is going to speak next, then Senator Bumpers, and then 
Senator Specter has requested some time, and then Senator McCain.
  I will follow that order and I understand there may be some others 
after that.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
statement by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, that was sent to 
me today, ``Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment.''
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Time for a Balanced-Budget Amendment

                          (By Dick Thornburgh)

       The United States Senate is poised, once again, to consider 
     a balanced-budget amendment to the United States 
     Constitution, S.J. Res. 41. Despite President Clinton's 
     opposition, it appears that this measure's time may have 
     finally come.
       Strong support exists for the amendment. The National 
     Governors Association (which President Clinton once headed) 
     has long expressed its approval, on a bi-partisan basis, of 
     the measure, as well as a presidential line-item veto and a 
     separate capital budget (which differentiates investments 
     from current outlays). These budget-balancing tools are 
     already available to most governors and state legislatures. 
     And they work.
       National polls consistently indicate that the overwhelming 
     majority of Americans favor a balanced-budget amendment and 
     the legislatures of more than thirty states have even called 
     for a federal constitutional convention to consider such an 
     amendment.
       It has become almost axiomatic to lament the woeful lack of 
     will on the part of successive administrations and the 
     Congress to make any meaningful progress toward deficit 
     reduction. Most recently, President Clinton's so-called 
     deficit reduction package is not such at all. It would merely 
     temporarily reduce the rate of increase in our national 
     indebtedness. And it is subject to the same hazards of 
     congressional override as the now-defunct Gramm-Rudman-
     Hollings Act, which was to have produced a zero deficit by 
     1993.
       If real debate is to take place on the Senate floor this 
     year, it will likely include the following arguments usually 
     raised against a balanced-budget amendment, to which I offer 
     brief rejoinders.
       First, it will be argued that the amendment would ``clutter 
     up'' our basic document in a way contrary to the intention of 
     the founding fathers. This is clearly wrong. The framers of 
     the Constitution contemplated that amendments would be 
     necessary to keep it abreast of the times. It has already 
     been amended on 27 occasions.
       Moreover, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, one 
     of the major preoccupations was how to liquidate the post-
     Revolutionary War debts of the states. Certainly, it would 
     have been unthinkable to the framers that the federal 
     government itself would systematically run at a deficit, 
     decade after decade. Indeed, the Treasury did not begin to 
     follow such a practice until the mid-1930s.
       Second, critics will argue that the adoption of a balanced-
     budget amendment would not solve the deficit problem 
     overnight. This is absolutely correct, but begs the issue. 
     Serious supporters of the amendment recognize that a phasing-
     in period, such as the seven years contemplated by S.J. Res. 
     41, would be required to reach a zero deficit.
       During this interim period, however, budget makers would be 
     disciplined to meet declining deficit targets in order to 
     reach a final balanced budget by the established deadline.
       As pointed out by former Commerce Secretary Peter G. 
     Peterson in his sensible book, ``Facing Up,'' such ``steady 
     progress toward eliminating the deficit will maintain 
     investor confidence, keep long term interest rates headed 
     down, and keep our economy growing.''
       Third, it will be argued that such an amendment would 
     require vast cuts in social services and entitlements or 
     defense expenditures. Not necessarily. True, these programs 
     would have to be paid for on a current basis. Certainly, 
     difficult choices would have to be made about priorities and 
     levels of program funding. But the very purpose of the 
     amendment is to discipline the executive and legislative 
     branches actually to make these choices and not to propose or 
     perpetuate vast spending programs without providing the 
     revenues to fund them.
       The amendment would, in effect, make the president and 
     congress fully accountable for their spending and taxing 
     decisions, as they should be.
       Fourth, critics will say that a balanced budget amendment 
     would prevent or hinder our capacity to respond to national 
     defense or economic emergencies. This concern is easy to 
     counter. All sensible amendment proposals feature a ``safety 
     valve'' to exempt deficits incurred in responding to such 
     emergencies, requiring, for example, a three-fifths ``super 
     majority'' in both houses of congress. Such action should be 
     based on a finding that such an emergency actually exists.
       Fifth, it will be said that a balanced-budget amendment 
     would be ``more loophole than law'' and might be easily 
     circumvented. The experience of the states suggests 
     otherwise. Balanced-budget requirements are now in effect in 
     all but one of the 50 states and have served them well.
       Moreover, the line-item veto, available to 43 governors, 
     would assure that any specific congressional overruns (or 
     loophole end-runs) could be dealt with by the president. The 
     public's outcry, the elective process and the courts would 
     also provide backup restraint on any tendency to simply 
     ignore a constitutional directive.
       In the final analysis, most of the excuses raised for not 
     enacting a constitutional mandate to balance the budget rest 
     on a stated or implied preference for solving our deficit 
     dilemma through ``the political process''--that is to say, 
     through responsible action by the president and congress.
       This has been tried and found wanting, again and again.
       Surely, this country is ready for a simple, clear and 
     supreme directive that its elected officials fulfill their 
     fiscal responsibilities. A constitutional amendment is the 
     only instrument that will meet this need effectively. Years 
     of experience at the state level argue persuasively in favor 
     of such a step. Years of debate have produced no persuasive 
     arguments against it.
       And the stakes are high. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson put it 
     best:
       ``To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers 
     load us down with perpetual debt.''
       That is the aim of a balanced budget amendment. Reform-
     minded senators will have a chance to help end ``credit 
     card'' government by supporting S.J. Res. 41 when it comes to 
     a vote later this month.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MATHEWS. Mr. President, as I begin my presentation this afternoon 
on the balanced budget amendment, I would like to start out by paying 
tribute and thanking my colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon, for 
making this Nation face its failures.
  I think almost without question he has kept the pressure on us, he 
has kept the pressure on the Nation by saying we have to face up to 
this growing debt and these continuing deficits if we, as a nation, are 
going to survive. We have said on this floor that if we are going to be 
strong defensively, we have to present a strong economic front. I 
believe this sincerely, and I want to commend my colleague and thank 
him on behalf of the people of Tennessee for that which he has done: 
For bringing us to this point because, hopefully, tomorrow we are going 
to make a decision that will strengthen this Nation and strengthen the 
purse strings that we are charged with holding onto.
  I think as most of my colleagues know, I am a product of State 
government. I spent 40 years as a part of Tennessee State government, 
most of that time as one of two principal State financial officers: As 
commissioner of finance, which is a budgetmaking function, management 
function in State government, and 13 years as State Treasurer, which I 
suppose is more the banking function of the management of the dollars 
until they are expended.
  Let me say to this body and to the people of this country that a 
balanced budget concept is not a strange concept to me, nor is a 
balanced budget a stranger because I have, during that 40-year period, 
never been a part of a deficit budget. We have managed to live within 
our resources or to take those actions that are required to bring a 
budget within the resources during this entire period.
  I am a cosponsor and started out as a cosponsor of Senator Simon's 
amendment. As the debate began to develop and as we began to look at 
the amendment and what some pointed out as being shortcomings in one 
amendment, and as we began to look at the Reid amendment, which 
purported to address some of those shortcomings, I have found two 
significant differences in the Simon amendment and the Reid amendment 
which lead me to believe that for this point in time the Reid amendment 
is a better approach for this Nation to take. Let me address that 
briefly.
  First of all, the Reid amendment recognizes those principles of State 
finance which say that instead of trying to capitalize assets, instead 
of attempting and requiring that we pay the full cost of an asset in 
the year in which it is built, it says that a capital asset, such as 
this building we are in today, is going to serve generations in the 
future, and that it is perfectly all right to put the payment of this 
over a reasonable period of time into the future.
  In Tennessee State government, we use a 20-year capitalization 
program. So we spread the annual costs of any debt retirement we create 
for an asset over this period of time, but it becomes a part of the 
operating budget, and those generations which are going to enjoy it in 
the future also pay a reasonable portion of the cost.
  This is not true on an expendable program. This is not true on 
expenditures which consume themselves in the year in which they are 
made. But if we are looking at capital assets, the acquisition or 
payment of capital assets, we look at it in terms of this being done 
over a period of time and this being outside what we consider the 
normal operating budget.
  Second, I think the Reid amendment says something else to us, and 
that is a pension program. The national pension program, the Social 
Security program that we have, says to the people of this Nation, the 
working people, that if you work and pay into this, when the time 
comes, when you meet the criteria for retirement, dollars are going to 
be there to pay that allowance, and they are not going to be diverted 
to some other use.
  My colleague from Florida a moment ago talked about the fact that 
instead of the dollars we are paying into the Social Security trust 
fund building up and earning interest and this being a way in which we 
can enrich that fund, these dollars are being siphoned off to pay the 
national debt, being siphoned off to pay other expenses. And, Mr. 
President, this must stop. The older Americans, the people in this 
country who, over a period of many years, have made contributions day 
by day, week by week, and month by month to this fund are owed the 
responsibility of being able to look forward to their retirement years 
with the income which is to come from this. If we leave this fund 
unprotected, if we let the moneys be siphoned off or used for anything 
that we might decide as a body to appropriate those dollars for, we are 
doing a disservice to these people.
  Mr. President, the years of my experience convince me that the Reid 
amendment creates the kind of discipline that has worked for State 
governments. It takes the crucial step of dividing operating budgets 
from capital budgets. It enables us to make a distinction between 
approval for responsible debt and for irresponsible debt. It allows 
flexibility to meet fiscal emergencies, and it takes a wise step of 
safeguarding the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. President, what we are facing is an emotional issue in the sense 
that the people of this Nation understand, have become concerned, and 
are demanding that we take action to correct an inadequacy, a failing 
in our fiscal policies. But, Mr. President, it is more than an 
emotional issue. It is an issue that demands that we address it 
rationally, that we address it with determination, and it is one which 
is crying out to be solved.
  Tomorrow, as we face this issue, it is my plan to support the Reid 
amendment because I believe it brings fiscal discipline to the budget 
without a straitjacket. It brings us face to face with the American 
people. It makes us look them in the eye and say, ``We believe that 
these things we are doing are important enough to ask you to provide 
additional dollars, to ask you to accept less by way of programs.''
  Or it makes us take those actions that are necessary to live within 
the means that we provide. And for that reason, Mr. President, it is my 
intention tomorrow to support the Reid amendment, and I invite my 
colleagues to do the same.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. 
Under the previous arrangement, the Senator from Arkansas is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I especially thank the 
Chair and the distinguished Senator from Illinois for yielding me time. 
The Senator from Illinois knows I do not favor his amendment so that 
makes his generosity even greater and my appreciation deeper.
  I will address most of my remarks to the resolution of the Senator 
from Illinois and not the substitute offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
  I think every mind in the Senate has been made up, and I come here 
today simply to make a record.
  I do not intend to vote for the Simon resolution. I did not vote for 
the so-called balanced budget amendment in 1986.
  Mr. President, everything I have to say has probably been said dozens 
of times in the Chamber in the last week, but I did not say them, and I 
wish to. I wish to say also, nobody can deplore deficits with any 
greater degree of drama than I can. I have stood on this floor, until I 
felt I would drop, with amendments to cut the deficit, cut spending. 
And these charts that show all the red ink are accurate. Nobody knows 
it better than I do because I was here when the red ink started soaring 
under Ronald Reagan, the man who came to town to balance the budget and 
left town having tripled the national debt.
  I have heard a lot of Senators talk about courage, and I do not mean 
to denigrate a single one of my colleagues. I have the utmost respect 
for all of them, and most everybody here I consider my friend. But, Mr. 
President, it does not take any courage to vote for Senator Simon's 
amendment. That is the popular thing to do. Even though this is not a 
hot item with the American people just now. I think Time magazine last 
week showed that only 6 percent of the people list the national debt or 
the deficit as their No. 1 concern--6 percent. Twenty-nine percent feel 
crime is the biggest problem, 26 percent health care, 6 percent the 
deficit. But make no mistake about it; if you went up and down the 
streets of America and you asked, ``America, do you favor a balanced 
budget amendment in the Constitution,'' 80 percent would answer, 
``yes.''
  So I will tell you where courage comes in. It takes the courage to 
vote ``no'' and then follow that up and courageously vote to stop 
spending, which causes the deficit.
  (Mr. FEINGOLD assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there were 11 Senators--11; I want it put 
on my epitaph that I was one of them--that voted against that crazy 
nonsense in 1981 that Ronald Reagan sent over here saying we are going 
to grow our way out of this mess by cutting taxes and raising spending.
  What a dynamite idea. We cut taxes and increased spending with the 
predictable result, red ink. There were 11 Senators who said this is 
palpable nonsense, and I was one of them. But 89 Senators voted 
``yes,'' and that is the reason we stand here today doing our very best 
to deal with the problem. If my only concern was going to be to go home 
and tell the people I voted the popular vote, I would vote ``aye.''
  I do not enjoy going home and telling the Chamber of Commerce that I 
voted against this when every single person sitting in the audience 
thinks I have taken leave of my senses? I do not enjoy it any more than 
you think I would enjoy it.
  Mr. President, why are we dealing with what everybody agrees is a 
colossal problem, in a political way? Mr. President, Senator Simon came 
to my office and made as fine a presentation as anybody has ever made 
to me on this issue. If I were ever going to vote for it, I would have 
done it following that presentation because he is very persuasive. And 
there would be another small reason, and that is my personal friendship 
and respect for him.
  But I daresay, Mr. President--and this does not sound quite right, 
but the truth of the matter is, in my opinion, that of the 65 Senators 
who will vote for Senator Simon, 40 of them are praying to God there 
are 34 with the courage to vote ``no.'' I am going to help take them 
off the hook because I am voting ``no.'' Why do we want to take a 
problem and deal with it in such a way? Why do we want to postpone the 
hard choices until every Senator here will have served out his existing 
term and maybe more?
  The answer is 2001. Between now and the year 2001, we will keep 
voting for Milstar and the D-5 missile and more defense spending than 
all of the rest of the world combined because we do not want to be a 
super military power. And the red ink will continue to soar.
  Mr. President, when it comes to courage, we were given an opportunity 
to be courageous last summer, and the Senator from Illinois was one of 
the courageous people in that debate. The President of the United 
States, Bill Clinton, came to town and instead of giving us a 
rhetorical choice saying, just listen to my words and the budget will 
balance itself. He said I am going to raise taxes on the wealthiest 
people in America and we are going to cut $250 billion in spending. Mr. 
President, there are two ways to deal with the deficit, both of them 
very unpopular: Raise taxes and cut spending. You get different 
constituencies but they are both unpopular.
  And where were all of those people who want to do something about the 
deficit? Here was a President who took a very unpopular proposal to 
Congress and said if you really want to do something about the deficit, 
here is your opportunity. And do you know how much it passed by? One 
vote in the Senate, one vote in the House.
  Do you know who voted ``no?'' Forty, forty of the Senators who are 
supporting the Simon amendment. They finally got a chance to stand up 
and be counted and honestly do something about the deficit and 40 of 
that 60-plus Senators who are going to vote for a few words in the 
Constitution and assume that solves the problem, voted ``no.''
  Mr. President, I never hated to go home as badly in my life as I did 
after I cast that vote. Everybody in Arkansas thought their taxes were 
going up. But as so often is the case, do you know what the people of 
this country now think? They think President Bill Clinton did something 
very important. They know he did something important. Do you know why 
they know? Because the deficit has been heading down dramatically ever 
since he became President. In 1993, down dramatically; 1994, down 
dramatically; 1995, down again.
  Mr. President, the only quarrel the President and I have--and 
incidentally, Mr. President, one of the reasons your phones are not 
ringing off the wall and the letters pouring into your offices on this 
amendment this time as it did in 1986 is because the deficit at the end 
of 1995 is going to be about half what it was when Bill Clinton became 
President, and everybody knows it. They know the deficit is headed 
south, and they are depending on this new young President to keep it 
headed south. Now the President and I have a slight disagreement, and 
the disagreement is this: He believes that health care, health care 
reform, will keep the deficit headed south.
  I do not know whether I believe that or not. But I can tell you one 
thing. Where he and I disagree is there are a lot of other places we 
can continue cutting to keep the deficit headed south that will not do 
damage to our economy, and the growth rate we have going right now can 
be sustained. The space station, Milstar, the D-5 missile--billions of 
dollars could be eliminated and no damage done to the economy.
  Mr. President, we had growth under Ronald Reagan, we had economic 
growth and we had growth in the deficits. I used an expression on the 
floor a hundred times: ``You let me write 200 or 300 billion dollars' 
worth of hot checks every year and I'll show you a good time too.'' We 
wrote about 200 or 300 billion dollars' worth of hot checks every year 
and still wound up with a deficit and a recession.
  Mr. President, this President has given us a choice between rhetoric 
and action. Last year he got action by one vote. Here we are about to 
put a provision in the Constitution that will require 60 votes to do 
much of anything.
  Let's assume that Congress projects that we will have enough income 
coming in in the year 2000 to balance the budget. But in the middle of 
the year, April 1, we realize our projections were wrong, the economy 
is headed down, and we are about to have a deficit.
  Under the Simon amendment we have to have 60 votes or the Social 
Security checks are not going to go out the first of the month. Well, I 
assume you would get 60 votes. But, Mr. President, that could be a 
dangerous assumption. I was a Member of the U.S. Senate when we could 
not get 51 votes to raise the debt ceiling. Do you know what happened? 
Government shut down. A lot of people remember that. Employees were 
furloughed and CBO ultimately said the cost of the idiocy and lack of 
courage by the U.S. Congress in not raising the debt ceiling when we 
should have, cost the taxpayers of this country about $60-$70 million 
just so Members could go home and beat their chests to the Chamber of 
Commerce, and say, I voted not to raise the debt ceiling. That is like 
ordering a big steak, and when the bill comes, ``What do you mean pay 
for this meal? I am not going to pay for this meal just because I 
ordered it and ate it.'' That is what we did, and it cost the taxpayers 
$60-$70 million. But sixty votes will be required here. You may get 
them and you may not. We could not get 51 then.
  Now one of the basic concerns that everybody had was what if we have 
a depression and you cannot get 60 votes to unbalance the budget? And 
the depression deepens. It is a rule of thumb that for every point, the 
growth rate goes down, the gross domestic product goes down, it costs 
the Treasury $20 billion. So you have an economy going down. And 
Congress says it's not going to do anything to stop the slide. And so 
for every point it goes down, add another $20 billion to the deficit. 
They say, well, Congress will not be that irresponsible. Will they not? 
They were willing to shut the Government down as I just described for 
you.
  Then, of course, a basic concern most of us had was that the courts 
could take over the Congress; that the court would say you cannot spend 
money or you must raise taxes or God knows what else. So now, as I 
understand it, after the Reid amendment is defeated--and it will be--
amendments will be placed in the Simon substitute to say two things: 
No. 1, instead of balancing the budget in 1999 or 1998, we are going to 
push it off a little bit to 2001. No. 2, we are going to say the courts 
may not inject themselves into this except in a declaratory way.
  Mr. President, this Chamber is full of lawyers and every lawyer here 
knows that a declaratory judgment is worth a warm bucket of spit. So 
what you will have is the only provision in the U.S. Constitution that 
is unenforceable. You think about it.
  Proponents say, well, Congress will deal with it. Will they? Welcome 
to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. We thought up every contrivance known to man 
to make sure we did not comply with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. If we had a 
line-item veto, it would take Robert C. Byrd about 3 minutes to say 
every sentence will end with a semicolon, or the enrolling clerk will 
do this, that, and the other. It would not be worth a warm bucket of 
spit.
  We are looking for easy solutions: Put a few words in the 
Constitution; pass a law; go home, and get the good government award.
  I will tell you what a courageous Senate we have here. Here is a 
chart showing the results of 24 votes to cut spending last fall.
  Now, I'm pointing to an important figure right here. It shows 14 
Senators in the U.S. Senate voted to cut in excess of $2.5 billion. Out 
of 100 U.S. Senators, 14 voted on those 24 cuts that would have cut 
more than $2.5 billion.
  I could tell you who they were, and I could tell you how they stand 
on this amendment. That would not serve any purpose.
  But look at this figure: We had 30 Senators that were willing to cut 
a $\1/2\ billion in spending. That is only 30 percent of the Senate, 
willing to cut \1/2\ billion off a $250 billion deficit. Tragic!
  I want to pay a little tribute at this point. I did my own study. I 
am using the one that Senator Mitchell did on the 24 votes. I counted 
20 votes last year on spending cuts. A good big portion of them were 
mine. But of the 20 amendments I studied, there were only 2 Senators 
that stood head and shoulder above everybody else in courage. And that 
was the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold; 
and his colleague, Senator Kohl. They voted for 80 percent of those 
cuts. They are split on this amendment, and I can understand that. But 
I think people who stand up here and cast those courageous budget cuts 
ought to be recognized.
  Look at this chart. These items are just my amendments. These are the 
amendments I offered last year, and this does not count the National 
Endowment for Democracy--only $35 million. That is not much by Senate 
standards.
  Here is the space station. We could have saved $1.6 billion in this 
year of our Lord 1994. But we voted 40-59 not to do that. Do you know 
what the total savings on that would have been counting interest over 
the life of the project? $2l6 billion. We could not see fit to do that.
  SDI and ballistic missile defense, $400 million. We could have saved 
$28 billion over the life of those projects, and on and on.
  Total savings, direct and interest. On the intelligence budget, $400 
million. We tried to save that. We could have saved $119 billion over a 
30-year period counting interest. On the D-5 missile, we could have 
saved $35 billion. That effort was defeated when the Senate had an easy 
chance to save $35 billion.
  Do you know why the superconducting super collider was scrapped? Not 
because of the U.S. Senate--I stood here 4 years in a row trying to 
kill that sucker. This is the closest I ever got: 42-57. But look what 
the House did to it: killed it by 280-150. Thank the House for that, 
not the Senate.
  When you talk about courage, do not talk about the courage to vote 
for this amendment. Talk about the courage of voting for spending cuts, 
because it requires no courage to vote for this resolution.
  Let us assume that we agree that the budget is about to become 
unbalanced, and Social Security checks are not going to go out, 
Medicaid checks are not going out, defense spending checks are not 
going to go out, Medicare checks are not going to go out, medical 
research checks are not going to go out; everything is going to come to 
a halt because we have to have a balanced budget. You might say ``you 
know Congress will not let that happen.''
  It won't? They let the Government shut down for 3 days just since I 
have been here. Why would I want to tempt fate by assuming that 60 
Senators would not let that happen when we could not muster 51 to keep 
Government going? There has been one filibuster after another in the 
last 12 years. That has been the name of the game. What we would do 
here is legitimize filibusters by putting them in the Constitution.
  What is democracy all about? Majority rule? I guess not, because 
under this amendment it will take 60 votes to keep Government in 
business. How long would it take to collect a tax increase to get 
Government operating again?
  Every question we ask raises another question. We are talking about 
the world's greatest Nation becoming a pitiful monster. What do you say 
to the two Senators from California, who had an earthquake and $20 
billion in damage? We will have to wait until next year or until we can 
raise taxes, or find 60 votes to waive the deficit.
  How about those Midwestern floods, when most every Senator in the 
U.S. Senate stood and lamented the terrible plight of the people in all 
of those Midwestern States? What do you do about that? Nothing?
  And what about Hurricane Andrew or any other disaster? The House made 
a valiant run just the other day to make Congress pass a bill to pay 
for any additional disaster relief.
  Mr. President, I do not have to look at those charts or these charts 
to know how this all happened. All I know is that this is no solution.
  As long as we continue to squander money on defense the way we have, 
you are never going to balance the budget. But it is not just defense; 
I am not picking on them. They just have the biggest slice of the pie.
  I can tell you that we are never going to have enough jobs for our 
people; we are never going to have enough education for our people; we 
are never going to have the kind of health care we want; we are never 
going to allow our people the dignity they have the right to expect 
from a great Nation, until we get our spending priorities in order.
  This great, great Nation has the highest crime rate in the world; and 
25 percent of its children under 6 years of age living below the 
poverty line, like they live in Chiapas, Mexico. You do not have to be 
a rocket scientist to know that our spending priorities are wrong.
  Mr. President, let me just say that this amendment--I do not mean 
this to be disrespectful--does not even pass the giggle test. There are 
just too many questions that simply cannot be answered. I would 
consider it one of the gravest tragedies ever to befall this Nation if 
this amendment should suddenly be made a part of that great, great 
document that the wisest men in the history of this country, maybe of 
the world, put together back in 1787. This makes prohibition look like 
what Diogenes was looking for when he was looking for an honest man.
  One of the great failings of the media is that they never report the 
hypocrisy around here that we are all guilty of from time to time. They 
never report who rales the loudest about deficits and then votes 
against every spending cut that comes up in the Senate.
  Just as an aside: I have a pamphlet here, ``Robert Byrd's Balanced 
Budget.'' Have you seen this, Senator? This comes from the Ronald 
Reagan Republican Center, Washington, DC, paid for by the National 
Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. It is headlined: ``Robert 
Byrd and the Constitutional Amendment; What He Said in 1982 and What He 
Said in 1994.'' Admittedly, they are at odds. It makes me respect him 
more, as I do anyone else who has the wisdom to change his views when 
he sees they should be changed. The last line of this: ``The two things 
that have grown the most in the last decade are the U.S. budget and 
Robert Byrd's hypocrisy.''
  Mr. President, there is absolutely no room in this debate--and the 
Senator from Illinois will be the first to echo what I say--for 
personality conflicts. This is a grave issue when you start talking 
about tinkering with the Constitution. Next to the Bible, it is the 
most sacred document we know. Senator Byrd is doing exactly what he 
believes in, and what I believe in. I admire him for taking the 
leadership in this. Frankly, if it were not for his tenacity and 
determination and intellect, I am not sure we would have won this 
battle--and we are going to win it. This amendment will not pass, 
largely thanks to him.
  Yesterday morning in my hometown newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette, an Associated Press story, said: ``Senate to Defeat Balanced 
Budget Amendment.'' It went on to say that because the President has 
been twisting arms, because Senator Mitchell has been twisting arms, 
and because people in the Senate fear Robert Byrd, this amendment is 
going to be defeated.
  What an insult. It is insulting to them, but it is even more 
insulting to everybody else. I am not voting for it because I fear 
Robert Byrd or because George Mitchell said anything to me about it. 
Certainly, the President has not called me about it. I am not voting 
for it because I consider it to be a bad idea. That is too simple for a 
lot of people who write for newspapers to understand. But this 
resolution will fall because it is a bad idea.
  Mr. President, the one thing we can do to make the people of this 
country more cynical than they already are, and as they sit around the 
coffee shops and talk about why Congress cannot get the deficit under 
control, and stop all that spending, the worst thing you can do to them 
is to say: We put this in the Constitution, and now it is all taken 
care of. And then a few years down the pike, they will find that they 
have been had once again; that, it is unenforceable because there is 
nobody to enforce it except the good will of the Congress.
  It is unenforceable because it requires a supermajority to unbalance 
the budget. It even says you can waive it in case of a declared war or 
military conflict that threatens our national security.
  What if you are not in a conflict but you are going to have to spend 
a few billion dollars getting ready for one that you feel you are going 
to have to fight? What happens then? You cannot do it if it unbalances 
the budget.
  Back to the point: When the people find out, if they ever do, that 
the wool has been pulled over their eyes once again by what they 
consider to be a hypocritical Congress, then all you have done is 
raised the cynicism level still higher, and God knows that is the 
biggest problem we have in this country.
  So, Mr. President, again I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding 
this time to me and the Senator from Nevada to vent my spleen and say 
these few things about it.
  I see the Senator from Illinois on his feet. I yield the floor, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will just comment for 3 minutes on the 
speech by my colleague from Arkansas. Then I want to yield to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  First of all, 80 percent of what he had to say, believe it or not, 
supports the balanced budget amendment rather than negates it because 
he is talking about all our deficiencies.
  I voted with him on that 1981 Reagan tax cut. I voted with him on the 
majority of those things up on that board.
  In terms of waiting, when we say it is 2001, we are going to wait 
until 2001, the reality is every Member here, whether they are for my 
amendment or against it, if it passes, we know it is going through the 
House; we know it is going to be adopted by the States. We are going to 
start work on it right away so that we get on a glide path. We know 
that.
  In terms of it taking 60 votes in time of recession, since 1962 we 
have passed 11 stimulus packages in the United States Senate. Every one 
of those passed by more than 60 votes. We can do that.
  And in terms of a majority not being able to get things done, in the 
Constitution there are 8 exceptions right now to the majority 
controlling things. When James Madison proposed a Bill of Rights, one 
of Alexander Hamilton's arguments initially opposing it was you are 
taking power away from the majority, and James Madison talked about 
majority abuses.
  Anyone who looks at this deficit for 25 years in a row, the kinds of 
things the Senator is talking about, that is why we need some special 
provisions here.
  In terms of it being unenforceable, my good friend from Arkansas is 
slightly inconsistent, and I am not suggesting I am always consistent, 
when we have the three-fifths for extending the debt, and he says it is 
unenforceable. I think that is a very tough enforcement provision.
  Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was not any good because it was statutory. I 
think it did a little bit of good in terms of restraint, but whenever 
it is statutory we can get around it.
  And then Senator Bumpers, who is a strong supporter of education, 
take a look at the last 12 years, yes, in nominal terms we increased 
education. In inflation adjusted terms, we spent minus 8 percent on 
education. And what happened on interest? It went up 91 percent. 
Interest squeezed out our ability to respond on those social questions.
  And then every argument my friend from Arkansas used right now we 
used in 1986. In 1986 people said we can balance the budget without a 
constitutional amendment. In 1986 the deficit was $2 trillion, and now 
we are hearing exactly the same arguments and the deficit is $4\1/2\ 
trillion plus.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a table entitled 
``Lifetime Net Tax Rates Under Alternative Policies'' in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

