Congressional RecordUNUM

E PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104th

CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

S3231

Senate(Legislative day of Wednesday, February 22, 1995)

Vol. 141 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1995 No. 37

The Senate met at 9 a.m., on the ex-piration of the recess, and was called toorder by the President pro tempore[Mr. THURMOND].

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Ourprayer will be offered by a guest Chap-lain, Father Paul Lavin, of St. Joseph’sCatholic Church, Washington, DC.

PRAYER

The guest Chaplain, the ReverendPaul Lavin, offered the following pray-er:

In Psalm 89 we read:May the goodness of the Lord be upon

us, and give success to the work of ourhands.

Let us pray:God our Father, You have placed all

the powers of nature under the controlof the human family and the work wedo.

May the men and women of the U.S.Senate and their staffs work to supportone another and our fellow citizens tobring Your spirit to all our efforts, andmay we work with our brothers and sis-ters at our common task of guidingYour creation to the fulfillment towhich You have called us.

f

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Underthe previous order, leadership time isreserved.

f

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENTTO THE CONSTITUTION

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Underthe previous order, the Senate will nowresume consideration of House JointResolution 1, which the clerk will re-port.

The assistant legislative clerk readas follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing abalanced budget amendment to the Constitu-tion of the United States.

The Senate resumed consideration ofthe joint resolution.

Pending:(1) Feinstein amendment No. 274, in the na-

ture of a substitute.(2) Feingold amendment No. 291, to provide

that receipts and outlays of the TennesseeValley Authority shall not be counted as re-ceipts or outlays for purposes of this article.

(3) Graham amendment No. 259, to strikethe limitation on debt held by the public.

(4) Graham amendment No. 298, to clarifythe application of the public debt limit withrespect to redemptions from the Social Secu-rity Trust Funds.

(5) Kennedy amendment No. 267, to providethat the balanced budget constitutionalamendment does not authorize the Presidentto impound lawfully appropriated funds orimpose taxes, duties, or fees.

(6) Bumpers modified motion to refer H.J.Res. 1 to the Committee on the Budget withinstructions.

(7) Nunn amendment No. 299, to permitwaiver of the amendment during an eco-nomic emergency.

(8) Nunn amendment No. 300, to limit judi-cial review.

(9) Levin amendment No. 273, to requireCongress to pass legislation specifying themeans for implementing and enforcing a bal-anced budget before the balanced budgetamendment is submitted to the States forratification.

(10) Levin amendment No. 310, to providethat the Vice President of the United Statesshall be able to cast the deciding vote in theSenate if the whole number of the Senate beequally divided.

(11) Levin amendment No. 311, to providethat the Vice President of the United Statesshall not be able to cast the deciding vote inthe Senate if the whole number of the Senatebe equally divided.

(12) Pryor amendment No. 307, to give thepeople of each State, through their Staterepresentatives, the right to tell Congresshow they would cut spending in their Statein order to balance the budget.

(13) Byrd amendment No. 252, to permitoutlays to exceed receipts by a majorityvote.

(14) Byrd amendment No. 254, to establishthat the limit on the public debt shall not beincreased unless Congress provides by law forsuch an increase.

(15) Byrd amendment No. 255, to permit thePresident to submit an alternative budget.

(16) Byrd amendment No. 253, to permit abill to increase revenue to become law bymajority vote.

(17) Byrd amendment No. 258, to strike anyreliance on estimates.

(18) Kerry motion to commit H.J. Res. 1 tothe Committee on the Budget.

(19) Hatch (for Dole) motion to recommitH.J. Res. 1 to the Committee on the Budgetwith instructions.

(20) Hatch (for Dole) motion to recommitH.J. Res. 1 to the Committee on the Budgetwith instructions.

(21) Hatch (for Dole) motion to commitH.J. Res. 1 to the Committee on the Judici-ary with instructions.

(22) Hatch (for Dole) motion to commitH.J. Res. 1 to the Committee on the Judici-ary with instructions.

f

RECOGNITION OF THEDEMOCRATIC LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Thedistinguished Democratic leader is rec-ognized.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield10 minutes to the distinguished Sen-ator from North Dakota [Mr. CONRAD].

(Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and

I thank the minority leader. Mr. Presi-dent, today is an important day in thelife of our Nation. Today we consider abalanced budget amendment to theConstitution of the United States. Wedo not lightly consider amendments tothe Constitution because that docu-ment has served as the framework thathas made this the greatest Nation inhuman history.

Mr. President, we are here becausethis Nation faces a debt threat. I havebrought with me several charts to tryto illustrate the challenge that weface. This first chart shows what hashappened to the gross debt in our coun-try from 1940 to 1999. One can see thatback in 1940 the debt of the country ex-ploded during World War II, and then

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3232 February 28, 1995we went into a long period in which the grossdebt of the country came down steadily,until 1979. At that time, gross debt, onceagain, exploded. We saw the gross debt of thecountry down about 30 percent, and it hasgone up 70 percent, not as high as it was dur-ing the Second World War, nonetheless a realconcern because the growth of the debt putsenormous pressure on the financial markets,puts pressure on interest rates, and has anadverse effect on our total economy.

Mr. President, I think this chart tellsa very important story. This is thework of the entitlements commissionthat just concluded their work. On thischart, the green line shows the revenueof the United States back from 1970,forecasted up through 2030. One can seethat the revenue has consistently runat just under 20 percent of our gross do-mestic product. We are right in thischange today. One can see that the dif-ference between the green line andthese bars is the deficit, and we haveworked the deficit down in this periodto about 2.5 percent of gross domesticproduct.

Mr. President, look at what happensif we do not change course. Let me justsay the entitlements commission didnot take the worst case scenario. Theyassumed no recessions, no wars, no ca-tastrophes, no natural disasters. Lookat how the deficit explodes by the year2030. By the year 2012 alone, we will useevery penny of Federal revenue just onentitlements and interest on the debt.

Mr. President, we must address thedebt threat without question. Thattakes us to the next chart. Some havesaid, ‘‘Well, Senator CONRAD, if you feelso strongly about the need to attackthe deficits, why have you not signedup to the constitutional amendment’’that is before us today? Very simply,Mr. President, I have several concerns.As I indicated earlier, we do not amendthe Constitution of the United Stateslightly. That is the organic law of ourcountry. It is the document that hasstood the test of time, and we musttake that measure against any pro-posed constitutional amendment.

Mr. President, there are three itemsthat especially concern me. First is thepossibility of looting the Social Secu-rity trust fund in order to balance theoperating budget. That really raisesthe question that I have on this chart:What budget is being balanced? I thinkit is very important to know whatbudget is being balanced. To answerthat question, we need to go to the lan-guage of the amendment itself.

In section 7, it says:Total receipts shall include all receipts of

the U.S. Government except those derivedfrom borrowing. Total outlays shall includeall outlays of the U.S. Government exceptfor those for repayment of debt principal.

Mr. President, what that means, verysimply, is that everything is going inthe pot. This is a little teapot thatshows the pot of Federal spending thatwe have created. It shows what goes inon the revenue side—individual incometaxes, social insurance taxes, corporateincome taxes, and other taxes. It shows

the spending that comes out the spigotof Federal spending, the spigot of thepot of Federal spending. You can seeSocial Security comes out of thespending spigot—interest on the debt,defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. Theyare the big items. In fact, Social Secu-rity, interest, defense, and Medicaremake up 78 percent of Federal spend-ing.

Mr. President, the problem with thatpart of this constitutional amendmentis that it assumes Social Security is inthe pot, and Social Security is not con-tributing to the deficit; Social Secu-rity is in surplus. Social Security, infact, is going to run a surplus over the7 years necessary to balance the budg-et, under this provision, by $636 billion.So the amendment that is before ustoday assumes that we will be lootingthe Social Security trust fund sur-pluses of the $636 billion in order tobalance the operating budget.

Mr. President, I do not consider thatbalancing the budget. That is, frankly,Washington talk for balancing a budg-et. If a head of any company in thiscountry told the investors that he wasbalancing the budget and that acentral part of balancing was to takethe employees’ trust funds, that personwould be on the way to a Federal facil-ity—and it would not be the U.S. Con-gress; that person would be on theirway to jail. So this is a concern that Ithink must be addressed.

The second concern that I have—andit is a concern shared by others—is therole of the courts, because once youput in the Constitution of the UnitedStates an amendment, you haveconstitutionalized the issue. I broughtwith me a quote from Walter Dellingerwho testified last year at the hearingson the question of a balanced budget,and he said:

If we have an amendment that for the firsttime constitutionalizes the taxing andspending process and creates a constitu-tional mandate which the courts are swornon oath to uphold, there is simply no waythat we can rule out the possibility that taxincreases or spending cuts would be orderedby the judiciary. And I think we would allagree that that is a profound change in ourconstitutional system.

Mr. President, I hope people focus onthis question. Would we really wantunelected judges to be able to order taxincreases in this country? I think not.That would be taxation without rep-resentation. Judges are not elected.Judges are not chosen to make thesedecisions. That is part of the genius ofour Constitution: a separation of pow-ers, with Congress, the elected rep-resentatives, making the financial de-cisions for the people of America.

Mr. President, it is not just Mr.Dellinger’s view. Former Senator Dan-forth, who was among our most re-spected colleagues, a Republican Sen-ator from Missouri, said last year whenhe offered an amendment—an amend-ment, by the way, which was accept-ed—to deal with the issue of clarifyingthe role of the courts said:

The implications of this judicial encroach-ment are staggering when applied to the pro-posed balanced budget amendment. As Pro-fessor Tribe testified before the Committeeon the Budget: ‘‘What remedy could a federalcourt then decree? [if the budget is not bal-anced under this amendment] The court inthe United States in Missouri vs. Jenkins acouple of years ago held that judges mayhave the power to mandate higher taxes ifneeded to force the government to complywith the Constitution.’’

Senator Danforth went on to say:I find it troublesome, but it is the law.

Talk about taxation without representation,unelected judges mandating higher taxes.

Mr. President, we ought to listen tothe wisdom of former Senator Dan-forth. He was one of the most respectedMembers of this Chamber. He was deadright on this question.

Mr. President, there is a third issuethat I want to raise today that is ofconcern and I think must be addressedif we are to pass a balanced budgetamendment.

Mr. President, the third issue that Iraise is the question of an economicemergency. Mr. President, we knowthat today the right policy is to cutspending and reduce the deficits andbalance the budget. Sixty years agothat was precisely the wrong policy. Inthe Depression, raising taxes and cut-ting spending only made the Depres-sion deeper and longer lasting.

Mr. President, Robert Solow, of MIT,a Nobel laureate in economics, said:

The balanced budget amendment wouldforce perverse actions by Congress, easilyturning a small recession into a big one anda big one into a disaster. Monetary policycan solve the small problems, but not the bigones.

Mr. President, if we are to have aconstitutional amendment, I believewe must have special provision for aneconomic emergency.

I end on this note, a quote fromHenry Aaron, the director of economicstudies at the Brookings Institution.Dr. Aaron, in testimony last year said:

One does not need to be a primitiveKeynesian to believe that a requirementforcing tax increases or spending cuts duringan economic slowdown could be catastrophic.

Catastrophic, Mr. President—Yet the need to mobilize a three-fifths ma-jority, not just in the Senate but in theHouse of Representatives as well, heightensthe possibility that such policies would re-sult because of incapacity to mobilize thenecessary supermajority in both Houses.

Mr. President, some have assuredMembers ‘‘Don’t worry. If we are in aneconomic emergency, you will be ableto get 60 votes.’’ Mr. President, I wentback to the time leading into WorldWar II when the economy of this coun-try was in deep trouble, when we facedan enormous external threat. I foundan interesting thing. When we needed$1 billion to start to rebuild the Navyof this country, that passed by only 58votes. When we needed to start to havea draft to prepare for war, that passedby only 56 votes.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3233February 28, 1995Mr. President, I think it is very clear

that we cannot take the assurance thatin an emergency we would be able tomuster the 60 votes.

Mr. President, let me just concludeby saying I believe deeply that we mustaddress the debt threat hanging overthis country. We must cut spending.We must reduce the deficit. We mustbalance the budget in preparation forthe time when the baby boom genera-tion starts to retire, the Social Secu-rity expenses and Medicare and all therest start to explode.

Mr. President, we are talking aboutamending the Constitution of the Unit-ed States. We should only do it if weare absolutely convinced we are prop-erly crafting such an amendment. Thethree concerns that I have raised mustbe addressed if this amendment is tosecure my vote.

We should not loot the Social Secu-rity trust fund because that is not bal-ancing the budget. That is a papersham. That is wrong. We should notleave the role of the courts vague andambiguous. No unelected judges shouldbe writing the budget for the UnitedStates, raising taxes, cutting spending.That would subvert the genius of theConstitution. Third, I believe we musthave provision for an economic emer-gency so that we do not put our greatNation at risk at a time of economicweakness and vulnerability.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Iyield the floor. I look very much for-ward to what the day will bring. I hopethat we are able to come together andcraft an amendment that will stand thetest of time.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, howmuch time am I allowed?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator controls 73 minutes 20 seconds.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Chair notifyme when I have used 12 minutes?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, sir.Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my

support of a balanced budget amend-ment goes back to the 95th Congress.

In the last Congress, I did not per-ceive the willingness of Congress toconsider all expenditures in order toachieve a balanced budget and did notsupport this amendment at that time.

Now, it is my belief that the changesin Congress and in the attitude of thecountry as a whole have brought a newcommitment to consider all Federalexpenditures, including entitlements.There is no question that the passageof this amendment is important to theNation as a whole. That is particularlytrue to small States such as Alaska,and other States in the West.

We believe Congress must operateunder fiscal restraint, restraint that ismissing from the Federal budget proc-ess at this time. I am informed thatnext September the current Federaldebt limit of $4.9 trillion will bereached. Congress may have to vote toincrease that Federal debt limit above$5 trillion or face the prospect of shut-ting down the Federal Government anddefaulting upon our obligations.

Default is an unthinkable option fora Nation like the United States. But Ido not believe that I could in good con-science vote to increase the debt limitunless this Nation adopts a plan to bal-ance the budget and end unnecessarydeficit spending.

Based upon President Clinton’s 1996budget, 16 percent of the total Federalbudget for this next fiscal year will berequired to pay interest on that $4.9trillion dollar national debt. The Presi-dent’s budget also requests andprojects 16 percent of the total Federalbudget to go to support of our nationaldefense, 15 percent to grants to Statesand localities, and 5 percent to go tothe operation of Federal agencies.

In my judgment, interest paymentsare competing now with the nationaldefense. Our national defense is thesecond largest expenditure of Federalfunds, second only to the direct benefitpayments to individuals. This nationaldebt is a real threat. Left unchecked,increased interest payments will en-danger every Federal program.

In the past, and particularly lastyear, I expressed concern that entitle-ment programs would not be includedin any efforts to balance the budgetand that the necessary cuts wouldcome from the remaining 36 percent ofthe budget. I was concerned that dis-cretionary spending would bear all ofthe cuts.

It was my expressed fear that smallStates, like Alaska, would be severelyand unfairly impacted by those cuts indiscretionary spending. Cuts of themagnitude required to balance thebudget taken solely from discretionaryspending would impose a great burdenupon us because of the necessity tohave Federal programs—the CoastGuard, the FBI, the FAA, and so manyother agencies of the Federal Govern-ment that provide the safety net forour people—in a State as large and di-verse as mine.

After giving this issue serious consid-eration and having discussed the mat-ter seriously with many of my col-leagues, I have come to the conclusionthat it is now the intent of Congressthat spending cuts would be fairly ap-plied to all expenditures.

Mr. President, we keep track of thecalls and letters we receive in myWashington and Alaska offices, and themajority of Alaskans support a bal-anced budget amendment. They sup-port it by a margin of 6 to 1, as re-flected by the calls and letters thathave come to my office endorsing oropposing the Amendment.

The Kerry-Danforth Commission, theBipartisan Commission on EntitlementReform, identified as one of its fivebroad principles the issue of balancingentitlement commitments with thefunds available to meet those promises.If current entitlement policies are leftunchanged, entitlement spending andinterest on the national debt wouldconsume almost all Federal revenuesin the year 2010. By the year 2030, pro-

jected Federal revenues will not coverentitlement payments.

I do not support exempting any spe-cific type of spending in the balancedbudget amendment, per se, but I do be-lieve Congress must find a way to bal-ance the budget without reducing So-cial Security payments. On February10, our distinguished majority leader,Senator DOLE, offered a measure on theSenate floor which calls on the SenateBudget Committee to report to theSenate a plan to protect Social Secu-rity while allowing Congress to balancethe budget. I supported that amend-ment.

According to our Joint EconomicCommittee, Congress could balance thebudget while Government spending in-creases 2 percent per year withouttouching Social Security or Medicareand allowing Medicaid to grow at therate of 5 percent per year. There aresome who question that plan, but thatis the result of the report by the JointEconomic Committee.

It is time for the Federal, State, andlocal legislative and executive leadersto work together to find a way or tofind ways to cut the fat out of Govern-ment without removing its heart.Spending decisions will be more dif-ficult as interest on the national debtconsumes a larger portion of Federalrevenues.

It is my judgment that the Congressand the States must act now to ratifythis balanced budget amendment to theConstitution. There is still time forFederal, State, and local governmentsto work together, as I suggested, to de-cide how to provide the necessary gov-ernment services for our people. Ourcountry cannot afford to wait anylonger. We must get our fiscal house inorder, and we can begin that processtoday.

I want to urge the Senate, particu-larly my colleagues who have nottaken a position on this amendment, tosupport it. I shall support this amend-ment. I do so in order that, consistentwith our Constitution, it may be sub-mitted to the 50 States for ratificationand we may begin this process. It willbe a long and arduous process, Mr.President, but I think the time to com-mence is now.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.The assistant legislative clerk pro-

ceeded to call the roll.Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unan-

imous consent that the order for thequorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask thatI be yielded approximately 8 minutesfrom the time reserved for SenatorHATCH, the Senator from Utah.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does theSenator yield time?

Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to yieldto the Senator from Nebraska thatamount of time.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3234 February 28, 1995Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my

friend from Alaska.The constitutional amendment to

balance the budget should be viewed asan important step in the right direc-tion, but rejected as a certain cure-allassuring future sound national fiscalpolicy. The primary benefit, if passedin Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States, is the consider-able ‘‘discipline’’—and I emphasize theword ‘‘discipline’’—that it would pro-vide to correct our current course. Weveered dangerously off course in the1980’s when we ballooned annual defi-cits from manageable levels, under $100billion by increasing it threefold ormore. And from 1980 to the present wehave skyrocketed the national debt,the culmination of those yearly defi-cits, fivefold, to $5 trillion, and it isgoing higher.

In fiscal year 1996, annual interest onthat debt to nontrust fund or publicdebt costs taxpayers $260 billion, whichalarmingly is the fastest growing partof our Federal budget. Of that $260 bil-lion in interest costs about a fourth or$65 billion goes to foreign investors.Talk about foreign aid give-aways.

The $65 billion in interest the tax-payers will pay is shipped directlyoverseas, with no strings attached, andit is going up each and every year. It isastonishing, Mr. President, when wecompare the $20 billion that we provideannually for foreign aid, a categorythat we hear so much about, which isactually going down every year, com-pare that, if you will, with the $65 bil-lion in taxpayers’ money that is goingoverseas without any strings attachedwhatsoever.

The facts are that we are giving $45billion more to foreigners in interestthan in aid. If there were no othersound reasons—and there are many—the concerns just stated would be rea-son enough to employ the disciplinethat the balanced budget amendmentwill bring.

I salute the many good and reasonedarguments made by opponents in oppo-sition to the amendment. Indeed, thereare good reasons not to vote for it. Iam not satisfied in total with theamendment and I believe it shouldhave been amended in the Senate.

The trouble seems to be that the con-stitutional amendment before us hasbeen Newtonized. Such a description,therefore, makes it infallible andunamendable. It is a believe-exactly-as-we-do-or perish philosophy that isdangerous.

It is required that Republicans andthe Democrats alike simply roll overand play dead for the good of the neworder.

Mr. President, this is a very impor-tant day in the history of the U.S. Sen-ate. Today, at the Republican caucus,the decision will be made as to whetheror not a reasonable compromise will beaccepted. That is the last real chancefor success.

Notwithstanding what will be re-ported Tuesday evening—today—this

amendment will not be approved—Iemphasize, will not be approved—un-less it is on a bipartisan basis. We cangarner the minimum 67 votes to passit—and the numbers I have indicatethat it should be 52 Republicans and 15Democrats—if we accept some versionof the Danforth-Johnston-Nunn, et al.,amendment. That concept is to keepthe courts out of budgeting and agreeto address some of the Social Securitytrust fund concerns that have been ex-pressed on the floor most recently bymy colleague from North Dakota a fewmoments ago. If we do not do that, itwill not, and, in such an event, the re-sponsibility for failure will rest on ourinability to compromise just a littlebit.

We can still pass this constitutionalamendment if there is just a little giveand a little concern. Despite the manyseemingly unsurmountable hurdles, Iam encouraged that, after a series ofdiscussions of last Friday, yesterdayand this morning, we may well be closeto resolving enough of the more con-tentious issues to see success today.But I am not sure.

The key vote, Mr. President, onwhether or not we can pass a constitu-tional amendment will come today onthe Nunn amendment regarding con-cerns about court involvement. If thatfails, I predict we will not garner the 67votes for the balanced budget amend-ment. In that case, the final vote willjust be an exercise to establish howmany votes short of the required 67that the constitutional amendment re-quires.

Mr. President, I think we are aboutsome very, very serious business. Ihave previously said on many occa-sions why I support the constitutionalamendment to balance the budget,with some reservations.

At this time, I appeal for reason andI appeal somehow to give and take alittle bit, to compromise on one or twovery important issues. If that happensand it is approved in the Republicancaucus today, we can go on to successwith the balanced budget amendment.If not, we will live to regret it, in theview of this Senator.

Mr. President, I yield the floor andyield back the remainder of any timethat I had reserved on my original re-quest.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggestthe absence of a quorum, with the timedivided equally.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.The assistant legislative clerk pro-

ceeded to call the roll.Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HATCH. I understand the distin-guished Senator from Texas would likesome time. How much time would theSenator like, 10 minutes?

Mr. GRAMM. What about 15?

Mr. HATCH. We are pressed for time.I yield 10 minutes to the distinguishedSenator from Texas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Texas is recognized for 10minutes.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thankour distinguished colleague from Utahfor yielding me time.

Mr. President, today we have an op-portunity to change the course ofAmerican history. I guess each of us inour own way came into public life be-cause we wanted to make historic deci-sions. I think it is fair to say thatevery Member of the Senate initiallyran for office because he or she wantedto make a difference in the lives of thepeople in their State and across thiscountry. We have an opportunity todayin one vote to rewrite the history ofthe United States of America. That onevote is adopting a balanced budgetamendment to the Constitution of theUnited States of America.

I would like to talk today about whathappens if we do not pass a balancedbudget amendment to the Constitu-tion, and to also talk about what hap-pens if we do, not in abstract terms butin concrete terms that have to do withthe well-being of the forgotten peoplein America who do the work, pay thetaxes, pull the wagon, and who oughtto be the focal point of this debate, butunfortunately are not.

Then I wish to touch very briefly onsome of the arguments that are beingmade against the amendment. First ofall, I think we have to understand thatGovernment spending means Govern-ment taxing. In 1950, the averageAmerican family with two childrensent $1 out of every $50 it earned toWashington, DC. Today, that samefamily is sending $1 out of every $4 itearns to Washington, DC, and in 20years, if we do not create a single newFederal program, if we simply pay forthe Government that is already on thebooks, that family is going to be send-ing $1 out of every $3 it earns to Wash-ington, DC.

It seems to me we have come to themoment of truth where either we aregoing to stay on this 40-year spendingspree and squander the future of ourchildren or we are going to the spend-ing so as to save the American dream.That is the choice we make today.

Since 1950, the Federal Government’sbudget has grown 21⁄2 times as fast asthe family budget. Since 1950, the Gov-ernment has spent money at a rate 21⁄2times as fast as the institution inAmerica which created the income thatthe Government spent, the Americanfamily.

Now, what difference has it madeover the last 40 years that Governmentspending has grown 21⁄2 times as fast asfamily spending? Let me give you astartling statistic. If the ability of thefamily to spend the money it earnedhad grown as fast as the ability of Gov-ernment to spend the money the familyearned, families in America today

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3235February 28, 1995would be spending not $45,000 per fam-ily of four but would be spending$120,000 per family.

Conversely, if Government spendinghad grown only as rapidly as spendingby the family, the Federal Governmentwould be roughly one-third the size itis today.

When you think about the Americandream, when you think about the kindof America you want for your childrenand grandchildren, which pictures fitsyour view of America’s future: Fami-lies with incomes three times as largeas they are today and the Governmenta third the size it is today, or the re-verse?

It seems to me that the priority ofthe family’s budget over the Federalbudget is the definition of what we aretalking about. The debate here is not adebate about how much money is goingto be spent on education and housingand nutrition and all of the otherthings that we are all for. The debate isabout who is going to do the spending.For many of our colleagues on the left,many of the Democratic Members ofthe Senate, the President of the UnitedStates, Bill Clinton, their vision forAmerica’s future is that they wantGovernment to do the spending. Our vi-sion for America’s future is that wewant the family to do the spending. Weknow the Government; we know thefamily; we know the difference; and weknow something else. We are bettingthe future of America on the decisionwe make today. We want to bet the fu-ture of America on the family and noton the Government.

Now, in looking at these mind-numb-ing figures, since they are so big, wetend to forget that they really meansomething. Let me give you some fig-ures. If we adopt and enforce the budg-et proposed by Bill Clinton, that willmean that in 10 years we are going tobe spending $412 billion simply payinginterest on the public debt. That ismore money than Jimmy Carter’sbudget for the whole Government ofthe United States in 1977. That was notthat long ago.

Let me give you another figure thatgives you an idea of the magnitude ofthe choice we make today. If we donothing, if we stay with the status quothat Bill Clinton would have us adopt,the interest cost on the public debt ina decade is going to rise by $177 billion.

Now, nobody knows what $1 billion isexcept Ross Perot, but let me convertthat into English. If we stop the deficitspending, if we did not borrow all thatmoney, we could give every family inAmerica a $13,000 tax deduction for themoney we are going to squander payinginterest on debt simply because thisCongress has been incapable of sayingno to any special interest group with aletterhead that has asked for ourmoney.

Now, I wish to address very brieflysome of the arguments that are madeagainst the amendment. One argument,which many of us heard this weekendon television, is that deficit spending is

a powerful medicine that can cure re-cessions, that can cure depressions, andif we lost the ability to use this medi-cine we might forever be pushed into agreat recession and a great depression.

Mr. President, deficit spending is adrug to which we have become ad-dicted. We have engaged in deficit ex-penditures in expansions, in contrac-tions, in recessions, in inflations, and ifdeficit spending ever had any curativepower, that curative power has longago been lost.

We debate today whether to end thisaddiction to deficit spending. We de-bate today whether or not to force theGovernment to do what every familyand every business in America has todo, and that is say no.

Finally, let me try to set this in per-spective. Balancing the Federal budgetis not going to be easy. It is going tomean hard choices. It is certainly notgoing to be easy for Members of Con-gress. But we cannot forget the bene-fits to be derived for the future ofAmerica in terms of opportunity andgrowth, and we must not forget whatthis means in terms of freedom. Weshould not get so caught up in the dol-lars and cents of the deficit and thebudget debate that we forget that whatis being squandered here is not just ourmoney, it is our freedom. Governmenthas grown so big, so powerful, so expen-sive, so distant, so hostile that this isa process that has to be reversed andwe have it within our power today todo it. We all stand here on the floor ofthe Senate and wring our hands aboutthe deficit. To balance the Federalbudget means we have to freeze Gov-ernment spending at its current levelfor 3 years.

How many businesses in Americahave made tougher choices than thatjust to keep their doors open in thelast year? How many families in Amer-ica have had to make tougher choicesthan that when a job was lost or whena parent died? The difference is thatfamilies and businesses in America livein the real world where you have to sayno, where bad things happen, whereyou have to make adjustments, whereyou have to change.

Change is a fact of life everywhereexcept in Washington, DC, in America.Our Government has not lived in thereal world for 40 years. We have itwithin our power today to change that.We have it within our power to pull ourGovernment into the real world withour people, and in doing so enrich thelives of millions of Americans whowant the kind of opportunity that hasbeen routine in the American experi-ence.

If we can adopt the balanced budgetamendment to the Constitution today,we will change the course of the his-tory of our Nation. And I am prayer-fully hopeful that when our colleaguescast this vote they will realize we areshooting with real bullets and we aredetermining the future of the greatestcountry that the world has ever known.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The dis-tinguished minority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield5 minutes to the distinguished Senatorfrom Minnesota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Minnesota is recognized.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, Ido want to point out for the record onthe floor of the U.S. Senate, as I lis-tened to my colleague from Texasspeak about special interests, that I in-troduced an amendment several weeksago, with Senator FEINGOLD from Wis-consin, which said that when we go for-ward with deficit reduction and con-tinue on this path of deficit reductionand reach the goal of balancing thebudget, we should consider $425 bil-lion—that is in any given year—of taxexpenditures, many of which are loop-holes and deductions and sometimesoutright giveaways to the largest cor-porations and financial institutions inAmerica. That amendment was voteddown on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

So it is interesting how children area special interest, somehow with a neg-ative connotation. Older Americans area special interest, somehow with a neg-ative connotation. Students who aretrying to afford higher education are aspecial interest, sometimes with a neg-ative connotation. But, on the otherhand, subsidies for oil companies, thesubsidies for coal companies, subsidiesfor pharmaceutical companies—theyare not special interests at all. I thinkthat has something to do with who arethe heavy hitters, who has the rep-resentation, who does the lobbying,who has the power, who is well rep-resented and who is left out.

I have been very involved in this de-bate and today there is just time for afew concluding remarks or reflections.At the very beginning of this 104thCongress I came to the floor with anamendment from my State of Min-nesota. This amendment essentiallysaid, based upon a resolution passed bymy State legislature and signed byGovernor Carlson, which urged that be-fore we send a balanced budget amend-ment to the States, if it is passed, weought to do an analysis for States ofthe impact on our States and of thepeople back in Minnesota and acrossthe country. That was voted down.Similar amendments were also voteddown.

There are other amendments thatwere very important to this effort toimprove this constitutional amend-ment to balance the budget—very im-portant. There was an amendment tomake sure that there would not be araid on the Social Security trust funds.That was voted down. There was anamendment, as I mentioned, that Sen-ator FEINGOLD and I introduced, thaturged that we at least consider some ofthe tax subsidies and giveaways to thelargest corporations of America, thewealthiest people, as part of what wedo in deficit reduction. Let us not justcut nutrition programs for children orMedicare. That was voted down. There

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3236 February 28, 1995was an amendment introduced on thefloor of the U.S. Senate that said—andit makes good, rigorous economicsense—let us separate capital budgetsfrom operating budgets. If we are goingto make a comparison to family budg-ets, then let’s really look closely at thesimilarities and differences. Sheila andI have never cash flowed the homeswe’ve bought. We did not cash floweducation for our children, higher edu-cation. And we did not cash flow cars.Those were investments in the future.We certainly have done a good job ofbalancing our budget every month, ifthat means keeping up with our pay-ments. The same thing is true of mostof the State legislatures in this coun-try. So the point was to make someseparation.