            LIFETIME NET TAX RATES UNDER ALTERNTIVE POLICIES            
                            [In percentages]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Health 
                                                                  care  
                                                       With      reform 
 Generation's year of birth     Before     After      health      but   
                                OBRA93     OBRA93      care      faster 
                                                      reform      cost  
                                                                 growth 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1900........................       23.6       23.6       23.6       23.6
1910........................       27.2       27.2       27.2       27.2
1920........................       29.0       29.0       29.1       29.1
1930........................       30.5       30.6       30.9       30.9
1940........................       31.6       31.9       32.4       32.2
1950........................       32.8       33.2       34.0       33.5
1960........................       34.4       35.0       35.9       35.2
1970........................       35.7       36.5       37.6       36.6
1980........................       36.0       36.9       38.2       36.7
1990........................       35.5       36.5       38.3       36.2
1992........................       35.4       36.3       38.3       36.0
Future generations..........       93.7       82.9       66.5       75.2
Percentage difference:                                                  
 future generations and 1992      165.1      126.0       73.0      108.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. SIMON. Forget GAO projections and all the others. Look at the 
lifetime net tax rates under alternative policies. Under OMB figures in 
that budget they just gave us, tax rates for someone my age, 1930--I 
was born in 1928--but let us say 1930 are 30 percent, and for someone--
I want to have the attention of my colleague from Arkansas on this--for 
future generations, and this is if the health care bill passes and 
saves all that they project, if we have 10 years of prosperity in a row 
without a dip, both of which are somewhat questionable, even though I 
am a cosponsor of the Clinton health program, the administration says 
66 to 75 percent of the lifetime earnings of future generations will go 
for taxation.
  It is not going to happen. We are going to print money. That is the 
reality.
  Mr. BUMPERS Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SIMON. I am pleased to yield, and I do want to yield.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may ask my colleague, he was going 
to speak for 3 minutes until 5:30 and we had scheduled me to follow. I 
wonder if I might proceed without more extended debate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say to the Senator from Pennsylvania this will 
only take a couple of minutes. This is not going to be a long colloquy. 
I just wanted to inject a question here.
  Is there a unanimous consent agreement for the Senator from 
Pennsylvania to speak?
  Mr. SIMON. We do not have a unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. SPECTER. The Senator said 5:30. The Senator from Illinois said he 
would be 3 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We will not detain the Senator long. I just wanted to 
ask the Senator from Illinois a couple of questions.
  I want to ask the Senator, No. 1, if the Senators in this body do not 
have the courage to cut spending and balance the budget now, and you 
put this in the Constitution, and there is absolutely nothing and no 
way to enforce it, because you are taking the courts out of it, what is 
it in this amendment that is going to change the courage of the Members 
of the Senate to balance the budget? That is the first question.
  The second question: If we wind up in the middle of the year seeing 
that either we have grossly overestimated revenues, or grossly 
underestimated spending and that we are therefore headed for an 
unbalanced budget--but the Senator cannot get 60 Senators to waive the 
budget. I want the Senator to tell me what would he do in each of these 
cases.
  Mr. SIMON. I would be pleased to answer the question. Senator Specter 
assures me he has some appointments waiting.
  I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania and then I will be pleased 
to answer the questions of the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I probably am not going to hang around that long. I do 
not what to detain the Senator from Pennsylvania either.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator from Illinois 
yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. SIMON. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I will 
say my very brief word of explanation that I had thought I was 
scheduled at 5 p.m. I had commitments, but then the Senator from 
Arkansas retained the floor until 5:30. Then there were 2 more minutes 
requested by the Senator from Illinois. When the colloquies proceed it 
is very difficult to establish any time limit. So I thank my colleague 
from Illinois for yielding to me at this time.
  I support the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget because 
I firmly believe that the Congress needs to develop discipline through 
a constitutional amendment to live within our means.
  When the Senator from Arkansas talks about some of his efforts on 
spending cuts, I supported the Senator from Arkansas when he fought 
valiantly to have a substantial cut in the space station last year and 
the year before and the year before that. I believe had this 
constitutional amendment been in effect the effort by the Senator from 
Arkansas to cut the funds of the space station would have carried.
  As long as the Congress may engage in deficit spending, then it is 
always easier not to cut the expenses and to let one more item go 
through on an appropriations bill. However, if we were bound to balance 
the budget so that every time we authorized money for an additional 
expenditure we had to raise taxes, then I think the expenditures would 
not be made. If this body were looking at the space station 
expenditures in the context that taxes had to be raised, I believe 
there would be a difference in the response of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives.
  It is my submission as a fundamental matter that if an item is worth 
appropriating for then we ought to have the courage to raise taxes for 
it.
  But the practical fact of life is that our constituents would not 
stand for such increases in taxes, would not stand for increase in tax 
in the range of some $200 billion more. The consequence would be that 
we would make the hard choices and that we would make spending cuts or 
if we found that we could not cut as much as we wanted to on spending 
cuts then we might look at taxes. But I think taxes would be a very, 
very last resort.
  It is my view, Mr. President--a view that I have backed up in the 
1982 vote on a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget when I 
supported it and the 1986 vote on the constitutional amendment for a 
balanced budget when I again supported it--that this country ought to 
live within its means, just as any individual has to live within his or 
her means. If any individual does not live within his or her means, 
that individual winds up in a bankruptcy court.
  When the Senator from Arkansas talks about the great Constitution of 
the United States, I agree with him totally. Long before my days in law 
school, I was enthralled by the Constitution. When I studied 
constitutional law in law school, there was an added reverence for it. 
As a practicing lawyer, I worked a great deal on constitutional issues, 
especially when I was district attorney in Philadelphia and chief of 
the appeals division. During the course of the work I have had on the 
Judiciary Committee and serving on the Constitutional Law Subcommittee 
and on the occasions where we have confirmations of Supreme Court 
nominees. Now there is an occasion to go back and reread the 
constitutional law cases.
  Currently, I have been deeply enmeshed in Supreme Court decisions, as 
I am preparing for an argument in the Supreme Court of the United 
States on Wednesday, the day after tomorrow, and revisiting the issues 
of separations of powers and constitutional authority.
  I believe that the Senator from Arkansas is correct that the 
Constitution of the United States is the greatest document ever 
produced by man. But the Constitution of the United States is the only 
Constitution that I know of that has no limitation on spending.
  We have constitutions in 50 States. Illustrative is the constitution 
of my State, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has a constitutional 
requirement for a balanced budget. If Pennsylvania did not have a 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, I can assure you, Mr. 
President, and the 12 million people in Pennsylvania that Pennsylvania 
would not go through the rigors of the budget when they face the hard 
questions of what can be spent and what has to be taxed.
  I believe the same principle is true in the other States; that if 
States had added latitude, as does the Federal Government, to engage in 
deficit spending, then deficit spending would be the rule rather than 
the exception.
  When the Senator from Arkansas talks about the wonders of the current 
President in reducing the deficit, I think the facts do not support 
that. There have been lesser expenditures in savings and loans 
recently, for example, which yielded a very substantial savings as 
compared to the years during the preceding President.
  When the President of the United States makes a projection that he is 
reducing the deficit by $500 billion, it simply is not so, or it 
depends on how you calculate it. The deficit projection was $1.6 
trillion. When the President talked about reducing the deficit by $500 
billion, he was saying realistically that the deficit would be $1.1 
trillion. And that is how much the deficit is going to go up in the 5-
year projection by President Clinton.
  So the debt, which is now $4.3 trillion, will go to $5.4 trillion, or 
even higher.
  Mr. President, none of us would think for a minute about buying 
something, consuming it, and charging it to our children. And none of 
us would think for a minute about buying something and consuming it and 
charging it to our grandchildren.
  I have had the pleasure, Mr. President, for the last 40 days to have 
a new granddaughter. It is a little more emphatic to me now as I look 
at a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget on the principle--I 
see Senator Simon nods in affirmative; he does not nod too often in the 
affirmative when I am speaking, but he is now. But it brings to home, 
as I hold that 5 pound 5 ounce child.
  On the day she was born, I said to my son Shanin, ``Where do you 
think she will be in the year 2074?'' And I projected ahead just 80 
years, hoping that her life expectancy would be 80 years. And Shanin, 
my son, looked at me and said, ``I don't know where we will be. I guess 
we will not be here.'' But she will still be paying for the deficit in 
the year 2074 and beyond if this Government does not take some step to 
reduce it.
  And that is the basic issue, Mr. President. I believe that the 
Congress long ago should have gone beyond the constitutional amendment 
for a balanced budget and should have enacted the line-item veto, the 
provision which would enable the President to strike specific items.
  I have done some research on that subject and have concluded that the 
President currently has the constitutional authority to exercise the 
line-item veto. A number of us, this Senator included, urged President 
Bush to exercise the line-item veto. When I did that one day, President 
Bush said to me his lawyer told him he did not have the authority. I 
suggested to President Bush that he change lawyers. That would get me 
into a lot of trouble with the bar association if they ever took up the 
issue.
  I had an occasion to talk with President Clinton recently when I 
accompanied him on a trip to Pennsylvania and I urged President Clinton 
to exercise the line-item veto.
  I have made a part of the Congressional Record that legal research 
which shows that the key article in the Constitution of the United 
States was copied from a Massachusetts constitution which has the line-
item veto, as do other States. Pennsylvania and Georgia have the same 
provision. It would be my hope that one day a President will have the 
courage to exercise the line-item veto. And if it requires a 
constitutional amendment first, then I am prepared to do that.
  The issue before us is the constitutional amendment for a balanced 
budget. I think it ought to be adopted.
  On the procedural level, we are faced with a somewhat unusual 
situation, and that is that we have the constitutional amendment by the 
Senator from Nevada pending before the constitutional amendment by the 
Senator from Illinois. My preference is the constitutional amendment by 
the Senator from Illinois, because it is more restrictive.
  Now I know that there are those who favor the amendment by the 
Senator from Nevada because it precludes cuts on Social Security. I am 
opposed to cuts on Social Security. It is my view, Mr. President, if we 
adopt the amendment by the Senator from Illinois, that, as a matter of 
our discretion, we can protect Social Security and we can protect the 
interests of the senior citizens. I think we can do that. I think that, 
as a matter of establishing our priorities, this Congress will be able 
to put our priorities in order and make sure that the needy and the 
senior citizens are protected.
  But I am in a bit of quandary, candidly, as I said to both Senator 
Reid and Senator Simon, as to how to vote. If Senator Reid's amendment 
does not pass short of a vote and I vote against it and then Senator 
Simon's does not pass. Senator Reid's amendment is better than none, 
although I prefer Senator Simon's amendment.
  So I am in somewhat of a quandary at this moment as to how to 
approach the first vote on the amendment by the Senator from Nevada.
  But I do believe firmly, Mr. President, that the time has long passed 
when the Congress of the United States ought to take a stand on a 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. It is a basic factor of 
living within our means.
  I believe that we should have adopted this amendment in 1982, when 
the Senate passed it 69 to 31, and one of those 69 votes was mine. I 
believe we should have passed it in 1986 when we were one vote short 
with the vote of 66 to 34, one vote short of the two-thirds majority.
  I urge my colleagues to make the hard decision. We can work it out on 
a set of rational priorities and do our job and not burden future 
generations with a debt which we certainly would not do on an 
individual basis and we ought not to do on a collective basis. The only 
way to put the zeal and the resolve and discipline to this Congress or 
any Congress is to have the requirement. I think we can discharge that 
duty. I intend to vote for the constitutional amendment for a balanced 
budget, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. President, a nation, like a family, should live within its means. 
It is unfair to saddle future generations with our failure to pay for 
what we spend. While we should be able to limit spending without 
constitutional constraints, the historical fact is that the Congress 
and the executive branch have not been able to do so. Therefore, the 
Senate's consideration and prompt approval of this balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution is necessary to restore sound fiscal 
policy in this Nation's Government.
  I have been a strong supporter and a proponent of a balanced budget 
amendment during my tenure in the Senate. On January 21, 1993, I 
introduced Senate Joint Resolution 5 to amend the Constitution to 
require a balanced budget which is nearly identical to the amendment we 
are considering today. I had originally introduced Senate Joint 
Resolution 5 for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in the 
102d Congress.
  The Federal Government has been operating at a deficit since 1961. 
Since then, the problem has grown worse, culminating in the huge budget 
deficits over the past decade. In fiscal year 1989, the deficit was 
$152.5 billion. The President's budget request for fiscal year 1995 
projects a deficit of $165.1 billion compared to the $234.7 billion 
recorded for fiscal year 1994. It is my hope that this is true deficit 
reduction for fiscal year 1995. However, we must recognize that 
although it is below the fiscal year 1994 deficit total, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit will be above 
$200 billion by 1999 unless prompt action is taken. Further, it is 
important to understand that our Nation's debt continues to increase. 
Under President Clinton's budget proposal the Nation's debt is 
projected to increase from $4.6 trillion in fiscal year 1994 to $6.27 
trillion by fiscal year 1999.
  This chronic deficit and growing debt has an extremely deleterious 
effect on the economy. It removes vital capital that would otherwise be 
available for private investment to help the economy grow. The fiscal 
year 1995 budget estimates a debt of $4.9 trillion. The interest on 
that debt totals $212.8 billion which could be better spent on our 
Nation's decaying infrastructure or improvements to our Nation's health 
care system.