There was an important amendmentthat said in times of recession let usnot have those recessions become de-pressions. This is rigorous economicanalysis. I say this as someone with aninterest and a background in politicaleconomy. That was voted down. We dohave to be concerned about the eco-nomics and the economic managementof our Nation.

There were other amendments aswell. I had a sense of the Senateamendment that we would not do any-thing to increase hunger or homeless-ness among children. That was voteddown.

I have to say, I am acutely aware ofwhat is politically popular at the mo-ment. This constitutional amendmentto balance the budget is politicallypopular at the moment. It is politicallypopular in the abstract. But people donot yet know what the specifics are.There has not been any truth in budg-eting with this. I do not believe peoplehave yet had a chance to look at all ofthe consequences of it.

So my position remains the same po-sition. I was sent to the U.S. Senatefrom Minnesota to listen closely topeople. I was sent to the U.S. Senatefrom Minnesota to stay close to people.But I also said to people in Minnesotathat I would always vote my con-science. I would always vote what I be-lieved was right for my Nation. I wouldalways vote what I believed was rightfor the people I represented—even if itwas a difficult political vote, even if itwas politically unpopular at the mo-ment, even if I was subject to attackads and other criticism for my vote.

I will not back down from that. I willcontinue to go by that code. And it ismy honest view, it is my profoundsense that this constitutional amend-ment to balance the budget is a veryserious mistake for a Nation that Ilove and for a State that I love.

And therefore for all the reasons Ihave outlined during this debate overthe last month, I will vote no.

(Disturbance in the visitors’ gal-leries.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gal-lery will please withhold any display.

Thank you.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed theChair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from California.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Iyield myself 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.DEWINE). The Senator is recognized for10 minutes.

AMENDMENT NO. 274

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Iask unanimous consent my amendmentbe the pending business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? Without objection, it is soordered.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, Irise today in support of a substituteamendment to House Joint Resolution1, the balanced budget constitutionalamendment.

I support a balanced budget amend-ment to the Constitution, and I wouldlike to see this body pass such anamendment. However, as I have pre-viously stated, I do not believe that theHouse-passed amendment, the amend-ment being considered by the Senate,is the right amendment for this coun-try.

With Senators FORD, HOLLINGS,MCCAIN, MIKULSKI, KOHL, HARKIN,DASCHLE, DORGAN, REID, and GRAHAMof Florida, I, therefore, offer my col-leagues—both Republican and Demo-cratic—a substitute.

The substitute I am offering today isa balanced budget amendment to theConstitution that will permanently ex-empt Social Security from the calcula-tions. It will protect this fund, holdingin trust the money deducted fromAmerican workers’ paychecks everyweek until they are ready to use themin retirement.

The amendment does not alter anyother aspect of House Joint Resolution1—not a single item. It merely exemptsSocial Security—it is an honest bal-anced budget amendment—a balancedbudget amendment which can pass.

Unfortunately, this body has stead-fastly refused to make any changes tothe original balanced budget amend-ment submitted to the Senate despitehours of good debate—especially on theestablishment of capital budgeting pro-cedures, with which I agree, the re-moval of Social Security from thebudget, and attempts by both SenatorsJOHNSTON and NUNN to clarify the areasof legal redress under this amendment.The leadership has merely posed thesame amendment which the Housepassed and asked that we rubberstampit here in the Senate. I find this ap-proach both unacceptable and puzzling.

This Senate has been involved in 1month of detailed and incisive debateof this subject. Virtually all amend-ments have been defeated. No matterhow salient or cogent points raisedhave been, they have been rejected. Ap-parently, the only acceptable amend-ment is the one presented. No changescan be made no matter how correct orcompelling the criticism.

Now, while I believe a balanced budg-et is the correct policy decision for thiscountry—I do not believe we must passany amendment just because a fewhave ordained this to be the amend-ment. It is our duty in the Senate toweigh all legislative matters carefully.Amending the Constitution is a serioushistorical task which demands thethought and wisdom of all of us here inthe Senate. I was elected by the peopleof California to represent their inter-ests in the Senate. I was not elected togenuflect to a measure simply becauseit was passed by the House of Rep-resentatives.

At this point in our history, weshould not be altering the legislativeprocess. This body should not be sim-ply a rubberstamp to a measureramrodded through the other House.We should be examining all pieces oflegislation independently from theHouse. This deliberation includes alter-ing and amending legislation to fit theneeds of Americans as we see them—Ibelieve that the balanced budgetamendment being offered by Repub-licans does not best serve as a correctmethodology for balancing the budget.

Mr. President, I have stated pre-viously my reasons for strongly sup-porting a constitutional balanced budg-et amendment. In the year that I wasborn, the Federal debt amounted toless than $25 billion. In the year mydaughter was born, the Federal debtwas about $225 billion—10 times great-er. My granddaughter Eileen was born2 years ago. At the time of her birth,the Federal debt was more than 150times greater than it was when I wasborn—nearly $4 trillion.

In the last 35 years, the Federal Gov-ernment has balanced its budget ex-actly twice. Once in 1960, a surplus of$300 million and again in 1969, a surplusof $3.2 billion.

Yet, in the last quarter of a century,the Federal Government has run upmore than $4 trillion in debt withoutonce balancing the budget. During thistime, this Nation has experienced warand peace and economic booms and re-cessions. Never did this Governmentbalanced the Federal budget, let alonerun a surplus.

One fact is inescapable—spending inthis country has grown out of control,and we have let the Federal debt growat a rate that is unacceptable. That iswhy I am a strong supporter of a con-stitutional balanced budget amend-ment. We do not have another genera-tion to allow this problem to fester.The time for action is now. But equallyimportant to the need for a solution isits workability in the future.

There are four important argumentsfor protecting Social Security:

First, this amendment would placeSocial Security off-budget, thereby en-shrining into the Constitution congres-sional action and guaranteeing the in-tegrity of the system.

Between its creation in 1935 and 1969,Social Security had always been off-budget. In an attempt to cover the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3237February 28, 1995costs of the Vietnam war and later tomask growing deficits, Social Securitywas put on-budget. This was a misuseof the Social Security trust fund. Inthe 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, Con-gress put an end to this practice by de-claring Social Security funds off-budg-et. The amendment in the Senate toexclude Social Security from budgetcalculations was passed in the 101stCongress by a vote of 98–2. Every Mem-ber today who served in the 101st Con-gress voted to place Social Securityoff-budget.

Second, Social Security is not likeother Government programs andshould not be treated like other Gov-ernment programs.

Social Security is a publicly adminis-tered, compulsory, contributory retire-ment system. Through the Federal In-surance Contributions Act, known asFICA, workers are required to contrib-ute 6.2 percent of their salaries to So-cial Security. Every worker does this.Employers are required to match thatamount. Every employer does this.This combined 12.4-percent contribu-tion funds the Social Security system.It is not meant to fund Interior, or Ag-riculture, or Defense, or HUD, or wel-fare, or anything else. By law thesefunds are required to be held by theFederal Government in trust. They arenot the Federal Government’s funds,but contributions that workers pay inand expect to get back.

Over 58 percent of working Ameri-cans pay more in FICA taxes, if you in-clude the employers’ share, than theypay in Federal income taxes. This isnot a small amount, and it is not ad-justed by salary.

Third, Social Security does not con-tribute to the Federal deficit. In fact,the Social Security trust fund sur-pluses are masking the true size of thedeficit today. In 1995, Social Securitywill take in $69 billion more than itwill pay out in benefits. By 2001, SocialSecurity will be running surpluses ofmore than $100 billion a year. By thetime this amendment goes in place, in2002, the surplus in the Social SecuritySystem will be $705 billion.

Fourth, the failure to save Social Se-curity surpluses could undermine thesystem’s viability.

In the late 1970’s and 1980’s, Congresschanged the way the Social SecuritySystem was financed. Recognizing thelarge demand on the system that wouldbe created by the retirement of thebaby boomer generation early nextcentury, the Social Security Systemwas changed from a pay-as-you-go sys-tem to a system that would accumu-late large surpluses now to prepare forthe vast increase in the number of re-tirees later.

The amendment being offered by theRepublicans permits the collectedfunds to be used to finance the deficit.That means beginning in 2019, when So-cial Security is supposed to begindrawing down its accumulated sur-pluses to pay for the benefits of thevast numbers of retiring baby boomers,

there will be no money saved to dis-tribute.

Congress will be forced to either raisetaxes, cut Social Security benefits, orfurther cut other spending programs tomeet the obligations workers are pay-ing for now. In short, the Americanworkers will have to pay twice for theretirement of the baby boomers be-cause we will not be saving what theycontribute now.

The only way to save the Social Se-curity surpluses to pay for future re-tirements is to balance the budget ex-clusive of these revenues, and that iswhat this amendment would do.

The impact of this, of course, wouldbe that the Federal Government wouldrun a unified budget surplus—a bal-anced Federal budget and a surplus inthe Social Security trust fund. In thisway, we would cut the Federal debt andsave Social Security funds, not justwatch the debt keep growing. The al-ternative balanced budget amendmentbeing offered today will do just that.

On February 17, the Times Mirror re-leased its latest public interest poll. Ithink every Senator here should beaware of the results. When asked whatshould be given a higher priority in1995, cutting taxes or taking steps toreduce the budget deficit, 55 percentwant to reduce the deficit while 37 per-cent want to cut taxes for the middleclass. Now, this supports the argumentwhich we all are making for the bal-anced budget amendment. The Amer-ican public wants to reduce the deficit;balancing the budget is the best way todo just that.

But this question is only one part ofthe story. When asked if it was moreimportant to reduce the budget or keepSocial Security and Medicare benefitsas they are, the respondents favoredkeeping Social Security benefits asthey are by a 70 to 24 percent margin.Let me say that again, 70 percent ofthe American public favors protectingSocial Security while only 24 percentwant to reduce the deficit at the ex-pense of Social Security. This amend-ment we are offering will satisfy bothof these desires.

Just last week, on February 23, I re-ceived a letter from the AARP support-ing the protection of Social Security.Let me quote some of it:

The Association believes that a specific ex-emption for Social Security is required be-cause anything less is inadequate andnonbinding. Without an exemption the pro-gram is at risk in several ways. First, bene-fits could be cut to reach the balanced budg-et goal even though money from such unwar-ranted reductions would remain in the SocialSecurity trust funds. This would have the af-fect of further masking the deficit at the ex-pense of Social Security beneficiaries. Justas important the benefit promise to today’sworkers will be jeopardized because the an-nual reserve will continue to be used to hidethe extent of the Federal deficit.

The letter concludes by stating:During the most recent election, can-

didates and the leadership of both politicalparties pledged to protect Social Security.The American people have grown angry andwary of promises from Washington. To tell

the American public that Social Security isprotected—and then fail to address the issuedirectly—will only lead to an increase in thecynicism that is currently prevalentthroughout the Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent to have printed in the RECORD acopy of this letter, along with a letterI received on February 1 from the Na-tional Committee to Preserve SocialSecurity and Medicare supporting thisamendment to protect the Social Secu-rity.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OFRETIRED PERSONS

Washington, DC, February 23, 1995.Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The AmericanAssociation of Retired Persons (AARP) ap-preciates your efforts to protect Social Secu-rity from the proposed constitutionalamendment to require a balanced budget.Many members of Congress speak about theimportance of this program and the need tomaintain it for current and future bene-ficiaries. However, since previous attemptsto specifically shield Social Security fromthe balanced budget amendment have beendefeated, your substitute represents the lastopportunity to truly protect this vital pro-gram before the amendment would be sent tothe states.

While AARP continues to believe that a re-quirement for a balanced budget federalbudget does not belong in the Constitution,we believe that exempting Social Security iswarranted for the following reasons:

Social Security is a self sustaining pro-gram that is financed by employer and em-ployee contributions that are credited to theSocial Security trust funds in order to paybenefits and run the program,

Social Security does not contribute onepenny to the federal deficit. It currently hasover $400 billion in reserve—an amount thatis expected to increase by $70 billion thisyear alone; and

Raiding the trust funds would weaken ourbenefit promise to today’s worker, as well asundermine their confidence in our nation’smost important protection program.

The Association believes that a specific ex-emption for Social Security is required be-cause anything less is inadequate andnonbinding. Without an exemption the pro-gram is at risk in several ways. First, bene-fits could be cut to reach the balanced budg-et goal even though the money from such un-warranted reductions would remain in theSocial Security trust funds. This would havethe affect of further masking the deficit atthe expense of Social Security beneficiaries.Just as important, the benefit promise to to-day’s workers will be jeopardized because theannual reserve will continue to be used tohide the extent of the federal deficit. In addi-tion, Section 2 of the proposed amendmenttreats the Social Security trust funds’ gov-ernment bonds differently than the rest ofthe debt held by the public. This differentia-tion could lead to further attempts to usethe Social Security trust funds as a cashcow.

During the most recent election, can-didates and the leadership of both politicalparties pledged to protect Social Security.The American people have grown angry andwary of promises from Washington. To tellthe American public that Social Security isprotected—and then fail to address the issue

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3238 February 28, 1995directly—will only lead to an increase in thecynicism that is currently prevalentthroughout the nation.

Sincerely,HORACE B. DEETS.

Executive Director.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE TOPRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND

MEDICARE,Washington, DC, January 9, 1995.

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: On behalf of thenearly six million members and supporters ofthe National Committee to Preserve SocialSecurity and Medicare, I offer our strongsupport for your amendment to remove So-cial Security trust funds from budget anddeficit calculations under the pending bal-anced budget constitutional amendment,S.J. Res. 1.

The National Committee agrees that thefuture economic growth of this nation willbe enhanced if the budget of the UnitedStates is brought into balance. However, westrongly disagree that balancing the budgetrequires putting Social Security at risk byincluding it in the budget.

Balancing the budget requires reasoned de-cision making and the courage to face up tohard choices. It also requires recognizing thesource of the problem. And that, by defini-tion, excludes Social Security. The SocialSecurity program is self-supporting and doesnot contribute one penny to the deficit. Tothe contrary, it produces a substantial sur-plus which Congress has been using to con-ceal the true size of the deficit. Including So-cial Security in this balanced budget con-stitutional amendment makes this budg-etary charade much worse by writing it intothe Constitution.

Amending the Constitution of the UnitedStates to legitimize this practice amounts toa breach of trust with the American people.Social Security today is exactly what it wasestablished to be almost sixty years ago—apublicly administered, compulsory, contribu-tory retirement program. Treating SocialSecurity as just one more federal expendi-ture alters the very character of the programin a way that will ultimately undermine theprogram’s great success.

Seniors support a balanced budget, but willstrongly object to a Constitutional amend-ment which includes Social Security trustfunds in budget and deficit calculations. Onbehalf of our members, I offer our sincerethanks for your efforts to protect Social Se-curity.

Sincerely,MARTHA A. MCSTEEN,

President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will not rehashthe arguments lodged against this al-ternative balanced budget amendmentat this point except to restate two im-portant points:

First, the opponents of this amend-ment have repeatedly stated that weshould not place a statute in the Con-stitution. They fear that Congress willhave to amend the Constitution everytime they enact enabling legislation.

This statement is pure hogwash—his-tory has proven that constitutionalamendments are inevitably defined byenabling legislation. During my state-ment on February 9, I displayed 20 vol-umes of the United States Code Anno-tated related to the 14th amendment.Are the supporters of this argumentsaying that they are opposed to all this

legislation because it does not belongin the Constitution?—I think not.

They also believe that the Social Se-curity trust funds can be protectedthrough this same enabling legislation.At this time, I will reintroduce to theRECORD a letter from the AmericanLaw Division of the Congressional Re-search Service. Just to remind my col-leagues, let me read the reply I re-ceived to an inquiry about the abilityto protect Social Security in imple-menting legislation. The letter reads,

If the proposed amendment was ratified,then Congress would appear to be withoutthe authority to exclude the Social Securitytrust funds from the calculation of total re-ceipts and outlays under section 1 of the bal-anced budget amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that theletter be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the letterwas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE,

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,Washington, DC, February 6, 1995.

To: Senator Diane FeinsteinAttention: Mark KadeshFrom: American Law DivisionSubject: Whether the Social Security Trust

Funds Can Be Excluded from the Calcula-tions Required by the Proposed BalancedBudget Amendment.

This is to respond to your request to evalu-ate whether Congress could by statute orresolution provide that certain outlays or re-ceipts would not be included within the term‘‘total outlays and receipts’’ as used in theproposed Balance Budget Amendment. Spe-cifically, you requested an analysis as towhether the Federal Old-Age and SurvivorsInsurance Trust Fund and the Federal Dis-ability Insurance Trust Fund could be ex-empted from the calculation necessary to de-termine compliance with the constitutionalamendment proposed in H.J. Res. 1, whichprovides that total expenditures will not ex-ceed total outlays.1

Section 1 of H.J. Res. 1, as placed on theSenate Calendar, provides that total outlaysfor any fiscal year will not exceed total re-ceipts for that fiscal year, unless authorizedby three-fifths of the whole number of eachHouse of Congress. The resolution also statesthat total receipts shall include all receiptsof the United States Government exceptthose derived from borrowing, and that totaloutlays shall include all outlays of the Unit-ed States Government except for those usedfor repayment of debt principal. These re-quirements can be waived during periods ofwar or serious threats to national security.

Under the proposed language, it would ap-pear that the receipts received by the UnitedStates which go to the Federal Old-Age andSurvivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Fed-eral Disability Insurance Trust Fund wouldbe included in the calculations of total re-ceipts, and that payments from those fundswould similarly be considered in the calcula-tion of total outlays. This is confirmed bythe House Report issued with H.J. Res. 1.2Thus, if the proposed amendment was rati-fied, then Congress would appear to be with-out the authority to exclude the Social Secu-rity Trust Funds from the calculations oftotal receipts and outlays under section 1 ofthe amendment.3

KENNETH R. THOMAS,Legislative Attorney,American Law Division.

FOOTNOTES

1 H.J. Res. 16, 104th Congress, 1st Sess. (January 27,1995) provides the following proposed constitutionalamendment—

Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shallnot exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unlessthree-fifths of the whole number of each House ofCongress shall provide by law for a specific excess ofoutlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

Section 2. The limit on the debt of the UnitedStates held by the public shall not be increased, un-less three-fifths of the whole number of each Houseshall provide by law for such an increase by a roll-call vote.

Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the Presidentshall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget forthe United States Government for that fiscal year inwhich total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall becomelaw unless approved by a majority of the whole num-ber of each House by a rollcall vote.

Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisionsof this article for any fiscal year in which a declara-tion of war is in effect. The provisions of this articlemay be waived for any fiscal year in which the Unit-ed States is engaged in military conflict whichcauses an imminent and serious military threat tonational security and is so declared by a joint reso-lution, adopted by a majority of the whole numberof each House, which becomes law.

Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and imple-ment this article by appropriate legislation, whichmay rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receiptsof the United States Government except those de-rived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include alloutlays of the United States Government except forthose for repayment of debt principal.

Section 8. This article shall take effect beginningwith fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal yearbeginning after its ratification, whichever is later.

2 House Rept. 104–3, 104th Congress, 1st Sessionstates the following: ‘‘The Committee concludedthat exempting Social Security from computationsof receipts and outlays would not be helpful to So-cial Security beneficiaries. Although Social Secu-rity accounts are running a surplus at this time, thesituation is expected to change in the future with aSocial Security related deficit developing. If we ex-clude Social Security from balanced budget com-putations, Congress will not have to make adjust-ments elsewhere in the budget to compensate forthis projected deficit. . . .’’ (Id. at 11.)

it should also be noted that an amendment byRepresentative Frank to exempt the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and theFederal Disability Insurance Trust Fund from totalreceipts and total outlays was defeated in commit-tee by a 16–19 rollcall vote. Id. at 14. A similaramendment by Representative Conyers was defeatedin the House, 141 Cong. Rec. H741 (daily ed. January23, 1995), as was an amendment by RepresentativeWise. Id. at H731.

3 Although the Congress is given the authority toimplement this article by appropriate legislation,there is no indication that the Congress would havethe authority to pass legislation which conflictswith the provisions of the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Second, I recognizethat the exclusion of Social Securitywill make it harder to balance thebudget. Taking Social Security offbudget will require about $3 trillionmore in spending cuts by the year 2017.However, the alternative of leaving So-cial Security on budget allows SocialSecurity funds to be stolen to avoidspending cuts. When the baby-boomergeneration begins to retire, there willnot be any funds available for them tocollect.

In order to address this valid con-cern, I believe a capital budget shouldbe established to assure continued Fed-eral investments in major public phys-ical assets. Instituting a capital budgetwould more than offset the effects ofmoving Social Security from the budg-et. However, I was not permitted tooffer this alternative. I was hopingthat we would have been able to voteon this alternative. However, the Sen-ate was denied that opportunity by an

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3239February 28, 1995objection from the other side of theaisle. It is rather ironic—we are consid-ering amending our Constitution—thegreat protector of free speech—and myspeech was stifled, squashed, andcensored.

In conclusion, I do not believe thatthe working men and women of thiscountry are well served if we take theFICA tax moneys that they believe willbe available for their retirements anduse them to balance the budget. Thatis wrong. It is dishonest. It masks thedebt. It betrays people. And it jeopard-izes the retirements of future genera-tions. I will not break the trust of theAmerican people.

I urge my fellow Senators to vote forthis honest balanced budget amend-ment. I want to see a balanced budgetamendment pass this Senate.

This amendment can pass—there areenough Senators in this body who sup-port a balanced budget amendment topass this version.

However, if Senators wish to gamblein an attempt to gather enough votesfor House Joint Resolution 1, they can.

I, for one, do not wish to take thatrisk.

I will vote for this honest balancedbudget amendment.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, time isshort and I have only a few minutes tospeak on behalf of the Feinstein sub-stitute balanced budget amendment, soI’ll keep my remarks to the point. As Ihave said before, the public trusts Con-gress to keep the Nation’s finances inorder. Nowhere is that agreement andthat trust more evident or more impor-tant than in the governing of the So-cial Security trust fund. For that rea-son, I have had a great deal of concernabout voting for the version of the bal-anced budget amendment that is beforethe Senate and it is that concern whichled me to cosponsor with my colleaguefrom California, a substitute amend-ment exempting Social Security fromthe equation.

The fact is that surpluses in trustfunds are being used to hide the truedebt of our Nation. As I mentioned onthe floor last Friday, the highway andairport improvement trust funds arebeing used to hide debt. There are bil-lions of dollars in these funds that areexpressly raised and set aside for thespecific purposes of repairing andbuilding either highways or airports.What are they being used for? I’ll tellyou, they are being used to hide the ac-tual level of the shortfall that we havearound here between what comes inand what goes out.

The biggest example of this trickeryis in Social Security. The other trustfunds amount to a few billion dollarsapiece, an amount that pales by com-parison to the Social Security fund.From 1994 through the year 2002, thedate that the amendment would likelytake effect, an additional $706 billion increative accounting and budgetary il-lusions will be used to mask the truesize of our Nation’s red ink. Well, Iwant to believe that all of us in this

body know that these budgetary ma-nipulations are not good for the coun-try and should be stopped. Those thatsupport the Feinstein substituteamendment will actually be doingsomething about that.

Senator FEINSTEIN’s amendment re-spects the contract our Nation madewith its people long ago. It reinforcesthe Social Security pact, makes itstronger, safer, and more secure. By ex-empting Social Security with the sub-stitute amendment, it secures and for-tifies its position as a separate trustfund. Social Security did not cause thedeficit, and under our amendment, itwill not be used to hide the deficit. Ouramendment demands honest budgetingto get us to a balanced budget.

I have heard some argue that thisamendment would shield any programCongress wanted to protect under theguise of Social Security. This simply isnot true. We would require the samemechanisms to change the structure ofSocial Security as we do today, a 60-vote supermajority to waive the Budg-et Act.

Passage of the much-needed balancedbudget amendment could be guaran-teed if we’re only willing to tell theAmerican people that we will not mis-place their trust. Working Americanspay into the Social Security system forthe purpose of providing a nest egg intheir older years. Perhaps it will givethem the freedom and dignity to liveindependent lives so that they will notbe a burden to their children. In anycase, these taxes are paid to the Fed-eral Government for retirement—notfor Government operating expenses.

Mr. President, I will yield the floorshortly so that other Senators mayspeak, but I must add one morethought. Why is it that we have twoseparate and distinct Houses of Con-gress? As I always remembered frommy history lessons, the Senate and theHouse are co-equal bodies. If that is thecase—and I don’t think I will find any-one in the Chamber who will disagreewith me—if that is the case, then whyare we being asked to be a rubberstampfor the House? Certainly most things inlife are not perfect. The Feinstein sub-stitute is not perfect either, but surelymy colleagues must agree that it isbetter than the present language of thebalanced budget amendment. Eachbody is supposed to review the others’actions and try to improve upon them.Surely if given a chance, the otherbody will pass the Feinstein amend-ment language. Why don’t we givethem a chance? Are we afraid of im-proving this measure? If not, there isno excuse for what has been going onhere.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this de-bate is unnecessary. We have alreadydebated and voted on the substance ofthis amendment. This amendment is asubstitute balanced budget amendmentincorporating the Reid Social Securityamendment, which has already been re-jected by the Senate.

This issue was debated in committeeand it was rejected. Then it wasbrought to the Senate floor, with onlya minor alteration in the language,where it was debated and rejectedagain. Now, we are encouraging thesame amendment for the third time. Ialso note Mr. President, that the dis-tinguished Senator from Californiavoted for the balanced budget amend-ment last year without a similaramendment on Social Security. Why?

We have heard complaints from theopponents of the balanced budgetamendment that things are moving toofast, that we need to take more time,even though we have spent a fullmonth of floor time on this constitu-tional amendment. Well, if all we aregoing to do is rehash the same argu-ments—and indeed the same amend-ments—over and over, it is time tovote.

Every minute of every day that wespend debating the balanced budgetamendment, the debt increases moreand more. Over $829 million every day.It is right here on my debt trackerchart. And people in Washington can-not understand why the American peo-ple are so upset at their Government itis because we do things like this—haverepeated debates using the same old ar-guments on the same amendments wehave already disposed of, while thecountry runs up hundreds of millions ofdollars of debt every day. Business asusual has got to end.

Mr. President, there is only one rea-son that I can think of for this amend-ment to be brought to the floor again.The vote on this amendment could beused by some Senators who have prom-ised their constituents that they wouldvote in favor of a balanced budgetamendment the political cover to voteagainst the Balanced budget amend-ment. In other words, they can claimthat they kept their promise to votefor a balanced budget amendment byvoting for something of that namewhich has no chance of passing, andthen not voting for the one that does.We know this alternative has nochance because we have already had avote on the modification embodied inthis alternative it was rejected.

Mr. President, such a cover vote wasoffered last year to help defeat the bal-anced budget amendment. Like lastyear’s cover alternative, this sub-stitute amendment is simply a sham, acover vote to allow Members to say totheir constituents—the vast majorityof whom want a balanced budgetamendment—that they supported abalanced budget amendment, but onewhich would obviously fail. Rememberthat last year, proponents of the realbalanced budget amendment were notalone in this assessment. The NewYork Times agreed. As Adam Clymerwrote in the Times last year.

The substitute version was intended toserve as a political fig leaf that would allowsome Senators to vote for the measure andthem, after its near-certain defeat, voteagainst the original version and still tell

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3240 February 28, 1995constituents they had supported a balancedbudget amendment.—Option May DoomBudget Amendment (for Now) The New YorkTimes, Friday, February 25, 1994, page A14.

More interesting, and more damning,is the fact that one of the key adminis-tration opponents of the balancedbudget amendment suggested days be-fore the introduction of last year’scover amendment that such tacticswould be necessary to beat the realamendment. On February 18 of lastyear, Leon Panetta, President Clin-ton’s then Director of the Office ofManagement and Budget, now his Chiefof Staff, and a longtime foe of a bal-anced budget amendment, has this tosay:

If you allow people to say, ‘‘Are you for oragainst a balanced budget,’’ you’ll lose it.

He explained that—There are going to be some members who

are going to have to have an alternative pro-posal that they can vote for in order to givethem cover to come out against the [origi-nal] proposal.

Describing the process of developingsufficient cover for Members, Mr. Pa-netta further explained that—

You’re basically counting votes and you’rebasically saying to members, ‘‘What do youneed?’’ To the extent that a member says, ‘‘Ineed a constitutional amendment’’ * * * youprobably have to design an alternativeamendment to the Constitution that wouldin some way protect them.

Well, Mr. President, here they goagain. Given the fact that this is theonly complete substitute alternativebalanced budget amendment, and giventhat the only change from the real bal-anced budget amendment is the addi-tion of Social Security language al-ready debated at length and rejected,the purpose of this amendment can beno other than a cover vote. Well, Mr.President, the American people willnot be fooled by this. They want a realbalanced budget amendment, and theywant it passed now.

Let me repeat for the record, that Ibelieve this amendment would not helpSocial Security recipients. In fact thisamendment would create an incentiveto call as much of the budget SocialSecurity as a clever Congress could getaway with. This would gut the bal-anced budget amendment, destroy So-cial Security, and keep us on the pathto economic ruin. The real threat toSocial Security is our mounting debt.If we can get that under control withthe help of a real balanced budgetamendment, only then will Social Se-curity and any other Government pro-gram be safe, and only then will ourNation’s economic future be brighter,rather than darker, for all our genera-tions.

Mr. President, I urge my colleaguesto table this alternative to the realbalanced budget amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table theamendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Georgia.AMENDMENT NO. 300, AS MODIFIED.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that my amend-ment No. 300 be modified by the amend-ment I now send to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.The amendment (No. 300), as modi-

fied, is as follows:On page 3, line 3, after the period insert:

‘‘The judicial power of the United Statesshall not extend to any case or controversyarising under this Article except as may bespecifically authorized by legislation adopt-ed pursuant to this section.’’

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 5 minutes tothe distinguished Senator from NewYork.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, atthe outset of this very important day,I rise to speak not to the particulars ofour budget and our budget problems,but to the risk which we take with theentire economy by the measure pro-posed before us; a measure that wouldplace in the Constitution a set of prop-ositions that are essentially contraryto everything we have learned aboutthe management of a modern indus-trial economy in this extraordinaryhalf century since the enactment of theEmployment Act of 1946.

I will take the liberty of reading tothe Senate a statement issued by theJerome Levy Economics Institute ofBard College at Annandale-on-Hudson,NY, written by some of the finesteconomists gathered together in anysite in the country today. It was placedas an advertisement in the WashingtonPost, a rare and unprecedented eventfor the persons involved, but a measureof their sense of urgency. It is headed,sir, ‘‘An Invitation to Disaster.’’ Itreads:

The balanced budget amendment would de-stroy the ability of the United States gov-ernment to prevent economic depressions, torespond to natural disasters, to protect thesavings of tens of millions of working Ameri-cans, and, over time, to enable the economyto grow.

The ability of the federal government topump money into an ailing economy hastime and again in the postwar era limitedthe depth and duration of a recession andprevented a depression. During the 1957–58recession, the Eisenhower administration de-liberately increased the deficit.

And from that moment on, sir—and Ican say I came to Washington as an As-sistant Secretary of Labor, policy plan-ning and research, which was on theperiphery but still very much involved,and took a place in the economic re-sponse of the Kennedy administrationto the recession of 1961, which followedthat of the Eisenhower administrationthat was followed on in the next decadeby that of the Nixon administration.We have gone, sir, 50 years with onlyone recession that brought us to a sig-nificant negative economic growth,

which was a 2.2-percent drop in 1982—50years. It was the great crisis of capital-ism which shook the world, shook ourcountry, because we could not managethe business cycle, and have yielded tounderstanding, to discourse, to evi-dence. It was a bipartisan, immenselysuccessful experience to save every-thing we hold most valuable about afree-enterprise, private-market econ-omy.

We put this in jeopardy. It is an invi-tation to disaster. The New YorkNewsday, in an editorial this morning,speaks of an ‘‘Unbalanced Idea’’ and re-fers to the chart that I have severaltimes shown on the floor of the hugeswings, boom and bust, starting fromthe 1890’s, the panic of 1893, leading upto the postwar period of almost unbro-ken—the business cycle is moderateand the growth is continuous. Thatchart, says Newsday, ‘‘tells it all.’’ Inpart, it reads:

Since World War II, this country has en-joyed 50 years of economic stability un-matched in modern U.S. history. Recessionshave been shorter and shallower, periods ofgrowth markedly longer than during the halfcentury before the war.

That’s largely because government spend-ing has expanded, which works to fill insome of the gaps when recessions hit * * *.

We have automatic anticyclicalmeasures. It says in this provision thatwe can anticipate and we can vote witha supermajority to raise the debt ceil-ings and such like. No. Mr. President,recessions in our country have not oc-curred until the dating committee ofthe National Bureau of Economic Re-search announced that they happened.In the meantime, the automatic ad-justments have been responding longbefore anybody is aware of an economicdecline.

Mr. President, we know this. Presi-dent after President has understood it.The time has come to say we under-stand it as well and reject the amend-ment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that at the conclusion of these re-marks, we have printed in the RECORDthe statement of the Jerome Levy Eco-nomics Institute; the statement of theNew York Newsday, an ‘‘UnbalancedIdea’’; and above all, the lead editorialin today’s Washington Post, sir, whichsays it all. It is entitled, ‘‘The Urgencyof Political Courage.’’

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 1995]

AN INVITATION TO DISASTER

The Balanced Budget Amendment woulddestroy the ability of the United States gov-ernment to prevent economic depressions, torespond to natural disasters, to protect thesavings of tens of millions of working Ameri-cans, and, over time, to enable the economyto grow.

The ability of the federal government topump money into an ailing economy hastime and again in the postwar era limitedthe depth and duration of a recession andprevented a depression. During the 1957–58

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3241February 28, 1995recession, the Eisenhower administration de-liberately increased the deficit. That strat-egy brought a rapid end to the decline. Dur-ing every recession thereafter, either by de-sign or through circumstance, a deficit wascrucial in containing and ending the decline.For example, tax reductions adopted in 1981were not planned as a counter-recession tac-tic, but the enacted cut that took effect in1982 was the key to the recovery that beganin that year.

Floods in the Midwest, hurricanes in theSoutheast, and earthquakes in Californiaduring recent years prompted the federalgovernment to spend hundreds of millions torelieve suffering and limit damage. Sci-entists who study natural phenomena warnagainst worse disasters. The balanced budgetamendment would keep the federal govern-ment from dealing with such calamities.

Occasional man made disasters have oc-curred throughout the history of capital-ism—for example, the savings and loan deba-cle of the 1980s. Had the federal governmentnot been able to provide the money to vali-date the deposits of millions of ordinary citi-zens, their losses and runs on saving andcommercial banking institutions would haverecreated 1932. To assume that financial cri-ses will never recur is unrealistic.

The balanced budget amendment ignoresthe nature of our monetary system. The Fed-eral Reserve and the commercial banks issuemoney against their holdings of federal debt.Under a balanced budget amendment, thedebt will not increase. Eventually the sys-tem will not be able to create the money theeconomy needs in order to grow.—The Je-rome Levy Economics Institute.

[From the New York Newsday, Feb. 28, 1995]UNBALANCED IDEA—A RISKY BUDGET

AMENDMENT

The chart that New York’s Sen. DanielPatrick Moynihan showed the Senate a cou-ple of weeks ago tells it all: Since World WarII, this country has enjoyed 50 years of eco-nomic stability unmatched in modern U.S.history. Recessions have been shorter andshallower, periods of growth markedlylonger than during the half-century beforethe war.

That’s largely because government spend-ing has expanded, which works to fill insome of the gaps when recessions hit and pri-vate spending contracts. That counter-balance effect will be far harder to achieve ifthe nation adopts the balanced-budgetamendment the U.S. Senate is scheduled tovote on today.

So the senators should turn it down. That’stoo bad, in a way. The federal governmenthas run up its debt to frightening levels dur-ing the last 20 years because of its now-rou-tine reliance on deficits—spending morethan it takes in—in the bountiful years aswell as the bad ones. That should be stopped.But despite President Bill Clinton’s effort tochange that in his first budget, annual defi-cits will start growing again in a couple ofyears.

Some formal discipline, such as a constitu-tional amendment, might give presidentsand legislators the cover they need to cutpopular spending programs and raise unpopu-lar taxes. ‘‘We have to; it’s in the Constitu-tion,’’ they could say. But the trouble is thatthe amendment the Senate votes on today,essentially unchanged from the versionpassed by the House last month, goes too farthe other way. It includes no mechanism toallow deficit spending during recessions—when deficits help to keep economicdownturns from getting worse.

There is only an allowance for Congress towaive the balance requirement by asupermajority vote. Winning such a waiverwould be far from a certainty, and a minor-

ity of lawmakers in either house could blockit.

A realistic mechanism to counter reces-sions probably could be devised. It’s regret-table the Republican leadership took theeasier path—the ‘‘just say no to deficits’’ ap-proach—instead of a responsible one. As a re-sult, it’s the Senate that should just say no,today, to an ill-conceived balanced-budgetamendment.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 1995]THE URGENCY OF POLITICAL COURAGE

It is hard to decide which would be worse:if the balanced budget amendment that theSenate is voting on today functioned as itssponsors intend, thereby locking the countryinto what would often be an ill-advised eco-nomic policy; or if Congress found a way toduck the command, thereby trivializing theConstitution and creating a permanentmonument to political timidity.

Take the second possibility. The Constitu-tion of the United States is remarkable be-cause no country in the world has taken itswritten Constitution so seriously. It is a con-cise Constitution, and it has not beenamended lightly. Other countries have actedas if their constitutions were merely piecesof legislation to be changed at will, but notthe United States.

The balanced budget amendment marksthe intrusion of the worst kind of legislativepolitics onto our constitutional tradition.For about a decade and a half, for mostly po-litical reasons, Congress has not found thefortitude to come even close to balancing thebudget. Instead of doing what it should andvoting the spending cuts and taxes to narrowthe deficit, Congress wants to dodge the hardchoices by changing the Constitution. But asSen. Daniel P. Moynihan argued on ‘‘Meetthe Press’’ this Sunday: ‘‘My proposition isthat you avoid trying to pretend a machinewill do this for you. . . . You have to do ityourself.’’ With or without the amendment,only Congress will get the budget balanced.And who is to say that the amendment,which becomes effective only in 2002, won’tdelay Congress from making the hard deci-sions until it is against the wall of its man-date, give it yet another excuse? ‘‘Gosh, wepassed the balanced budget amendment,’’ theunfailingly inventive members will be in-clined to say, ‘‘and it goes into effect in justa few years. Isn’t that enough? What do youwant us to do? Balance the budget?’’

Sen. Sam Nunn, whose vote could prove de-cisive, has argued forcefully that thisamendment could lead to the judiciary’smaking decisions on spending cuts and taxincreases that ought only be made by thelegislative branch. Last night, Sen. ByronDorgan, another whose vote had been indoubt, voiced a similar reservation. Support-ers of the amendment are now trying to wintheir votes by arguing that legislation couldbe passed to protect against judicial suprem-acy. But surely Mr. Nunn’s first instinct wasright: No legislation can supersede the Con-stitution. If the amendment itself does notprotect against judicial interference, there isno guarantee as to how a court will act. Andif, on the other hand, there is no enforce-ment mechanism for the amendment, thenwhy pass it in the first place? It becomes anutterly empty symbol, which is exactly whatthe United States Constitution has neverbeen and never should be.

As bad as this prospect is, and effectivebalanced budget amendment might be evenworse. By requiring three-fifths votes to passunbalanced budgets, it would enshrine mi-nority rule. And while deficits in periods ofprosperity make little sense, modest deficitsduring economic downturns have been pow-erful engines for bringing the economy backto prosperity. This amendment, if it worked

as planned, would shackle government toeconomic policies that are plainly foolish.Since government revenues drop during re-cessions and since payments for benefitssuch as food stamps and unemploymentcompension increase, the amendment wouldrequire Congress by constitutional mandateto pursue exactly the policies that wouldonly further economic distress; to raisetaxes, to cut spending, or do both.

Moreover, as Mr. Moynihan and othershave pointed out, the amendment could oneday lead to the devastation of the bankingsystem. This might happen because a bal-anced budget amendment could stall or stopthe government from meeting its obligationsto protect the depositors of banks that failedduring an economic downturn. Mr. Moynihanis not exaggerating when he says that ‘‘ev-erything we have learned about managingour economy since the Great Depression is atrisk.’’

Voting against this amendment should beeasy. It has been said that were today’s votesecret, the amendment would certainly fail.But the political pressures on the undecidedsenators—Mr. Nunn, Mr. Dorgan, JohnBreaux, Kent Conrad and Wendell Ford—areimmense and largely in the amendment’sfavor. These senators have an opportunityonly rarely given public figures; to displaygenuine courage on an issue of enormous his-torical significance. They should seize theirmoment and vote this amendment down.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Chairand I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Arkansas is recognized.Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield

myself 10 minutes of the democraticleader’s time. I request that the Chairnotify me when I have used 8 of the 10minutes.

Mr. President, I have just been look-ing at the modification that apparentlythe majority party has agreed to inorder to accommodate Senator NUNN’sconcerns about the court’s role in en-forcing this amendment.

I do not want the courts involved,but I do not want to tinker with our sa-cred organic law, either. Because whenyou take the courts out, what you haveare the same people charged with theresponsibility of enforcing this amend-ment that are now in charge. The onlydifference is you have the requirementsof a supermajority of 60 votes.

The Nunn proposal apparently saysthat the courts may not involve them-selves in this matter unless we grantthem that authority in the future. Ican tell you now, I am not ever goingto grant them the authority to meddlein this. That makes another portion ofthe Constitution, of which James Madi-son was proudest, a eunuch, becausethen you torpedo the separate branchesof Government.

My amendment, which we are goingto vote on this afternoon, is more pow-erful in getting the budget balancedthan is this constitutional amendment.If you take the courts out, the onlything you have left is a 60-vote major-ity required to unbalance the budget.My amendment does that by amendingthe Budget Act and saying you maynot change—you may not change—the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3242 February 28, 1995requirement that every budget resolu-tion, starting this year—not in theyear 2002, this year—must provide for adeficit smaller than the preceding yearand a balanced budget in the year 2002.

This constitutional amendment doesnot require this body to do one blessedthing until the year 2002. We may do it,but there is not anything in this thingthat requires it. My amendment wouldrequire it now, not in 2002, not afterthe Republicans have spent another$471 billion. That is what the contractcalls for between now and 2002, $471 bil-lion in additional tax cuts and defensespending, and then—and then—we willstart talking about balancing the budg-et. It is the biggest scam ever per-petrated on an unsuspecting nation.

There has to be some ambivalence onthe other side among some peopleabout whether they really want this ornot. If they do not get it, it will be theNo. 1 issue in the 1996 election. ‘‘Hevoted against a constitutional amend-ment to balance the budget.’’ And tothe ordinary American citizen that istantamount to voting against a bal-anced budget. Is that not a tragedy,that we have not been able to separatethe two during this debate?

I yield to nobody in this body in myefforts to get spending under controlfor 20 years, but I am not willing totinker with, literally trivialize, the sa-cred organic law of this Nation thatmakes us the oldest living democracy,living under the oldest living docu-ment, for political purposes.

So if they lose, they have it all goingtheir way in 1996. ‘‘He voted against abudget resolution.’’ And the reason Ithink they are ambivalent is because,if they win, then they have to say tothe American people sometime be-tween now and the year 2002, ‘‘Weoverpromised. It cannot be done.’’

Do you think $1.5 trillion can be cutfrom the budget between now and 2002?Why, of course, it is ridiculous. Thequestion answers itself.

My amendment is tougher than theconstitutional amendment, as I say,because it puts us on a glidepath now.It starts balancing the budget now, notin the year 2002.

Let me ask my colleagues who arestill perhaps undecided: If you vote totake the courts out, what do you have?You have a constitutional amendmentthat nobody but the U.S. Congress canenforce. It is wholly unenforceable un-less we have the spine to do it.

That is what this amendment is allabout. It is an admission to the Amer-ican people that we cannot be trustedto trust them with the truth. And it isan admission that we cannot bring thebudget into balance. And if you takethe courts out of this, that is what youhave.

One Senator told me the reason hewas voting for it was because he want-ed the courts to enforce it. And I amwondering now how that Senator isgoing to vote, now that there is goingto be a provision in the amendmentsaying they cannot enforce it.

And if you put the courts in or if youdo nothing, there is a chance that thecourts would take jurisdiction, andthen you have unmitigated chaos.

Do you know what the litmus test isgoing to be in 1996 and 1998 and theyear 2000? It will not be, ‘‘If you electme, I will vote for a balanced budgetamendment. I will vote for a line-itemveto. I will vote for term limits. I willvote for prayer in school. You tell mewhatever has a majority of popularopinion. Count me in, I will vote forit.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair advises the Senator he has used 8minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair.Everybody will be campaigning with

one additional provision— ‘‘I will nevervote and be one of the 60 votes to un-balance the budget.’’

So what do you have? You have a de-pression, you have a hurricane, youhave an earthquake, you have floods,you have an S&L bailout, the banksfail, and we sit here trying to muster 60votes and everybody says, ‘‘No, I prom-ised my people in the last campaignthat I would never be one of the peoplewho would vote to unbalance the budg-et.’’ A depression, so be it. Preciselywhat Herbert Hoover said, preciselythe reason we had 25 percent unem-ployment in 1933.

I talked to one of my law schoolclassmates yesterday who is a coupleyears older than I. We both rememberthe Depression. He said to me, ‘‘Do youknow what this country needs? A gooddepression.’’

They have forgotten why all theselaws are in effect—FDIC, FSLIC, theSecurities and Exchange Commission.They are there because we put them induring the Depression to protect peo-ple.

Mr. President, the distinguished floormanager from Utah was quoted in thepress this morning as saying, ‘‘Ipity’’—I pity—‘‘anybody in this bodywho votes no.’’

Mr. President, I pity an unsuspectingnation if we vote yes.

I yield the floor.Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I share

the anger, frustration, and impatienceof those who want to reduce our defi-cit. But a constitutional amendmentsimply is not the way to achieve thatgoal.

The Senate debate on this constitu-tional amendment and the amend-ments offered to improve it, whichwere all tabled by the majority, havereinforced my conclusion that the bal-anced budget amendment is a bad ideawhose time has not come.

I have 10 reasons why I believe adop-tion of this proposed 28th amendmentto the U.S. Constitution would be agrave mistake.IT DOES NOT REDUCE THE DEBT OR THE DEFICIT

First, the proposed constitutionalamendment will not cut a single pennyfrom the Federal budget or deficit thisyear, next year, or any year. It is acopout.

There are only two responsible waysto reduce our budget deficit: cut spend-ing or raise taxes. Focusing our atten-tion on this proposed amendment onlydelays us from making progress onthose choices.

PROPONENTS’ DEBT TRACKER CHART

I have noted the daily ritual of pro-ponents of this amendment using theirdebt tracker chart. That practice is asdeceptive as the constitutional amend-ment that we are debating: It misleadsthe American people by suggestingthat this debate is responsible for bil-lions of dollars of increased nationaldebt.

But if this resolution had been passedon the first day of debate, the nationaldebt would have risen just as fast andjust as high. The debt tracker hasnothing to do with the debate on thisresolution. But it is symbolic of thelack of substance of the arguments ofthe proponents of this so-called bal-anced budget amendment.

Further, the debt tracker is indic-ative, not of delay by opponents of thisconstitutional amendment, but delayin starting the difficult process of cut-ting the deficit. It is the proponents ofthe amendment that are fiddling whilethe debt is growing.

It makes more sense to cast votesthat will cut the deficit now and notwait until the next century. Of course,this year there is additional irony inthat the Republican Party has assumedmajority status in both the House andSenate. As such, it can pass any budgetit wants. That only requires a majorityvote.

If they want to balance the budget,eliminate the deficit, pay off the debt.They can do all that by a simple major-ity vote in both Houses. They do notneed a constitutional amendment to doany of this; they can do it right now.

Our Republican colleagues have beenpreparing for their leadership rolesince November 9. In over 3 months,they have proposed no budget resolu-tion, proposed no balanced budget, pro-posed no budget moving toward bal-ance, indeed, proposed no budget at all.Instead, they choose to distract anddelay through the use of this proposedconstitutional amendment.

It is only with resolve and hard workthat we make progress. Neither is evi-dent in this effort. This is politics pureand simple and no one should play poli-tics with the Constitution.

IT WILL SHIFT BURDENS TO STATE AND LOCALGOVERNMENTS

Second, the proposed amendmentcontains no protection against the Fed-eral Government seeking to balance itsbudget by shifting burdens to theStates. This is the ultimate budgetgimmick—pass the buck to the States.

That is not the way to cut the Fed-eral deficit—shifting burdens to Stateand local government and requiringthem to raise the revenues necessaryto take up the slack. Working peoplecannot afford tax increases any moreeasily because they are imposed byState and local authorities.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3243February 28, 1995Unless we carefully balance the budg-

et, this amendment could pass thebuck to the States. Studies make direpredictions if we resort to across-the-board spending cuts—the easiest wayto avoid the painful choices needed tobalance the budget.

In response to a request from Gov-ernor Dean of Vermont, the TreasuryDepartment recently studied whatcould happen to State and local taxesunder the balanced budget amendment.

Assuming that Social Security andDefense cuts were off the table, as theRepublican leadership has promised,the Treasury analysis predicts cuts inFederal grants of over $200 million toVermont in 2002.

Treasury predicts Vermont wouldlose $89 million per year in Medicaidfunding. Treasury predicts Vermontwould lose $37 million per year in high-way trust fund grants. Treasury pre-dicts Vermont would lose $13 millionper year in welfare funding. And Treas-ury predicts Vermont would lose $68million in other Federal funding.

To try to offset these losses, Ver-mont would have to raise State taxesby 17.4 percent.

The Treasury Department forecasthigher State taxes not only for Ver-mont, but for the other 49 States aswell. Louisiana would have to raiseState taxes by 27.8 percent to make upfor lost Federal funds. Rhode Islandwould have to raise State taxes by 21.4percent to make up for lost Federalfunds. South Dakota would have toraise State taxes by 24.7 percent tomake up for lost Federal funds. WestVirginia would have to raise Statetaxes by 20.6 percent to make up forlost Federal funds. Mississippi wouldhave to raise State taxes by 20.8 per-cent to make up for lost Federal funds,and so on. If we try to balance the Fed-eral budget by scaling back essentialservices, we will just as surely be shift-ing these costs and burdens on Stateand local governments. I know that thepeople of Vermont are not going to lettheir neighbors go hungry or withoutmedical care.

And I expect people elsewhere willnot either. As much as our churches,synagogues, charities, communities,and volunteers will contribute, a largeshare of the costs will fall to State andlocal governments.

I believe that before we are calledupon to consider this constitutionalamendment, we need to know what itsimpact is likely to be. Certainly beforeany State is called upon to considerratification of such a constitutionalamendment, it should be advised of thelikely effects on its budget.

In spite of the majority leader’s as-surance more than 2 weeks ago thatRepublicans would provide as much de-tail as possible in the course of this de-bate about how they intend to balancethe budget, we have heard none. Theirsecret plan remains secret. Let us getsome answers and know where we areheaded.

IT WILL HURT CHILDREN’S PROGRAMS

Third, simple arithmetic indicatesthat sharp cuts will be proposed in pro-grams for our Nation’s children. Sup-porters of this amendment have prom-ised not to cut Social Security and notto cut defense, although they do pro-pose that we cut taxes. What is left?

Programs like school lunches, edu-cation, childhood immunization. Underthe proposed amendment, programslike these will face likely cuts of 30percent or more.

The Children’s Defense Fund has pre-dicted that across-the-board spendingcuts from the balanced budget amend-ment would unfairly balance the budg-et on the backs of children.

Under the balanced budget amend-ment in 2002, the Children’s DefenseFund fears that in Vermont alone: 4,850babies, preschoolers, and pregnantwomen would lose infant formula underthe WIC Program; 7,600 children wouldlose food stamps; 13,900 children wouldlose subsidized school lunches; 13,750children would lose Medicaid healthcoverage, and 2,500 children in childcare and Head Start would lose Childand Adult Care Food Program meals.

More than 7 million children nation-wide may be thrown out of these Fed-eral programs.

Let us remember that these pro-grams for children are investments inour future. Study after study showsthat healthy, educated children growup to become productive citizens.

Take for example the WIC Program,which provides nutrition and healthcare for pregnant women, infants, andchildren. The GAO indicates that inthe long haul, a dollar spent on WICsaves $3.50 in health care costs. Let usnot be pennywise in our deliberations.There will be a bill to pay later for un-wise, shortsighted cuts, and that billwill be left to the next generation.

I do not want to saddle our childrenand grandchildren with Federal debt,but neither do I want to leave them alegacy of malnutrition, poor education,and inadequate health care. Childrenare our most vulnerable population andour most valuable resources for the fu-ture.

IT WILL ENCOURAGE BUDGET GIMMICKRY

Fourth, this proposed constitutionalamendment would invite the worstkind of cynical evasion and budgetgimmickry. The experience of Stateswith balanced budget requirementsonly bears this out.

Many States with a balanced budgetrequirement achieve compliance onlywith what the former controller of NewYork State calls ‘‘dubious practicesand financial gimmicks.’’

These gimmicks include shifting ex-penditure to off-budget accounts, post-poning payments to localities andschool district suppliers, delaying re-funds to taxpayers, deferring contribu-tions to pension funds, and sellingState assets. The proposed balancedbudget amendment does not prohibitthe Federal Government from using

these same and other ‘‘dubious prac-tices and gimmicks.’’

With Congress facing a constitu-tional mandate, the overwhelmingtemptation will be to exaggerate esti-mates of economic growth and tax re-ceipts, underestimate spending and en-gage in all kinds of accounting tricks,as was done before the honest budget-ing effort of 1993.

Passing a constitutional directivethat will inevitably encourage evasion,will invite public cynicism and scornnot only toward Congress, but towardthe Constitution itself.

Let us not debase our national char-ter in a misguided, political attempt tocurry favor with the American peopleby this declaration against budget defi-cits. Let us not make the mistake ofother countries and turn our Constitu-tion into a series of hollow promises.

IT IS LOADED WITH LOOPHOLES

Fifth, the loopholes in House JointResolution 1 already abound. One needonly consult the language of the pro-posed amendment and the majority re-port for the first sets of exceptions andcreative interpretations that will allowCongress to reduce the deficit only sofar as Members choose to cast respon-sible votes. The distinguished seniorSentor from West Virginia and othershave pointed out additional problems,as well.

The Senate Judiciary Committee re-port says that Congress will have‘‘flexibility’’ in deciding what is off-budget for purposes of the constitu-tional amendment.

Proponents expressly exempt in thatreport the Tennessee Valley Authorityas ‘‘[a]mong the Federal programs thatwould not be covered.’’ What other ex-emptions are contemplated or will begranted?

It may mean one thing this year andanother the next. It can be shiftedaround the calendar as Congress deemsappropriate. Watch out for the shiftingof fiscal years in order to juggle ac-counts when elections are approaching.

As the senior Senator from West Vir-ginia so ably explained, this proposedamendment gives Congress leeway torely on estimates to measure the budg-et and to ignore very small or neg-ligible deficits. But what is small, whatis negligible? With an apology to Ever-ett Dirksen: ‘‘A billion here, a billionthere, after a while it does not add up.’’

I commend Senator FEINGOLD for of-fering an amendment to strike the ex-emption for the Tennessee Valley Au-thority from the Judiciary Committeereport. I voted for it. Unfortunately,my colleagues overwhelmingly votedto keep this loophole.

This proposed constitutional amend-ment uses the seemingly straight-forward term ‘‘fiscal year.’’ But, ac-cording to the Senate report, this timeperiod can mean whatever a majorityin Congress wants it to mean.

The biggest loophole, of course, isusing the Social Security trust fund tomake the true deficit. I commend Sen-ator REID and Senator FEINSTEIN for

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3244 February 28, 1995their amendment to exclude Social Se-curity from the balanced budgetamendment. Unfortunately, it was ta-bled by the majority.

Social Security is the true contractwith America. And we owe it to oursenior citizens to make sure we do notbalance the budget with their lifetimecontributions.

Social Security does not add a pennyto our deficit. In fact, the Social Secu-rity trust fund runs annual surplusesthat are now used to offset the deficit.In 1995, the Social Security trust fundis estimated to run a $69 billion sur-plus, and by 2002 the Social Securitytrust fund will run annual surpluses to-taling $636 billion.

We should not raid the annual sur-pluses in the Social Security trust fundto balance the budget.

IT MAY HARM THE ECONOMY

Sixth, this proposed constitutionalamendment could be economically ru-inous. During recessions, deficits risebecause tax receipts go down and var-ious Government payments, like unem-ployment insurance go up. By contrast,the amendment would demand thattaxes be raised and spending be cutduring a recession or depression.

Last week, the Treasury Departmentissued a report that concluded the bal-anced budget amendment would haveworsened the recession of 1990–92. TheTreasury Department found that:

A balanced budget amendment would forcethe Government to raise taxes and cutspending in recessions—at just the momentthat raising taxes and cutting spending willdo the most harm to the economy, and ag-gravate the recession.

In Vermont, had this amendmentbeen in effect, Treasury predicted thatbetween 1,300 to 3,800 more Vermonterswould have lost their jobs during the1990–92 recession.

A study completed last year by theWharton Econometrics Forecasting As-sociates concluded that a balancedbudget amendment would devastatethe economies of our States. The studyfound that such a constitutionalamendment would cause severe joblosses and drastic cuts in personal in-come in 2003.

For Vermont, the study predicted aloss of personal income of $1.2 billion,an average of 5.4 percent for each Ver-monter, and 3,900 lost jobs, resulting ina 0.5 percent rise in Vermont’s unem-ployment rate. The study predicteddire job loss and devastating economicconsequences for every other State.

Economic policy must be flexibleenough to deal with a changing and in-creasingly global economy. Yet, the re-quirements of this proposal will tieCongress’ hands to address nationalproblems that may necessitate deficitspending.

Senator BOXER and I offered anamendment that would have permittedCongress to waive the balanced budgetsupermajority requirement to provideFederal aid in response to a naturaldisaster as declared by the President.

The Boxer-Leahy amendment wouldhave given future Congresses needed

flexibility to respond to the needs ofnatural disaster victims under a bal-anced budget amendment. But onceagain, the majority voted in lock stepto table this amendment.

We should not hamstring the legisla-tive power expressly authorized in arti-cle I, section 8, of the Constitution. Letus not undo that which our Founderswisely provided—flexibility.

Let us not limit choices and account-ability. Instead, let us exercise ourconstitutional responsibilities in thebest interests of the American people.

IT INVITES CONSTITUTIONAL CLASHES

Seventh, this proposed constitutionalamendment risks seriously undercut-ting the protection of our constitu-tional separation of powers.

No one has yet convincingly ex-plained how the proposed amendmentwill work and what roles the Presidentand the courts are to play in its imple-mentation and enforcement.Constitutionalizing economic policywould inevitably throw the Nation’sfiscal policy into the courts, the lastplace issues of taxing and spendingshould be decided.

The effect of the proposed amend-ment could be to toss important issuesof spending priorities and funding lev-els to the President or to thousands oflawyers, hundreds of lawsuits and doz-ens of Federal and State courts. If ap-proved, the amendment could let Con-gress off the hook by kicking massiveresponsibility for how tax dollars arespent to unelected judges and thePresident.

Indeed, the Nunn amendment, asmodified this morning, arguably makesthings worse. It seeks to strip the Fed-eral courts, including the U.S. SupremeCourt of judicial power in connectionwith cases arising under this constitu-tional provision. The result of theNunn amendment is that State courtsare left to interpret and apply the con-stitutional provision and that any con-flicts that arise in that interpretationand implementation by the courts ofthe 50 States cannot be considered orresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I do not believe that this is whatSenator NUNN intended, but that is theresult of the language he has offered.This shows the difficulty and danger ofseeking to draft constitutional lan-guage overnight with careful consider-ation and the input of constitutionalexperts.

I applaud Senator JOHNSTON for hisforesight in offering an amendment topreclude judicial review of this amend-ment unless Congress specifically pro-vides for such review in the implement-ing legislation. The Johnston amend-ment would have dried up one of themany murky swamps surrounding thisconstitutional amendment. But intheir zest to keep the Senate version ofthis constitutional amendment iden-tical to the House version, the major-ity tabled the Johnston amendment.

Instead of creating future constitu-tional crises, let us do the job we wereelected to do. Let us make the tough

choices, cast the difficult votes andmake progress toward a balanced budg-et.

IT ERODES THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF

MAJORITY RULE

Eighth, this proposed constitutionalamendment undermines the fundamen-tal principle of majority rule by impos-ing a three-fifths supermajority vote toadopt certain budgets.

Our Founders rejected suchsupermajority voting requirements onmatters within Congress’ purview. Al-exander Hamilton describedsupermajority requirements as a ‘‘poi-son.’’

As one of my home state newspapers,the Rutland Herald, recently noted,James Madison condemnedsupermajority requirements in Fed-eralist Paper No. 58.

Madison warned that:In all cases where justice or the general

good might require new laws to be passed, oractive measures to be pursued, the fun-damental principle of free government wouldbe reversed. It would be no longer the major-ity that would rule: The power would betransferred to the minority.

Such supermajority requirements re-flect a basic distrust not just of Con-gress, but of the electorate itself. I re-ject that notion.

I am prepared to keep faith with andin the American people.

IT WILL RESULT IN DISTRESSING SURPRISES

Ninth, there is much truth to theaxiom that the devil is in the details.

The proposed constitutional amend-ment uses such general terms thateven its sponsors and proponents con-cede that implementing legislation willbe necessary to clarify how it willwork.

What will this implementing legisla-tion say?

We will not find out until we see thisimplementing legislation what pro-grams will be off-budget, what role thecourts and the President will have inenforcing the amendment, and howmuch of a deficit may be financed andcarried over to the next year. And whoknows what other core matters will beadded to implementing legislation.

I do not think that Congress shouldbe asked to amend the Constitution bysigning what amounts to a blankcheck. Nor should any State be askedto ratify a pig in a poke.

That is why I voted for SenatorDASCHLE’s amendment that would haverequired Congress to tell the Americanpeople the details of how we intend tobalance the budget by 2002. The distin-guished minority leader’s right-to-know amendment was the right thingto do. Unfortunately, this amendmentwas just the first of many to be tabledby the majority.