  I strongly believe that there is no issue more important to our 
country in the long-term than this deficit. No sharper arrow can be 
placed in our country's quiver to combat these chronic deficits than a 
balanced budget amendment. It places the sanction of our fundamental 
law on the need for a balance between receipts and expenditures. The 
President and all Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the 
Constitution. Requiring a balanced budget in the text of the 
Constitution as a legally enforceable provision will force us to curb 
deficit spending. As all parties in the political system have shown 
themselves to be unable to withstand the vicissitudes of the current 
political system, the answer is to change the system.
  This proposed amendment would require the President to transmit a 
balanced budget to Congress for its consideration in which total 
outlays to not exceed receipts. This requirement puts the initial onus 
on the President to propose a balanced budget. The amendment would 
prohibit deficit spending unless three-fifths of the whole number of 
both houses of Congress provide for a specific excess of outlays over 
receipts. Thus, even though the amendment would permit deficit 
spending, it would do so only upon the approval of a supermajority of 
the House and the Senate, and even then the scope of the deficit would 
be limited to the amount specifically authorized by Congress. The 
provisions of the amendment could be waived by simple majority vote in 
any year in which a declaration of war is in effect.
  Obviously, a constitutionally mandated balanced budget could require 
significant spending cuts and/or revenue increases. To require a 
balanced budget too soon would result in severe economic dislocation. 
Therefore, the resolution we are considering would not require a 
balanced budget until the year 2001. There has been analysis 
distributed showing the State-by-State impact on cuts that would be 
necessary to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2000. It is 
important to point out that this analysis assumes that Congress will 
impose these cuts in a single fiscal year, rather than a phased-in 
approach. In considering my support for this amendment, I am mindful of 
the special problems facing my State. Numerous Federal programs are 
critical to the economy of Pennsylvania. In the long run, however, 
neither Pennsylvania nor any other part of the country will remain 
prosperous if we fail to address the intolerable Federal deficit.
  I have said before that political will is the best answer to the 
problem of our Nation's budget deficit. But we who are responsible for 
representing our constituents have focused on the deficit now for many 
years and have been unable to come up with a solution acceptable to a 
sufficient majority. Our political institutions have failed to resolve 
this problem. When an issue as fundamental to our Nation's future as 
the deficit proves to be politically intractable, the answer must be to 
enshrine the value of balanced budget among the core values in our 
Constitution, to remove it from the vicissitudes of the political 
arena. That is what a balanced budget amendment would achieve. It is an 
idea whose time is overdue, and I hope that Congress will approve and 
send to the States for ratification a balanced budget amendment this 
year.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate my colleague 
on becoming a grandfather. I am pleased to have him join the ranks. 
Talk about taxation without representation, that little grandchild of 
yours faces that.
  Mr. SPECTER. If I might respond in one sentence? She has 
representation--me. I intend to vote for this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Arizona [Mr. McCain].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have not engaged much in this debate 
because I think we all recognize political reality here. The political 
reality is that the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, in opposition to this bill, has sufficient votes to defeat 
the Simon balanced budget amendment. I think the chairman would not 
have agreed to a vote on this legislation if he had not had the votes 
to prevail. So all we are doing here is going through an exercise in 
establishing a record.
  But I will suggest to my colleagues, when this amendment is defeated, 
and it will be by one or two votes--I see a rather incredulous look on 
the face of my friend from Illinois. The fact is I have dealt with the 
Senator from West Virginia on the line-item veto and many other issues. 
I have the highest regard for his parliamentary skills and his ability 
to count votes. He would not have agreed to a vote on the Simon 
amendment following the vote on the Reid amendment if he did not have 
sufficient votes to defeat it. I believe that is the reality. We will 
find out tomorrow evening whether I am right or wrong.
  If I am wrong, I will be overjoyed. If I am right and the Senator 
from West Virginia has sufficient votes to defeat this very important 
amendment, I predict to my colleagues this issue is far from over. By a 
4 to 1 margin the American people strongly support a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. I support it. I do not believe we should 
override the overwhelming view and will of the American people. 
Frankly, I think it is very incredible and unjust that we continue to 
do so.
  Mr. President, the national debt is over $4 trillion. In fiscal year 
1994, the Federal Government will pay more than $200 billion in 
interest, or some $800 million every day. Every child born in this 
country today will inherit a $17,000 public debt.
  These numbers are facts, Mr. President. We are talking about a 
millstone of debt we are placing on the shoulders of our children and 
grandchildren. And we now have an opportunity to stop this insanity.
  Let me repeat, the national debt is over $4 trillion. We pay more 
than $800 million every day on interest on the debt. Every child born 
in this country today inherits a $17,000 share of the debt.
  The Congress' spending spree has led to 24 straight unbalanced 
budgets. It took our Nation 205 years--from 1776 to 1981--to reach a $1 
trillion debt. Now in just 12 years, the debt has amassed to $4.4 
trillion.
  The facts bear witness that the Congress does not possess the 
discipline to control its spending habits. For 33 of the last 34 years 
the Congress has passed budgets where outlays exceeded receipts. As the 
deficit continues to grow, by the end of the century we will be 
spending more money to pay the interest on the debt than we will on 
defense.
  Some say that the balanced budget amendment is not necessary because 
the Congress alone controls the power of purse and can balance the 
budget without any constitutional directive to do so.
  We have the power of the purse, alright, Mr. President. And it is a 
power we have abused. We are now spending from a purse that belongs to 
future generations.
  Mr. President, the Congress has clearly not exercised the control 
necessary to balance the budget on its own. We are a Congress addicted 
to spending. We continually spend the taxpayer dollars on studies of 
cow flatulence and other pork barrel projects. And there is no end in 
sight.
  Since we cannot control ourselves, there is only one light at the end 
of the tunnel: the balanced budget amendment. The balanced budget 
amendment will give us guidelines to follow. It will force us to make 
tough choices on which programs to fund and how to prioritize our 
spending. The balanced budget amendment will give our children and 
grandchildren hope for a prosperous future--that is quickly sinking 
under a growing tidal wave of red ink.
  Our Founding Fathers saw the importance of avoiding debt. The Framers 
assumed that each generation of Americans would pay its own bills and 
that over time the budget would remain in balance.
  Thomas Jefferson stated:

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

  Thomas Jefferson also stated:

       And to preserve [the people's] independence, we must not 
     let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our 
     election between economy and liberty, or profusion and 
     servitude.

  Mr President, the Founding Fathers realized that at certain times, 
there may be a need to temporarily incur debt. Many here have cited the 
Louisiana Purchase as an example. But the Louisiana Purchase is an 
entirely different matter from some of the pork we are currently 
funding.
  But, Mr. President, we are not talking about the Louisiana Purchase. 
The public is well informed. The public is demanding the balanced 
budget amendment not because we are spending its money on worthwhile 
items, but because we are spending it on wood utilization research, 
studies on cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding, and locoweed 
research.
  For two centuries, except to fund great national priorities or war, 
the Congress spent only what money it collected. But in the last 12 
years, the Congress found out that it can spend money for purposes that 
are not national priorities or truly in the national interest and stick 
our children with the price tag. It may be good politics to do so, but 
it is unconscionable public policy. And it is time to stop it.
  Deficit spending is a disease. We need tough medicine. Over-the-
counter statutory cures have proven too weak and ineffective. There is 
one cure left: the balanced budget amendment.
  Opponents to this cure have made dark ominous claims about possible 
side effects. I respect the arguments made by the opponents of this 
measure. There is no more formidable Senator to debate these issues 
than the esteemed chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I commend 
him on his expertise and lively debate.
  As I stated, many claims have been made about the possible side 
effects of the balanced budget amendment. These scare tactics are 
effective. But the fact of the matter is none of the side effects can 
be worse than the disease. Staggering deficits will regularly effect 
every Government program, cost jobs, and rob our children. The more we 
spend on interest, the less resources we have for other vital goods and 
services.
  Additionally, as the Judiciary Committee stated:

       [I]nterest payments work to redistribute income in the 
     wrong direction. The money for these payments comes out of 
     the pockets of taxpayers, primarily low and middle income 
     families. These same working families are so burdened by the 
     high interest rates that the deficit sustains. On the other 
     end of the scale are the more fortunate and well-off, who can 
     afford to invest in Treasury bonds and receive high interest 
     payments.

  Mr. President, these low- and middle-class families are the ones who 
most benefit from Government services and who--when they are forced to 
live without them because Government dollars are being wasted to pay 
interest on the debt--most suffer.
  Additionally, because these interest payments slow the growth of the 
economy, there are fewer and fewer jobs for middle and lower income 
Americans.
  I also want to address one specific spurious charge regarding this 
legislation effect on Social Security made by the opponents of the 
amendment.
  It is wrong to seek to balance the budget on the backs of our 
seniors. The Social Security system is a self-financing trust created 
to assist our Nation's seniors and that trust in no way should ever be 
jeopardized.
  In 1983, when I was first elected to Congress, the Social Security 
trust fund were in jeopardy--losing over $1 million an hour. That year, 
we adopted the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on 
Social Security Reform.
  The reforms worked. Today the trust fund is healthy--with sufficient 
reserves to pay benefits well into the next century.
  Social Security is a sacred trust between our country's citizens and 
the Government. It is not an entitlement or a handout. We must preserve 
that trust and not violate it by leaving the Social Security trust fund 
on budget and subject it to a balanced budget amendment. Leaving the 
Social Security trust fund on budget masks the size of debt and is 
political chicanery of the highest magnitude.
  Mr. President, the esteemed senior Senator from New York, one of the 
Senate's foremost experts on the Social Security system stated on 
September 10, 1992:

       Social Security is not an entitlement; it is a contributory 
     pension insurance program. Persons pay into an account, and 
     their name and their number and payments are kept track of 
     over the years; when they retire, they are paid back 
     according to a formula that has been in law and is predicted 
     and understood.

  Unfortunately, many have mischaracterized Social Security as an 
entitlement and assert that it must be included in any budget 
calculations. However, as Senator Moynihan noted, Social Security is 
not an entitlement; it is a Government administered pension insurance 
program.
  As Robert Myers, the Chief Actuary of the Social Security 
Administration from 1947 to 1970 stated:

       The Social Security trust fund is one of the great social 
     successes of this century. The program is fully self-
     sustaining, and is currently running significant excesses of 
     income over outgo. The trust fund will continue to help the 
     elderly for generations to come--so long as the rest of the 
     Federal Government acts with fiscal prudence.

  I had hoped that the Social Security trust fund would have been 
exempt from the provisions of the bill. I will continue to fight for 
that.
  However, as Mr. Meyers correctly points out.

       [T]he most serious threat to Social Security is the Federal 
     Government's fiscal irresponsibility. If we continue to run 
     Federal deficits year after year, we will face two dangerous 
     possibilities. Either we will raid the trust funds to pay for 
     our current profligacy, or we will print money, dishonestly 
     inflating our way out of indebtedness. Both cases would 
     devastate the real value of the Social Security trust funds.

  He continues:

       Regaining control of our fiscal affairs is the most 
     important step that we can take to protect the soundness of 
     the Social Security trust funds.

  Mr. President, that is exactly what the balanced budget amendment 
would do--it would allow us to control our fiscal affairs. A 
responsibility that is long overdue.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank my friend from Illinois for 
his efforts. Even when this loses, this battle will not be over because 
the American people will not allow it to be over. I look forward to 
working with him to bring this issue up again, because it will not die 
until the will of the people is enacted, and that is a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution.
  I also comment that one of my colleagues on the floor earlier was 
talking about how he had voted for various cuts in spending. I rely on 
the view of the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against 
Government Waste, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, and others who 
monitor the performance and the votes of the Members of this body. I 
think the public will find out by looking at those ratings as to who is 
in favor of spending money and has given us this over $4 trillion debt 
and who has not and who votes for cuts.
  The fact is, we just had a stark reaffirmation of the inability of 
this body to bring spending under control when we voted down the 
Kerrey-Brown amendment just weeks ago. That amendment would have cut 
$97 billion from an over $1 trillion budget, and this body could not 
see its way clear to make those cuts. So if there is anyone who 
believes that this body is serious or this Congress is serious about 
bringing the deficit down to zero, they simply have to look at the 
repeated efforts by Members of this body to enact cuts in spending, 
which time after time go down in defeat--in many cases overwhelmingly 
so.
  I just want to point out yet again several facts we should bear in 
mind when we go through this debate. The national debt is over $4 
trillion. In 1994 the Federal Government will pay more than $200 
billion in interest, or some $800 million every day. That $800 million 
being spent every day does not buy a food stamp, does not build a home, 
does not take care of anybody in need. It simply pays the interest on 
the debt that we have accumulated, which we will continue to pay and 
pay. It does not do anyone any good. In fact, in the view of some, it 
is a redistribution of wealth that is unconscionable.
  There are some very cynical people around who have made the 
assertion--which has some credibility to it; that is their reason--that 
they divine why Congress has not balanced the budget. Because if 85 
cents out of every dollar is in the budget and an additional 15 cents 
is laid on future generations of Americans to pay, that gives them an 
additional 15 cents they would not have to pay for pork barrel projects 
and unnecessary and wasteful spending, which goes on and on and on, 
much of it in the form of the most obscene kind of spending: $2.5 
million to study the effect on the ozone layer of flatulence in cows; 
$2.5 billion in highway demonstration projects, of which 40 percent 
went to four States and four States alone. Highway demonstration 
projects have been characterized, I think correctly, as a way that a 
Congressman or Senator can demonstrate that he or she has enough clout 
to get pork for their State.
  The list of waste and pork goes on and on. It is obscene, it is 
unacceptable, and it has to stop. That is why overwhelmingly the 
American people, who are neither stupid nor uninformed, overwhelmingly 
support the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And, even as 
laudable as some of the aspects of the Clinton budget are, it also 
mandates deficits for the foreseeable future.
  Would a balanced budget be painful? Yes. Would it make things 
difficult? Yes. Would we have to protect Social Security? Yes. But is 
business as usual acceptable to the American people and to future  
generations of Americans? I say the answer that the American people are 
telling us is overwhelmingly no. That is why I say to my friend from 
Illinois, in the words of Winston Churchill, ``Never give up. Never 
give up. Never give up.'' We are mortgaging the future of our children 
and grandchildren by laying this debt on them. It is unacceptable.

  It is an abrogation of our responsibilities when we seek public 
office and we raise our hands and swear that we will support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic that we now act in this fashion. We have a domestic enemy 
here, a domestic enemy that is gnawing away at the very fiber of 
America's economy. We cannot continue to run up this incredible debt. 
We cannot continue to pay these interest costs, to the tune of $200 
billion a year, $800 million a day. We cannot do it and expect to have 
a sound economy. If we do not enact a balanced budget amendment, then 
we cannot do away with that debt except through debasing the currency. 
If we debase the currency, yes, then we can pay off the national debt. 
But debasing the currency destroys the middle class of America.
  Mr. President, I will not take any more of my colleagues' time--I 
know others want to speak--because this round of the battle is over. I 
know we do not have the votes to pass the Simon-Craig amendment. But I 
do know this. It is not over. It will not be over until we pass it. And 
we will not have fulfilled our obligations to the people of this 
country until we provide them with the fiscal sanity that they need and 
deserve.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from 
Arizona. He, typically, is very energized and speaks with great 
feeling. For that reason, I say to the Senator from Arizona that he 
recognizes, as I stated Friday, that the Simon amendment is dead. 
Therefore, I think it would be in the best interests of this country, 
and the Senate as an institution, that we adopt the Reid substitute. 
Why do I say that? Because it requires a balanced budget amendment by 
the year 2001, but it does it through realistic budgeting. That is, 
Social Security would be off-budget. There would be capital and 
operating budgets like we have in all States. But the problem I see is, 
as the Associated Press last week quoted the senior Senator from Idaho, 
he said the Republicans are going to vote against the Reid amendment. 
That means not only is the Simon amendment dead, but my amendment will 
also fail. That is too bad.
  My friend from Illinois, and then the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
said--I am paraphrasing this: We are not worried about Social Security 
because my friend from Illinois said the legislation to correct that is 
on the path. The Senator from Pennsylvania said we can correct that 
with legislation.
  We have that clearly as not being able to occur. The administrator of 
the Social Security Administration for three Presidencies has stated 
just 2 weeks ago that anyone who suggests that is simply wrong.
  He was responding to a man by the name of Mr. Myers who said we do 
not have to worry about Social Security; it is more important to have a 
balanced budget than to worry about Social Security. What Mr. Ball has 
stated, and I think we all recognize his being an expert, is:

       Let me, therefore, confine my testimony to the effect of 
     the amendment on Social Security, a program to which, along 
     with Medicare, I have devoted my life.

  He goes on to say:

       We are talking about a constitutional amendment which will 
     stand perhaps forever, at least a long, long, time. And to 
     judge they will not take actions that are permitted and quite 
     with great pressure to take them because of what Mr. Myers 
     characterizes as reasons for not moving, I think is really 
     quite naive.
       He says this will not happen, that they will not touch 
     Social Security after a budget balancing amendment is passed, 
     because it would be against integrity, logic, and fair play. 
     It would, but the pressures would be extraordinary. I believe 
     it would put at great risk the monthly benefits of 42 million 
     people who are currently receiving benefits and the benefits 
     of millions more who are working and building credits for 
     future benefits.

  Mr. Ball continues:

       In 1993 alone, 134 million earners worked under Social 
     Security. Practically every American family has a major stake 
     in the program. It is hardly a special-interest group to be 
     defending Social Security. The program today keeps 15 million 
     people out of poverty and millions more from falling into 
     near poverty. But what is frequently overlooked is it is much 
     more than a poverty program. It is the only retirement 
     program for 6 out of 10 workers in private industry, and the 
     base on which private pensions are built for the other 4 out 
     of 10.
       Social Security is family insurance as well as retirement 
     protection. Life insurance protection under Social Security. 
     It pays nearly 3 million children each month and, of course, 
     there is also protection against loss of income because of 
     disability. The protection of young families is very 
     significant.
       Now, all this protection, retirement, survivors, and 
     disability insurance would be put at risk . . . by a 
     constitutional amendment----

  Talking about the Simon amendment.

     forcing a balanced budget. The amendment provides a great 
     opportunity for those who favor cutting Social Security and 
     radically restructuring it.
       Social Security is self-financed and responsibly financed. 
     It has had no part in creating the deficit and the staggering 
     debt.