In the interests of fair disclosure,Congress should first determine thesubstance of any implementing legisla-tion, as it did in connection with the18th amendment, the other attempt to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3245February 28, 1995draft a substantive behavioral policy into the Constitution.

IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY NECESSARY

Tenth, this amendment does notmeet the requirements of article V ofthe Constitution for proposal to theStates—it is not constitutionally nec-essary.

Instead of a sloganeering amend-ment, what we need is the wisdom toask what programs we must cut andhow much we need to raise revenues,and the courage to explain to theAmerican people that there is no proce-dural gimmick that can cut the deficitor the debt.

Let us not proceed with a view toshort-run popularity, but with vision ofour responsibilities to our constituentsand the Nation in accordance with ourcherished Constitution.

We should quit playing politics withthe Constitution. This is folly. There isnothing wrong with the Constitution.

Let us get on with the real businessof reducing the deficit and balancingthe budget.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, to-day’s vote on the balanced budgetamendment is not a vote on how weshould reduce our Nation’s cripplingdeficit. It’s not a vote about the sub-stance of serious deficit reduction.After this vote, not a single programwill have been cut and not a single dol-lar will have been saved. Instead, thisis simply a vote on a procedure thatwill enshrine in our Nation’s most sa-cred document both bad constitutionalpolicy and bad economic policy thatwill make it more difficult to counterrecessions. It is more likely that bankswill fail and more certain that disas-ters will go unabated.

We all agree on the need to cut thedeficit. However, the debate over thebalanced budget amendment is notabout which programs to cut, how tostop the unchecked growth of entitle-ment spending, or what our tax policyshould be. Instead, this debate is aboutprocedural fixes. It is about findingways to continue ducking the toughchoices that need to be made, all thewhile appearing to be concerned aboutthe deficit. If a decade of proceduralfixes to the deficit has shown us any-thing, it has shown us that such fixesare no substitute for leadership.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, theamendment we will vote on today issimply a substitute for solid, coura-geous leadership. Before taking thisroute, we would do well to remind our-selves why we were elected. Under ourConstitution, it is the Congress that isvested with the power to make alllaws, and it is our obligations as Sen-ators to make decisions about theselaws and live with the implications ofthese decisions. No one. No President.No Senator has placed the cuts nec-essary for a balanced budget before theAmerican people. We vote on theamendment without knowing what itmeans for citizens who work every day.

The irony of this proposed amend-ment is that nothing in the Constitu-

tion stands in the way of a balancedbudget. The plain truth is that theSenate already has the power to reducethe deficit. Cutting the deficit requiresleadership now and no amendment tothe Constitution will cut the deficit ifwe lack such leadership. In fact, we canhave a balanced budget wheneverenough Members of Congress are readyto vote for one. If we agree that defi-cits should be reduced, then we shouldtake the responsibility for making thenecessary decisions and live with theconsequences.

Mr. President, this amendment doesnothing to reduce the deficit. It simplyallows Congress to postpone actionuntil at least 2002, and even then it willnot require Congress to balance thebudget. Instead, it will lead to moregimmicks such as off-balance-sheetbudgeting, inflated revenue estimates,redefining such terms as CPI, and raidson the Government trust funds to maskthe size of the deficit. Throughout thisdebate, I have supported efforts to pro-tect Social Security and prevent Con-gress from relying on budgetary gim-micks. Each of these efforts has beendefeated by the supporters of this bal-anced budget amendment.

No one disputes that we need to re-duce the deficit substantially. Themassive Federal deficit continues tosap our economic strength by raisinginterest rates and passing an enormoustax burden onto our children andgrandchildren. Throughout my tenurein the Senate, I have introduced legis-lation to cut wasteful Governmentspending. I have offered proposals tocut wasteful spending in appropriationsbills for defense spending, for agricul-tural spending, for Interior Depart-ment spending, and for HUD spending,among others. I have also offered legis-lation to close many of the tax loop-holes that increase the Federal deficitby billions of dollars each year. In ad-dition, in 1993, I voted for the largestdeficit reduction act in our Nation’shistory. That act, which cut the deficitby over $500 billion, passed without asingle Republican vote in its favor.

I am also concerned that the bal-anced budget amendment will serve toexacerbate recessions. Currently, Fed-eral spending helps to reduce the harmcaused by recessions. As the economyslows down, more people qualify for un-employment compensation and otherFederal assistance programs. In addi-tion, as people earn less as a result ofthe recession, they pay less in taxes.While these changes in spending andtaxes temporarily increase the deficit,they also serve to reduce the damagedone by recessions to the Americaneconomy and families. The balancedbudget amendment would require theFederal Government to raise taxes andcut spending at precisely the sametime that such policies will cause themost harm. Have we learned nothingfrom economic lessons of the 20th cen-tury?

According to a recent report by theTreasury Department, if this amend-

ment had been in place during the 1990–92 recession, an additional 1.5 millionAmericans would have lost their jobsas the unemployment rate rose to 9.4percent, the highest level since the en-actment of the Employment Act of1946. In New Jersey, we would haveseen the unemployment rate reach 11.8percent, as an additional 34,000 to103,000 New Jerseyans lost their jobs.Without the support provided by Fed-eral assistance programs, many ofthese families might have found them-selves destitute.

Mr. President, not only would thebalanced budget amendment that weare voting on today aggravate reces-sions and harm American families, itmakes no distinction between currentoperating expenses and long-term cap-ital investments. Every family under-stands the difference between creditcard debt and mortgage debt. While weneed to balance our budget, we shouldnot do so in a way that would preventus from making those investments thatwill be necessary for our children tocompete in the world economy.

Despite a balanced budget require-ment, New Jersey, along with almostall other States, allows the State gov-ernment to borrow to finance long-term capital projects, such as high-ways, schools, and water treatment fa-cilities. Although families are requiredto balance their budgets, they also bor-row to buy homes. The balanced budgetamendment would prevent the FederalGovernment from borrowing to financelong-term projects over their usefullives. As a result, we will be far lesslikely to make these necessary invest-ments in our Nation’s infrastructure,especially when confronted with theday-to-day demands of competing in-terests. In order to address this risk,Senator BIDEN and I offered an amend-ment to the balanced budget amend-ment that would have allowed the Fed-eral Government to borrow to invest inlong-term capital projects just as fami-lies, businesses, and States do.

Mr. President, in addition to thedamage that this balanced budgetamendment will cause our economy, Iam concerned that the amendment willsignificantly damage our democraticform of government. The Constitutionis primarily a charter of basic rights,not a prescription for economic policy.Unfortunately, while enshrining eco-nomic policy in the Constitution, thisamendment would allow minority ruleand potentially shift tremendous powerto unelected judges—both violations ofthe basic tenets of a representative de-mocracy.

Of the 26 amendments to the Con-stitution, all but 2 have been drafted toprotect the fundamental rights ofAmerican citizens or correct flaws inthe original structure of the Constitu-tion. The only two exceptions are theamendments which were passed to es-tablish prohibition and then to repealit.

Prohibition—established by the 18thamendment and repealed by the 21st

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3246 February 28, 1995amendment—was a scar on the face ofour Constitution. Its proponentsscreamed, ‘‘Keep us from drinking’’only to find there was not the willequal to the words.

Mr. President, I find a parallel be-tween the prohibition amendment andthe balanced budget amendment. Pro-ponents of this amendment scream,‘‘Keep us from spending.’’ Here also,there must be the will to equate thewords.

Without that will, the amendmentwill make little difference. If our expe-rience with Gramm–Rudman and thebudget agreement has shown anything,it has shown the ability of Congress toget around rules meant to limit defi-cits. If we are unwilling to make un-popular votes, the amendment will re-sult in placing more programs off-budget, mandating more expendituresby the States, and playing more trickswith revenue and expenditure esti-mates. We have seen these types ofgimmicks before.

In 1981, in their official estimates,the Republicans promised the Nationthat they could cut taxes, increase de-fense spending, and balance the budg-et—all by 1984. By relying on false esti-mates to pass their legislative pro-grams, the Republicans unleashed atidal wave of red ink. In the almost 200years leading up to 1980, our Nationamassed a Federal debt of roughly $750billion. Over the next 12 years, thisdebt quintupled to approximately $4.5trillion.

Ironically, it is these same emptypromises that have led to our currentbudgetary problems. In 1994, total Fed-eral revenue exceeded all pro-grammatic spending combined. Thedeficits that we suffer from today aredue solely to the cost of paying inter-est on the debt that was run up duringthe 1980’s. If we did not have to paythese interest charges, we would have abalanced budget today.

In addition, Mr. President, even withthe proposed changes suggested by Sen-ator NUNN, this amendment holds thepotential to significantly expand therule of the courts. Over 200 years ago,the Framers were wise enough to ex-clude judges from making economicpolicy decisions. Depending on unspec-ified enabling legislation, this amend-ment would allow judges to make uni-lateral tax and spending decisions. Infact, legal scholars as diverse as JudgeRobert Bork and Harvard Prof. Law-rence Tribe have opposed the amend-ment because of the danger posed bythe expansion of the role of the courts.The change proposed by Senator NUNNdoes not eliminate this danger.

Furthermore, this amendment willenshrine in the Constitution not a bal-anced budget amendment, but ratherthe principle of minority rule. Withthis amendment, just more than 40 per-cent of either House will be able tohold the entire Government hostage totheir demands. Over 200 years ago, inThe Federalist Papers No. 22, Alexan-der Hamilton warned against the dan-

ger of granting a congressional minor-ity a veto power over government ac-tivities. We would be wise to heed thiswarning.

Mr. President, I am painfully awareof the effects which the Federal Gov-ernment’s uncontrolled spending ishaving on this generation and on fu-ture generations. The longer we wait toaddress the issue, the more enormousthe problem is going to be. Balancingthe budget will be bitter medicine forthe entire country. I believe the timehas come for this bitter medicine. But,Mr. President, I also believe that it isfundamentally unfair to ask the Amer-ican people to take this medicine with-out their full knowledge and consent.Every citizen has a right to know whatthe likely effects of the budget cutswill be before their elected representa-tives are asked to vote on it.

The bottom line is that we have todecide just what it is that we owe toour children. By running deficits, wehave been acting as if we owe no obli-gation at all to the future. Tradition-ally, Americans have thought other-wise. We have seen ourselves as part ofa progression of Americans, linked toeach other across time. We have agreedwith Edmund Burke, who saw societyas a ‘‘partnership not only betweenthose who are living, but between thosewho are dead, and those who are to beborn.’’ Otherwise, ‘‘The whole chainand continuity of the commonwealthwould be broken. No one generationcould link with the other.’’

Instead of postponing action withgimmicks such as the balanced budgetamendment and Contract With Amer-ica, let’s get onto the job of fashioningreal deficit reduction. One of the greattasks for this Congress should be to de-fine—in terms of specific policies andspending priorities—what such a part-nership across time should mean. Thefirst step should be to stop arguingabout process and start debating sub-stance.

Mr. President, in the coming weeks, Iwill propose a package of spending cutsthat will substantially reduce the Fed-eral deficit and place us on a path to-ward a balanced budget. If the Amer-ican people are to be prepared for thesacrifices necessary to put us back on atrack toward long-term growth, theirelected leaders must be candid in theirdescription of the problem and forth-coming in their discussion of possiblesolutions. We must also begin this de-bate now—not at some point in the dis-tant future. Unfortunately, the bal-anced budget amendment before ustoday simply postpones this debate,while doing nothing to actually reducethe deficit. We should defeat it andlead with serious action.

AMENDMENT NO. 300, NUNN AMENDMENT, ASMODIFIED

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a fewhours ago, our distinguished colleaguefrom Georgia came to the floor andmodified his amendment seeking toprohibit judicial review of matters thatmay arise under the so-called balanced

budget amendment to the Constitu-tion. In the brief opportunity I have toexamine the language of his modifica-tion, I discern a number of seriousproblems with this amendment.

The first and most obvious point isthat this amendment and the languageit would add to our fundamental char-ter, the U.S. Constitution, is being con-sidered without adequate study or de-bate. The language has not been thesubject of hearings, testimony, exam-ination, comment by constitutional ex-perts, or comment by the Departmentof Justice. Nor is there any oppor-tunity provided to obtain adequatestudy. This language was sprung on theSenate this morning without any op-portunity for Senate debate before thescheduled votes on this amendment orthe other pending amendments or theconstitutional amendment, itself. Thisis not the way to go about consideringconstitutional language. The value ofthe month of debate in which we didengage is likely to be lost in this last-minute maneuvering. That, too, is ashame.

Second, the language of the amend-ment does not do that which its spon-sor apparently intends. It does not re-move the likelihood of judicial reviewof matters arising under this constitu-tional language. To the contrary, it isexpressly limited to denying our Fed-eral courts authority to decide cases.Thus, it leaves the courts of the 50States free to determine what this con-stitutional amendment means andwhether it is properly implemented.

It was a proponent of the constitu-tional amendment, the former Repub-lican Attorney General, William P.Barr, who emphasized at the JudiciaryCommittee hearing back on January 5,1995, a problem with the drafting of theconstitutional amendment that ‘‘holdssome potential for mischief.’’ Thatproblem, according to Mr. Barr was thepossibility that ‘‘a State court couldentertain a challenge to a Federal stat-ute under the balanced budget amend-ment * * * [T]he State court in such acircumstance would have the authorityto render a binding legal judgment.’’

Mr. Barr went on to suggest that:To avoid the possibility that a Federal

statute or the Federal budgetary process it-self might be entangled in such a State courtchallenge . . . Congress include a provisionfor exclusive federal jurisdiction in any im-plementing legislation enacted pursuant tosection 6 of the amendment. Such a provi-sion should be carefully worded so as not tocreate inadvertently any implied right of ju-dicial review in federal court and so as not toaffect any of the otherwise applicable limita-tions on justiciability. . . .

The Nunn amendment, as just modi-fied this morning, would do the oppo-site of that which former AttorneyGeneral Barr recommended. Instead ofrestricting judicial review to the Fed-eral courts, the Nunn amendment pro-hibits Federal court involvement bythe prohibition against the extensionof the ‘‘judicial power of the United

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3247February 28, 1995States’’ to cases and controversies aris-ing under the constitutional amend-ment.

That serves to funnel court chal-lenges to the myriad State courts.Ironically, Mr. Barr was worried thatthe State courts are not bound by thesame justiciability doctrines, likestanding and the political questiondoctrine, that act to restrain Federalcourts from intervening in matters inwhich they are not competent and inwhich judicial determination is inap-propriate. Through the Nunn amend-ment we will, in fact, be left with aneven less perfect world in which thevarious State courts may choose to in-tervene in budgetary matters and inwhich the U.S. Supreme Court is lit-erally powerless to stop them or evento resolve the conflict among their rul-ings and competing injunctions ofspending and taxation.

Senator NUNN has been quite right toargue, as he has forcefully and repeat-edly, that we should not leave theseimportant matters to the vagaries ofimplementing legislation. Unfortu-nately, that is the circumstance inwhich we are left by the Nunn amend-ment as modified. I have little doubtthat Congress will reinstate the au-thority of the U.S. Supreme Court inthe wake of the implicit authorizationof State courts left by the Nunnamendment. It is inconceivable thatCongress would tolerate a situationwhere supreme courts of differentStates could interpret important provi-sions of the U.S. Constitution dif-ferently or in conflict.

My main point here is that those whobelieve that by adopting the Nunnamendment they have cut off judicialreview are mistaken.

There are other problems with thelanguage of the amendment that weare not able to explore before being re-quired to vote on it or the constitu-tional amendment to which it is beingattached. Whether once the Nunn lan-guage is adopted in the Constitution, itis even possible in mere implementinglegislation to curtail the sole avenue tojudicial review that we retain throughthe State courts by way of this amend-ment is a complex constitutional prob-lem. Whether we can effectively stripthe Supreme Court of authority to con-strue the Constitution of the UnitedStates is a much mooted legal ques-tion. Whether this amendment lan-guage can be interpreted to be consist-ent with the absolute language of arti-cle III and our 200-year history of re-specting the Supreme Court and judi-cial power is another question that willrequire serious reflection that our cir-cumstances in the Senate Chambertoday do not allow.

Finally, I cannot support the Nunnamendment for additional reasons. Oneof the enduring guarantees of our Con-stitution is that its provision will berespected and will be enforced. To stripthe Federal courts of the power to en-force a constitutional right is wrong inmy view. Too many other countries

around the world have embarked onsuch a path with too little result for usto follow. Rather our Constitution isone of positive rights that can andshould be enforceable. If we start byseeking to limit Federal judicial powerto protect rights under this amend-ment to the Constitution, what will itmean? What rights will we next ask theAmerican people to cede? When will webe asked to sacrifice court protectionof our first amendment guarantees orof the rights to equal protection or dueprocess? This is not the way. We needonly ask the people of Eastern Europeand elsewhere whose constitutionswere filled with empty promises. I willnot vote to degrade and deface our Con-stitution in this way.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, Web-ster’s dictionary defines the term ‘‘redherring’’ as ‘‘something that distractsattention from the real issue. [Fromthe practice of drawing a red herringacross a trail to confuse huntingdogs].’’

The reason I share this definition isbecause most all of the arguments wehave heard over the past 4 weeks in ob-jection to the balanced budget amend-ment amounts to little more than redherrings. The objections are simply dis-tractions from the real issue.

The real issue is that Federal spend-ing is out of control and unless we passa constitutional amendment to controlspending, our children and grand-children will never know the Americawe take for granted. The United Stateshas a current national debt of over$4.75 trillion and according to Presi-dent Clinton’s new budget, will be $6.7trillion in the year 2000. I have said itbefore and I will say it again Mr. Presi-dent, debtors are never free, they areonly subject to dominion of their credi-tors. That is the real issue.

Over the past couple of weeks, wehave heard no less then six red herringsthat are repeated time and again. Iwould like to take a moment to gothrough them one at a time and ex-plain why they are just distractionsfrom the real issue.

Red herring No. 1: The balancedbudget amendment would raid SocialSecurity and put the burden of bal-ancing the budget on the elderly.

The fact is that there is no Social Se-curity trust fund. The surplus to whichmany speak is actually in the form ofIOU.’s. The purpose of the balancedbudget amendment is to ensure the sol-vency of the United States so we canprotect the living standards of Ameri-cans and pay our creditors. If we expe-rience a currency problem like Mexico,we will not be able to pay our creditorsmuch less Social Security recipients. Ifyou truly care about the elderly andclearly understand the issue at hand, Isee no other option but to support thebalanced budget amendment.

Why do the opponents view the Reidand Feinstein amendments as litmustests to whether we support Social Se-curity? They contest the only reasonone would not support these amend-

ments is because one wants to raid thetrust fund. Some of the opponents evensay we should be more honest with theAmerican people and what we have inmind for Social Security. Besides thefact there is no trust fund, this chargeis completely false and an effort todemagog the issue at hand. To implyproponents of the balanced budgetamendment favor cutting Social Secu-rity is incorrect, wrong, and at oddswith the consistent demonstratedrecord of advocacy Congress has to-ward seniors. We should not balancethe budget on the backs of Social Secu-rity recipients. In fact, I believe weshould help seniors by repealing theearnings limits for Social Security re-cipients. However, proponents of thebalanced budget amendment believethe solvency of the whole country willdo far more to protect the standard ofliving of every American than makingan ineffective attempt to ensure oneparticular interest group is protected.Which, by the way, those amendmentswould not do.

Primarily, these amendments wouldnot protect anyone because Congresscould, and in my opinion would, reclas-sify programs such as supplemental se-curity income and Medicaid as SocialSecurity. This would allow Congress toavoid balancing the budget by usingFICA taxes to pay these benefits. In ad-dition, Congress could redefine termsin the Social Security Act such as theterm ‘‘recipient.’’ We define who therecipients of Social Security are and assuch could change the definition to in-clude any special interest group.

Red herring No. 2: The balancedbudget amendment is not enforceable.The amendment would curtail the au-thority of and respect for the Constitu-tion.

Section 2 of the amendment requiresa three-fifths vote to increase the debtceiling. If you consider that insignifi-cant, I ask why do we vote every yearto increase the debt limit? Why doesthe President submit his budget by thefirst Monday in February every year?Neither of these procedures are identi-fied in the Constitution. Indeed, thesebudget procedures are based on statute.As U.S. Senators, we are obligated toabide by the law. If one suggests thatMembers will arbitrarily disregard theConstitution, then I content you arecompletely off base and your lack ofconfidence in the institution under-mines our role as a legislative body ina participatory democracy.

Red herring No. 3: The people havethe right to know how this is going toaffect them. Proponents of the bal-anced budget amendment should mapout the way they will achieve a bal-anced budget within 7 years.

It is true the people need to knowwhat their legislature is doing and howits decisions affect them. For the mostpart, I think they have the generalidea. However, as former Nobel Laure-ate of Economics James Buchanan hasso eloquently stated, ‘‘This argumentreflects a failure to understand what a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3248 February 28, 1995choice of a constitutional constraint isall about and conflates within-rulechoices and choices of rules them-selves.’’

We have debated year after year andday after day ways to cut spending. Wehave also debated year after year andday and day whether or not we shouldincrease taxes. Unfortunately we havebeen unable to achieve significant defi-cit reduction within the framework wehave. The choices we have made as acollective body have placed us deeperin debt. As a result, we are sincerelytrying to rectify the problem by chang-ing the framework in which we oper-ate. The idea that we are trying to pullthe wool over someone’s eyes is falseand seemingly disingenuous.

Furthermore, I would like to knowwhere right to know advocates werewhen Congress passed the EndangeredSpecies Act and the wetlands legisla-tion? Wouldn’t one assume the peoplewould like to have known ahead oftime that a puddle that stands formore then 2 weeks of the year would beconsidered a wetland and that theirproperty rights thereof would be fore-gone? I think they would. Do you thinkthe American people would like tohave known the inflationary impact ofthe 1993 Tax Act before it was passed?I’m sure they would have. The point isthat there is no way to tell an individ-ual that the balanced budget amend-ment will reduce their Governmentsubsidy by exactly $342.34 or that a par-ticular service will be taken from theStates and therefore State taxes willbe increased by exactly $43.25 You cansee how absurd that request really is.The point is the citizens of the UnitedStates know all too well the problemsof Federal spending. They want to seeus pass a balanced budget amendmentto stop the fiscal hemorrhaging fromthe Nation’s Capital. The opponentsare correct in that the people have aright, but the right they have is for theFederal Government to stop spendingthis country into bankruptcy.

Red herring No. 4: The balancedbudget amendment will have dire con-sequences on the elderly and the chil-dren.

On the one hand the opponents claima balanced budget amendment will leadto draconian cuts in very critical pro-grams. According to them every oldperson, young person, and poor personwill be cut off from a dignified stand-ard of living.

Red herring No. 2 claims that thebalanced budget amendment is not en-forceable. No amendment will be ableto force the President and Congress tobalance the budget. Who is going to suethem they ask. Well, which is it? Arewe going to experience draconian cutsor aren’t we? The arguments againstthe balanced budget amendment arefaulty according to their own logic.

Since the logic is inconsistent, oppo-nents will try to paint a dreadful pic-ture to the American people, hopingthis will elevate opposition to the bal-anced budget amendment. Well, I have

a frightening picture I would like toshare with the American people.

Imagine, one day 30 years in the fu-ture, your children are now retired andliving comfortably. They have workedall their lives, spent frugally and savedreligiously. One day, they wake up andfind the value of the dollar has crashedin financial markets. The Federal Re-serve cannot stop the falling dollar andin response, the Treasury printsmoney. Suddenly, your children’s as-sets are worth half of what they were aday before. Inflation is rampant and weare reduced to a Third World country.Everything your children have workedfor has been taken from them becauseMembers of the generations rep-resented in this Chamber did not thinkthat addressing the debt was impor-tant. Instead, Members chose the im-mediate gratification of consumption.

The opposition to the balanced budg-et amendment provides significant in-sight as to why many people do not un-derstand the virtues of capitalism. Theidea of capitalism means that onechooses to forego current consumptionand save in order to accumulate cap-ital. In other words, deny consumptionnow for bigger and better things later.To gather capital—which by the way,increases productivity and thereforeliving standards—we must deny our-selves immediate gratification. Inorder to pass the America we know onto our children, we must deny our-selves immediate gratification and paythe bills we have incurred.

Red hearing No. 5: The balancedbudget amendment is just some popu-lar idea we are voting for broughtabout by the Contract With America.We need time to think about a bal-anced budget amendment.

The fact of the matter is that thebalanced budget amendment is not anew idea at all. Thomas Jefferson iswell known for saying, ‘‘If I could addone amendment to the Constitution, itwould be to prohibit the Federal Gov-ernment from borrowing funds * * * Weshould consider ourselves unauthorizedto saddle posterity with our debts andmorally bound to pay them ourselves.’’

In 1936, Representative HaroldKuntson of Minnesota proposed thefirst constitutional amendment to bal-ance the budget. Since then, a numberof balanced budget amendments havebeen proposed. We have held hearingsas far back as 1979 and even passed abalanced budget amendment in 1982. In-deed, the issue has come up severaltimes since then. Several of the Sen-ators opposing the balanced budgetamendment have been around for manyof those debates.

The balanced budget amendment isnot a new idea that has not been justlyconsidered. We know the issue all toowell. The balanced budget amendmentis an idea whose time has come.

Red herring No. 6: Federal account-ing does not allow for capital budget-ing. Federal accounting would throwchills down the spine of any businessexecutive.

Trying to confront the argumentsagainst the balanced budget amend-ment is like following a bouncing ball.When they are defending Social Secu-rity, the books are fine, they are insurplus. However, when we discuss thetremendous deficits and debt of theUnited States, the Federal accountingis somehow inept.

Once again, there is an inconsistencyin the opponents reasoning. If youmaintain the argument that Federalaccounting is flawed, then one musttake another look at the books of theSocial Security trust fund. There is nofund. There is no surplus. According toaccounting rules used by business ex-ecutives, liabilities exceed assets. Bydefinition, that is not a surplus.

In addition, I hear analogies beingmade to the American family in thatthey enter into substantial debt whenthey purchase a house. They have topay mortgage payments monthly, butthey are not worse off. Indeed, mostwould say they are better off. This istrue, but lets take that analogy onestep further as it applies to our na-tional debt. The difference is thathomeowners do not buy a house thisyear, and another house the next yearand another the year after that. Ahomeowner pays down the principal. Asa Government, we never get to thispoint because we have to borrow justto pay the interest. It is a perpetualproblem that feeds on itself.

The arguments I have just mentionedare the objections opponents make tothe balanced budget amendment. I callthem red herrings because I believesuch arguments are just distractionsfrom the real issue. The term againcomes from the practice of drawing ared herring across a trail to confusehunting dogs.

Mr. President, the trail of debt nowtops $4.75 trillion. The red herrings of abalanced budget amendment will notconvince anyone on Wall Street orMain Street. Mr. President, the hunt-ing dogs are not confused. The time hascome for a balanced budget amendmentto the Constitution of the UnitedStates of America.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I risetoday to speak in favor the balancedbudget amendment to the Constitu-tion.

When we began this debate, I spokeon the floor in favor of this constitu-tional amendment as a means to en-sure a strong economy and protect ourchildren from rising interest paymentsand the debt.

There is no doubt that passage of thisamendment will raise our Nation’s sav-ings rate and standard of living.

Today, I speak in favor of the amend-ment because I believe the Americanpeople and the States have the right tomake the decision to either approve orreject the balanced budget amendment.

It’s often repeated on this floor thatthe American people want this con-stitutional amendment. Most surveysshow that about 80 percent of Ameri-cans favor it. Likewise, Governors and

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3249February 28, 1995State legislators are calling for itsadoption.

Realizing that the American peoplewant this, and that a general feeling offrustration and distrust exists amongvoters, we should hand it to States andask, ‘‘Do you really want a balancedbudget or not?’’

We should bring the debate closer tothe people, to the States. States have aprofound interest in this legislation be-cause their budgets will be affected. Ofthe 50 States, 44 rely on the FederalGovernment for at least one-fifth oftheir budgets. Alabama relies on Fed-eral funds for 58 percent of its budget,and Mississippi relies on Federal fundsfor 41 percent of its budget.

If elected officials in the States areworried that the sky will fall under abalanced budget, as so many have pre-dicted, they can vote against theAmendment in the State legislatures.

On the other hand, if the Statesthink a balanced budget is necessary toensure a strong economy and protectour children from rising interest pay-ments and the debt, they can vote forthe amendment in the State legisla-tures.

Opponents claim a constitutionalamendment is bad policy, and that thevoters are not ready for the necessaryspending cuts. If that is true, let theAmerican people and the State legisla-tures reject it.

A recent editorial in the DurangoHerald, a newspaper that actually op-poses the constitutional amendment,yet realizes the need to get our fiscalhouse in order, says, ‘‘Since it’s clearthis thing is not going to just wanderoff and die, let’s get on with it’’ and ap-prove it so the States can decide.

The point is that this debate will notend until it is won or lost. This debatewill not end until the States have theopportunity to either approve or rejectthe balanced budget amendment. Inother words, to quote the Durango Her-ald, ‘‘Let’s get on with it.’’

I ask unanimous consent that this ar-ticle from the Durango Herald be print-ed in the RECORD. Thank you.

There being no objection, the articlewas ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

[From the Durango Journal, Jan. 15, 1995]PASS IT AND MOVE ON: LET THE STATES KILL

THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

Amending the Constitution of the UnitedStates to require a balanced budget is a ter-rible idea—and one Congress should approve.Since it’s clear this thing is not going to justwander off and die, let’s get on with it. Giveeveryone in Congress the opportunity to pos-ture and pose and send the proposed amend-ment to the states for ratification. Closer tothe people, and the problems, cooler headswill drive a stake through its heart.

With good reason, the states fear Washing-ton would balance its budget at their ex-pense. And, they have no desire to have fed-eral budgets decided by the courts. Both ofthose are likely consequences of a balancedbudget amendment.

Of course there are other reasons to opposesuch an amendment. For starters, it wouldbe an abdication of one of Congress’ fun-damental responsibilities. Moreover, it

wouldn’t work. It’s not even certain it wouldbe good if it did.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, econo-mist Robert Eisner points out one of the fal-lacies behind a balanced budget amendmentis that deficit spending is inherently bad.One common argument compares the deficitwith an individual’s finances: ‘‘I balance mycheckbook. Why can’t the government bal-ance its?’’ Eisner says that’s wrong on a cou-ple of points.

Both the government’s revenue and its ex-penditures are tied to the economy in waysthat are out of its immediate control. Eisnerfigures that if unemployment were to goback up to where it was in June of 1992 thedeficit would increase by more than $110 bil-lion. What gets cut when that happens? And,if Congress could make that kind of call whydo we need a balanced budget amendment?

A better point is that the checkbook anal-ogy neglects another side of spending. Defi-cit spending is borrowing, something respon-sible individuals and businesses do all thetime.

So do states. Although they may have bal-anced budgets mandated by their constitu-tions, most also have separate capital budg-ets financed by borrowing. In checkbookterms, they don’t consider themselves over-drawn because they have a mortgage.

Eisner points out that if the deficit growsat the same rate as national income, theratio of debt to gross domestic product willstay constant. Like someone who alwaystrades in the car before it’s paid off, we’ll al-ways be in debt, but never in trouble. Excessdebt is crippling, but would our lives be bet-ter off if we were compelled to pay forhouses, cars and appliances out of pocket?

What’s needed is not a balanced budget,but some responsibility, some agreement asto what’s important and a sense of propor-tion. No amendment will provide that. Bysending the balanced budget amendment tothe states for execution, maybe we can be ridof it for good.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Irise today to join the chorus of supportfor a balanced budget amendment tothe Constitution. This action is longoverdue. For the last quarter-centurythe Federal Government has failed topass a single balanced budget. Rhet-oric, desk-pounding, and campaignpromises notwithstanding Congress hastime and time again come up short.The fact is, willpower hasn’t done itand term limits won’t do it. We mustbe boxed in by a constitutional man-date.

To say the least, Congress’ fiscal ir-responsibility has frustrated the Amer-ican people. The last election was acollective scream for change. Votersdid not just send new members to Con-gress last November, but a clear mes-sage as well: cut the waste and balancethe books.

The public clamor for term limits islargely attributable to the Federalbudget fiasco. Ironically, term limitswould not work to instill courage orfiscal disciple but a balanced budgetamendment may serve to limit termsas Members are constrained from usingthe Treasury to buy votes.

Unfortunately, the President has notheeded the message of last November,or did not hear it, and sent a budgetthat embodies more of the same. Be-tween 1994 and the year 2000, PresidentClinton proposes that we add another

$2.5 trillion to the gross national debt.I fail to see how it gets us close to abalanced budget—must be some newmath of the 1990’s.

Since coming to the Senate 10 yearsago, I have listened to those who op-pose a balanced budget tell the Amer-ican people that all we need is courage.Year after year, Congress runs up bil-lions on the public credit card that isto be paid for by future generations.What right do we have to ask our chil-dren and grandchildren to pay for ex-cesses today?

Thomas Jefferson, a strong pro-ponent of a balanced budget amend-ment, felt very strongly about this. Hestated:

The question whether one generation hasthe right to bind another by the deficit itimposes is a question of such consequence asto place it among the fundamental principlesof government. We should consider ourselvesunauthorized to saddle posterity with ourdebts, and morally bound to pay them our-selves.

That was the questions our FoundingFathers wrestled with when draftingthe Constitution. It is the same ques-tion we contemplate as we cast ourvotes to amend this living document. Isit our place to ask others to pay for ourlack of discipline? I think not.

A balanced budget amendment willserve as a bulwark to ensure thatspending not exceed outlays. It pur-posely excludes any reference to spe-cific programs—such a detailed blue-print has no place in the Constitution.Within this confine Congress canreprioritize spending to meet the mosturgent needs and eliminate those pro-grams that are duplicative or out-moded. Among other things, we willneed to redefine terminology used inWashington. Only in Washingtonbureaucratese does a cut mean an in-crease in spending smaller than the in-crease the year before.

Congress would have 7 years to meetthe objective of a balanced budget inthe year 2002. This will be an evolution-ary process in an effort to accuratelyreflect ongoing economic and politicalchanges. In testimony before the Sen-ate Budget Committee, on February 7,Secretary Rubin echoed these senti-ments regarding the difficulty to pre-dict economic situations 7 years fromnow. It would not be possible to pre-cisely lay out budget priorities for thenext 7 years.

Mr. President, to ensure we don’tcontinue to resort to higher taxes in-stead of cutting spending to balancethe budget, I urge my colleagues tosupport the three-fifths vote require-ment to raise taxes. The record isclear, Congress has been remarkablyresourceful in raising taxes. And eachtime taxes went up it was accompaniedby increased spending. Clearly, the def-icit is not a result of taxing too little,but spending too much.

Mr. President, let’s take a lookwhere we are now. Presently, the Fed-eral debt is $4.7 trillion. If every man,woman, and child were to pay an equal

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3250 February 28, 1995share, they would owe about $18,000.Under the Clinton proposal, their Fed-eral share would jump to $26,000 by theyear 2000.

Probably one of the most astoundingfacts is that interest on the debt hasbecome the second largest budget item.It amounts to 51⁄2 times more than isspent on education, job training, andemployment programs combined. Ontop of that, this budget function is theonly item truly off-limits. The onlyway we can reduce it is to balance thebudget. In the meantime it remains avery substantial charge to taxpayers.The Congressional Budget Office pre-dicts that if interest rates are even 1percent higher than predicted, interestcosts would rise by $50 billion in 2000.This is on top of the $310 billion in netannual payments expected that year.

The cumulative impact of this irre-sponsible behavior is staggering. Defi-cit spending crowds out savings and in-vestment. Over the last 14 years, sav-ings has declined from its highest pointto record lows. Billions are diverted an-nually from private investment tocover government excess, and this hasa direct impact on job creation.

Balanced budget opponents are try-ing to scare people with Social Secu-rity nightmare scenarios. The fact is,Congress continues to abdicate its fis-cal responsibility, it will surely jeop-ardize future commitments to retirees.Only by putting our fiscal house inorder now, can we continue to honorretirement obligations. Already actu-arial models show the rapid depletionof the trust funds as baby-boomersbegin to retire. Unless Congress takesswift action, there will be no resourcesavailable to support these people.

Opponents of the balanced budgetwould like seniors to believe that a bal-anced budget amendment will dev-astate the trust funds. I would be inter-ested in knowing how many of my col-leagues who have engaged in this rhet-oric also supported the President’s taxincrease on seniors that diverted bil-lions from Social Security to the Gen-eral Treasury? This should be a clearindication of the threat posed to thetrust fund under an unbalanced budget.I am as committed to Social Securityas anyone and will work to ensure thiscommitment can be honored, a promisewhich must entail balancing the budg-et.

Some in this body seeking to under-mine the balanced budget by attachinga Social Security exemption. This ex-emption is a hoax fraught with loop-holes and questions. This exemptionwould create an off-budget blackholewhere more and more programs aresent to be exempt from the constraintsof a balanced budget. If this predictioncomes true, seniors will be sharingtheir special exemption with a mul-titude of other programs. This willthreaten the reserves and defeat thepurpose of a balanced budget. As theold saying goes, ‘‘give them an inchand they’ll take a mile.’’

No amount of gimmickry will protectfuture generations like a balancedbudget will. Only by relieving them ofour burdens, can we ensure that theycan realize a higher standard of living.This is something every generation hasbeen afforded until now. I urge my col-leagues to support the balanced budgetamendment to the Constitution.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our childrencould owe a debt of gratitude, and notjust a debt?

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, ifthis Senate has the courage to finallyapprove the balanced budget amend-ment, I predict that my State of Idahowill proudly be the first State to ratifythe amendment.

Idaho eagerly waits the opportunityto do what is right. Idaho will notwaste 40 years ratifying this amend-ment, it will not waste 40 weeks oreven 40 days to approve this amend-ment. Idaho may well act within 40hours to ratify this amendment. Andfor the simple reason Idaho knowswhat Congress is just now figuringout—our future as a nation, and the fu-ture of our children demand that Con-gress stops spending the Nation reck-lessly into debt.

This past Monday evening I was inMontpelier, ID—population 2,520—for aLincoln Day meeting. What impressedme was the number of young folks whocame.

Those young folks, Mr. President,were there because they are concernedabout their own future. They see ourgeneration mortgaging away their fu-ture. This debate is about bringing ussome fiscal sanity so that these youngpeople will have a future, and not onethat is mortgaged away.

Idahoans, like most Americans, havelived under a State balanced budget re-quirement for years. Has it forcedtough decisions? Certainly. Has it pre-vented Idaho from doing some thingsthe people may have wanted to do? Un-doubtedly. But has it worked? Yes.

The people of my home State haveshown they can and will live within alimited budget, on both a personal andgovernmental level. It is an exampleCongress would do well to follow.

The truth is Congress soon will onceagain raise the debt limit, this time tomore than $5 trillion—a staggering, in-comprehensible amount of debt, a debtwe pass on as our selfish legacy to fu-ture generations. It is sad to say, butall signs indicate this deficit spendingwill continue unless we make itagainst the law.

It has been 26 years since the lastbalanced budget was approved by Con-gress. 26 years. Mr. President, I waspreparing to graduate from high schooland enter the real world 26 years ago.But for more than a quarter of a cen-tury, Congress has failed to operate inthe real world. Congress’ world hasbeen one of illusions where, when themoney runs out, it is like that DoritosCorn Chip ad where Jay Leno boasts,‘‘We’ll make more.’’ In Congress, wefire up the printing presses, make

more, and add a few extra zeroes to thenational debt.

As many of my colleagues are aware,I had the privilege of serving as themayor of Boise, ID, before coming tothe U.S. Senate.

As chief executive officer for a mu-nicipality, I had the responsibility tomake sure the city’s budget was bal-anced. I did not have other options. Icould not spend the city into the red. Ihad to prioritize. I would have loved toput more police officers on the street.We had vacant parcels of land whichhad been waiting years for grass, ballfields, and playground equipment. Itwould have been fantastic to expandmore bus routes, build a new firehouse,and purchase a new bookmobile.

Those were all desirable propositions.But we did what was realistic, and welived within our means.

And do you know what? We kept ourriver clean. Our crime rates went down.We built some great parks. We modern-ized our fire fighting equipment. Wewere voted one of the most livablecities in America—‘‘A great place toraise a family’’—said one nationalmagazine.

We were able to do that because ourmandate from Boiseans was clear:Learn to do more with less. And, Iwould add, Mr. President, that we didall this and either held the line or de-creased the property tax levy the final2 years I was in office.

We need to get used to the fact thatthe American people want the FederalGovernment to cut up its credit cards,prioritize the real needs, ignore thewants list, learn to do more with less,and balance its budget.

I mention credit cards, and I am surethis has never happened to any of mycolleagues, but I had a bit of an embar-rassing experience while I was back inIdaho this past weekend.

I pulled out a credit card and gave itto a hotel clerk. She ran it through themachine to print out a receipt for meto sign. But instead of handing me a re-ceipt, she politely handed me my cardback and said, ‘‘I’m sorry Mr.KEMPTHORNE, but your card expired atthe end of January.’’

It became painfully clear to me atthat moment, that Congress’ creditcard has also expired. And the Amer-ican people aren’t going to issue a newcard because Congress has run its limitup to a point where we no longer havea favorable credit rating.

When that happens, the solution isobvious. You cut up the credit cardsand start to pay off the debt.

The call for fiscal responsibility isnothing new, it has been sounding foryears. Just over a decade ago, theAmerican people heard these words:

We must act not to protect future genera-tions from government’s desire to spend itscitizens’ money and tax them into servitudewhen the bills come due. Let us make it un-constitutional for the Federal Governmentto spend more money than the Federal Gov-ernment takes in.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3251February 28, 1995This sage advice came from Presi-

dent Ronald Reagan on the event of hissecond inauguration. His words weretrue then, and they are even more sonow. Since he made that call for a bal-anced budget amendment to the Con-stitution, we have had 10 more years ofunbalanced budgets, 10 more years ofdeficits, 10 more years of telling ourchildren and grandchildren that theywill have to discover a way to do whatwe did not have the courage to do.

We have been inching closer to pass-ing a balanced budget amendment. Onereason for this is the tireless efforts ofIdaho’s senior Senator, LARRY CRAIG,who has spent 13 years working to seehis dream of congressional approval ofa balanced budget come true.

His partners in this effort—SenatorsHATCH and SIMON—have left no stoneunturned in the effort to get thisamendment passed.

These Senators know better thananyone else here that the Senate hasapproved this amendment in the past,only to have it fail in the House. Now,the House has approved a balancedbudget amendment, and the eyes of theNation—particularly the eyes of thoseyoung people I met in rural Idaho thispast weekend—are watching and wait-ing for us to do what is right.

This vote is real this time.This vote counts.Let us finally stop talking and do

what is right: Pass House Joint Resolu-tion 1, the constitutional amendmentto balance the budget. Idaho and therest of the Nation is watching, andwaiting, and is ready to act.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I againcome to the floor as an original cospon-sor of the resolution calling for a bal-anced budget amendment to the U.S.Constitution. I do so with the firm be-lief that this measure, and the amend-ment it would help establish, is thevery best hope we have now or in thenear future of finally getting a handleon our massive budget debt and yearlydeficits.

Just as we did in the summer of 1993by passing the largest deficit-reductionlegislation in history, we again standat a unique place and time in historywith regard to addressing our mostpressing structural economic problems.The American public, through count-less opinion surveys, consistentlyranks deficit reduction as one of itsparamount concerns. What we did inAugust 1993 was the right thing to do,and we are seeing benefits from thatlegislation. Deficits are coming downfor the 3d year in a row. But as weknow all too well, that is nowhere nearenough. The temptation to spend isstill a mighty one to resist for Con-gress, regardless of who is in control.

I believe in the inherent good senseof the American people, and I believethat good sense has opened millions ofeyes and even hearts to the fact thatAmerica has been victimized by morethan a dozen years of borrow-and-spendFederal fiscal policies that have run upa horrendous $4 trillion national debt.

The public is saying, ‘‘enough isenough. This irresponsibility muststop.’’ There is a sense of urgency forprotecting the future of our childrenand grandchildren. The question iswhether we will act further with aneven more bold step to not only reducethe deficit, but to eventually wipe itout completely. If we don’t seize thisopportunity—the best chance we’veever had to pass the balanced budgetamendment—we might not get anotheropportunity any time soon. We mustact to complete what the House hasstarted.

Unfortunately, our viable alter-natives are few. We must finally beginto service and reduce our debt or ourNation will face the miserable con-sequences of bankruptcy.

We are deeply and sincerely commit-ted to doing something about deficitreduction. The American people, by allaccounts, are prepared to do their part.This is one of the few times in my morethan 16 years in the Senate that I haveseen such an array of forces convergedin an attempt to address this pervasiveproblem. Indeed, it is rare that we everhave a committed public and majorityof Congress aligned on any economicissue, much less one that strikes at thevery soul of our free republic. But weneed more than just a simple majority.We must get 67 votes to ratify what theHouse has already passed overwhelm-ingly.

The bottom line is this: We have themomentum to take bold and decisiveaction to begin reducing it. It is an op-portunity to build on what we started 2years ago. I am fearful that if we donot act this time and finally send thisamendment to the States for ratifica-tion, we will lose that momentum, per-haps never to regain it.

And so, we can continue to wring ourhands and play the blame game, or wecan act. There is plenty of blame to goaround, in both branches of Govern-ment and both parties, for how wecame to this point. But the time hascome for the blame to end and for us,as a body, to accept responsibility.

Winston Churchill once said, ‘‘If weopen a quarrel between the past andthe present, we shall find we have lostthe future.’’ We can argue foreverabout what might have been done inthe past to avoid the debt we face. Wedo not have the luxury of replaying thepast, but we do have the present. Andthe quarreling of the present will onlyimpact our future security. Let us heedChurchill’s warning and cast a vote forthe future.

I implore all of my colleagues to stopthe blame game and wringing of handsand vote for a new beginning with thisresolution calling for a balanced budg-et amendment to the Constitution. Letus give it to the States, where it willbe fully debated, analyzed, and votedon. This is as it should be, becauseamending the Constitution is gravelyserious business. This is why the proc-ess is so difficult. But the Statesshould have the opportunity to decide

this issue. Support this historic effortat debt reduction by stepping up to theplate and accepting responsibility. It iswhat we have been elected to do. Theeconomic future of our Nation dependson us fulfilling that responsibility.

AMENDMENT NO. 300, AS MODIFIED

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, theNunn amendment fills the last gap in avitally needed balanced budget amend-ment. It makes clear that the respon-sibility for abiding by its solemn re-quirements rests in the Congress andthe President. The prospect of judicialintervention into fiscal estimates, andtaxing and spending decisions, madeexclusively by the elected representa-tives of the people for more than 2 hun-dred years, is appalling. The people ofthe United States must retain theircontrol over those whose decisions soaffect their lives and their pocket-books.

Under the Nunn amendment, ofcourse, Congress may grant this powerof judicial review with such limitationsas it deems appropriate. But the powercan be withdrawn, and that makes allthe difference. Such a power is highlyunlikely to be misused.

The balanced budget amendment,House Joint Resolution 1, is the key toour commitment to change, to a newcourse of action to deal with deficitsthat choke our economy and unjustlyburden our children and grandchildren.It is a revolt against the status quo andthe promise of a new way. It is a rejec-tion of the old and discredited way ofdoing business, and the promise of abrighter future.

With the Nunn amendment, the bal-anced budget amendment is the mostimportant initiative of this Congress.It must be approved.

AMENDMENT NO. 291

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, onFebruary 15, 1995, this body consideredan amendment by Senator FEINGOLD,the effect of which would have been tonullify Judiciary Committee reportlanguage pertaining to the impact ofthe balanced budget constitutionalamendment on the legal status of theTennessee Valley Authority.

I opposed the motion to table theFeingold amendment because I believethe Judiciary Committee report lan-guage related to TVA goes beyond theplain meaning of the language of thebalanced budget constitutional amend-ment.

Section 7 of the Senate JudiciaryCommittee’s Report No. 104–5 indicatesthat total receipts under section 5 ofthe proposed constitutional amend-ment are intended to include all mon-eys received by the Treasury either di-rectly or indirectly, except for the pro-ceeds of Federal borrowing. The reportstates that ‘‘total outlays’’ under sec-tion 5 of the proposed constitutionalamendment are intended to include alldisbursements from the Treasury, ei-ther directly or indirectly throughFederal or quasi-Federal agencies cre-ated by the Congress, whether they are

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3252 February 28, 1995on budget or off budget, with the ex-ception of that total outlays do not in-clude the repayment of debt principal.In the case of TVA or the BonnevillePower Administration, this means thattheir borrowing would not count as areceipt and their debt principal repay-ment would not count as an outlay.This is correct and entirely consistentwith existing budget law.

It is the following statement in theSenate Judiciary Committee reportlanguage that is troubling to me:‘‘Among the Federal programs thatwould not be covered by Senate JointResolution 1 is the electric power pro-gram of the Tennessee Valley Author-ity.’’ The text of the proposed constitu-tional amendment is clear: There areto be no exemptions to the amendmentunless the Congress would later waivethe provisions of the article under theDeclaration of War provision in section4. The above TVA report language at-tempts to go beyond the stated lan-guage in the proposed constitutionalamendment. I do not believe this re-port language can overcome the plainmeaning of the text of the proposedconstitutional amendment.

Congress has recognized that thepower programs of TVA, BPA, and theother power marketing administra-tions are unique and that ratepayerrevenues should not be traded offagainst taxpayer appropriations. Underour current budget rules, the TVA andBPA power programs are on budget, di-rect spending authority programs.These programs possess borrowing au-thority which is subject neither to se-questration nor reduction. This seques-tration protection has been providedbecause the funds that would be re-duced are derived from electric rate-payers and not taxpayers and such re-duction would not reduce the Federaldistrict.

We should not return to the timewhen the Congress was involved in de-tailed power system decision makingfor the TVA and the BPA. These pro-grams must remain direct spending andexempt from sequestration and budgetreduction. Reduction of the expendi-ture of ratepayer revenues would nothelp reduce the Federal deficit. At thesame time, the proposed constitutionalamendment as currently written clear-ly applies to TVA and BPA. The SenateJudiciary report language cannot over-come the clear language of the pro-posed constitutional amendment.

The Senate tabled the Feingoldamendment on a vote of 63 to 33. Ivoted against tabling because of my be-lief that the TVA report languagewould have no effect because it exceedsthe language of the constitutionalamendment. It is my view that the ta-bling of this amendment did the dis-service of reinforcing the TVA reportlanguage and further complicating theability of courts or this body to clearlyunderstand the legislative intent be-hind this part of the balanced budgetamendment.

Senator FEINGOLD has now offeredanother amendment to force the issueof whether this report language over-comes the plain meaning of the bal-anced budget amendment. The point ismade in a counterintuitive way byseeking to exempt TVA in the legisla-tive language, rather than the reportlanguage, of the balanced budgetamendment.

Because I oppose exempting TVAfrom the balanced budget amendment,just as I would oppose exempting BPA,I will vote to table the Feingoldamendment. Regardless of the outcomeof this vote, I continue to believe that,to the extent it is inconsistent withthe text of the balanced budget amend-ment, the underlying report languagerelated to TVA should be without ef-fect.

I yield the floor.THE BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today Irise as a proud cosponsor of the con-stitutional balanced budget amend-ment, and I urge its adoption.

The time has come to put an end toout of control Federal spending thathas taken money from the private sec-tor—the very sector that creates jobsand economic opportunity for allAmericans.

The President’s recent budget pro-posals for next year offer clear evi-dence for the lack of political will tomake the hard choices when it comesto cutting Government spending. Istrongly disagree with President Clin-ton’s decision not to fight for furtherdeficit reduction this year.

The American people are crying outfor a smaller, more efficient govern-ment. They are concerned about thetrends that for too long has put the in-terests of big Government before theinterests of our job-creating privatesector. They are irritated by the dou-ble-standard that exists between howour families are required to balancetheir checkbooks and how Governmentis allowed to continue spending despiteits deficit accounts.

It is clear, Mr. President. The timehas come to heed the will of the people.It is our duty, not only to heed theirwill, but to act in their best interest.And this amendment is in their best in-terest.

The President’s budget maintainsdeficits of $200 billion over the next 5years, and the deficits go up fromthere. His budget does not take seri-ously the need for spending restraint—restraint that would put us on a pathtoward a balanced budget by the year2002.

In fact, Bill Clinton proposes spend-ing over $1.5 trillion in fiscal year 1995to over $1.9 trillion in the year 2000. Inother words, the only path that thePresident proposes is one that leads tohigher Government spending and everincreasing deficits.

Mr. President, my decision to co-sponsor this legislation was not madelightly. The U.S. Constitution is our

Nation’s most sacred document. Dozensof countries have modeled their con-stitutions around the principles es-poused in ours. Many of the emergingdemocracies around the world recog-nize the profound simplicity and time-lessness contained in that halloweddocument.

Any amendments to the Constitutionshould be made with care, and withcareful consideration of the intendedoutcome.

I believe the outcome of a balancedbudget for our Nation is one of themost important steps we can take toensure the economic opportunities forprosperity for our children and for ourchildren’s children.

As a Nation—and as individuals—weare morally bound to pass opportunityand security to the next generation.This is what a balanced budget amend-ment will help us do. As Thomas Painehas written, no government or group ofpeople has the right to shackle seced-ing generations with its obligations. Abalanced budget amendment will helpus prevent the shackling of future gen-erations.

As chairman of the Senate Govern-mental Affairs Committee I have out-lined a plan to reduce the Federal bu-reaucracy, eliminate out-dated andwasteful Government programs, and tostrengthen Government’s ability tobetter serve the taxpayers.

In January I kicked off a series ofhearings on Government Reform:Building a Structure for the 21st Cen-tury. It is my belief that as we moveinto the 21st Century, so should ourGovernment. Innovative technologiesshould allow us to cut out many layersof management bureaucracy, and re-duce Federal employment. Pro-grammatic changes should also occur.

Just this week I released a reportthat I asked the GAO to examine thecurrent structure of the Federal Gov-ernment. The GAO examined all budgetand Government functions and mis-sions. They did not conduct in depthanalysis, but simply illustrated thecomplex web and conflicting missionsunder which agencies are currently op-erating.

The GAO report confirms that ourFederal behemoth must be reformed tomeet the needs of all taxpayers for the21st century. I am convinced that it isthrough a smaller, smarter governmentwe will be able to serve Americans intothe next century.

Deficit spending cannot continue. Wecan no longer allow waste, inefficiency,and overbearing Government toconsume the potential of America’s fu-ture. I am committed to spending re-straint as we move to balance thebudget by the year 2002. And I ask mycolleagues—and all Americans—to sup-port our efforts.

THIS IS THE VOTE THAT COUNTS; DO WE TRUSTTHE PEOPLE?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we arenow down to final passage of HouseJoint Resolution 1, the BBA.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3253February 28, 1995No matter how any Senator voted on

any amendment earlier, your constitu-ents will understand:

Vote no, and you kill any form ofBBA, here and now.

Vote yes, and you continue one of thegreat debates of our age.

This vote is really about engagingthe American people in the most im-portant public debate about the appro-priate role of the Federal Governmentsince the Bill of Rights was sent to theStates by the First Congress.

Do we trust the people with that de-bate?

Do we trust the 80 percent of the peo-ple who demand this amendment?

Do we trust the American people whovoted for change last November?

This Senator trusts the people.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT

A constitution—Protects the basic rights of the peo-

ple;Outlines the fundamental respon-

sibilities of the Government and broadprinciples of governance;

Sets forth just the essential proce-dures to do these things.

House Joint Resolution 1 fits square-ly within that constitutional tradition:

The American people have a right tobe protected from the burdens of an in-tolerable public debt.

The Framers thought that the lim-ited and enumerated powers of govern-ment, a gold standard, and a moral im-perative would make an explicit bal-anced budget requirement redundant.

For 150 years, they were right. Buttimes have changed.

We are having this debate today be-cause the American people are demand-ing that Congress change, as well.

THE DEBT IS THE THREAT

Even as we speak, we are adding tothe Federal debt: $829,440,000 a day;$34,560,000 an hour; $576,000 a minute;and $9,600 a second.

Americans are paying now, with asluggish economy. Under currenttrends, our children will pay even moredearly.

For each year with a $200 billion defi-cit, a child born today will pay $5,000 inadditional taxes over his or her life-time.

Last year, the President’s budgetprojected that future generations facea lifetime net tax rate of 82 percent inorder to pay the bills left by this gen-eration.

Total Federal debt is now $4.8 tril-lion—$18,500 for every many, woman,and child in America.

Gross interest on that debt is $300 bil-lion—the second largest item of Fed-eral spending;

Growing interest payments threatento squeeze out every other budget andeconomic priority—including SocialSecurity.

THE BBA IS THE BEST HOPE FOR ECONOMICSECURITY

A 1992 GAO report shows gains instandard of living of between 7 percent

and 36 percent in 2020 resulting frombalanced Federal budgets.

According to the economic forecast-ing firm DRI/McGraw-Hill:

Balancing the budget can create 2.5million new jobs by 2002.

Lower interest rates from balancingthe budget could increasenonresidential investment 4 percent to5 percent by 2002.

Balancing the budget could producean additional $1,000 in per-householdGDP in 2002, in today’s dollars.

We can balance the budget by simplyholding the growth of spending to 3percent a year until 2002.

Spending would still grow from $1.53trillion this year to $1.88 trillion in2002—a $350 billion increase in 2002alone.

CBO and the Treasury Departmentsay a balanced budget saves $64 to $74billion in 2002, in interest costs. DRIsays lower interest rates and economicgrowth would save even more.

CONCLUSION

It’s been suggested that we don’tneed a BBA—we already have thepower to balance the budget.

We also have the power to protectfreedom of speech and religion, protectproperty rights, and ensure equal pro-tection under the law.

That didn’t stop previous Congressesfrom including those protections in theConstitution.

Today, it is clear from bitter experi-ence that the American people needone additional protection, from a prof-ligate, borrow-and-spent government.

This is not a short-term problem; theFederal Government has run deficitsfor: 57 of the last 63 years; 34 of the last35 years; the last 26 years in a row.

Washington, Franklin, Madison, andothers learned from experience and de-termined that certain protections wereinadequate unless provided for in theConstitution.

We should do the same.Jefferson said:I am not an advocate for frequent changes

in laws and constitutions. But laws and in-stitutions must go hand in hand with theprogress of the human mind. * * * We mightas well require a man to wear still the coatwhich fitted him when a boy as civilized so-ciety to remain ever under the regimen oftheir barbarous ancestors.

If you want to ignore the lessons ofthe last 35 years of excessive debt, voteno on this amendment.

If you are willing to leave our chil-dren a stagnant or declining standardof living, vote no on this amendment.

If you want to continue the failedstatus quo, vote no on this amendment.

If you agree with Jefferson that, ‘‘asnew discoveries are made, new truthsdiscovered, * * * institutions must ad-vance also,’’ then vote yes on the bal-anced budget amendment.

If you trust the American people, andunderstand their demand that govern-ment change its ways, then vote yes onthe balanced budget amendment.

If you want today to be the first dayof new hope and opportunity for our

Nation, our economy, and our children,then vote yes on the balanced budgetamendment.

Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Utah.Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how

much time do we have remaining onboth sides?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Utah has 42 minutes 40 sec-onds.

Mr. HATCH. And the other side?The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mi-

nority leader has 20 minutes 9 seconds.Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am just

going to finish the last day with thisbalanced budget debt tracker that wehave been keeping track of throughoutthis whole debate.

As you can see, we started 30 daysago and we have gone steadily uphillfrom this baseline of $4.8 trillion.

We are now, in this 30th day, almost$25 billion more in debt. I do not carewhat anybody says, that is a tremen-dous problem to this country. In otherwords, while we have been debatingthis matter, almost every day we havegone $1 billion deeper in debt.

Now, we can scream and shout all wewant. We can talk about how impor-tant it is to do the right thing aroundhere. For 36 years we have failed to bal-ance the budget except once—one timein 36 years. The people who are fightingthis want to continue business asusual, the old way of doing things, for-getting about our children and thegrandchildren and the future of thiscountry while we just continue to goup ad infinitum.

And the President’s own budget thisyear made it very clear that he has noserious intent to do anything aboutbringing deficit spending down, be-cause for the next 12 years his budgetaverages, there will be at least $190 bil-lion-plus deficits each of those next 12years. That is, in the next 12 years,trillions of dollars in debt.

For the first time in history, theHouse of Representatives has passed abalanced budget amendment. Manypeople think that was a miracle afterwatching the House for all these years.I, myself, feel that it was a stunningoccasion, as one who has brought thebalanced budget amendment to thefloor of either House for the first timein history in 1982, then 1986, and thenlast year again. We won in 1982. We had69 votes. We lost in 1986 by one vote.We lost last year by four votes. Now wehave picked up three people who votedagainst it last year, Senator BIDEN,Senator BAUCUS, and Senator HARKIN,who have committed to vote for this.We have lost a few who voted for it lastyear.

It is coming right down to one vote,one way or the other. This is the lastchance, it seems to me, for Members tostrike out and do something that isright for our country, for our children,for our grandchildren, and for their fu-ture.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3254 February 28, 1995I hear a lot of talk about automatic

stabilizers. Let me say, the only auto-matic stabilizer I know is an attemptto live within our means. All the auto-matic stabilizers in the world will notwork if we do not get spending undercontrol. We are wrecking the future ofour children and our grandchildren.This is the day. This is the day. We willpass this amendment or we will notpass this amendment. It is comingdown to one solitary vote.

One thing is crystal clear. That is, weneed to move toward a balanced budg-et. During the debate, both sides havecited lots of numbers and figures. Onesuch figure is the $4.8 trillion rep-resented by the red line on the bal-anced budget amendment debt tracker.

But how does one communicate theimplications of our staggering debt intrillions of dollars? In 1975, before therecent borrowing spree, the Federaldebt amounted to $2,500 per individualin this country, man, woman, andchild, and the annual interest chargeswere roughly $250 per taxpayer.

At the present, the Federal debtamounts to $18,500 for every man,woman, and child in America with an-nual interest rates exceeding $2,575 pertaxpayer. That is what we owe.

That is at today’s interest rates,which could go much higher. Thanks toCongress, every American is endowednot only with life or liberty but withover $18,500 in individual owed debt. Iwonder how long liberty will last if wekeep going the way we are going.