  This is a man whose qualifications are not surpassed, who says if the 
Simon amendment passes, Social Security will be put at great risk. Mr. 
President, my amendment preserves Social Security. My amendment allows 
the Nation's budget to be balanced by the year 2001. It prohibits 
deficit spending unless it is approved by a three-fifths vote. It 
retains the integrity of the Constitution. It is a realistic way of 
balancing the Federal budget because it is patterned after how the 
States balance their budgets. In effect, the Federal Government will be 
asked under the Reid substitute to operate like families and the 
States.
  I have struggled with the arguments of my friend from Illinois, and I 
have arrived at the point that I believe his amendment is fatally 
flawed and, for that reason, it will fail. As I mentioned to my friend 
from Arizona, he acknowledged that the Simon amendment is going to 
fail. Why not join the Reid amendment, the Reid substitute, because the 
House is going to come up with some kind of a balanced budget 
amendment, and I would bet it will be something comparable to my 
substitute.
  My amendment is pragmatic, it is enforceable, it provides three 
simple differences with the Simon approach: No. 1, it provides 
flexibility during times of economic recession to prevent depression, 
and we have documented out depressions occur and occur and occur, and 
have occurred prior to 1929. It allows the Federal Government to 
prudently borrow for infrastructure needs, capital investments, roads, 
airports, mass transit, and it preserves Social Security as a separate 
trust fund.
  Earlier today, I met with members who support my amendment. For 
example, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security consists of 
6 million people. Its executive vice president, Max Richmond, was 
present in room 211 today where he stated the Reid amendment is 
protection for 6 million people who belong in his organization.
  We also received support from the National Alliance of Senior 
Citizens, who support the Reid amendment. I ask unanimous consent that 
a letter on behalf of the National Alliance of Senior Citizens, signed 
by their chief executive officer, Peter J. Luciano, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              National Alliance of


                                              Senior Citizens,

                                Washington, DC, February 28, 1994.
     Senator Harry Reid,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: On behalf of the National Alliance of 
     Senior Citizens, this letter is to express our strong support 
     for the Reid Balanced Budget Amendment. Your approach to this 
     important issue recognizes the critical distinction of Social 
     Security, namely that it is a Trust Fund, built from the 
     contributions of working men and women for their retirement. 
     The surplus in this Trust Fund is an investment that working 
     Americans have made for their future, and for this reason, 
     Social Security must not be treated as simply another budget 
     item in the battle for fiscal responsibility.
       Senior citizens have as much at stake as other Americans--
     perhaps more--in seeing the federal government return to a 
     prudent fiscal policy. The National Alliance of Senior 
     Citizens was founded twenty years ago for that very purpose--
     to ensure a voice for senior Americans who believe national 
     policy on aging must be based on sound fiscal principles. It 
     is well known that rising taxes and inflationary policies, 
     such as huge budget deficits, do particular harm to those on 
     fixed incomes.
       But there is an important difference--in anyone's budget, 
     private or public--between Savings Accounts, Investment 
     Accounts, and Current Consumption Accounts. The Reid Balanced 
     Budget Amendment recognizes these key distinctions, and in 
     doing so, helps protect the future of elderly Americans and 
     the contributions for retirement they have already made.
       On behalf of the 117,000 members of the National Alliance 
     of Senior Citizens, we are greatly heartened, Senator, by 
     your informed approach to eliminating federal budget 
     deficits.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter J. Luciano,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, among other things, the National Alliance of 
Senior Citizens states that the Reid balanced budget amendment 
recognizes key distinctions and, in doing so, helps protect the future 
of elderly Americans and the contribution for retirement they have 
already made.
  We need the support of people on the other side of the aisle. It is 
the right thing to do. This should not be a partisan issue. It should 
be an issue that is handled on its merits.
  I ask those on the other side of the aisle to join with me in passing 
out of this body a balanced budget amendment that is prudent, 
reasonable, and workable.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). Who yields time? The Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, just a comment or two in response to two 
questions posed by Senator Bumpers earlier. In terms of Social 
Security, the person who made the point that a balanced budget 
amendment is the basic protection that is needed by the Social Security 
system was the chief actuary for the Social Security System for 23 
years.
  I point out, second, that the Reid amendment Social Security portion 
is fine for the surplus, but starting in the year 2024, Social Security 
goes into a deficit. It provides absolutely no protection for anyone 35 
years of age or younger. That is something to keep in mind.
  In terms of people saying now the Simon amendment is dead, that is 
probably the weakest argument I can think of for voting against an 
amendment. The question should not be what its status is--and I am not 
about to give up. I think the point made by Senator McCain is that we 
just have to keep fighting this battle--but the question is on the 
merits.
  Finally, Senator Bumpers asked two questions because I had yielded to 
Senator Specter and was not able to answer at the time. He says:

       If Congress miscalculates revenues or spending and this 
     becomes apparent by the middle of the year and the budget 
     becomes or is about to become unbalanced and the Congress is 
     unable to muster 60 percent to waive, what happens?

  Several things. First, we have to pass implementing legislation so we 
have procedures. I would suggest that we aim for a 1-percent surplus.
  Number two is we make clear in the committee report we will have to 
have about a 2- or 3-percent leeway that can be shifted over to the 
next fiscal year, and then we will adjust in that next fiscal year. I 
think clearly that can be done.
  Third, we are going to end up with estimates that are closer. I have 
been on the Budget Committee either in the House or the Senate the 
majority of my years. Some years--and I see my colleague from New 
Mexico here--some years when we could not get an agreement, we just 
changed the estimates and we ended up with unreal estimates. This is 
going to force us to make some real estimates.
  Then, finally, of course, you have the provision of 60 percent.
  His second question:

       Why does the Senator believe Congress would vote to balance 
     the budget and cut spending or raise taxes enough to 
     accomplish that when there is no mechanism to force such cuts 
     or revenue increases? We have no history of such courage to 
     indicate such actions will be taken and then assume again 
     that you cannot get 60 percent.

  The reality is, a constitutional amendment does give us a little 
political cover. That is the simple reality. Not only does it give us 
political cover, but the people back home will say to us: ``How come 
you voted for a balanced budget amendment and then did not follow 
through?''
  It gives us political cover to do some things that we have not had 
the courage to do, and it forces us to do that.
  I would say, finally, to Senator Bumpers, the choice is just to 
continue drifting. What is his answer? What is the answer of those who 
oppose this? David Broder's column this morning comments that there is 
no alternative by those who oppose this. Do we just continue piling up 
these deficits? I think we have to do better. This is an opportunity to 
do better.
  Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Domenici.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. REID. Could the Chair indicate to the floor managers how much 
time they have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada controls 33 minutes, 
the Senator from Illinois controls 21 minutes, the Senator from West 
Virginia controls 3 minutes, and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, 
controls 1 minute.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before my time runs, might I inquire of 
Senator Simon, I do not understand what this time applies against, but 
is 15 minutes too much of the time, so the Senator will not have too 
much left?
  Mr. SIMON. No, I am pleased to yield 15 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President and fellow Senators, I do not choose tonight to speak 
about the Simon-Craig balanced budget amendment, which is the 
underlying amendment. I will try to do that tomorrow. I stated on 
Friday that I was going to support that, and I will state my reasons in 
some detail tomorrow.
  Tonight I just choose to give an analysis of the Reid amendment, and 
once again my very good friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, as he always 
does, has come up with an interesting legislative proposal. But I do 
not think anybody should assume that the Reid amendment strengthens the 
budget process of the United States and moves us in any way, shape or 
form toward a real balanced budget.
  First of all, it makes the system more complex than it is today, and 
it is plenty complex today. While it purports to deliver a balanced 
budget, it lacks the enforcement tools to accomplish this result.
  Now, the Reid amendment, as I indicated, is a very innovative and, 
some might even say, an exciting way to legislate about a balanced 
budget. I think it is an exciting way to avoid a constitutional 
amendment which will direct and force a balanced budget. The Reid 
amendment only requires ``operating funds'' Mr. President, in quotation 
marks because that is in his bill, ``operating funds''--to be balanced. 
The Reid amendment would exempt Social Security and capital 
investments. So now we would have to monitor four budgets: the 
operating budget deficit, the capital budget deficit, the Social 
Security surplus or deficit budget, and, yes, the unified budget of the 
United States, which everyone feels is what is really important for the 
economic well-being of the country.
  There is no generally accepted definition of operating funds, I say 
to my friend from Illinois, no generally accepted definition. We are 
now writing a new word into the budget language in the Constitution for 
which we have no regularly accepted definition. There is no accepted 
definition of a capital investment, and we are writing that into this 
Constitution and saying capital investments are exempt from the 
balanced budget rigor and vitality, and thus whatever you spend on 
capital investment need not be offset because it does not count against 
the budget deficit.
  Very interesting. President Clinton's budget includes three different 
displays of the capital budget, with deficits ranging from $46 billion 
to $160 billion for the year 1995. Depending upon what it means, we 
have a $46 billion operating budget submitted by the President, or a 
$160 billion budget, and yet nobody has a real definition of what a 
capital investment budget is.
  With the Reid amendment, Congress would define its way out of the 
deficit without cutting a thing. Just define capital budget 
sufficiently broad to include all kinds of things that are close calls 
and you will take off budget enough so you will come close to a 
balanced budget in 6 or 7 years and you will not have cut anything.
  In fact, I would interject here, my good friend Fritz Hollings at 
lunch today was speaking about a capital budget, and instantly what 
came to his mind was the notion about buying the Brooklyn Bridge, or 
mortgaging it, or finding a way to acquire the Brooklyn Bridge. 
Frankly, we are going to do one better with this constitutional 
amendment because we can buy the Brooklyn Bridge with taxpayer dollars 
and define it as capital investment and not worry about the effect on 
the budget deficit. We have just acquired another capital asset, the 
Brooklyn Bridge, for whatever it is worth.
  If we go to OMB's definition of a Federal capital investment, 
Congress could not reduce any ``capital'' programs, capital being in 
quotation marks, to balance the operating budget.
  To put this in a clearer light, the savings from over 100 of the 
President's proposed 115 terminations are in capital programs and under 
a capital budget could not be used to balance the budget. Or another 
way, no one would want to because you can spend on capital items and 
not count it against the deficit.
  So the President, who went across the land bragging about $3.5 
billion in outlays and many more in budget authority from these 
terminations, more than 100 of those programs would be defined off the 
budget from the standpoint of concern for balance because they would be 
defined as part of a capital budget.
  Now, Mr. President, neither the GAO [the Government Accounting 
Office], or the CBO [the Congressional Budget Office], which very 
recently entered a very interesting analysis of health reform. CBO is 
the congressionally created independent entity that the President has 
told us heretofore ought to be the one we all use to get the budget 
numbers right. Both GAO and CBO argue that Congress should use the 
unified budget concept, the basis found in the Simon-Craig amendment.
  I do not know whether the Clinton administration supports this Reid 
amendment or not. They do not support the underlying amendment. Let me 
tell you, they have opposed a capital budget proposal that surfaced in 
the House a year ago. And I assume it is because of some of the things 
I have just said. The vagaries of a capital budget, actually, with 
nothing else in the Reid amendment, just the vagaries of that, should 
lead everybody to conclude it is not a balanced budget amendment. It is 
a balanced budget as-defined-by-Congress amendment. But the question 
is, does it add to the debt or not? Which, interestingly enough, is the 
safeguard in the Simon-Craig amendment at a point in time you stop 
increasing the debt held by the public. Is that not right, I ask the 
Senator?
  Mr. SIMON. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Frankly, under the Reid amendment, capital budgets 
would not have anything to do with deficits, but they would have a lot 
to do with increasing the debt. If you spent $100 billion worth of 
capital investments in a budget, which would not count, and you 
balanced the rest of the budget, you would still be $100 billion in the 
red and you would have to borrow to pay for these capital 
investments, whether you called it a capital budget that you were 
borrowing for, freeways and highways of America that you wanted to 
borrow money for, or the Brooklyn Bridge that you wanted to buy, and 
had to pay for.

  While the proponents of this amendment claim that this will protect 
Social Security, the Reid amendment does no such thing. It takes Social 
Security off budget. Is that security for the Social Security budget? I 
understand some of the groups that support seniors are all on board the 
Reid amendment. It does not protect retirees' benefits one iota because 
there is no protection against changing the beneficiaries. You can 
increase what you paid to the beneficiaries and break the Social 
Security trust fund. And nobody can do anything except say that is on 
its own. Social Security would not be treated as part of the budget 
deficit.
  You could decrease the Social Security taxes, I say to my friend from 
Illinois, under the rubric name of helping the economy, thus making the 
off-budget Social Security trust fund less solvent.
  Interestingly enough, Mr. President, today if you tried any of those 
things, there is a wall. This is a firewall created by a budget 
resolution that requires 60 votes, if you are going to in any way 
change the receipts coming into the Social Security trust fund. That is 
better protection than taking it off budget as is recommended here. As 
a matter of fact, for those who want to really protect Social 
Security--I say to my friend from Illinois--what we ought to do is make 
the firewall which is now 60 votes part of the substantive law instead 
of the budget resolution because we can change the budget resolution 
with 50 votes.
  What I wanted to do, and what I had great support for but could not 
get it out of committee, was to go ahead and write into the Budget 
Impoundment Act of the land that you could not change the receipts 
flowing into the trust fund for Social Security without 60 votes. But 
right now today the Social Security trust fund is protected more by a 
budget resolution that is currently in effect than it would if you 
adopt this constitutional amendment.
  We do not need this exception to protect that fund. For those who 
want to protect it, we will put the language in tomorrow, an amendment 
to the Budget Impoundment Act that ought to be adopted like that if you 
are worried about the Social Security trust fund. It will say you 
cannot change it in any significant way--the expenditures or the 
receipts of the Social Security trust, without a supermajority. That 
will protect it. This will not. This will make it subject to a ``we 
want to write in enabling legislation for the so-called balanced budget 
constitutional amendment'' proposed by my good friend from Nevada, 
Senator Reid.
  As I indicated, the Social Security trust fund is more apt to be 
raided if taken off budget as proposed by the Reid amendment. The 
Social Security fund is more apt to be exposed to insolvency through 
payroll tax cuts or beneficiary expansions since these proposals would 
not affect the budget.
  Is that not interesting? It would not affect the budget because the 
budget is the operating budget, the Social Security is the Social 
Security budget, and the capital improvements budget is the capital 
improvements budget, the other three, except for operating, being 
immune to the rigors of balance.
  Besides being overly complex and endangering the Social Security 
System, the pending amendment lacks the necessary enforcement tools and 
is filled with loopholes. Unlike the Simon-Craig amendment which 
requires 60 percent vote of each House to increase the debt limit, the 
Reid amendment has no controls over the debt. But Social Security can 
go up or down in its reserves, and it will not affect the operating 
deficit. The capital budget does not even have to be paid for. Of 
course we can write enabling legislation saying we have to. But 
essentially, that is not what is intended in this amendment.
  What is really intended is that the capital budget be in some way 
managing capital over years instead of annually. And might I repeat 
that neither the Congressional Budget Office nor the GAO recommend a 
capital budget. They recommend a unified budget which is what is being 
controlled in the Simon-Craig amendment.
  The Reid amendment itself gives the Congressional Budget Office 
director the authority to suspend the article in the event that CBO 
projects economic growth of less than 1 percent for two consecutive 
quarters.
  Frankly, we write all kinds of things into the Constitution. But very 
interesting, we are literally going to write into the Constitution of 
the United States the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
  I believe if you want to do a recession-triggering mechanism, then 
why not suggest it on the Simon-Craig amendment  if that is what you 
really want to do? You do not need to take everything off budget under 
the Reid amendment. If you think it is in order to spend in deficit 
during a recession which would be two consecutive quarters of no real 
economic growth, which is a definition economists use, offer it here on 
the floor as an amendment to Simon-Craig. I am not sure it will pass. 
But you make the same point. You do not need to take everything off 
budget to provide this flexibility in the operating budget.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, will my colleague yield on one question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise that the Senator's 15 
minutes has expired.
  Mr. SIMON. I yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  The Senator pointed out one thing that frankly has not been 
discussed. But in terms of the substance, I agree with the Senator 
entirely. But the Senator mentioned that the amendment would include 
the Congressional Budget Office in the Constitution. Do we include the 
Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense or Secretary of any Cabinet 
office in the U.S. Constitution? Does this make this something like the 
Constitution of the State of Louisiana that is a thick book in terms of 
all the details?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No. We do not. I say to my friend, he asked that 
knowingly. But I must tell you it is very interesting. Because the 
question is even more than that. It is how do you get rid of the CBO 
director? Whomever it is, it has to be a person. So write it into this 
Constitution. Right now the Senate majority leader and the Speaker of 
the House appoint the CBO director. He can be removed by the passage of 
a simple resolution by either House. What are we going to provide? Are 
we going to have a political way to get rid of them? Every 4 years are 
we going to rotate this person? It is an invitation to politicize the 
Congressional Budget Office, an arm of the Constitution. In terms of 
balanced budgets, if you concluded that you wanted a recession trigger 
in the proposal of the Senator of Illinois, you could include it in 
implementing legislation in the proposal of the Senator from Illinois 
as I understand if you want to write that kind of thing in.
  Finally, the Reid amendment would weaken the Presidency. I will have 
more to say tomorrow when I address the policy nature of the Simon-
Craig amendment that could invigorate the power of the Presidency in 
enabling legislation. But this would weaken the Presidency, which I 
doubt over the long run will help us achieve a balanced budget 
amendment. In a sense, it is trivializing the Constitution by writing 
specific exemptions, mandates, and authorities that are better left for 
statute.
  So in conclusion, it is clear to me that this is not an amendment 
which will bring to the American people a point in time when we add no 
more to the debt and call that a balanced budget which is precisely 
where we ought to arrive at at some point in time, not adding to the 
debt.
  The Reid amendment will permit us to add to the debt in at least two 
major ways, either by reducing reserves for the Social Security Trust 
Fund, thus adding to the real debt, or putting capital improvements in 
place which are not accountable for, which we do not have to pay for, 
which you could add to the deficit regularly on that score.
  Overall, I think it is far inferior to the amendment offered by 
Senators Simon and Craig.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I respond to my friend from New Mexico, for 
whom I have affection and with whom I have enjoyed working in the years 
I have been in Congress. There was a statement made about how we 
monitor these four budgets. The fact of the matter is that we monitor 
three of them now--the operating funds, Social Security, and the 
unified budget, all of which is the capital aspect of the budget.
  Also, there is no generally accepted definition of operating funds 
nor capital investment. I suggest to my friend from New Mexico that the 
fact of the matter is that for 40-odd years, we have been carrying this 
in our accounting of the Federal budget. States have had decades and 
decades of experience. There was a statement that you could buy the 
Brooklyn Bridge and call it capital. Using that inversely, you could 
use the Simon amendment and you could buy the Brooklyn Bridge and say 
it does not add to the debt.
  The fact of the matter is, I think Senator Hatch, on Thursday, talked 
about how we as Members of Congress must handle this. The Senator from 
Utah said that he did not feel there was a person in this body who was 
not interested in living up to his oath of office. He went on to say:

       I cannot imagine a Member of this body, if this resolution 
     passes both Houses of Congress, who would not take their 
     responsibilities very seriously. Furthermore, to say that by 
     putting their declaratory language in the amendment we are 
     preventing that is also to be construed as an insult to 
     Congress, because if we are obligated to meet the terms of 
     this constitutional amendment, that alone is enforcement, and 
     the ballot box is going to be even more enforcement.

  We have to take the good faith of those supporting the Simon 
amendment and those who support the Reid substitute. And I suggest 
again, Mr. President, that those people who are supporting the Simon 
amendment--about which there was acknowledgment on the floor today by 
just about everybody that it is not going to pass. There should be a 
general consensus that the Reid substitute should pass. It is something 
that is reasonable. It treats the Federal Government like State 
governments are treated. It is something that would have a significant 
chance of passing in the other body. I believe that it is something 
that is extremely important, and we should pass it.
  I also suggest that if you look at what my friend from New Mexico has 
said, that my amendment would not protect Social Security by taking it 
off-budget. If that would not protect it, frankly, I do not know what 
would. In fact, I would like to read a quote from both the minority 
leader and Senator Domenici, statements that they made following the 
CBO, coming out with a criticism, a critique of the President's health 
care program. This, Mr. President, is on the independence of CBO coming 
from my friend from New Mexico and my friend from Kansas, the minority 
leader.
  Senator Dole said:

       I congratulate the CBO Director, Mr. Reischauer, because I 
     think they did put together a very objective and a 
     comprehensive analysis under very difficult circumstances.
  My friend Senator Domenici said:

       I rise today, I say to the Senate and my fellow Senators, 
     to congratulate a very, very courageous employee of the 
     United States Government, the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office, Dr. Reischauer. Frankly, he has been under 
     enormous pressure and did the right thing.

  If taking Social Security off-budget, I repeat, would not work, what 
would? My friend from New Mexico voted in 1990 with 97 other Senators--
this Senator included, and the senior Senator from Illinois included--
to take Social Security off-budget. It was 98-2. Today, there is a 60-
vote firewall protecting Social Security. The fact of the matter is 
that we all recognize that. There is no intention of repealing that.
  So for these and other reasons, I think that my friend from New 
Mexico and other Members in the other body, over the night, during the 
night, in the morning, I ask that they strongly consider supporting the 
Reid amendment, because if anybody wants a balanced budget amendment 
out of the U.S. Senate this year, they should support the Reid 
amendment. The Simon amendment  will not pass. It does not have the 
votes.

  I know that my friend from Idaho has stated, as the AP reported, that 
the Republicans are not going to support the Reid substitute. That is 
too bad. This should not be a partisan issue. The Reid substitute is 
going to be comparable to what is going to come out of the House of 
Representatives. I think this would be a dramatic step forward if the 
Senate would pass the Reid substitute, send it to the House, then this 
year--not next year, or the year after that, or the year after that, 
but this year--we would have a balanced budget amendment, one that 
treats the United States Government like State governments, where they 
balance their budgets, one that protects the Social Security trust 
fund, and they are totally sufficient and adequate to take us for the 
next 75 years--three-quarters of a century. I think we should protect 
those moneys, because we have an obligation to the people who paid into 
that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. We have made an agreement and there is not a lot of time 
left, but I know the Senator asks short questions. I will take a short 
question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator mentioned in his remarks--and I think he 
made a very good argument in rebuttal, but I do not agree, as he 
understands. But I think the Senator always, in rebutting arguments on 
the other side, does it in a very excellent way, and I commend him for 
it. The Senator mentioned that under the Simon-Craig amendment, this 
Brooklyn Bridge could be off budget, too. In 1982, when this balanced 
budget was working its way through, it did not have the debt limit on 
it yet. We did that afterward. But a simple word was inserted by the 
then Senator Chiles from Florida and Senator Domenici from New Mexico, 
and I think it is in there, where you refer to outlays and receipts. It 
says ``total'' outlays and receipts. Heretofore, it just said 
``receipts and outlays.'' The history of the word ``total'' is that you 
cannot exclude any outlays or receipts, as you have indicated. They are 
going to be counted anyway, and whether you include them or not, they 
end up adding to the deficit, which adds to the debt. So you cannot 
exclude anything. I wonder if the Senator was aware of the word 
``total'' in there when he made his remarks?
  Mr. REID. The problem, I say to my friend is--using the Brooklyn 
Bridge as an argument--if in fact we did not want to live up to what 
Senator Hatch said was our constitutional obligation and duty--and I 
take for granted we would all try to do that. But assuming that we did 
not, there would be no reason that you could not have a law that would 
require some private entity to buy the Brooklyn Bridge and work out 
some arrangement with the Federal Government.
  So we have to rely on the good faith of those constitutional 
officers, which we are, to follow what is the law. I mentioned earlier 
today that the Reid amendment, I believe, will have all the teeth that 
the Simon amendment has. Both amendments rely on future Congresses to 
abide by their oaths, to uphold the Constitution. The Simon amendment 
relies on future Congresses to define the new term limit on the debt of 
the United States held by the public.
  The term is nowhere defined in the law now. The debt limit is defined 
in title 31, section 3101 of the United States Code. It is an entirely 
different concept.
  What prevents the use of creative accounting to define the new limit? 
What prevents the Congress from defining certain types of borrowing out 
of the new limit?
  The answer is the sworn duty of Senators and Congressmen to uphold 
the Constitution is what would protect that.
  The answer is the same for my amendment.
  I suggest to my friend from Illinois that Senator Levin wishes to 
speak. I see the Senator from New Mexico rising.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator, and I understand his remarks. I 
understand we will give a response on enabling legislation.
  I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. REID. How much time does the Senator from Illinois have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator will yield 3 minutes.
  Mr. SIMON. I yield 3 minutes and my colleague from Nevada will yield 
7 minutes.
  Let me add that I am going to have to leave here no later than 7 
o'clock. I would hope we could get a time agreement for tomorrow 
morning and I think whatever the time agreement is prior to the Reid 
amendment it should be divided four ways. I think our colleague from 
Nevada would agree to that.
  Mr. REID. Yes, except for a half hour in the afternoon from 2:30 to 
3. The Senator and I will divide that.
  Mr. SIMON. In the afternoon it is a little different.
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. SIMON. It depends on what happens to the Reid amendment.
  Mr. REID. I am talking about between 2:30 and 3 when we finish the 
conference. I am out of the picture after that perhaps.
  Mr. SIMON. All right.
  Mr. REID. As soon as Senator Levin starts talking maybe we can get 
together to work something out.
  Mr. SIMON. I hope to do that.
  I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 10 
minutes, 3 minutes yielded by the Senator from Illinois and 7 minutes 
yielded by the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senators from Illinois 
and Nevada. They are courteous.
  I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. He is still 
allowing those who oppose the amendment his time and where he has 
surplus time to raise our point. It is most appreciated.
  I worked with the Senator from Illinois back in 1986 to try to use 
some of the new revenues that were coming from tax reform for deficit 
reduction. He may remember that there were very few votes in this 
Chamber for that use of those revenues. We were right then and working 
together then on deficit reduction.
  I believe the current amendment of the Senator is a mistake. I spoke 
last week on it. I feel either it will give the minority too much power 
or, what is more likely, in my view, is that loopholes in the amendment 
will be used to evade what its intent is, and one of those loopholes is 
the fact that estimates can be used under section 6. He has addressed 
that issue.
  The Senator from Illinois has indicated that there is a backup to the 
misuse of those estimates, that if rosy scenarios were used, as they 
were in the eighties, to create fictitious surpluses or to show that 
there will be no deficits that as a matter of fact then you have the 
backup of a debt limit which then must be voted by 60 percent of the 
Senate to be increased.
  But very quickly let me say how easy it is to evade it. The head of 
the budget office, Robert Reischauer, said:

       Probably the most important difficulty with the balanced 
     budget amendment rule is that it offers many opportunities 
     for avoidance or evasion. One way to evade the balanced 
     budget constraints might be to base the budget on overly 
     optimistic economic and technical assumptions.

  That is the CBO head who is talking. I think he is absolutely right.
  The argument that my friend from Illinois uses is that there are some 
teeth that he has in this amendment to stop that, and the teeth is this 
requirement that there be 60 votes to raise the limit on the debt held 
by the public.
  At one point I think he called that the muscle against overly 
optimistic assumptions, against rosy estimates. I do not believe it is 
a realistic hammer at all.
  As a matter of fact, I think that the suggestion that we might not 
raise the debt limit to pay our debts is a suggestion which has no 
basis in our history. We are going to pay our debts. We have proven it 
over and over again. So it is not teeth that is in the amendment.
  This is a nuclear weapon that the Senator from Illinois has suggested 
would be used to enforce the balanced budget amendment.
  I ask the unanimous consent here that a letter from the Secretary of 
the Treasury, then-Secretary James Baker, be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                The Secretary of the Treasury,

                                         Washington, July 8, 1987.
     Hon. Lloyd Bentsen,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Lloyd. I am writing to request that the Congress act 
     by July 17 on legislation to extend the debt ceiling. The 
     temporary debt limit enacted May 15 expires at midnight on 
     July 17. The ceiling then reverts to the $2.1 trillion 
     permanent ceiling--about $195 billion below the amount of 
     debt that we estimate will be outstanding.
       The Congress enacted only a two-month extension of the 
     temporary debt limit in May to assure that there would be no 
     other choice but to revisit the debt limit in mid-July. 
     Enactment of a debt limit extension by July 17 is crucial to 
     prevent disruptions in Treasury debt management that would 
     begin immediately. As described below, in the absence of 
     timely Congressional action the Government could well default 
     on its obligations on July 30, and almost certainly will do 
     so on July 31.
       The following actions must be taken if the Congress delays 
     enactment of a debt limit increase. On July 17, we would have 
     to (1) notify the 44,000 savings bond issuing agents not to 
     sell any more bonds and (2) notify the Federal Reserve Banks 
     to stop issuing State and local government series (SLGS) 
     Treasury securities. Interruption in the availability of SLGS 
     will result in lost interest earnings and interest arbitrage 
     rebate problems for municipal entities. Furthermore, Treasury 
     will be unable to invest or roll over maturing investments of 
     trust funds and other Government accounts. For many of these 
     accounts, Congressional action will be required if any 
     resultant losses of investment income are to be restored.
       Disruptions in Treasury's normal market financing will 
     begin on July 20 with the postponement of the weekly bill 
     auction. On July 23, $13.7 billion maturing bills will have 
     to be redeemed in full. We will notify the thousands of 
     smaller investors who use the Treasury book-entry system that 
     they may receive a check instead of their requested 
     reinvestment of the redemption proceeds in new bills. This 
     will be done so that they can plan alternative investments. 
     Smaller investors in book-entry Treasury bills maturing July 
     30 would also have to be notified, with the additional 
     warning that the checks may not be honored on July 30.
       The Treasury may well not have enough cash to pay off $13.7 
     billion of maturing weekly bills on July 30. Even if the 
     Treasury managed to get through July 30, our balance would be 
     perilously small and we would almost certainly run out of 
     cash the next day. On July 31, in addition to defaulting on 
     $10.2 billion of maturing marketable Treasury notes, the 
     United States would not be able to honor $2.1 billion of 
     benefit payments to veterans and supplemental security income 
     beneficiaries. Further, on August 3, $17.1 billion of social 
     security benefit payments could not be honored, nor could 
     $4.2 billion of benefit payments to railroad, military and 
     civil service retirees.
       I should stress that defaulting on already outstanding, 
     validly incurred obligations has far graver effects than 
     halting operations of the Government when spending authority 
     is allowed to lapse, such as when there is a delay in action 
     on appropriations. A failure to pay what is already due will 
     cause certain and serious harm to our credit, financial 
     markets and our citizens, it is not remotely similar to a 
     lapse in authority to incur new obligations.
       I urge you to seek cooperation of your colleagues and to 
     act quickly on a debt limit increase in order to prevent 
     unnecessary problems and later default on the Government's 
     obligations. We are requesting an increase in the current 
     debt ceiling to: (a) $2,800 billion, an amount sufficient to 
     get through May 1989, and avoid the burden of dealing with 
     this time-consuming issue in the midst of election year 
     schedules; or (b) $2,578 billion, the amount estimated in the 
     President's Budget to be necessary for FY 1988.
       I cannot overemphasize the damage that would be done to the 
     United States' credit standing in the world if the Government 
     were to default on its obligations, nor the unprecedented and 
     catastrophic repercussions that would ensue. Market chaos, 
     financial institution failures, higher interest rates, flight 
     from the dollar and loss of confidence in the certainty of 
     all United States Government obligations would produce a 
     global economic and financial calamity. Future generations of 
     Americans would have to pay dearly for this grave breach of a 
     200-year old trust.
           Sincerely,
                                               James A. Baker III.