The Congressional Budget Office pre-dicts under the current law if we con-tinue business as usual, which is whatis being argued for here on the floortoday by the other side—sincerely, Imight add. I do not find fault with peo-ple who differ from us, except I think itis time to wake up. The CongressionalBudget Office predicts under currentlaw in 1999 total firm debt will be $6.4trillion. That is under the President’scurrent budget package. It will go from$4.8 trillion, that bottom red line, to$6.4 trillion. That means $23,700 perperson with annual interest cost pro-jected to be over $3,500 per taxpayer.The last figures would mean a tenfoldincrease in per capita debt and a nearlyfourteenfold increase in annual inter-est charges per taxpayer since 1975.

This breakdown may give a biggerpicture of the actual magnitude of thedebt. It still does not describe humanimplications. Its human implicationsare that our children are shackled withan insurmountable burden as a resultof our profligacy. How could you con-clude otherwise? According to the Na-tional Taxpayers Union, a child borntoday will have to pay over $100,000 inextra taxes over the course of his orher lifetime in order just to pay the in-terest on the debt which accumulatesin just their first 18 years of life;$100,000 more in taxes for every kidborn today, in the first 18 years of life,the way things are going.

Further, the National TaxpayersUnion has calculated that for every

$200 billion deficit the Governmentruns up—and we will do it every yearnow for 12 years, according to thePresident’s budget—the average childborn today will have to pay an addi-tional $5,000 in taxes just to cover theinterest charges. That is $5,000 forevery $200 billion in deficit spendingthat will occur every year now for thenext 12 years.

Think about that. That is $60,000 overthe next 12 years that that child willhave to pay—extra taxes on top of the$100,000 that they have to pay in thefirst 18 years of their lives. Over timethe disproportionate burdens imposedon today’s children and their childrencan include some combination of thefollowing: Increased taxes, reducedpublic welfare benefits, reduced publicpensions, reduced expenditures on in-frastructure and other public invest-ments, and diminished capital forma-tion, job creation, productivity en-hancement, real wage growth in theprivate economy, and higher interestrates, higher inflation, increased in-debtedness, and economic dependenceon foreign creditors, increased risk ofdefault on the Federal debt.

This sociopathic economic policy hascontinued under President Clinton’slatest budget proposal, as I have said.In complete surrender to deficit spend-ing, the President’s budget runs defi-cits of around $200 billion for each ofthe next 5 years—actually, 12 years.That is $1 trillion right there in thenext 5 years added to the debt and an-other $25,000 in tax for today’s chil-dren. Under recent projections of theCongressional Budget Office, we willcontinue to have deficits of about 3percent of GDP for the next 10 years,increasing as we go into the future.

In a 1992 report, the GAO found thatthis scenario, which it called the‘‘muddling through option,’’ would notbe sufficient to avoid the severe eco-nomic consequences of deficit spend-ing. Among the conclusions that GAOreached are the following:

No. 1:If we continue on the current ‘‘muddling

through option,’’ by the year 2005 theamount of deficit reduction that will be re-quired to limit the deficit to 3 percent ofGDP will increase exponentially. By the year2020, it will require $1/2 trillion of additionaldeficit reduction every year just to maintaina deficit path of 3 percent of GDP.

No. 2:The muddling through path requires one to

make harder and harder decisions just tostay in place, partly just to offset the grow-ing interest rates that compound with thedeficit. To select this path is to fend off thedisaster of inaction, but it would lock theNation into many years of unpleasant andrelatively unproductive deficit debates rath-er than debates about what Governmentought to do and should be doing. It is deathby 1,000 cuts.

No. 3:While the implications for the economy of

the muddling through approach are less dev-astating than the no action scenario, theystill imply an economy that grows only slow-ly with ominous implications for the abilityto sustain both the commitments made to

the retiring baby boomers and a satisfactorystandard of living for the working-age popu-lation in 2020 and beyond.

It sounds like shock therapy. Theshocking thing about this forecast isthat President Clinton’s muchballyhooed deficit reduction only keepsus in this muddling through approach.President Clinton’s one-time fix ofrecord-setting tax hikes does not set usoff in the direction of responsible Gov-ernment nor does it move us off thepath to long-term fiscal disaster.

It just sets the stage for ever-increas-ing tax hikes and growing debt. I thinkthat the President’s latest proposal isbest described by a famous Americanwho said:

Look at the President. He started in withthe idea of a balanced budget, and said thatwas what he would hold out for. But look atthe thing now. Poor President, he tried butcouldn’t do it by persuasion and he can’t doit by law. So he may just have to give up andsay, ‘‘Boys, I’ve tried, but I guess it’s back tothe old ways of an unbalanced budget.’’

The amazing thing about that state-ment is that it was made over 60 yearsago by Will Rogers. You see, Mr. Presi-dent, budget deficits are not new. Theyare not cyclical. They are not short-term. Budget deficits are an institu-tional, structural problem which mustbe dealt with in a long-term, insolublerule. We need a constitutional amend-ment to balance the budget.

The debate is going to end prettysoon. We will all have to vote. I justwant to point out to my colleagueshow expensive our debate has been. Ithas been 30 days since we started. Weare now in the 30th day, and just inthose 30 days we have put us $35 billionfurther in debt. If you stop and thinkabout it, that is over $95 for every man,woman and child in America, just inthese 30 days.

I hope the American people have beenenjoying the debate. It has cost each ofthem $95 in national debt. One of mystaffers told me that much would buyhim groceries for 2 weeks. I am suremost people watching this debatewould prefer to have the $95 to spendon something other than this debate.Certainly they could have found betterentertainment for their money thanthis debate. Any way you cut it, thishas been an expensive debate. And ifthe people watching prefer thingschange, they should call their Senatorstoday and tell them you want them tovote for change, to vote for a balancedbudget amendment. I promise the callwill be less than the $95 this debate hascost you.

Now that I have reviewed what willhappen without a balanced budgetamendment, I would like to tell yousome of the gains we will enjoy if we doadopt it.

DRI/McGraw-Hill, one of the coun-try’s leading nonpartisan economicanalysis firms, has analyzed the eco-nomic impact of the balanced budgetamendment and has concluded that itwill result in a significant improve-ment for our Nation’s citizens. Their

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3255February 28, 1995study suggests that the balanced budg-et amendment would greatly brightenthe future for Americans of all genera-tions. Among the good news followingadoption of a balanced budget amend-ment are these highlights:

As Government spending is reduced,resources will be freed up for privateinvestment and interest rates willdrop. Both of these factors will make iteasier for businesses to expand, result-ing in the creation of 2.5 million newjobs by the year 2002.

Further, fueled by the drop in inter-est rates, private investment will riseand real nonresidential investmentcould grow by 4 to 5 percent by theyear 2002.

Last, by the end of the 10-year fore-cast, real GDP is projected to be up$170 billion from what it would be with-out the balanced budget amendment.That is about $1,000 per household inthe United States.

The balanced budget amendment alsoserves to protect the civil rights ofgenerations of young Americans. As wespend the money of generations not yetold enough to vote, we commit one ofthe most infamous offenses against lib-erty in the history of our country: Notaxation without representation. Justas the 15th and 19th amendments standas great defenders of our democracyand the right to vote, so, too, does thebalanced budget amendment. It willprevent Congress from spending ourchildren’s future wages and preservetheir future for them to shape theirown destiny as all Americans havesought to do.

Mr. President, we have a clear choicebetween two visions of the future ofour children and grandchildren. We canchoose to continue down the path tooppressive Government and increasedtaxes, stagnant wages, fiscal chaos andeconomic servitude, or we can choosedecreased Government burdens, a ro-bust economy, and political freedom.So I think it is time for the Senate topass House Joint Resolution 1 to endbusiness as usual and leave a legacy tofuture generations we can be proud of,a legacy of responsible Governmentand greater personal and economicfreedom.

Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Arkansas.Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield

myself 1 minute of the minority lead-er’s time.

I have been looking at this chart nowfor 30 days. It is a beautiful chart, veryimpressive, all these microfigures, $4.6trillion and so on.

We should remember one thing, be-tween 1981 and 1992, the national debttripled in 12 years—tripled. I am notgoing to go through the rest of it be-cause you have heard it too manytimes. In 1993, we proposed to cut thedeficit by $600 billion. I say ‘‘we,’’ theDemocrats proposed to cut the deficitby $600 billion in 5 years and we did itwithout one single Republican vote—50Democrats plus the Vice President.

That is the reason the deficit was down$100 billion less last year than antici-pated.

If you want to be honest, add one-third to the top of each one of thosegreen bars. Add one-third to the top ofeach one of those green bars and that iswhat it would have been if the Repub-licans had had their way in August1993.

I yield 5 minutes to my distinguishedcolleague from Connecticut on behalfof the minority leader.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Ithank my friend and colleague fromArkansas.

Mr. President, let me say first thatthis has been a remarkable debate, aserious, thoughtful and important de-bate as befits the subject. I must saypersonally that the result of it hasbeen my own increased respect for mycolleagues and pride in service in thisinstitution. As this debate ends, Iwanted to rise briefly to explain why Iwill vote against the balanced budgetamendment.

Our national books obviously are outof balance, and that should worryevery American because it directly af-fects every American. We spend toomuch of our wealth each year on inter-est payments on the debt, money thatcould otherwise remain with taxpayersfor them to save or invest.

Because of the deficit, we jeopardizeour capacity to fund vital programsthat we need to enhance our securityand our futures. We burden our chil-dren and their children with a debtthat they must pay for obligations thatwe have incurred but not paid for. Thisis wrong and must be stopped.

That is why I introduced a deficit re-duction program during the last ses-sion of Congress which would have cutmore than $150 billion from our pro-jected debt. That is why I joined witha bipartisan group of colleagues, in-cluding Senators KERREY and BROWN,ROBB, GREGG, and GRAHAM in introduc-ing another deficit reduction packagethat would have cut $91 billion fromthe deficit. That is why I will workwith that same group this year toenact further spending cuts. And thatis why I will support a line-item vetoas a reasonable test of whether greaterPresidential authority will be used re-sponsibly to prune unnecessary spend-ing from our Nation’s budget.

But, Mr. President, I will not supportthis balanced budget amendment be-cause it freezes forever in our Constitu-tion the response to a fiscal problem—that is budget deficits—that has been aserious problem for only a small part ofour history, and it does so in a waythat will alter the fundamental alloca-tion of power in the Constitution fromelected officials, the President andCongress to unelected judges who willinevitably end up interpreting and en-forcing taxing and spending.

Mr. President, we should have morerespect for the wisdom of those whofounded and formed our democracy, ifnot for our personal capacity to govern

responsibly than as expressed in thisamendment.

I will also vote against this amend-ment because it takes our Govern-ment’s responsibility to protect theAmerican people and puts it in a strait-jacket that will weaken the Govern-ment and make it difficult, if not im-possible, for us to respond to seriousmilitary, economic or law enforcementthreats to our Nation.

Reducing the deficit is and must beaccepted as a very important nationalgoal and responsibility. But it is notour only national goal and responsibil-ity. Passing this amendment will effec-tively make everything else the Fed-eral Government may need to do sub-servient to balancing the budget, andthat, in my opinion, is not a prescrip-tion for good and strong Government.

In a given year, the elected leaders ofthe American people may decide thatthey need to spend more to protect oursecurity or our health or our jobs thanthe balanced budget amendment willallow. They should be free to do that,subject to the will of the people as ex-pressed at the next election.

Our aim should be to continue to re-duce the deficit each year, both in ab-solute dollars and as a percentage ofour gross domestic product, as we havein the last 2 fiscal years and as we inCongress must for the next fiscal year,even though, sadly, the Administrationhas not sent us a budget that will doso.

Mr. President, the best way to elimi-nate the deficit is not by forcing intothe Constitution our promise to do so.The best way is the hard way—by doingso, by continuing the difficult work ofreducing the size of the Federal Gov-ernment and cutting its costs until wereturn to a balanced budget.

Today, Mr. President, I renew mypersonal commitment to that work, asI cast my vote against this amend-ment.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Utah.Mr. HATCH. I yield 5 minutes to the

distinguished Senator from Georgia.Mr. NUNN. I thank my friend from

Utah.Mr. President, as I noted last Thurs-

day, adoption of the balanced budgetamendment to me is very important,but I also noted that without a limita-tion on judicial review, a limitationwhich was accepted during our 1994 de-bate when offered by Senator DAN-FORTH of Missouri, we could radicallyalter the balance of powers among thethree branches of Government that isfundamental to our democracy.

Former Federal Judge Robert Bork,who served as Solicitor General duringthe Reagan administration, has statedthat a restriction on judicial interven-tion is ‘‘essential if Congress is not torisk ceding some of its most importantpowers to the Federal judiciary.’’

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3256 February 28, 1995As Judge Bork has said, without

some restriction on judicial review, theresult—would likely be hundreds, if not thousands,of lawsuits around the country, many ofthem on contradictory theories and provid-ing inconsistent results. By the time the Su-preme Court straightened out the wholematter, the budget in question would be atleast 4 years out of date and lawsuits involv-ing the next 3 fiscal years would be slowlyclimbing toward the Supreme Court.

Former Attorney General NicholasKatzenback has noted:

[T]o open up even the possibility thatjudges appointed for life might end up mak-ing the most fundamental of all politicaldecision[s] is not only an unprecedented shiftof constitutional roles and responsibilitiesbut one that should be totally unacceptablein a democratic society.

Mr. President, the Framers of theConstitution placed the constitutionaltaxing and spending powers in the twoelected policy making branches of Gov-ernment, not in unelected life-tenuremembers of the Federal bench, becauseour Founding Fathers knew well thedangers of taxation without represen-tation. The single-most important mo-tivating force in the American Revolu-tion was the opposition of the Amer-ican people to taxation without rep-resentation. They would have found itinconceivable that the power to taxmight be vested in the unelected, life-time-tenure members of the judicialbranch.

Mr. President, I have listened withcare to the arguments on the issue of-fered by my good friend and superbfloor leader on this amendment, Sen-ator HATCH, the chairman of the Judi-ciary Committee. I have also conferredat length on this subject with SenatorSIMON, an individual I respect im-mensely, as well as Senator CRAIG, whohas done a superb job on this. All arehighly respected in their views andknowledge of the Constitution and inthis amendment. Senator HATCH, inparticular, has provided detailed argu-ments in the Judiciary Committee re-port, on the Senate floor, and in per-sonal discussions with me in support ofthe proposition that an amendment isnot needed to address the issue of judi-cial intervention. His arguments arecarefully researched and well written.

If my amendment does not pass, ifthis constitutional amendment doespass, if this matter is adjudicated be-fore the Supreme Court, I would wantthe Senator from Utah to make thosearguments before the Supreme Courtbecause I do not think anyone would bemore effective. I just do not happen toagree with the arguments because Ithink, in spite of his arguments, thereis considerable risk left that the courtswould decide otherwise.

The issue before us, however, is notwhether we would personally agreewith Senator HATCH’s views on how acourt should resolve a case. I agreewith those views. We are not in theprocess of filing an amicus brief withthe Supreme Court. We are writingwords that will become the text of the

Constitution of the United States. Weare engaged—and I think we all oughtto think about this very, very heav-ily—in the same awesome task thatwas undertaken by the Framers inPhiladelphia during the ConstitutionalConvention, and the States will bemaking those same decisions if thisamendment is passed and sent to them.

The issue before us is whether wehave taken reasonable and prudent ac-tion in drafting the balanced budgetamendment to ensure that it does notresult in judicial management of thetaxing and spending process. In myjudgment, we will not have done so un-less we adopt an amendment on judi-cial review similar to the Danforthamendment we agreed to last year andthe Johnston amendment, which wasdefeated last week by 47 to 51.

My concerns are based upon threeconsiderations.

First, the legislative history of thebalanced budget amendment is, at best,ambiguous and, at worst, literally in-vites judicial intervention into the tax-ing and spending process.

Second, despite my high regard forthe legal views of the Senator fromUtah, I am constrained to note thatthere are other highly respected legalscholars who come to a different con-clusion about the prospects of judicialintervention.

We cannot ignore respectable legalarguments based upon the hope thatthe arguments set forth in the Judici-ary Committee report against theCourt becoming unduly involved willprevail before the Supreme Court.

Finally, if we believe that judicialintervention is inappropriate, except asspecifically provided by specific legis-lation, the only constitutionally cer-tain means for eliminating the judicialrole is to authorize the limitations inthe text of the Constitution.

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BALANCEDBUDGET AMENDMENT

Mr. President, the legislative historyof the balanced budget amendmentcontains a substantial amount of mate-rial indicating that Congress has con-templated a role for the courts:

The discussion in the report of theJudiciary Committee, on page 9, ex-pressly declines to state that theamendment precludes judicial review.Instead, the report states:

By remaining silent about judicial reviewin the amendment itself, its authors have re-fused to establish congressional sanction forthe Federal courts to involve themselves infundamental macroeconomic and budgetaryquestions, while not undermining theirequally fundamental obligation to ‘‘say whatthe law is.’’

Mr. President, there is a vast dif-ference between actually prohibitingjudicial review as opposed to merely‘‘refus[ing] to establish congressionalsanction’’ for judicial review. An activ-ist court, faced with a lawsuit basedupon the balanced budget amendment,will have no trouble pointing out thatCongress consciously decided not toprohibit judicial review.

The express actions of the Senate onthis issue underscore the potential forsuch a ruling. Last year, the Senateadopted the Danforth amendment ex-pressly restricting judicial review. Thisyear, the Senate rejected a similaramendment offered by Senator JOHN-STON. While the defeat of an amend-ment does not necessarily provide con-clusive legislative intent of a desire toachieve the opposite result, it con-stitutes powerful evidence of intentwhen the issue is separation of powersand the Congress specifically rejects aproposal to frame the constitutionalamendment in a manner that wouldprotect the prerogatives of the legisla-tive branch.

The intent to provide for judicial re-view is highlighted by the remarks ofSenator HATCH, floor manager of theamendment, during the debate on theJohnston amendment. During the de-bate on February 15, he made a numberof statements reflecting an understand-ing that the courts could be involved inbudget decisions, including the follow-ing:

[I]f the Senator writes the courts out of* * * this balanced budget amendment, hewill be writing people out that we cannotforesee at this time—I do not know—whomay have some legitimate, particularized in-jury to themselves that will enable them tohave standing and a right to sue.

We do not want to take away anybody’srights that may develop sometime in the fu-ture.

Now we have people in both bodies whowant the courts involved * * *. Can we sat-isfy those who do not want the courts in-volved in this to the exclusion of those whodo?

I might add that some do like the courtsinvolved in some of these areas.

Congress should not, as the distinguishedSenator from Louisiana proposes, cut off alljudicial review * * *. A litigant in such anarrow circumstance, if he or she can dem-onstrate standing, ought to be heard.

Similar statements were made bySenators BROWN, THOMPSON,SANTORUM, and CRAIG.

The legislative history in the Houseis even more of a problem. As SenatorLEVIN noted on February 15, Represent-ative SCHAEFER, a lead sponsor of theHouse amendment, has said:

A member of Congress or an appropriateadministration official probably would havestanding to file suit challenging legislationthat subverted the amendment.

The courts * * * could invalidate an indi-vidual appropriation or tax Act. They couldrule as to whether a given Act of Congress oraction by the Executive violated the require-ments of this amendment.

Representative SCHAEFER’s state-ments echoed those set forth in a docu-ment prepared by an ad hoc groupknown as the Congressional LeadersUnited for a Balanced Budget Amend-ment, which was included in theRECORD last year by Senator CRAIG onMarch 1, 1994. The statements by a leadsponsor in the House represent a wideopen invitation for the unelected, life-tenured members of the judicial branchto make fundamental policy decisionson budgetary matters.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3257February 28, 1995Mr. President, I have the highest re-

spect for the judiciary. As a generalmatter, the judiciary has treated ques-tions involving the power to tax andspend as political questions that shouldnot be addressed by the judicialbranch. There will be a fundamentaldifference, however, when the balancedbudget amendment becomes part of theConstitution, the fundamental law ofthe land.

Our constituents view the balancedbudget amendment as a means to ad-dress taxation and spending decisionsover which they feel less and less con-trol. They would be sorely dis-appointed, if not outraged, if the resultof the amendment is to transfer thepower to tax and spend from elected of-ficials to unelected, life-tenure judges.

CONTRASTING VIEWS ON THE ISSUE OF JUDICIALINTERVENTION

The Judiciary Committee report,which reflects the committee’s andSenator HATCH’s thoughtful legalviews, sets forth three basic argumentsin support of the proposition that anamendment to the balanced budgetamendment is not necessary to restrictjudicial review:

(1) limitations on Federal courts containedin article III of the Constitution, primarilythe doctrine of ‘‘standing’’; (2) the deferencecourts owe to Congress under both the ‘‘po-litical question’’ doctrine and section 6 ofthe amendment itself, which confers enforce-ment authority on Congress; and (3) the lim-its on judicial remedies to be imposed on acoordinate branch of government—limita-tions on remedies that are self-imposed bycourts and that, in appropriate cir-cumstances, may be imposed on the courtsby Congress.

There are other views, however, fromindividuals who have served at thehighest levels in the Justice Depart-ment in both Republican and Demo-cratic administrations, as well as fromdistinguished legal scholars.

President Reagan’s Solicitor General,Prof. Charles Fried of Harvard LawSchool, has testified that:

[M]ost constitutional scholars agree thatrecent Supreme Court jurisprudence wouldfavor allowing a fair range of issues relatingto the implementation of the amendment inthe form now before you to become the sub-ject of litigation and court determination.

Professor Fried also observed that:[T]he amendment would surely precipitate

us into subtle and intricate legal questions,and the litigation that would ensue would begruesome, intrusive, and not at all edifying.

Professor Fried cautioned against re-liance on the political question doc-trine to limit judicial review under abalanced budget amendment:

I cannot be confident that the courtswould treat as a political question a demandby a taxpayer or by a member of Congressthat further spending * * * should be en-joined * * * I cannot be confident that thecourts would stay out of this.

The current Assistant Attorney Gen-eral for Legal Counsel, WalterDellinger, who previously served as aprofessor law at Duke, testified lastmonth that:

[T]his amendment, once part of the Con-stitution, may be read to authorize, or evenmandate, judicial involvement in the budget-ing process. When confronted with litigantsclaiming to have been harmed by the govern-ment’s failure to comply with the amend-ment, or by impoundment undertaken by thePresident to enforce the amendment, courtsmay well feel compelled to intervene. * * *.

The proposal appears to contemplate a sig-nificant expansion of judicial authority:state and federal judges may be required tomake fundamental decisions about taxingand spending in order to enforce the amend-ment. These are decisions that judges lackthe institutional capacity to make in any re-motely satisfactory manner.

Mr. Dellinger specifically addressedthe possibility that the courts couldmandate increases in Federal taxes:

[The amendment] fails to state whetherfederal courts would or would not be empow-ered to order tax increases in order to bringabout compliance. In Missouri v. Jenkins,[495 U.S. 33 (1990)] the Supreme Court heldthat a federal district court could mandatethat a state increase taxes in order to fund adesegregation program * * *. Once the out-come of the budgeting process has been spec-ified in a constitutional amendment, a plain-tiff with standing might successfully arguethat he or she had a right to have a courtissue whatever relief is necessary to remedythe constitutional violation. The failure ofthe amendment to preclude such powersmight even be thought to suggest, in light ofJenkins that the possibility deliberately wasleft open.

Mr. President, I recognize, as SenatorHATCH has argued, that Jenkins aroseunder the 14th amendment, whichguarantees due process and equal pro-tection, and not under a balanced budg-et amendment. The problem, however,is that the Supreme Court in Jenkinsauthorized a lower Federal court tomandate the imposition of taxes by aState, even though the imposition oftaxes by the Judiciary was not con-templated by the Framers of the 14thamendment of the congressional legis-lation implementing the 14th amend-ment.

Justice Kennedy, concurring in theresult in Jenkins, rejected the major-ity’s conclusion that a court couldorder a State to raise taxes, citing thevery concerns that motivate myamendment:

Our Federal Judiciary, by design, is notrepresentative or responsible to the people ina political sense; it is independent. * * * It isnot surprising that imposition of taxes by anauthority so insulated from public commu-nication or control can lead to deep feelingsof frustration, powerlessness, and anger onthe part of taxpaying citizens. 495 U.S. at 69.

Those are the very concerns thatshould compel us to ensure that theFederal Judiciary does not assert simi-lar powers to mandate the issuance ofFederal taxes.

Mr. Dellinger outlined other types ofsuits that could arise:

[I]t is possible that courts would hold thateither taxpayers or Members of Congresswould have standing to adjudicate variousaspects of the budget process under a bal-anced budget amendment. Even if taxpayersand Members of Congress were not grantedstanding, the amendment could lead to liti-gation by recipients whose benefits, man-

dated by law, were curtailed by the Presi-dent in reliance upon the amendment, in theevent that he determines that he is com-pelled to enforce the amendment by im-pounding funds. In addition, a criminal de-fendant, prosecuted or sentenced under anomnibus crime bill that improved tax en-forcement or authorized fines or forfeitures,could argue that the bill ‘‘increased reve-nues’’ within the meaning of Section 4. Sure-ly such a defendant would have standing tochallenge the failure of the Congress toenact the entire bill—not just the revenue-raising provisions by the constitutionally re-quired means [under the Balanced BudgetAmendment] of a majority rollcall vote ofthe whole number of each House of Congress.Budget bills that include enforcement provi-sions could prove similarly vulnerable.

Prof. Cass Sunstein, a well-knownconstitutional expert and the Karl N.Llewellyn Distinguished Service Pro-fessor of Jurisprudence at the Univer-sity of Chicago Law School, sent me aletter yesterday commenting on thisdebate. I ask unanimous consent thatthe letter be included in the RECORD atthe conclusion of my remarks.

Professor Sunstein, who makes itclear that he is not an opponent of thebalanced budget amendment, arguesforcefully for an constitutional provi-sion restricting judicial review. He ob-serves that:

Senator Hatch’s arguments are of coursereasonable, and it is to be hoped that courtswould follow those arguments; but courtscould find a sufficient basis in the text of theproposed amendment and in precedent to en-gage in judicial management under theamendment.

In his letter, Professor Sunsteinnotes:

There is a legitimate risk that the bal-anced budget amendment would produce asignificant increase in judicial power. If itcomes to fruition, this risk could com-promise the democratic goals of the amend-ment.

Prof. Kathleen Sullivan of StanfordUniversity Law School also wrote tome yesterday commenting on the needfor an amendment restricting judicialreview. According to Professor Sulli-van:

There are at least three categories of liti-gants who might well be able to establishstanding the challenge violations of theAmendment. First, taxpayers might claimthat their rights to a balanced budget areviolated, for example, by projections thatoutlays will exceed receipts. * * * Second,members of Congress might well have stand-ing to claim that congressional actions havediluted the vote they were entitled to exer-cise under the amendment. * * * Third, per-sons aggrieved by actions taken by the gov-ernment in claimed violation of the amend-ment might well have standing to challengethe violation.

Each of these claims poses plausible claimsof injury in fact, and none of them poses in-surmountable problems of redressability. Inmost of them, in fact, simple injunctions canbe imagined that would redress the plain-tiffs’ claims.

I ask unanimous consent that a copyof Professor Sullivan’s February 27,1995, letter to me be included in theRECORD at the conclusion of my re-marks.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3258 February 28, 1995STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ON JUDICIAL REVIEW

MUST BE GROUND IN THE CONSTITUTION

Mr. President, there have been sug-gestions that my amendment is notnecessary because a constitutionalamendment is not needed to enableCongress by statute to restrict judicialintervention in the future. If my judi-cial review amendment is not passedand the constitutional amendment isratified, I hope that my colleague andfriend Senator HATCH will take thelead in making these arguments. Iwould hope that his arguments wouldprevail, but I do not believe that weshould take the enormous risk that thecourts would not agree.

In the first place, until we determinethat there is a majority in favor ofsuch a proposition, there is no guaran-tee that such limitations would beplaced in the implementing legislation.I would like to believe that a conserv-ative institution would not find it dif-ficult to preclude judicial managementof the budget process. I had muchgreater faith in the belief until theJohnston amendment was defeatedFebruary 15. Reviewing that debate,and the various statements by leadingMembers about the potential for judi-cial review, I do not believe it is re-sponsible for us to postpone that deci-sion.

Second, I am not certain that therewill be a majority in favor of any spe-cific proposition. Some favor a com-plete ban on judicial relief. Some favordeclaratory judgments. Others appearto favor standing for Members of Con-gress. Still others believe that therights of individuals or groups shouldbe subject to vindication. Again, let’svote now and uphold the longstandingconservative principle that judgesshouldn’t be involved in taxing andspending decisions.

Third, I am not persuaded by the ar-gument that section 6 of the amend-ment, which states that ‘‘Congressshall enforce and implement this arti-cle by appropriate legislation,’’ pre-cludes judicial review. Section 6 is nota grant of exclusive power—it does notstate that ‘‘only Congress’’ shall en-force the legislation. In light of thelegislative history that I have dis-cussed earlier, there is no basis for con-cluding that section 6 was intended toexclude the Judiciary from enforcingthe act. As Professor Sullivan noted inher February 27 letter to me:

The proposed Amendment, as did [the 13th,14th, and 15th] Amendments gives Congressauthority to legislate, but it does not oustthe courts, who need not defer to Congress inthese matters.

Fourth, although I agree that thecourts have sustained certain statu-tory limitations on judicial review ofstatutory and common law rights,there is no case in which the SupremeCourt has held that Congress could cutoff all avenues of judicial review of aconstitutional issue. As noted in thehighly respected analysis of the Con-stitution prepared by the Congres-sional Research Service:

[T]hat Congress may through the exerciseof its powers vitiate and overturn constitu-tional decisions and restrain the exercise ofconstitutional rights is an assertion oftenmade but not sustained by any decision ofthe Court.

In Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988),for example, the Supreme Court em-phasized that a ‘‘ ‘serious constitu-tional question’ * * * would arise if afederal statute were construed to denyany judicial forum for a colorable con-stitutional claim.’’

Charles Fried, Solicitor General inPresident Reagan’s administration, hasstated:

[S]ection 6, as it is written, does not allowCongress to so limit jurisdiction, and itseems to me that if Congress tried to limitjurisdiction in this way without an expressauthorization, which there is not in this bill,that limitation itself might well be uncon-stitutional

Professor Sunstein, in his February27 letter to me, expressed similar con-cerns:

If your proposed change, or some version ofit, is not added, it is by no means clear thatCongress can forbid judicial involvement bystatute. Courts are quite reluctant to allowCongress to preclude judicial review of con-stitutional claims. . . . Courts would be es-pecially reluctant, perhaps, to preclude judi-cial review of an amendment specifically de-signed to limit Congress’ power to providefor budget deficits. One could easily imaginea judicial decision invalidating implement-ing legislation that denies a judicial role, onthe theory that the balanced budget guaran-tee—without your amendment—is best un-derstood to contemplate a firm judicialcheck on congressional activity.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS

Mr. President, the report of the Judi-ciary Committee indicates there is lit-tle likelihood of judicial involvementin the taxing and spending processunder the budget amendment, and theycite the history of this country in thatregard. The difference is that now, ifthis amendment is in the Constitution,it will be a different Constitution thanhas framed the history of our country.

Mr. President, others including lead-ing constitutional authorities fromboth the Republican and DemocraticParties believe there is a reasonablelikelihood the amendment could trans-form the courts into the forum formanaging the budgetary process.