  Mr. LEVIN. Let me read just the last paragraph in his letter in the 
July 31, 1987 Congressional Record, when it was suggested we should not 
raise the debt limit.

       I cannot overemphasize the damage that would be done to the 
     United States' credit standing in the world if the Government 
     were to default on its obligations, nor the unprecedented and 
     catastrophic repercussions that would ensue. Market chaos, 
     financial institution failures, higher interest rates, flight 
     from the dollar and loss of confidence in the certain of all 
     U.S. Government obligations would produce a global economic 
     and financial calamity.

  So I think that the suggestion that there is this backup here to 
enforce the provision in the Simon amendment that outlays must equal 
revenues is a suggestion which is not based on any realistic assessment 
of what is doable. We cannot refuse to pay our debts or it will be a 
national and international calamity. Yet that is what the Senator from 
Illinois seems to me is suggesting as the way to avoid the rosy 
scenario from becoming operative under his amendment, which again does 
permit the use of estimates.
  Now, in his answer to the argument that the minority would be allowed 
too much power and that there is somehow or other a straitjacket in 
this amendment, my good friend, my dear friend from Illinois says the 
following: That 60 percent of us could vote to have an unbalanced 
budget. That is basically the flexibility which is in this amendment.
  My question really to him is this. If 60 of us voted under his 
amendment for an unbalanced budget, would that be in accord with the 
Constitution?
  Mr. SIMON. The answer is that it would, and that is why we have that 
flexibility. We do not go as far as Thomas Jefferson wanted to go. He 
wanted to absolutely prohibit any Federal Government borrowing.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think this is a very important point, against the 
argument that somehow or other that fealty to the Constitution down the 
road will prevent us from voting for an unbalanced budget, since the 
provision itself provides that one can be loyal to the Constitution 
after this passes and still vote for an unbalanced budget.
  Mr. SIMON. The answer is that we could, but the argument that my 
colleague from Michigan makes is precisely the opposite of the argument 
that we have been hearing over and over and over again on the floor.
  Some of my colleagues say this is too tough. My colleague from 
Michigan says it is too easy. I think the reality is it is sensible.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think both sides actually on this debate are using 
alternative arguments. I think supporters of the constitutional 
amendment are saying this is real teeth, real muscle; on the other 
hand, it is flexible.
  By the way, as I read the Senator's section in his constitutional 
amendment it has no restrictions on the use of 60 votes. He does not 
have a provision in here that is only in case of emergency or only in 
case of disaster. It is simply a 60-vote requirement. Is that correct?
  Mr. SIMON. A 60-vote requirement, and that is tougher than where we 
are right now.
  Mr. LEVIN. My point is when some of the proponents of this 
constitutional amendment argue that somehow or other we will not use 
the provisions of this Constitution, those who want to have an 
unbalanced budget will not fully use the loopholes or fully use the 
provisions of the Constitution, what the proponents of the amendment of 
the Senator from Illinois ignore is one can be loyal to the 
Constitution under his amendment and vote for an unbalanced budget.
  Mr. SIMON. The answer is we will occasionally do so, and for those 
who say what about a recession, since 1962 we have had 11 stimulus 
packages pass the U.S. Senate. All of them passed with more than 60 
votes.
  Mr. LEVIN. So when the Baltimore Sun wrote in its editorial that was 
very strongly in opposition in this amendment because it believes that 
Congress will slip and slide--I think those are the words of the 
editorial--that Congress will slip and slide under this amendment to do 
what it always has done, I believe it has good reason to reach that 
conclusion.
  This amendment presents the legislators a chance to propose 
procedures for cutting the deficit while offering them ample 
opportunity to slip and slide away when it comes to actually raising 
taxes or cutting spending.
  I have one other question to my friend from Illinois. The requirement 
in this amendment is that the President submit a balanced budget to the 
Congress. It does not have a date in that language as the Reid 
amendment does, by the way. But my question is this: Is there any 
prohibition in his amendment against the President submitting two 
budgets, one a balanced budget and, second, an unbalanced budget with a 
suggestion to Congress that 60 percent of the Congress vote for the 
unbalanced budget?
  Mr. SIMON. Absolutely not. And the argument that we are taking away 
Presidential prerogative is not valid.
  The President has the obligation to submit a balanced budget. But the 
President may very well say, because of circumstances, we are in a 
recession or whatever the circumstances, that he recommends that there 
be this movement away from it. But it is tougher.
  I say to my friend from Michigan, on this argument as well as the 
previous argument, when you say we are going to slip and slide, it may 
be that we will get into the habit of going over 60 votes, but it is 
better than drifting the way we are right now. And what is the 
alternative? I have not heard the alternative.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, putting into the Constitution language 
which is full of loopholes is not an improvement on the current 
situation. Quite the opposite.
  It will lead the public into believing we are doing something when we 
are not. In doing that, it will lead the public to new depths of 
cynicism. It will take Congress and the President off the hook until 
2002. That will give Congress and the President 7 years more for 
excuses not to act. They will act on the illusion that the amendment 
will somehow do it for us.
  This amendment will, as a result, do damage during the next 7 years 
with great uncertainty as to what will happen thereafter.
  There is no substitute for the exercise of will now to cut the 
deficit.
  Putting off the fateful day until 2002, and then being uncertain as 
to whether there will be any deficit reduction is not the exercise of 
will. It is a copout in the name of the Constitution.
  Our Constitution deserves better. Our people deserve better.
  Under the Simon amendment, Members of Congress voting for an 
unbalanced budget will be upholding the Constitution, just as those 
voting against an unbalanced budget.
  So the argument that the oath to uphold the Constitution is the true 
enforcing mechanism is misplaced. That leaves the language of the 
amendment as an unenforceable hope. No court can enforce it by the 
amendment's own terms. And Members of Congress will be true to their 
oath by the terms of the amendment, whether they vote for a balanced or 
unbalanced budget.
  Amendments to the Constitution should be enforceable. This one is not 
and I cannot support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator from 
Michigan that his 10 minutes has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Nevada and I thank my friend from 
Illinois.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  I understand the time of Senator Simon has expired.
  Mr. SIMON. I was hoping we could work out a time agreement before 
tomorrow morning.
  Mr. REID. I have met with policy staff and I told them what I thought 
we had agreed on, with the exception of Senator Byrd--I was not able to 
clear that with Senator Byrd. Senator Simon and Senator Hatch and I 
will come in at 9 and go until a quarter to 1, until the conference 
starts, and have the time equally divided on the amendment, and time 
from 2:30 to 3:00, that block of time, will be divided 15 minutes to 
Senator Simon and 15 minutes to me.
  Mr. SIMON. That is perfectly acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support balancing the budget. I have come 
to the floor of this Senate again and again to offer proposals to cut 
waste out of the budget. I am ready to cut further--ready to raise some 
revenue if necessary--and ready to reform our entitlement programs. As 
far as I am concerned everything is on the table and I would be happy 
if we voted today on a specific plan to eliminate the deficit.
  I support balancing the budget and I voted previously to do so with 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. During the last few days, I decided to revisit 
the issue of an amendment to the Constitution as a means of leveraging 
the responsibility we seek. I wanted to determine if I was missing 
something in the argument--if there was perhaps some constitutional 
basis for moving in this direction. I wanted to test again whether my 
opposition in the past was reasonable or not.
  I have spent some time in the past days reviewing my thinking, 
rereading some early American documents, testing my thinking against 
other's.
  As much as I would like to see us balance the budget, I find this 
amendment wanting and I will oppose it.
  I oppose the amendment because it merely sets a goal, but does 
nothing to reach it or to enforce a process of reaching it.
  I oppose the amendment because the process it creates is far more 
likely in the long run to injure our economy than to help it and to 
cost jobs than to create them.
  I oppose the amendment because by pushing the date for reckoning 
further into the future, the proposal will allow this body to avoid 
taking meaningful steps now in favor of delay and political expediency.
  And I oppose the amendment because legitimate examination makes it 
clear that it undermines the intentions of the Founding Fathers and 
does damage to the principal of majority rule.
  Recent events around the world remind us of how terribly precious and 
delicate democracies can be. They take so much effort and time to 
create, and yet they are vulnerable to sudden and complete devastation.
  We are now contemplating a change to the document that founded our 
democracy. Our Constitution is not only the description of our 
Government, but the inspiration and blueprint for every democracy and 
future democracy in the world. Amending the Constitution is the most 
serious undertaking this Congress can consider. It cannot be taken 
lightly. We have amended the Constitution only 17 times since the Bill 
of Rights, 203 years ago. Every extant amendment serves to clarify the 
rights of our citizens, or to alter the very structure of the branches 
of our Government. Only once in the entire history of our Nation have 
we done what the proponents of this amendment ask us to do, to enshrine 
a mere policy decision in the Constitution. That was when we began 
Prohibition, and the amendment failed so unconditionally that we needed 
another amendment to eliminate its effect. Yet, staring at the face of 
this record, proponents of the balanced budget amendment seek to drag 
us backward in history toward the certain disaster of a policy-based 
amendment.
  A constitutional amendment is not just politics as usual, it is not 
just another vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, it is not a decision 
we can make with a best guess as to its implications and repercussions. 
We should not change the U.S. Constitution without a near-complete 
certainty of the consequences of our actions.
  Some on the other side argue that it is precisely because of this 
gravity that this step must be taken. Only the weight of a 
constitutional amendment would force us to take steps to finally 
balance the budget. This argument sounds great, and indeed, it has 
seduced the votes of some in this Chamber and the support of many 
outside it.
  But this attempt to legitimize the measure fails to withstand 
scrutiny. Why--because this proposed amendment includes last-minute 
changes that prohibit courts from enforcing it. Of what severity is a 
constitutional amendment that can't be enforced by the courts? If 
gravity is what we are looking for, if a Constitution-level mandate is 
needed, then we need an enforceable and immediately effective balanced 
budget plan, not this amendment.
  The amendment provides further evidence of its inappropriateness in 
its inclusion of an escape from the requirement of a balanced budget if 
a supermajority votes to allow it. This escape is an admission that the 
balanced budget obligation is not enduring, but conditional. It is an 
implicit admission that the economic decision to balance a budget or to 
run a deficit is a political judgment of the moment. This loophole 
subjects the amendment to perpetual tests of its appropriateness under 
contemporary conditions and undermines any claims to the absoluteness 
which applies to every other amendment to our Constitution.
  I am prepared to vote today, tomorrow, next month, or as soon as 
possible, on a plan to balance the budget, and I am prepared to live by 
the majority vote of this body--51 votes. It is clear, however, through 
the actions of some of our colleagues, that they are not willing to 
abide by such a vote. They do not want certain results, and they are 
specifically seeking to install in the Constitution the right of a 
minority to preclude outcomes of which they disapprove. Nothing that 
exists in the Constitution nor any expressed intent of the Framers 
suggests that this is appropriate or good for America. To the contrary, 
everything written and everything argued during the tumultuous years of 
constitutional creation and evolution make clear that this was 
precisely the kind of tyranny the Framers sought to avoid.
  Yet by passing this amendment we would, in one fell swoop, reverse 
200 years of protections of majority rule, first by requiring a three-
fifths vote in each House to allow deficit spending, and second, by 
requiring a majority vote of all sitting Members--not even those 
present and voting--of each House to increase revenues. Whenever a 
supermajority is required, the minority is given control.
  The question of whether sufficient cause exists to have a 1-year 
deficit should not be subject to the control of a minority. The Framers 
of the Constitution expressed their intent with utter clarity by 
permitting the minority such power in only three incredibly important 
areas. A supermajority is constitutionally required only for the 
ratification of treaties, the override of a veto, and for impeachment. 
As much as we might fervently hope for or want a balanced budget, we 
must not permanently damage the democratic system of majoritarian rule 
by imposing supermajority requirements in new and unnecessary areas.
  In the Federalist Papers, Madison calls majority rule ``the 
fundamental principle of free government,'' which would be ``reversed'' 
if legislative ``power would be transferred to the minority.''
  I respectfully submit, Mr. President, that we do not need new 
opportunities for gridlock. We have enough already.
  Today, 41 Senators can already prevent this body from voting on a 
measure that the majority favors. It was the minority that prevented 
this body from voting on President Clinton's stimulus package in the 
midst of a recession. It was the minority, while violent crimes soared 
out of control, that prevented the passage of the Brady bill until last 
year. In recent years, as they have grown more frustrated being in the 
minority, Republican Senators have grown more and more willing to use 
the Senate's rules to prevent action on items favored by the majority. 
The number of filibusters has increased dramatically in recent years. 
Until 1986, the filibuster was used rarely--no more than three times 
per year on average. From 1987 to 1992, it was used 19 times per year 
on average.
  Make no mistake about it. If we make it easier for the minority party 
to block the will of most of the people, the minority party--whichever 
party that happens to be--will use that power. I respectfully submit, 
Mr. President, that we do not need new constitutional opportunities for 
gridlock. We have enough already.

  Mr. President, to understand the danger we are facing, imagine a time 
after the budget has been balanced when the economy is in a deep 
recession. The President decides that we need to create a small deficit 
in order to jump-start the economy. This is the solution Keynes 
proposed to get the Nation out of the Great Depression. It is what we 
are currently prescribing for the Japanese economy to get it out of its 
recession. Yet 41 Senators--fundamentally opposed to deficits, or 
simply moved by political considerations to frustrate the party in 
power--could eliminate this option.
  If the recession caused tax receipts to decline and entitlement 
expenditures to increase--as usually happens in a recession--these few 
Senators could force draconian spending cuts by banding together with 
nine others who are opposed to tax increases. In this case, if Congress 
was unable to form the simple majorities to cut expenditures in the 
midst of a recession, the situation would be thrown into the courts and 
the Nation would be launched into a constitutional crisis.
  According to Charles Fried, Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan, 
the balanced budget amendment

       Would just make it that much harder to govern, giving those 
     who want to put obstacles in the way of Government new 
     opportunities for obstruction.

  Fried goes on to state that,

       People choose a President and Congress to govern. If they 
     govern badly they should be thrown out, not provided with 
     excuses. It is simple enough, and this is what majority rule 
     is about. Our safeguard is the responsibility of the 
     legislators and the wrath of the people if the legislators 
     betray them. Everything else is a gimmick.

  The real tragedy of this proposal is just that. It is a gimmick. In 
return for altering our Constitution, our Nation would get nothing. The 
amendment would not in itself ever lead to a balanced budget. If we 
pass this constitutional amendment, nothing will happen this year. Or 
next year. Most likely, this amendment to the Constitution would not 
take effect until after President Clinton is constitutionally 
prohibited from serving a third term: The year 2001.
  Why are we proposing do-nothing constitutional amendments when, after 
12 years of Congress hiding its head in the sand, it is finally 
beginning to deal with some real issues? Perhaps because making choices 
is a difficult business, and for many the urge is still strong to look 
for something that makes it seem like more is happening than really is.
  When Carter came to town, the magic want was the fact that after all 
the lies of Watergate, we would have a President we could trust. But 
truth was not enough, as Carter eventually found out. Mere recognition 
of the truth did not produce a President and a Congress willing to make 
hard choices.
  When Reagan came to town in 1980, the magic wand was supply side 
economics: Lower taxes would generate so much economic activity that 
the budget would be balanced by 1983. Instead, we had a budget deficit 
of $207 billion in 1983, which was three times larger than President 
Carter's worst year. In 8 years, Ronald Reagan's magic wand had 
concocted over $1.3 trillion in new Federal budget deficits. George 
Bush--unable to make any different choices about the Federal budget 
than Ronald Reagan--added another trillion on top of that in just 4 
years.
  In 1985, a group of legislators joined together behind a 5-year plan 
to end the deficits. It was called Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and it was a 
tough plan to break us of our addiction to deficits by 1990. But still 
too many in Government--most notably the President himself--were not 
ready to face the music of Gramm-Rudman. They wanted another magic wand 
instead.
  So Gramm-Rudman's targets were revised, and key spending areas were 
excluded from it. By the time we got to 1990, and the Andrews Air Force 
Base budget agreement, we had abandoned Gramm-Rudman entirely, and put 
into place a new magic wand--a budget agreement with separate walls for 
military and domestic spending, and which excluded hundreds of billions 
of dollars in Federal spending entirely--the S&L and bank bailouts.