To me, the risk is too high. In theface of conflicting legal views by re-spected authorities, it is our respon-sibility to act. If we believe, as I do,that we should not risk subjecting thebudget process to judicial manage-ment, then we should adopt my amend-ment.

I have modified that amendmentnow. The amendment very simply—and I am not quoting it, but the verysimple essence of the amendment isthat the judicial power of the UnitedStates shall not extend to any case orcontroversy arising under this articleexcept as may be specifically author-ized by legislation adopted pursuant tothis section.

In other words, Mr. President, theCongress will decide the jurisdiction of

the courts. The courts will not decideit on the basis of constitutional inter-pretation. We can change the imple-menting statute if it does not work. Wecan mold it later. We can mold thestatute after we have decided what theenforcement mechanism here is be-cause those two things have to be con-sidered together.

So it is my hope that this amend-ment, which is now modified, will beaccepted by the managers of this billand it will be accepted by my col-leagues. If it is, then I plan to supportthis overall constitutional amendmentbecause I think it is enormously impor-tant that we have a mandate to theCongress of the United States to getthis budget and our fiscal house inorder. Nothing else has worked. This isthe last resort.

I wish we had not reached this point.I wish we had been able to use our nor-mal political process, because I do notlike amending the Constitution of theUnited States. However, I do believe itis the last resort.

Mr. President, I am concerned aboutother areas that my colleagues are con-cerned about. I am concerned about So-cial Security. I am concerned abouteconomic emergency. But my bottomline has been and is today that it is myfervent hope this judicial article, thisjudicial amendment will be put intothis constitutional amendment sothere is no doubt about the intent ofCongress and the authority of Congressin managing the taxing and spending ofthis great country.

There being no objection, the letterswere ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL,Chicago, IL, February 27, 1995.

Hon. SAM NUNN,U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR NUNN: As a teacher of con-stitutional law, I am writing to endorse yourremarks about the balanced budget amend-ment on the Senate floor on Thursday. Thereis a legitimate risk that the balanced budgetamendment would produce a significant in-crease in judicial power. If it comes to fru-ition, this risk would compromise the demo-cratic goals of the amendment.

It is certainly not clear that current politi-cal question and standing doctrines wouldbar judicial involvement under the proposedamendment. Issues involving spending andtaxation do not necessarily involve politicalquestions, and the balanced budget amend-ment, unaccompanied by a change of the sortyou propose, would increase the risk that po-litical questions would become legal ques-tions. The political question doctrine is ex-tremely narrow in the aftermath of Baker v.Carr, 369 US 186 (1962), and it is certainly pos-sible that a court would find, in the amend-ment, ‘‘judicial administrable standards’’ forthe grant or injunctive relief. Under existinglaw, no one can rule out the possibility thatthe political question doctrine would be heldinapplicable to the balanced budget amend-ment. Cf. Michael v. Anderson, 14 F3d 623 (DCCir 1994).

Taxpayers and citizens as such would prob-ably lack standing to enforce the amend-ment, but as you stated, it is certainly pos-sible to think of potential litigants with di-rect financial interests at stake who would

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3259February 28, 1995claim that, if the amendment were not fol-lowed, and if the budget was not balanced,they would suffer from an ‘‘injury in fact’’sufficient to trigger judicial review underLujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130(1992). At the very least, it can be said thatcostly and time-consuming debates aboutjusticiability would ensue, and we cannotreasonably rule out, in advance, the prospectof undemocratic and unprecedented judicialinvolvement in the budgetary process.

In this light your proposal—limiting thejudicial role—seems to me to make a greatdeal of sense. You are certainly correct tosay that the legislative history of the bal-anced budget would not rule out judicialmanagement. The legislative history of aconstitutional amendment is relevant, but itdoes not resolve the question of constitu-tional meaning. Senator Hatch’s argumentsabout likely judicial deference are of coursereasonable, and it is to be hoped that courtswould follow those arguments; but courtscould find a sufficient basis in the text of theproposed amendment and in precedent to en-gage in judicial management under theamendment.

If your proposed change, or some version ofit, is not added, it is by no means clear thatCongress can forbid judicial involvement bystatute. Courts are quite reluctant to allowCongress to preclude judicial review of con-stitutional claims. See Webster v. Doe, 486US 592 (1988), allowing review of employmentdecisions by the Central Intelligence Agencyin the face of a claim that a discharge of ahomosexual employee was unconstitutional.Webster shows that even in highly sensitiveareas, judges will be likely to allow review,in part because serious constitutional issueswould be raised by an effort to insulate con-stitutional claims from judicial scrutiny.

Courts would be especially reluctant, per-haps, to allow Congress to preclude judicialreview of an amendment specifically de-signed to limit Congress’ power to providefor budget deficits. One could easily imaginea judicial decision invalidating implement-ing legislation that denies a judicial role onthe theory that the balanced budget guaran-tee—without your amendment—is best un-derstood to contemplate a firm judicialcheck on congressional activity. I add thatyou are entirely correct in your reading ofMissouri v. Jenkins, 495 US 33 (1990), which isnot limited to fourteenth amendment cases,and which refers to ‘‘a long and venerableline of cases in which this Court held thatfederal courts could issue the write of man-damus to compel local governmental bodiesto levy taxes adequate to satisfy their debtobligations.’’ Id. at 55. (While it is unlikelythat courts would specifically order Congressto raise taxes under the proposed amend-ment, I share your concern about the issue,and think it would be best to avoid any rea-sonable risk that they might do so.)

I should add that I have not opposed thebalanced budget amendment as such, andthat I am writing as a teacher of constitu-tional law who is concerned that any amend-ment to this effect ought not to increase thepower of the federal courts over an area inwhich they do not belong. Your proposedchange—expecially the suggestion to the ef-fect that ‘‘the judicial power of the UnitedStates shall not extend’’ to enforcement ofthe amendment except as authorized by stat-ute—seems to me an admirable effort to dealwith this problem. If some such revision isnot included, there is a legitimate risk thatthe proposed amendment would transfer con-siderable power over budgetary matters fromCongress to the Supreme Court or to lowerfederal courts. I very much hope that steps

will be taken to ensure that this does nothappen.

Sincerely,CASS R. SUNSTEIN.

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL,February 24, 1995.

Re proposed balanced budget amendment.Senator SAM NUNN,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR NUNN: I have had the oppor-tunity to review your comments yesterdayin the floor debate regarding the role of thecourts in cases that might arise under theproposed Balanced Budget Amendment tothe Constitution. My views on the subjectare very similar to your own, and I havetaken the liberty of sending you the follow-ing thoughts, which were prompted by thetestimony of former Attorney General Wil-liam P. Barr before the Senate Committee onthe Judiciary on January 5, 1995.

In that testimony, Mr. Barr argued that‘‘the courts’ role in enforcing the BalancedBudget Amendment will be quite limited.’’While I have great respect for Mr. Barr, andwhile I found his testimony to be consideredand thoughtful, I must respectfully statethat I disagree with him. I continue to be-lieve that, as I testified before the SenateAppropriations Committee on February 16,1994, the Balanced Budget Amendment in itscurrent draft form is likely to produce nu-merous lawsuits in the federal and statecourts, and that neither Article IIIjusticiability doctrines nor practices of judi-cial deference will operate as automaticdams against that flood tide of litigation.

Let me begin with the doctrines ofjusticiability under Article III of the Con-stitution. Mr. Barr argues that ‘’few plain-tiffs would be able to establish the requisitestanding to invoke federal court review.’’This is by no means clear. There are at leastthree categories of litigants who might wellbe able to establish standing to challengeviolations of the Amendment.

First, taxpayers might claim that theirrights to a balanced budget are violated, forexample, by projections that outlays will ex-ceed receipts. True, taxpayers are generallybarred from suing the government for the re-dress of generalized grievances. But the Su-preme Court a quarter of a century ago heldthat there is an exception to the general baron taxpayer standing when the taxpayerclaims that a government action ‘‘exceedsspecific constitutional limitations imposedupon the exercise of the congressional taxingand spending power.’’ Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S.83 (1968). Mr. Barr suggests that this excep-tion may be limited to Establishment Clausechallenges, but there is nothing in the prin-ciple stated in Flast that so confines it. Ifanything, the proposed Balanced BudgetAmendment more clearly limits congres-sional taxing and spending power than doesthe Establishment Clause. The Amendmentis not confined, as Mr. Barr suggests, merelyto the power of Congress to borrow. Thustaxpayers would have an entirely plausibleargument for standing under existing law.

Second, members of Congress might wellhave standing to claim that congressionalactions have diluted the vote they were enti-tled to exercise under the Amendment. Forexample, suppose that the Congress declinedto hold a three-fifths vote required to ap-prove deficit spending under section 1, or arollcall vote required to increase revenueunder section 4. This might occur, for exam-ple, because of a dispute over whether out-lays really exceeded receipts, or over wheth-er revenue was really being increased, be-cause the meaning of those terms might becontroversial as a matter of fact. Decliningto implement the supermajority voting re-quirements in such a context, however,

might be plausibly claimed to have diluted aMember’s vote. This is arguably analogousto other circumstances of vote dilution inwhich the lower courts have held that Mem-bers of Congress have standing. See, e.g.,Vander Jact v. O’Neill, 699 F.2d 1166, 1168–71(D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 823(1983).

Third, persons aggrieved by actions takenby the government in claimed violation ofthe Amendment might well have standing tochallenge the violation. For example, con-sider a criminal defendant charged under alaw claimed to cost more to enforce than thegovernment can finance through expected re-ceipts. Or suppose that the President, believ-ing himself bound by his Oath to support theConstitution, freezes federal wages and sala-ries to stop the budget from going out of bal-ance. In that circumstance, a federal em-ployee might well challenge the President’saction, which plainly causes her pocketbookinjury, as unauthorized by the Amendment,which is silent on the question of executiveenforcement.

Each of these circumstances poses plau-sible claims of injury in fact, and none ofthem poses insurmountable problems ofredressability. In most of them, in fact, sim-ple injunctions can be imagined that wouldredress the plaintiffs’ claims. Thus, contraryto Mr. Barr’s prediction, the doctrine ofstanding is by no means certain to precludefederal judicial efforts at enforcement of theAmendment. And further, as Mr. Barr con-cedes, federal standing doctrine will do noth-ing to constrain litigation of the proposedAmendment in state courts, which are notbound by Article III requirements at all.

Nor is the political question doctrine like-ly to eliminate all such challenges from judi-cial review. True, the Supreme Court hasheld that a question is nonjusticiable whenthere is ‘‘a textually demonstrable constitu-tional commitment of the issue to a coordi-nate political department; or a lack of judi-cially discoverable and manageable stand-ards for resolving it.’’ Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S.186 (1962). But the proposed Amendment im-plicates neither of these kinds of limitation.It does not reserve enforcement exclusivelyto the discretion of the Congress, as, for ex-ample, the Impeachment or Speech and De-bate Clauses may be read to do. And it pre-sents no matters that lie beyond judicialcompetence. Rather, here, as with apportion-ment, the question whether deficit spendingor revenue increases ‘‘exceed whatever au-thority has been committed, [would] itself[be] a delicate exercise in constitutional in-terpretation,’’ and thus would well withinthe ordinary interpretive responsibility ofthe courts. See Baker v. Carr, at 211.

Let me turn now from doctrines of justifi-ability to practices of judicial deference. Mr.Barr argues that, as a prudential matter, ‘‘areviewing court is likely to accord the ut-most deference to the choices made by Con-gress in carrying out its responsibilitiesunder the Amendment,’’ especially in lightof the enforcement clause in section 6. Thisis by no means clear. The ReconstructionCongress expected that enforcement of theThirteenth, Fourteenth and FifteenthAmendments would be undertaken primarilyby the Congress, and reflected that expecta-tion in the Enforcement Clauses specificallyincluded in those Amendments. But we haveseen time and time again in our history thatjudicial review has played a pivotal role inthe enforcement of those Amendments none-theless. The proposed Amendment, as didthose Amendments, gives Congress authorityto legislate, but it does not oust the courts,who need not defer to Congress in these mat-ters. Courts rightly have not hesitated to in-tervene in civil rights cases, even though

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3260 February 28, 1995

1 Footnotes at end of article.

those cases involved grave structural ques-tions as well as questions of individualrights.

Finally, Mr. Barr argues that courts will,again as a matter of prudence and practicerather than doctrine, ‘‘hesitate to imposeremedies that could embroil [them] in thesupervision of the budget process.’’ He is cor-rect to observe that a direct judicial order ofa tax levy such as that in Missouri v. Jenkins,495 U.S. 33 (1990), is highly exceptional. Buteven if that is so, courts could issue a host ofother kinds of injunctions to enforce againstconceivable violations of the proposed Bal-anced Budget Amendment. For example, acourt could restrain expenditures or orderthem stayed pending correction of proce-dural defaults, or a court could enjoin Con-gress simply to put the budget into balancewhile leaving to Congress the policy choicesover the means by which to reach that end.Thus, there is little reason to expect thatprudential considerations will keep enforce-ment lawsuits out of court, or keep judicialremedies from intruding into politicalchoices.

In sum, the draft Balanced Budget Amend-ment in its present from has considerable po-tential to generate justiciable lawsuits,which in turn would have considerable po-tential to generate judicial remedies thatwould constrain political choices. Thank youfor considering these remarks in the courseof your current deliberations.

Sincerely,KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appre-ciate the very kind remarks of the Sen-ator from Georgia. With the Senator’spermission, I would like to place in theRECORD, a copy of the written com-ments on the issue of judicial reviewand the balanced budget amendmentthat I prepared for his review. Mr.President, I so ask unanimous consent.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT AND JUDICIAL

REVIEW

I. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

The balanced budget amendment (‘‘BBA’’or the ‘‘amendment’’), H.J. Res. 1, creates aconstitutional procedure, a mechanism ifyou like, that requires Congress to adopt, orat a minimum, at least to move toward abalanced budget.

For instance, section 1 of H.J. Res. 1 re-quires that total outlays of the UnitedStates not exceed receipts unless three-fifthsof the whole number of both Houses waivesthe requirement. Section 2 prohibits theraising of the debt ceiling unless three-fifthsof the whole number of both Houses of Con-gress waives the requirement; and section 4requires that there be no revenue increasesunless approved by a majority of the wholenumber of each House of Congress (51 Senate;218 House). Consequently, the BBA does notcreate a ‘‘right’’ to a balanced budget, muchas the First Amendment recognizes a rightto free speech. What it does do is establish aprocedure which restricts Congress’ budg-etary authority by creating a strong pre-sumption in favor of a balanced budgetwhich can be overcome by a three-fifths voteof each Chamber of Commerce.

This is amply shown by section 6 of theBBA, which provides that ‘‘Congress shallenforce and implement this article by appro-priate legislation, which may rely on esti-mates of outlays and receipts.’’ Thus, thereis no absolute requirement that Congressbalance the budget to the penny. Congressmay rely on estimates and is mandated to

implement and enforce the amendmentthrough some statutory scheme such as es-tablishing, for example, a contingency or‘‘rainy day’’ fund, providing for automaticsequestration, or delegating to the Presidentlimited rescissionary authority. This is astrong indication that the Congress, and notthe courts or the President, is the branchthat is authorized to enforce the amend-ment.

The import of all of this is that the judici-ary will be loathe to interfere in economicand budgetary matters, in what is a quin-tessential ‘‘political question.’’ These arematters committed to Congress by Article Iof the Constitution and the BBA does notdisturb that allocation of powers. Courtshave no ascertainable standards to deter-mine exactly what the budget numbersought to be, whether the budgetary figuresare ‘‘good faith’’ estimates, or which spend-ing program ought to be cut. In other words,there are no ‘‘justiciable’’ standards for thecourts to provide broad based relief thatinterferes with the budgetary process.Whether one talks in terms of standing,justiciability, separation of powers, or thepolitical question doctrine, courts will notbe authorized to interfere with Congress’ Ar-ticle I powers—which, after all, are exclu-sively delegated by the Constitution to thelegislative branch.

Furthermore, section 6 of the amendment,as well as Article III of the Constitution,provide authority to Congress to limit thejurisdiction of the courts. In this way, theequitable powers of the courts may be re-stricted in such a way that shields Congress’Article I spending, taxing, and borrowingpowers.

Below are detailed responses to your con-cerns over particular judicial review andpresidential impoundment issues arising outof the enforcement of H.J. Res. 1.

II. STANDING

You have stated that it is not difficult tocontemplate scenarios where standing to sueunder the BBA could occur. For instance, inyour February 23, 1995, floor statement con-tained in the Congressional Record, you citeAssistant Attorney General Dellinger’s ex-ample that a criminal defendant would havestanding to challenge a forfeiture if a newforfeiture provision, which would raise reve-nue, was passed by a voice vote instead of arollcall vote as required by the BBA.1 I re-spectfully disagree.

I believe that the Dellinger example isfaulty: criminal sanctions and fines are sim-ply not commonly understood to be revenueor tax measures and as such would not besubject to the BBA. The basic point I want tomake, however, is not that a court cannotever find standing, but that standing wouldbe highly improbable and that the courts, inan improbable cause where standing is found,could not provide relief that interferes withthe budgetary process due to other jurispru-dential doctrines such as justiciability andthe political question doctrine.

As you know, as a preliminary obstacle, alitigant must demonstrate a standing tosue.2 The sometimes arcane nature of thestanding doctrine has enabled courts toavoid difficult and contentious decisions onthe merits.3 At a minimum, however, theCourt traditionally has taken the positionthat Article III standing requires allegationof a ‘‘personal stake’’ in the outcome of acontroversy sufficient to guarantee concrete(as opposed to speculative) adverseness.4 Al-though application of the standing doctrinestill divides the Court, all Justices wouldagree that to establish ‘‘personal stake’’ inthe outcome of a case challenging the BBA,

a litigant must show some actual or threat-ened concrete injury and that the injury islikely to be redressed if a court grants re-lief.5 In suits involving the BBA, litigantsseeking to meet the above general standingrequirements fall into three categories: citi-zens, taxpayers, and Members of Congress.

A. Citizen suits

The most important recent Supreme Courtpronouncement on the standing doctrine iscontained in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.6There, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, theCourt in reviewing its own precedents madeclear that standing has three elements: (1)the litigant must have suffered an ‘‘injury infact’’ which is concrete, particularized, ac-tual and imminent and not hypothetical,7 (2)there must be a casual connection betweenthe injury and conduct complained of, e.g.,the injury must result from actions of thecomplained party and not a third party,8 and(3) it must be likely, as opposed to specula-tive, and the injury must be ‘‘redressable’’by a favorable court decision.9

Turning to the three-part test, it is doubt-ful that a citizen or citizen associationscould demonstrate the ‘‘injury in fact’’ prongof the standing test because it is well settledthat a mere interest in the constitutionalityof a law or executive action isnoncognizable.10 Moreover, it is doubtfulthat a litigant could demonstrate that thechallenged law was the one that ‘‘unbal-anced’’ the budget: 11 in a sense, every spend-ing program could be said to do so. And it isbeyond cavil that a congressional reductionof a spending program, or eliminating it al-together, is not considered a constitutionalharm and thus not actionable.12

As to the third prong, ‘‘redressability’’,this prong subsumes justiciability and thepolitical question doctrine and will be dis-cussed in greater detail below. Suffice it tosay that except in highly unlikely cir-cumstances, it is nearly certain that a judi-cial remedy which interferes with congres-sional control over the budgetary process orCongress’ Article I powers would violate theseparation of powers doctrine.

B. Taxpayer standing

In Flast v. Cohen,13 the Court announced aliberalized standing test for taxpayers.Under this ‘‘double nexus’’ test, taxpayerstanding requires that the taxpayer-plaintiff:(1) challenge the unconstitutionality of thelaw under the Taxing and Spending Clause ofthe Constitution, and (2) demonstrate thatthe challenged enactment exceeds specificlimitations contained in the Constitution.Professor Tribe has testified that some tax-payers’ suits to enforce the BBA would sat-isfy this test because the proposed amend-ment would be a specific constitutional limi-tation on congressional taxing and spendingpower. There are three counters to this argu-ment: (1) recent Court decisions appear tohave severely limited the Flast doctrine; 14

indeed, the Court seems to limit Flast to Es-tablishment Clause situations,15 (2) imple-menting legislation would be enacted not forsome illicit purpose that violates some spe-cific provision of the Constitution, but to ef-fectuate a balanced budget, and (3) the Flasttest is not a substitute for the Lujan test,meeting the Flast test only establishes the‘‘harmed in fact’’ first prong of Lujan 16 and,as explained below, it is doubtful thatLujan’s ‘‘redressability’’ prong can be met bytaxpayer-plaintiffs. This conclusion is sup-ported by the Lujan decision itself, wherebytaxpayer standing cases are discussed in con-text of concrete harm.

C. Congressional standing

The final possible route to standing incases challenging the BBA, congressionalstanding, also seems to have little chance of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3261February 28, 1995success. It must be pointed out that the Su-preme Court has never addressed the ques-tion of congressional standing and that theCircuit courts are divided on this issue.17

However, the D.C. Circuit recognizes con-gressional standing in the following limitedcircumstances: 18 (1) the traditional standingtests of the Supreme Court are met, (2) theremust be a deprivation within the ‘‘zone of in-terest’’ protected by the Constitution or astatute (generally, the right to vote on agiven issue or the protection of the efficacyof a vote),19 and (3) substantial relief cannotbe obtained from fellow legislators throughthe enactment, repeal or amendment of astatute (‘‘equitable discretion’’ doctrine). Al-though there is an argument to be made thatin certain limited and far-fetched cir-cumstances (e.g., where Congress ignores thethree-fifths vote requirement to raise thedebt limitation) the voting rights of legisla-tors are nullified and therefore there wouldbe standing, the court could equally invokethe equitable discretion doctrine to dismissthe action because the Member of Congresscould obtain relief by appealing to his othercolleagues for a vote for reconsideration ofthe issue.

In other circumstances challenging the en-forcement of spending measures, Members ofCongress would be subject to the same exact-ing standards as citizens.

III. JUSTICIABILITY AND THE POLITICALQUESTION DOCTRINE

Faced with a case challenging appropria-tions that allegedly cause outlays to exceedtotal receipts, federal courts historicallywould inquire first whether the litigant hadstanding and would then evaluate the con-tent of the claim pursuant to the politicalquestion doctrine.20 Although it is uncertainwhether the doctrine rests upon prudence,21

or inheres in the Constitution,22 the doctrineis generally understood as ‘‘essentially afunction of the separation of powers.’’ 23

The Court in Baker v. Carr,24 set out alengthy test to determine when courtsshould dismiss an action on political ques-tion grounds. Since Baker, the Court has nar-rowed the political question doctrine to twoelements: (1) whether there is a demon-strable commitment of the issue to a coordi-nate political department, and (2) whetherthere is a lack of judicially discoverable andmanageable standards for resolving the issue(‘‘justiciability’’).25 Essentially identical tothe ‘‘redressability’’ issue discussed above,analysis of the first prong reveals significantseparation of powers concerns. Any signifi-cant relief (outside of a congressional stand-ing suit for declaratory judgment) would re-quire placing the budget process under judi-cial receivership (e.g., injunctive relief set-ting a pro-rata budget cut or the nullifica-tion of any measure after outlays exceed re-ceipts). This relief interferes with congres-sional Article I powers. In other words, fed-eral courts may not exercise Congress’spending and taxing authority, such author-ity being exclusively delegated to Congress,a coordinate branch of the federal govern-ment, by the Constitution. Concerning thejusticiability prong, budgetary, spending,and tax policies are quintessential areas ofgovernance where there is a lack of judi-cially discoverable and manageable stand-ards.26 Certainly, there are no availablestandards for courts to determine whichspending programs to cut or to declare un-lawful.

There is another related justifiabilityissue: whether the granting of equitable ordeclaratory relief so interferes with the con-gressional budget process that courts shouldabstain from granting such relief as a matter

of prudence.27 This is another theory bywhich courts can be constrained from inter-fering with congressional spending and tax-ing powers under the BBA.

Finally, there is an issue whether courtscould simply grant declaratory relief 27 adju-dicating an executive action or legislativeact unconstitutional and leaving remedialaction to the political branches. Outside ofthe bizarre,29 courts generally will not grantdeclaratory relief to avoid the political ques-tion doctrine or where injunctive relief isnot available.30

IV. THE CONCERN OVER JUDICIAL TAXATION

I know that you are concerned that the Su-preme Court’s 5–4 holding in Missouri v. Jen-kins 31 is an invitation for courts to raisetaxes in the event that there is an imbal-anced budget. In this case, the SupremeCourt in essence upheld a lower court rem-edy ordering state or county political sub-divisions to raise taxes to support a court or-dered school desegregation order. Inten-tional segregation, in violation of the Four-teenth Amendment’s Equal ProtectionClause, had been found by the lower court ina prior case against the school district.

The fear is that the BBA would allow a fed-eral court to order Congress to raise taxes toreduce a budget deficit. This is virtually im-possible. First, Jenkins is a FourteenthAmendment case. Under Fourteenth Amend-ment jurisprudence, federal courts may 32

perhaps issue this type of remedial reliefagainst the States, but not against Con-gress—a coequal branch of government. TheFourteenth Amendment, of course, does notapply to the federal government. Second,separation of powers concerns, as well as thepolitical question doctrine, argue againstcourts arrogating to themselves congres-sional power by imposing taxes. This was im-plicitly recognized by the Jenkins Courtwhich stated that the situation before theCourt was not one in which it was asked toorder a co-equal branch of government—Con-gress—to raise taxes. Indeed, the Court inJenkins noted that the case before them wasa Fourteenth Amendment case involvingstate action and not ‘‘an instance of onebranch of the Federal Government invadingthe province of another.’’ 33 Third, Congresscannot be a party-defendant. To order taxesto be raised, Congress must be a named de-fendant. Presumably, suits to enforce theBBA would arise when an official or agencyof the executive branch seeks to enforce oradminister a statute whose funding is inquestion in light of the BBA.34 Consequently,there is no real ‘‘analogy’’ that a court canmake between the Jenkins case— which in-volved state action under the Four-teenth Amendment—and a situation in-volving the enforcing of a federal stat-ute implementing the BBA.V. STATUTORY PROTECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL

POWER

I think it just wrong that Congress cannotand will not protect its institutional prerog-atives. The Framers of the Constitution de-signed a constitutional system whereby eachbranch of government would have the powerto check the zeal of the other branches. InJames Madison’s words in The Federalist No.51:

‘‘[T]he great security against a gradualconcentration of the several powers in thesame department, consists in giving to thosewho administer each department, the nec-essary constitutional means, and personalmotives, to resist encroachments of others.The provision for defense must in this, as inall other cases, be made commensurate to

the danger of attack. Ambition must bemade to counteract ambition.’’

Under the enforcement mechanism of theBBA,35 the Congress could limit the type ofequitable relief granted by federal courts andthereby limit court intrusiveness into thebudget process and Congress’ exercise of itsArticle I powers. It is well established thatthis authority may also arise out of ArticleIII’s delegation to Congress to define andlimit the jurisdiction of lower federalcourts.36 Congress may not, however, use itsauthority to limit or define jurisdiction in amanner that violates specific provisions ofthe Constitution or denies any relief what-so-ever.37 Congress may also limit judicialreview to particular special tribunals withlimited authority to grant relief.38

Use of Congress’ authority under section 6of the Amendment or Article III of the Con-stitution to limit the remedies a court mayprovide, does not mean in any way, as yousuggested in your floor speech, a ‘‘cut off allavenues of judicial review of a constitutionalissue.’’ This I have readily conceded above isbeyond congressional power. What it doesmean is that Congress may protect its Arti-cle I prerogatives by limiting—not eliminat-ing—the scope of remedies that courts mayrender.

VI. PRESIDENTIAL IMPOUNDMENT

A good deal of the ‘‘standing’’ examplesyou provided in your floor statement arereally concerns over presidential impound-ment.39 I want to initially say that there isnothing in H.J. Res. 1 that authorizes or oth-erwise allows for impoundment. Nor is it theintent of the amendment to grant the Presi-dent any impoundment authority under H.J.Res. 1. Indeed, H.J. Res. 1 imposes one newduty, and corresponding authority, on thePresident: to transmit to Congress a pro-posed budget for each fiscal year in whichtotal outlays do not exceed total receipts.40

In fact, there is a ‘‘ripeness’’ problem toany attempted impoundment: up to the endof the fiscal year the President has no plau-sible basis to impound funds because Con-gress under the amendment has the power toameliorate any budget shortfalls or ratify orspecify the amount of deficit spending thatmay occur in that fiscal year.

Moreover, under section 6 of the amend-ment, Congress must—and I emphasize‘‘must’’—mandate exactly what type of en-forcement mechanism it wants, whether itbe sequestration, rescission, or the establish-ment of a contingency fund. The President,as Chief Executive, is duty bound to enforcea particular requisite congressional schemeto the exclusion of impoundment. That thePresident must enforce a mandatory con-gressional budgetary measure has been theestablished law since the nineteenth centurycase of Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes,37 U.S. (1 Pet.) 54 (1838).41 The Kendall casewas given new vitality in the 1970s, whenlower federal courts, as a matter of statu-tory construction, rejected attempts byPresident Nixon to impound funds whereCongress did not give the President discre-tion to withhold funding.42

The position that section 6 implementinglegislation would preclude presidential im-poundment was seconded by Attorney Gen-eral Barr at the recent Judiciary Committeehearing on the balanced budget amendment.Testifying that the impoundment issue wasin reality incomprehensible, General Barrconcluded that ‘‘the whip hand is in Con-gress’ hand, so to speak; under Section 6[the] Congress can provide the enforcementmechanism that the courts will defer to andthat the President will be bound by.’’

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3262 February 28, 1995What we have here then, is an argument

based on a ‘‘mere possibility’’ or fear of im-poundment. I strongly believe that the Presi-dent is not given any new authority underthe BBA to impound funds, and that themandatory enforcement implementing legis-lation would preclude any real impoundmentpossibilities. This was all but conceded byAssistant Attorney General Dellinger in histestimony on the BBA before my Committee.I also want to emphasize that because sec-tion 6 of the amendment allows Congress torely on estimates, the fact that there mightbe some budgetary shortfall in a given fiscalyear’s budget does not necessarily renderthat budget out of compliance with the BBA.

VII. OTHER CONCERNS

Finally, I want to address two additionalconcerns that you have expressed in yourfloor statement. First, I have to disagreewith your statement that state balancedbudget litigation is widespread. In fact, thereare very few reported cases. We also have totake note that state balanced budget amend-ments are very different than H.J. Res. 1, inthat there is usually a distinction made be-tween state capital and operating budgetswhich sometimes results in litigation overthe meaning of ‘‘state debt’’ and ‘‘capital ex-penditure.’’ Also, many state courts do nothave standing or justiciability requirementsas barriers to bringing a lawsuit.43

Finally, concerning the statements ofnoted experts, such as Judge Bork, thatthere could indeed be judicial enforcement ofthe BBA. My response is that Judge Bork—who is a very close friend—and whose con-tentions are contained in a letter of Janu-ary, 1994, has greatly exaggerated fears of ju-dicial activism in a BBA context. In fact, headmits that there would probably be nostanding to bring a challenge to actionstaken under the amendment. The substanceof his argument is ‘‘what if’’ courts took ju-risdiction; what would stop them from inter-fering in the budgetary process. He did notconsider at all in his letter, however, thewell-accepted precept that implementinglegislation could curtail the excesses of judi-cial activism.