  This magic wand, the Andrews Air Force budget agreement, never worked 
as anything other than a temporary straitjacket. That agreement left 
us--and President Bush, whose presidency it helped destroy--bound and 
hobbled, barely able to move, forbidden to make different choices than 
those it imposed, regardless of whether cities went up in smoke or 
children failed to be educated or streets became unsafe or people could 
not find jobs.
  When President Clinton came to town, he could have replaced that 
magic wand with yet another. For the most part, he did not. He proposed 
real spending cuts and a real tax increase as part of a $500 billion 
deficit reduction plan. I believe, and said so at the time, that the 
plan should have been tougher--spending cuts should have been greater, 
and the biggest piece of deficit reduction, health care, was left for 
later. But the plan reflected real choices. And it hurt. And because it 
hurt, it was politically unpopular.
  But as a result, the deficit is finally going down--in a way it could 
not have when we were simply waving magic wands and chanting 
incantations. The deficit is now projected to decline for 3 years in a 
row--something it has not done since Harry Truman was in office.
  President Clinton has shown we do not need an amendment. We need the 
will to make choices.
  How ironic then, that the proponents of the balanced budget amendment 
have chosen this moment to push for their version of the magic wand.
  I guess the reason should not be a mystery. If we want to continue 
reducing the deficit, the next step we must take is to overhaul our 
entitlement programs. We must begin with health care reform and not 
stop until we have examined Social Security. It is little wonder that 
no one wants to take on these politically poisonous tasks.
  So they are pressing us to adopt another magic wand to end the 
Federal budget crisis--this time, a constitutional amendment that will 
do nothing to balance the budget in 1994, 1995, or 1996, and which 
could take 6 years in all to go into effect, if ever.
  It is like what the Duchess told Alice in Wonderland about the 
meaning of having jam ``every other day.'' Every other day meant you 
could have jam yesterday or jam tomorrow, but never jam today.
  Instead of unbalancing the Constitution, let us vote on a plan that 
will balance the budget. Rather than waiting 4 or 5 years to take 
action on the budget, let us exert some discipline now.
  I came to the floor last month with an amendment to cut the Federal 
budget by $45 billion. I lost on that vote, just as Dale Bumpers has 
lost the many budget cutting amendments he has filed over the years, 
until he finally terminated the supercollider project last year. I lost 
in part because, for many Members, it is easier to vote for a balanced 
budget in the distant future than even small budget cuts today.
  They reminded me of St. Augustine's prayer, ``Give me chastity and 
continence, oh God, but please do not give them yet.''
  For a full week now, the U.S. Senate has debated a constitutional 
amendment to require a balanced budget. We have held countless hours of 
hearings. Editorial writers have penned dozens, perhaps hundreds, of 
articles arguing the pros and cons of this amendment. Scholars have 
written papers. Interest groups have mobilized.
  If only this energy had gone into balancing the budget.
  Mr. President, if the Senate and this town had as much will as 
rhetoric, we could have focused all this time and energy on developing 
a real plan to eliminate the deficit.
  In the final analysis, we do not need an amendment, we need to summon 
the will to just do it. We need to stop posturing, roll up our sleeves, 
and get down to the dirty work of making the tough choices that we were 
sent here to make.
  Americans are not fooled for a moment by this debate over what color 
fig leaf we use to cover up our own lack of will. They know better.
  Walter Lippman wrote in 1932 in times far harder than these that,

       Politicians continue to think that the way to please and to 
     reassure the people is to pat them gently and feed them pap. 
     The(y) are wrong. They do not understand the human animal. 
     They have forgotten that in the carnal nature of man there 
     are chords of fortitude and heroism which, when they are 
     struck, vibrate with an unaccountable energy. How else 
     explain the great periods of history that punctuate the drab 
     and flat routine of existence, except by the fact that when 
     they must, men can rise so far above themselves that they 
     hardly know themselves?

  It has been a generation or more since we Americans last came 
together to do great things; a generation or more since our inner 
resources of decency and strength were mobilized in a cause broader and 
more far-reaching than narrow self-interest; a generation or more since 
we were asked to put aside the petty bickering of partisanship and 
division and focus instead on what we Americans together can achieve.
  We are the people who tamed a continent, built the mightiest 
industrial engine the world has ever known, brought Hitler to his knees 
and won the cold war--there is not a problem we face today that we 
cannot solve.
  But there is not a problem we will solve if we remain unwilling to 
make tough choices and to face the truth.
  It is reality time, Mr. President.
  Time to end the fantasies and phony debates.
  Time to stop patronizing our citizens and start challenging them.
  Time to understand that it is only when we are honest with ourselves 
that we are able to draw fully on the profound strengths of character 
that lie deep within our people, and that whenever we have been able to 
do that, we have never failed--and I believe will never fail--to 
accomplish our goal.
  Mr. President, it has been a generation or more since as Americans we 
really came together to do what we might consider great things, a 
generation or more since our inner resources or personal resources of 
decency and of strength were brought together and mobilized in a cause 
that reaches more than narrow self-interest.
  It has been a generation or more since we were asked to put aside the 
petty bickering of partisanship which has characterized so much of what 
happens here and instead focus on what Americans together can achieve. 
We ought to think about that because we are the people who tamed a 
continent. We are the people who built the mightiest industrial engine 
that the world has ever known. We brought Hitler to his knees, and we 
won the cold war. There is not a problem we face today that we could 
not solve if we were willing to summon the will to undertake it.
  There is no problem that will be solved because of words put on a 
piece of paper. There is not a problem we will solve if we remain 
unwilling to make tough choices and to face the truth.
  So I respectfully suggest to my colleagues who are sincere in wanting 
to balance the budget but not really facing up and doing it, it is 
reality time. It is time we ought to stop patronizing our citizens and 
we ought to start challenging ourselves and them to join together in 
making those hard choices. It is time to understand that it is only 
when we are honest with ourselves that we are able to draw fully on the 
strengths of character which lie deep within our people and whenever we 
have been able to do that we have not failed. I believe we will not 
fail if we do that.
  Mr. President, everything should be on the table. We should be 
willing to bring to this floor a vote on a combination of raising 
revenue and making cuts or just making cuts or doing that and finding 
other areas for revenue than we thought of previously, or both, or a 
combination. But we should do it. It does not take an amendment to the 
Constitution without enforcement mechanism, that does not go into 
effect to the next century to do anything except fool the American 
people.
  I thank the Chair for his patience.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senate Joint 
Resolution 41, the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States requiring a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, deficit spending is truly out of control. By running 
huge deficits, we are robbing and bankrupting our children and our 
children's children to perpetuate our wasteful spending. Indeed, the 
people who are really going to get hurt without this amendment are 
either too young to vote or have simply not yet been born.
  The President's own budget proposal, in a section entitled 
``Analytical Perspectives,'' says that future generations of Americans 
will face a staggering 82 percent lifetime net tax rate assuming no 
change in the status quo. This same budget also estimates that the 
total debt will rise almost $1 trillion in the next 5 years alone. We 
have got to get this runaway spending under control now, not later. We 
cannot afford to wait any longer.
  Mr. President, the gross interest on the debt today exceeds $290 
billion, a figure higher than the entire Federal budget just 20 years 
ago. To make these figures more understandable: We now spend more than 
$800 million a day in interest on the debt; $800 million a day. 
Interest payments as a percentage of the budget have doubled just since 
1970 from 7 to 14 percent. In addition, nearly 20 percent of our 
interest payments are sent overseas to foreign investors. In 1993, the 
treasury sent $41 billion overseas in interest payments.
  The numbers don't stop there. Do most of my colleagues realize that 
the Government has spent more than it has taken in for 55 of the last 
63 years? Or that we last had a balanced budget in 1969?
  The average family in New York now spends $2,300 a year just to pay 
off the debt interest. Eventually, this excessive spending will catch 
up to us. The American people can no longer tolerate inaction or 
stalemate when it comes to reducing the deficit. It is a fundamental 
responsibility of every American taxpayer to pay his or her own bills. 
As many of us know, this is not an easy task. Expenses of hard-working, 
middle-class families can easily outpace income. As the costs of health 
care, education, housing, and basic needs gradually increase, so too 
does the difficulty of paying those bills.
  But the American people find a way. When needs arise, they tighten 
their belts. They exercise fiscal constraint. They spend their money 
wisely. There has been a lot of needless rhetoric about what the 
balanced budget amendment will do to this group or that industry. 
That's nonsense. The balanced budget amendment by itself will not cut 
service for the poor, will not by itself cut benefits for senior 
citizens, will not by itself force cutbacks in defense spending. Not at 
all.

  But the balanced budget amendment will force the Congress and the 
President to prioritize within a balance of receipts and outlays. We 
will learn to spend what we take in. We will relearn the spending 
habits of past generations, and the responsible commitment to those of 
the future. If this balanced budget amendment does not result in cuts 
in government spending, it will ensure that we pay only for all the 
Government that we really need.
  Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is not a quick-fix 
solution, it is not a gimmick. It has been observed that if this 
proposal were a gimmick, we would have enacted it long ago. No, this 
amendment will give us the discipline with which to retrain ourselves, 
and spend within our means.
  Our national debt threatens the future of our country, threatens our 
economic viability, threatens our children and our children's children. 
History has taught us this lesson.
  While I believe we should support a balanced budget amendment, there 
are other issues we must address to alleviate this awful debt burden 
now. We must act responsibly and exhaust all efforts to cut 
bureaucracy, cut waste and freeze out-of-control spending. By curbing 
spending, we can prevent Government from suffocating the small 
businessman or the middle-class taxpayer. In addition, we must redirect 
Federal programs to focus on self-sufficiency. We must offer the 
opportunity for people to contribute to society, not remain dependent 
upon the Government. We must support workfare, not welfare. We must 
give families not just a piece of the American dream, but a mechanism 
to make that dream come true.

  This is a historic debate, Mr. President, a debate designed to cure, 
over time, the economic maladies of debt and deficit spending which 
affect us all. The balanced budget amendment is a long-term 
proposition. It won't take effect until 1999, at the earliest. It gives 
us time to prepare for its constitutional requirements, which are not 
that complex; they simply state that we cannot spend more than we take 
in.
  I last had an opportunity to vote for a balanced budget amendment in 
1986. The National Debt at that time was $2.1 trillion. Today, that 
figure, in just 8 years, has more than doubled, to $4.6 trillion. By 
1999, 5 years hence, this figure rises to $6.3 trillion. These are not 
my figures. These numbers are taken right out of the administration's 
proposed budget. Mr. President, these figures are staggering, 
outrageous, and unacceptable: Four thousand, six hundred billion 
dollars in national debt today, with no end in sight without the 
balanced budget amendment.
  We must move on the balanced budget amendment and demand that action 
on issues like this not be delayed another day.
  I lend my support and commend my colleagues for their assertiveness 
in addressing a critical domestic policy issue--that of achieving a 
Federal balanced budget, so our future generations can enjoy a healthy 
and prosperous America in every way. We owe them that.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have supported the balanced budget 
constitutional amendment ever since it was first introduced in 1979. I 
will continue to support it because it is the correct policy for our 
Nation.
  While budget deficits may be convenient in the short term, they are 
fatal if they are allowed to become the usual practice over the long 
term. The General Accounting Office has estimated that if we achieve a 
balanced budget by 2001 and adhere to it thereafter, real per capita 
income will be 36 percent higher in the year 2020 compared to the no-
action alternative.
  Throughout most of our Nation's history, a balanced budget has been 
an unwritten constitutional norm. By the 1830's, the Revolutionary War 
debt, which the new Nation had assumed, had been paid off entirely. 
After the Civil War, a total of 28 consecutive budget surpluses helped 
bring about a gradual reduction in the Civil War debt. Despite 
occasional unpredicted deficits in hard times, the Civil War debt had 
been trimmed from $3 to $1.2 billion by 1916. In the 1920s, the Nation 
started repaying the debt from World War I until the Great Depression 
and the Second World War intervened.
  In the years following World War II, the Federal budget was sometimes 
in surplus and sometimes in deficit. From fiscal years 1947 through 
1960, the sum total of all budget deficits--$31 billion--exceeded the 
sum total of all budget surpluses--$30 billion--by only $1 billion. 
Although the debt left over from World War II and the Great Depression 
was not retired, the basic norm that the Federal budget should be 
balanced in peacetime remained in place.
  In the 1960's and 1970's, the economic philosophy of John Maynard 
Keynes came into vogue within the Federal Government. We were told that 
the Federal budget need not be actually balanced but only needed to be 
balanced at full employment. Whatever its theoretical merits or 
demerits, congressional budget habits developed in accordance with this 
philosophy and established a 30 year trend of deficit spending. During 
the 1960's and 1970's, Congress and the President attempted to 
stimulate the economy in slow times, but the countercyclical measures 
they adopted were often ill-timed, taking effect as the economy was 
already recovering. And Congress and the President did not adhere to 
the other half of the Keynesian equation. They did not pass budget 
surpluses in times of excess demand.
  There are those who disagree that a balanced budget is the correct 
economic policy for our Nation. I have been surprised by the recent 
effort of the administration to blunt the momentum toward a balanced 
budget amendment by publicizing how much it would cost individual 
States if it worked. The implication is that we should not even attempt 
to balance the budget. This pork barrel approach reinforces the need 
for a constitutional amendment to protect our children and 
grandchildren from any further burden of debt.
  The experience of the past 30 years offers little hope that we will 
ever achieve a balanced budget without a constitutional amendment. We 
have achieved just one budget surplus during this period--fiscal year 
1969--and it occurred by accident. In the past decade, there have been 
two statutory attempts--Gramm-Rudman I and Gramm-Rudman II--to place us 
on a binding schedule leading to a balanced budget. Both statutes were 
overturned before they came anywhere near the goal of a balanced 
budget. We have adhered to the unwritten norm of a balanced peacetime 
budget throughout most of our constitutional history. It is time to 
write into our fundamental law the basic principle that the Nation must 
not spend beyond its means.
  A constitutional amendment is enforceable. Section 1 of Senate Joint 
Resolution 48 mandates that:

       Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total 
     receipts for that year, unless three-fifths of the whole 
     number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a 
     specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

  It has been alleged that under the amendment Congress might make 
overly optimistic assumptions about outlays and receipts in order to 
show a balanced budget for the upcoming year and that courts would be 
reluctant to overturn such an action. This problem could be resolved by 
implementing legislation that provides for automatic spending cuts or 
other appropriate measures if Congress misestimates receipts or outlays 
for a given fiscal year.
  However, even in the absence of such a provision, section 2 of the 
proposed article provides an additional, firm remedy. For it declares 
that:

       The Limit on the Debt of the United States shall not be 
     increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each 
     House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall 
     vote.

  Failure to raise the debt ceiling in accordance with the terms of the 
amendment would thus be legally invalid. I urge support for the 
balanced budget constitutional amendment.

                          ____________________