FOOTNOTES

1 The other ‘‘standing’’ examples you provide for inyour February 23 floor statement implicate presi-dential impoundment and will be addressed below.

2 An issue prior to standing is identification of theproper party defendant. The appropriate defendantin a case involving the BBA is the person acting un-constitutionally under the law, almost always an ex-ecutive branch official, since that branch is chargedwith the administration of the law. See Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 163–66 (1803); Reigle v.Federal Open Mkt. Comm., 656 F.2d 873, 879 n.6 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 (1981). Another issueis ‘‘ripeness.’’ Because under the BBA Congress maycorrect any budgetary shortfalls right up to the endof the fiscal year, potential plaintiffs are preventedfrom litigating until that time—another dauntinghurdle litigants face in challenging congressionalmeasures implementing the BBA.

3 See, e.g., Valley Forge Christian College v. Ameri-cans United, Inc., 454 U.S. 465, 475 (1982) (‘‘We neednot mince words when we say that the concept of‘Art. III standing’ has not been defined with com-plete consistency . . . by this Court. . . .’’).

4 E.g., Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962).5 It also is now clear that standing is an Article III

requirement that can not be waived by Congress orthe courts. See Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 488 n.24;Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26,41 n.22 (1976).

6 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992). Lujan involved legal chal-lenges to regulations promulgated under the Endan-gered Species Act of 1973. Conservation and environ-mental groups argued that standing inhered in any-one alleging an interest in studying or seeing endan-gered animals anywhere on earth and anyone with aprofessional interest in such animals. Suffice it to

say that the Court held that there was no showingof ‘‘injury in fact’’.

7 Citing, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975) andLos Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983).

8 Quoting, Simon, 426 U.S. 26, 41–42.9 Quoting, Simon, 426 U.S. at 38, 43.10 E.g., Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) (al-

legations that amount to a ‘‘generalized grievance’’are not judicially cognizable.

11 This too would therefore be a nonjusticiable‘‘generalized grievance’’. See Id.

12 Government is not under a duty to provide bene-fits, and, thus, Congress may cut or eliminate anyprogram consistent with the protection of equal pro-tection or individual rights. Overton v. John KnoxRetirement Tower, Inc., 720 F.Supp. 934, 937 (M.D. Ala.1989).

13 392 U.S. 83 (1968).14 The test has suffered through application. The

Court subsequently required detailed particularizedpleading challenging specific spending measures pro-mulgated under Article I, Section 8’s Spending andTaxing Clause. These measures must violate specificprovisions of the Constitution, See, e.g., Schlesingerv. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974);United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974). Liti-gants have not been successful in recent times ap-plying the Flast test.

15 See Valley Forge, 454 U.S. 464 (1982). Indeed, inFlast, Justices Stewart and Fortas perceived thenexus test as simply a means of limiting federal tax-payer’s suits to Establishment Clause challenges.Flast, 392 U.S. at 114–15.

16 In Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 471–82, the Court im-plicitly views the Flast test as a measure of a tax-payer’s constitutionally required actual injury.

17 Compare Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d 190 (D.C.Cir. 1977) (congressman seeking declaratory and in-junctive relief against C.I.A. for allegedly illegal ac-tivities lacks concrete injury requisite for standing),with Harrington v. Schlesinger, 528 F.2d 455 (4th Cir.1975) (same facts, opposite result).

18 Reigle v. Federal Open Market Committee, 656 F.2d873 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 (1981).

19 See Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (statesenators denied the efficacy of their votes whenLieut. Governor by statute was allowed to break tievote by casting ballot); Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d430 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (challenging illegal use of Presi-dential pocket veto).

20 The Lujan ‘‘redressability’’ prong of its standingtest essentially merges the justiciability and the po-litical question doctrine. Accord Valley Forge, 454U.S. 464 (1982) (where the Court makes clear thatseparation of powers consequences play a vital rolein the standing calculus).

21 See Bickel, The Supreme Court, 1969 Term—Foreword: The Passive virtues, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 40,46 (1961).

22 See Wechsler, Toward Neutral Principles of Con-stitutional Law, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1,9 (1959).

23 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).24 Id.25 See, e.g., Nixon v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 732

(1993).26 While the BBA does, indeed, contain some ‘‘proc-

ess’’ standards (e.g., the requirement of a three-fifths vote in each chamber to increase the debt ceil-ing), it is doubtful that standing could be found toenforce even such standards.

27 See Henkin, Is There a Political Question Doc-trine?, 85 Yale L. J. 597 (1976) (where ProfessorHenkin argues that the political question doctrineboils down to the discretionary equitable power ofcourts not to dispense relief). See Colegrove v. Green,328 U.S. 549 (1946) (courts have duty to avoid con-stitutional issues where resolution will clash withthe political branches of government).

28 Declaratory relief is available under the FederalDeclaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. sections 2201–2202.

29 Where, for instance, both Chambers of Congressignore the constitutional majority provision to raisetaxes, presents the measure to the President, andthe President refuses to veto the subsequent unlaw-ful measure. The aggrieved taxpayer who sees hispay check decrease could probably receive declara-tory relief.

30 See Colgrove v. Green, 328 U.S. at 552 (where Jus-tice Frankfurter opines that declaratory reliefshould not be granted in situations where injunc-tions are inappropriate).

31 495 U.S. 33 (1990).32 This power was hotly contested by the dissenters

in Jenkins and may not command a majority today.

33 495 U.S. at 67.34 See Reigle, 656 F.2d at 879 n.6 (‘‘When a plaintiff

alleges injury by unconstitutional action taken pur-suant to a statute, his proper defendants are thoseacting under the law . . . and not the legislaturewhich enacted the statute,’’ citing, Marbury v. Madi-son, 5. U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 175–80, (1803)). Illustrativeof this point is Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486(1969), where Congressman Adam Clayton Powell was‘‘excluded’’ by the House from taking his seat. Pow-ell sued the enforcement official—Speaker McCor-mack, under whose jurisdiction the Sergeant-at-Arms was—and not the House of Congress as awhole. In contrast, Members of Congress have abso-lute immunity to suit for actions taken on the floorof the Chamber when acting in a legislative capac-ity, such as voting for or against a measure. SeeU.S. Const. art. I, sec. 6 (‘‘Speech or DebateClause’’).

35 Section 6 of H.J. Res. 1 mandates that Congresspromulgate enforcement legislation.

36 E.G., the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. sec-tions 101–115 (denial of court use of injunctions inlabor disputes); the Federal Anti-Injunction Stat-ute, 28 U.S.C. section 2283 (prohibition on enjoiningstate court proceedings); the Anti-Injunction Provi-sions of the Internal Revenue Code, Int. Rev. Codesection 7421(a) (prohibition on enjoining the collec-tion of taxes).

37 E.g., United States v. Bitty, 298 U.S. 393 (1908);Lauf v. E.G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. (1938). Further-more, the BBA does not create an individual ‘‘right’’akin to the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.As stated above, there is no right to a balancedbudget much as the Twenty-first Amendment re-pealing prohibition creates no right to drink alco-hol; the BBA is simply a procedural limitation onCongress’ taxing, spending, and borrowing powerswhich creates a presumption in favor of a balancedbudget that may be overcome by a three-fifths voteof the whole number of each House.

38 E.G., the Emergency Price Control Act, whichestablished a special Emergency Court of Appealsvested with exclusive authority to determine the va-lidity of claims under that Act. The Court in Yakusv. United States, 319 U.S. 182 (1943), upheld the con-stitutionality of this limited judicial enforcementmechanism. Accord Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S.654 (1981) (upholding constitutionality of executiveorder, promulgated pursuant to congressional dele-gation of power, establishing Iranian-United StatesClaims Tribunal as exclusive forum to settle claimsto Iranian assets).

39 For example, you quote Walter Dellinger’s exam-ple where a social security beneficiary would havestanding to challenge a presidential order reducingbenefits. The other Dellinger example given is asimilar one, with welfare payments being sub-stituted for social security payments, A twist isadded, wherein a state would have standing to sue ifa President does not impound funds. I, in all respect,believe these examples to be gross exaggerations ofthe law. First, a President must faithfully executethe law pursuant to his oath of office, and, there-fore, must enforce these social spending programs.Second, neither a state nor an individual would havestanding to challenge a spending program, as ex-plained above. How are they individually harmed bythe enforcement of the programs? Finally, and iron-ically, if the first example challenging impound-ment somehow prevailed in litigation, it would be avindication of congressional prerogatives over thebudget.

40 H.J. Res. 1, sec. 3.41 In Kendall, Congress had passed a private act or-

dering the Postmaster General to pay Kendall forservices rendered. The Supreme Court rejected theargument that Kendall could not sue in mandamusbecause the Postmaster General was subject only tothe orders of the President and not to the directivesof Congress. The Court held that the President mustenforce any mandated—as opposed to discre-tionary—congressional spending measure pursuantto his duty to faithfully execute the law pursuant toArticle II, section 3 of the Constitution.

42 E.g., State Highway Commission v. Volpe, 479F.2d1099 (8th Cir. 1973).

43 These factors were recognized by Asst. AttorneyGeneral Dellinger to me in a letter dated January 9,1995, This letter also corrected a misstatement madeto Senator Brown whereby Mr. Dellinger had erro-neously contended that there was an avalanche ofstate litigation over their balanced budget require-ments. Mr. Dellinger in the letter now admits that:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3263February 28, 1995‘‘Senator Brown is correct that there has not been

a significant amount of litigation in the states in-terpreting their balanced budget provisions, andthat this is a factor that weighs against the argu-ment that there would be an avalanche of litigationunder a federal balanced budget amendment.’’

Mr. HATCH. I yield 5 minutes to thedistinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Senatorfor yielding his time.

Mr. President, my colleagues, amend-ments to the Constitution cannot bepassed by the Congress alone. It is apartnership arrangement. The processmust also include ratification by thevarious States. Three-fourths of theStates, 38 States, must also join withthe Congress in ratifying any proposedamendment to the Constitution beforeit comes part of the Constitution.

In order for me to justify not evenvoting to send this proposal to myState of Louisiana and the variousother States for them to debate and tovote on this measure, I must be con-vinced that on its face this amendmentis such bad public policy that it mustdie here in Washington. Is this amend-ment perfect? No, it certainly is not.Its faults are many and they raise seri-ous concerns in a number of areas.

No. 1, can unelected Federal judgeswho are appointed for life raise taxesand cut programs to enforce this meas-ure? The Nunn and Johnston amend-ments address this particular question.I understand that there are those thismorning who are willing to correct itwith the adoption of the Nunn amend-ment which would go a long ways tocorrecting this very serious problem.The question of how can the Statescast an intelligent vote on ratificationwithout having the right to know inadvance, for instance what will happento them if it is ratified, is a very seri-ous concern that needs further debateand consideration. Are programs, suchas those that have trust funds as ameans of funding programs, like theSocial Security Program, in danger ofbeing cut under this amendment?There needs to be further discussionand further debate on that particularissue.

The answers to these questions arenot clear and more debate, not less,must occur. It is an issue that has gen-erated a great deal of justified emo-tion. National polls and polls of myState of Louisiana indicate that ap-proximately 75 percent of Americanpeople support a balanced budgetamendment. But the polls also indi-cate, at the same time, that they donot support the balanced budgetamendment if it means that there willbe cuts in Social Security, or there willbe cuts in Medicare, or there are likelyto be cuts in some other favorite pro-gram of our constituents.

I voted for a balanced budget amend-ment to the Constitution in the past asI believe the long-term debt of our Na-tion is a critical problem that, so far,we have been giving to our childrenand to our grandchildren. We havemade good efforts on reducing the defi-cits, as we have in 1993 in adopting

President Clinton’s deficit reductionplan which cut the deficit by $500 bil-lion over 5 years. I might add we madethat very difficult decision without asingle Republican vote. But more needsto be done, and if this amendmentpasses there will be many more and dif-ficult decisions to make. It will not beeasy.

I cannot vote to kill this efforttoday, here in Washington. Our Statesmust be involved. They should have theright to bring this measure up in ourState legislatures, debate it, and thenhave the right and indeed the obliga-tion to vote on it. For me to vote nohere in Washington is to say to myState of Louisiana, and the otherStates, that I know so much more thanyou on this particular issue that I nowvote no so that you cannot vote at all.I will not do that. So today I will voteyes on the balanced budget amendmentand send it to the States for ratifica-tion and consideration.

I yield the floor.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Utah.f

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that it be in orderfor me to move to table the followingamendments en bloc, and the orderingof the yeas and nays be in order, withone show of seconds.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection?

Mr. BYRD. addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from West VirginiaMr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask the

Senator to clarify his request to makesure that the request does not includethe tabling of several amendments list-ed en bloc.

Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, whatwe are trying to do is make sure themotions to table on each of theseamendments will be in place. They canbe called up separately.

I modify my unanimous-consent re-quest to make that clear.

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right toobject, then, now that the unanimousconsent has been modified, will theChair restate it, please?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is theChair’s understanding that the Senatorhas requested to move to table each in-dividual amendment en bloc, and toorder the yeas and nays en bloc, butthat the votes would actually be takenindividually. Is that correct?

Mr. HATCH. That is correct. I nowmove to table the following amend-ments.

Mr. LEAHY. I am still reserving myright to object.

Mr. HATCH. Sure.Mr. LEAHY. Those votes would occur

beginning this afternoon, is that cor-rect?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is theChair’s understanding that they wouldtake place this afternoon.

Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with thatunderstanding I now move to table thefollowing amendments and motion andask for the yeas and nays: The Kennedyamendment No. 267, Nunn amendmentNo. 299, Levin amendment No. 273,Levin amendment No. 310, Levinamendment No. 311, Pryor amendmentNo. 307, Byrd amendment No. 252, Byrdamendment No. 254, Byrd amendmentNo. 255, Byrd amendment No. 253, Byrdamendment No. 258, Kerry motion tocommit to budget committee.

The Nunn amendment is as modified.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection?Mr. HATCH. Excuse me—that is

right. I withdraw that last statement.Just the amendments I read the num-bers for.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Is there a sufficient second?There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Utah.Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to

personally chat with the distinguishedSenators from Georgia and Louisiana. Ihave listened to their comments care-fully and will agree that we would takethe amendment of the distinguishedSenator from Georgia, as modified—hopefully by a voice vote. It will saveus all time but nevertheless to accom-modate the distinguished Senator. Andhope that would, of course, allow us toproceed from there.

Mr. NUNN. I thank my friend fromUtah and my friend from Illinois, andalso Senator CRAIG and Senator LOTTand others who have worked hard mak-ing this amendment acceptable.

The Senator from Washington State,Senator DORGAN, and I have had someconversations also. Some of the lan-guage in this amendment now as ismodified has been suggested by theSenator from Washington.

Mr. President, I think this is enor-mously important, as I said. I will notrepeat my remarks but I appreciate thefact that the managers of the bill haveagreed to accept this amendment or torecommend its acceptance to the Sen-ate. I urge my colleagues to vote forthe amendment. Assuming as I do as-sume that the amendment will be partof this constitutional amendment, thenI will vote for the final passage on theconstitutional amendment and I urgemy colleagues to join in that effort.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from South Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, thereare a number of Senators who have ex-pressed concerns about a voice vote onthis amendment. Given the fact that ithas been the subject of debate and peo-ple are on record on this amendmentduring the course of the last severalweeks of debate, I suggest that we havea rollcall, just to provide Senators theopportunity to express themselves onthis amendment.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3264 February 28, 1995But that is consistent with the unan-

imous-consent request. I urge we dothat.

At this time I yield 7 minutes to thedistinguished Senator from North Da-kota.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thankthe Senator from South Dakota foryielding the time. Twelve years ago Iwas a member of the House Ways andMeans Committee when we wrote apiece of legislation called the SocialSecurity Reform Act, one of the mostsignificant, important, and usefulthings we did during the entire decadeof the 1980’s. We raised payroll taxes onboth the employees and employers, wedid a whole series of things to makethe Social Security system work for,we thought then, 50 years. And wesolved it for that period of time.

During the writing of that bill, whichI participated in, I expressed great con-cern about the fact that the surplusesthat we designed to occur in the SocialSecurity system would be misused un-less we protected them. We created sur-pluses. This year the surplus alone is$69 billion and the question is, is itbeing protected? The answer is no.

All during the discussion of this con-stitutional amendment, and on pre-vious occasions when we have debatedit, I have raised this question. Unfortu-nately, following an hour and a halfdiscussion yesterday with the pro-ponents of this legislation, it appearsthat this question will not be resolved.I indicated two concerns, one of whichhas now been resolved, for which I amappreciative: The enforcement issue. Ithink that resolved that concern.

But I am also concerned about theSocial Security trust fund. Does any-one in this room believe that it is ap-propriate to use Social Security trustfunds for other purposes? That is whatis happening. That is what will happenunder the imprimatur of the Constitu-tion if the balanced budget amendmentis passed with this language.

The way to correct this problem iswith the Reid amendment. We had avote on that and lost. The way to cor-rect it is with the substitute offered bySenator FEINSTEIN. We will have a voteon that, and I expect that will lose.

The other way to correct it is for theproponents to bring up implementinglanguage today, before we pass the con-stitutional amendment, which definesexpenditures and receipts as not in-cluding Social Security, and that willsolve the problem as far as I am con-cerned. Pass the Reid amendment orpass the Feinstein substitute, either ofwhich will solve this problem as far asI am concerned. If that does not hap-pen, when the final roll is called, I willbe voting against this amendment, andI want people to understand why.

This is three-forths of a trillion dol-lars. This is not a $10 or $20 billionissue. It is three-forths of a trillion dol-lars and deals with the promise be-tween those who work and those whohave retired and deals with the agree-ment that we made in 1983 about how

we would protect the future of the So-cial Security system in this country.We can protect it in this constitutionalamendment to balance the budget. It isour decision. The will of the Senatewill be expressed to determine whetherwe do that or do not. I am told that itis not possible to protect Social Secu-rity because there are not sufficientvotes for it. If that is the case, then itis not possible for me to vote for thisconstitutional amendment to balancethe budget. If between now and the endof the day people say that is possible, Isay, fine, let us do it then. And then Iwill revisit this issue.

But I just want people to understandthat my notion of this issue has notchanged. It is an enormously impor-tant consideration. Social Security isone of the most important things thiscountry has ever done. The 1983 reformact was one of the most significantpieces of legislation in the last decadeand a half. And the question is whetherwe are going to be true to our word andstand for the solvency of the Social Se-curity system for the long term.

On the broader question, do we needa balanced budget amendment? Youhad better believe we do. We needgreater balanced budget discipline,whether it is a constitutional amend-ment or whether some new legislativeinitiative. We are sinking in a sea ofdebt. Yes, we need to do this. But youdo not pull yourself out of a sea of debtby inappropriately spending three-forths of a trillion dollars of Social Se-curity revenue. One is not a tradeofffor the other.

I will simply not vote for a constitu-tional amendment to balance the budg-et unless this problem is solved in oneof two ways: either pass the imple-menting legislation to redefine what ismeant by receipts and outlays beforewe pass the constitutional amendment,or pass the Reid amendment as em-bodied in Senator FEINSTEIN’s sub-stitute. One or the other is satisfactoryto me. If it appears neither will bedone, those who count votes should un-derstand I will then vote no on the con-stitutional amendment.

I yield the floor.Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from West Virginia.Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield.Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how

much time do we have remaining?The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have

about 8 minutes 10 seconds.Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the remainder

of my time to the distinguished Sen-ator from West Virginia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thankthe distinguished leader.

Mr. President, I compliment the dis-tinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr.NUNN] on his efforts to cure a majorflaw in this constitutional amendmentto balance the budget. I shall vote forhis amendment. Nevertheless, Mr.President, I do not feel that this

amendment by Mr. NUNN will effec-tively bar the courts from interveningin cases or controversies that will ariseoutside this or even inside the article.Let us read the amendment. The ‘‘judi-cial power of the United States.’’ Mr.President, that language does not ap-pear to say anything about the Statecourts. In fact, by omitting any ref-erence to State courts, the languageimpliedly invites them to come in.

The judicial power of the United Statesshall not extend to any case or controversyarising under this article.

‘‘Under this article.’’ Suppose thecase or controversy arises under someother article, under the takings clause,under the obligations of contractclause, or under the due process clause.The Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, if it construes a case or con-troversy as affected by this amend-ment, is going to take into consider-ation the whole document, the fourcorners of the Constitution and theother amendments thereto. And ifthere is a John Marshall on that court,he will find a way because, after all,the major purpose of this constitu-tional amendment is to bring into bal-ance the outlays and receipts annuallyof the United States.

The amendment goes on to say—Mr.President, may we have order in theSenate? Mr. President, may we haveorder in the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We willnot proceed until we have order in theSenate, please.

The Senator from West Virginia.Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will read

the Nunn amendment again.The judicial power of the United States

shall not extend to any case or controversyarising under this article, except as may bespecifically authorized by legislation adopt-ed pursuant to this section.

Mr. President, we say here that thejudicial power of the United Statesshall not extend to any case or con-troversy arising under this article ex-cept as may be specifically authorizedby legislation adopted pursuant to thearticle.

We all know that legislation thatmay be adopted to implement the arti-cle may change from Congress to Con-gress. A subsequent Congress canamend or repeal the implementing lan-guage enacted by a previous Congress.

So what we are setting up here is asituation in which uncertainty willcontinue to be a key factor in the judg-ments that are to be reached, not onlyuncertainty within the government it-self but by the people. We are leaving itto the Congress to pass legislation au-thorizing thus and so, perhaps author-izing the courts to enter into this kindof case or that kind of case or anothersort of controversy. So we are left withthe same uncertainty with this amend-ment as we are without it.

Mr. President, the proposed languageby Mr. NUNN seeks to—and it may ef-fectively do so up to a point—eliminatecourt jurisdiction over legitimate

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3265February 28, 1995claims raised under the balanced budg-et amendment. This means, in effect,that the Nunn amendment confers noright not to be convicted under a stat-ute passed, for example, in violation ofsection 4 of the amendment. Section 4reads:

No bill to increase Federal revenue shallbecome law unless approved by a majority ofthe whole number of each House by rollcallvote.

Of course, the Constitution requiresthat bills that raise revenues originatein the other body. If a person is con-victed under a criminal statute thatoriginates in this body, but the con-tents of which criminal statute resultin an increase in revenues, then the de-fendant who seeks relief will do well onthe basis of a bill which raises reve-nue—even though it was a criminalstatute under which he was indictedand convicted—which did not originatewith the other body.

The Nunn amendment confers noright not to be convicted under a stat-ute passed in violation of any of thesections of this amendment.

The Nunn amendment may, in cer-tain cases, take away the right of aninjured citizen to challenge any cuts inbenefits—mandated by law—ordered bya President who is seeking to enforcethe amendment by impounding funds.As to due process, this amendment iswriting the due process clause out ofthe Constitution, as far as such claimsare concerned. I have already indicatedthat citizens could be convicted of acrime in violation of the Constitution,or taxed in violation of the Constitu-tion. Yet, Congress would have thepower to deny these citizens access tothe courts in which to vindicate theirrights.

The courts could refuse to hear chal-lenges to unconstitutional actions. Itis unclear, Mr. President, whether thisamendment can be raised as a defense.While the amendment seeks to barplaintiffs from access to the Federalcourts to claim a violation of theirrights, it is not clear whether the pro-posed language also would bar govern-mental actors—for example, the Presi-dent of the United States—from raisingthe balanced budget amendment as adefense. Here is an example: Supposethe President cuts Social Security. Theplaintiff might sue, but he does not sueunder the balanced budget amendmentbut under a statute. The Presidentraises the defense that the balancedbudget amendment justifies his action.How would a court rule? Would thecourt rule that the case should be dis-missed because of the balanced budgetamendment? But then, all the Presi-dent has to do to escape scrutiny is toinvoke the amendment. Would thecourt rule that the plaintiff wins be-cause the court has no power to reviewthe defense? Then other plaintiffs couldbring similar actions and the budgetwould go unbalanced.

Mr. President, let us say that theNunn amendment is effective in bar-ring intervention by the Federal courts

into cases or controversies arising‘‘under this article.’’ Even then, the re-sult could be a shift to the President ofunreviewable power to impound funds.The Federal courts would be barred bythis amendment from reviewing thePresident’s action, despite the Fram-ers’ view that the power of the purseshould be left in the hands of the Con-gress, the closest representatives of thepeople. And if Congress should respondto presidential impoundment by grant-ing the courts the power to review suchactions, then the courts would again beembroiled in the budget process and,quite possibly, in the unseemly role ofa conscripted ally of one branchagainst the other.

So, Mr. President, even if thisamendment is effective in accomplish-ing the goal that the distinguishedSenator from Georgia seeks, it seemsto me that it creates a greater impetusto the flow of legislative power and thecontrol of the purse from the legisla-tive branch to the President. Theamendment provides that the courts,in essence, may be authorized to inter-vene based on implementing legislationthat may be passed or may not bepassed and may be changed from Con-gress to Congress. And thus, it givesauthority for the Congress to transferlegislative powers to the courts.

Subsequent legislation to implementthe article may be vetoed. That wouldrequire two-thirds of both Houses tooverride the President’s veto. Even if itbecomes law, a subsequent Congresscan change the law. The provision maybe read as granting Congress the powerto confer sweeping legislative powersover taxing and spending priorities onthe courts, in the guise of implement-ing legislation.

This is a mess. Congress may verywell, in implementing legislation, de-cide just to hand the whole mess overto the courts of the land. Such legisla-tion would abdicate Congress’ fun-damental responsibility over taxingand spending and transfer it tounelected judges, and thus decrease theaccountability of the Federal Govern-ment to the taxpayers. The courtswould be blamed for making the toughchoices, though it may be two, three orfour, five years down the road. But bythen the fingerprints of the proponentsof this amendment would be cold, andthe mess would be left in the hands ofthe courts. The courts would be blamedfor making the tough choices, whichshould be the responsibility of theelected officials.

Assuming, Mr. President, that theamendment would be effective in strip-ping court jurisdiction and assumingfurther that Presidential impoundmentis not the result—and those are largeassumptions—the amendment would bean empty promise inscribed in the fun-damental charter of our Nation.

Mr. President, the proponents of thisamendment have thus far tabled allamendments. Their ears have been deafto the pleas of those Senators who havesought to protect the Social Security

trust fund. There was no give on thatamendment. There was no give onamendments that would deal with theups and downs, the rises and the fallsin the economy—no give on that. Butsuddenly, here comes an amendmentthat the proponents on the other sideof the aisle seem to be willing to take.What about all of the other amend-ments that they have rejected?

If the Nunn amendment is includedin this overall constitutional article,then the balanced budget constitu-tional amendment as amended goesback to the House. If the House doesnot accept the Nunn language, then thebalanced budget amendment will go toa conference. The whole balanced budg-et amendment may then be rewrittenin that conference. When that con-ference report comes back to the Sen-ate, it may not look like the balancedbudget amendment that is presentlybefore the Senate. Senators would cer-tainly not have the opportunity to de-bate at length a conference report on aconstitutional amendment that hadbeen measurably changed in the con-ference process.

Mr. President, I see many slips be-tween the cup and lip in connectionwith this amendment. It is well-inten-tioned. I intend to vote for it. But, Mr.President, it demonstrates the farcethat we are about to vote on latertoday—the farce in the form of thisconstitutional amendment to balancethe budget. It is a mess! It is a ‘‘quickfix’’, and there is no way to fix thisquick fix. The Nunn amendment clear-ly demonstrates that.

I reserve the remainder of my time.Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the Senator fromUtah has 38 minutes under his control.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 4minutes to the distinguished Senatorfrom Illinois.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Presi-dent, today the Senate stands poised tovote on one of the most importantmeasures that will come before thisCongress. Indeed, for many in thisChamber, the vote on the balancedbudget amendment will be the mostimportant vote they cast in their ca-reer, and I urge each of my colleaguesto support it.

As I have stated on this floor before,I chose a career in public service be-cause, throughout my life, the public—through government—helped broadenmy opportunities. I am fundamentallycommitted to ensuring that future gen-erations have the same opportunities Ienjoyed. Every child born in this coun-try—whether black or white, whetherrich or poor—should have the chance toachieve his or her dreams. Every per-son should have a chance to contributeto society, to the maximum extenttheir talent or ability will allow.

Government should play an activerole in expanding people’s opportuni-ties. The Government should invest intechnology and infrastructure, in job

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3266 February 28, 1995creation and training, and in edu-cation, in order to raise the people’sliving standards. The Governmentshould help unemployed Americans getback on their feet, should help thosewho want to work to find jobs, shouldensure that high-quality, affordablehealth care is available to all Ameri-cans, and should protect our environ-ment. Government is not the enemy ofsociety; it should be a partner, an in-strument of the people’s will, and afacilitator of our public interest. But ifthe Government does not get its fiscalhouse in order—if we don’t act now tostop our runaway deficit spending—theGovernment will have little money leftto provide for the public interest. Onlythe holders of the treasury bonds willbe assured of any Government assist-ance.

As I learned through my work on theEntitlements Commission, unless weget the deficit under control, we will beleaving our children—and our chil-dren’s children—a legacy of debt thatwill make it impossible for them toachieve the American dream of living abetter life than their parents.

There is simply no way to get aroundthe fact that our present spendingtrends are not sustainable in the longterm. In 1963, Mandatory spending—thecombination of entitlement programsand interest on the national debt—comprised 29.6 percent of the FederalBudget. By 1983, that number has al-most doubled, to 56.3 percent. Tenyears later, in 1993, mandatory spend-ing was 61.4 percent of the annualbudget. Let me underscore that: today,mandatory spending—entitlements,plus interest on the national debt—comprise almost two thirds of the en-tire Federal Budget.

But what about the future? If wedon’t act now, by the year 2003—8 yearsfrom now—mandatory spending willcomprise 72 percent of the FederalBudget, 58.2 percent for entitlementprograms, and 13.8 percent for net in-terest on the national debt. Obviously,if we are spending 72 percent of budgeton mandatory spending, there is notmuch left over for defense, education,or infrastructure.

Consider this example. In real terms,AFDC benefits have actually declinedsince 1970. The significance of that factshould not be lost on anyone. We arespending ourselves into a deeper anddeeper hole, yet people are not betteroff as result.

I have heard many opponents of thebalanced budget amendment questionthe need to tackle the deficit imme-diately. America is not, they maintain,in the midst of a budgetary crisis. Inthe short term—the next 7 years—that’s perhaps true. The country canprobably continue on its current irre-sponsible path for a few years into thenext century. But, after that, it will nolonger be possible to ignore the basicdemographic and health care costtrends driving the increases in Federalspending. We simply will not be able tocontinue on our current path, and ex-

pect the Federal Government to func-tion as a partner of the people well intothe next century. And, if we wait to actuntil crisis comes, any action we takewill be that much more painful, andthat much less effective.

The entire Federal deficit for thecurrent fiscal year—estimated at $176billion—represents the interest owedon the huge national debt run up dur-ing the 1980’s. This year, and next year,the budget would be balanced if not forthe reckless supply-side economicsthat caused the deficit to balloon fromits 1980 level of about $1 trillion to itscurrent level of more than $4.7 trillion.If we had acted in 1980 to tackle thedeficit, rather than adopting programsthat merely fed its rapid growth, theproblems we face today—in terms ofdemographics, and the aging of thebaby boomers—would seem much moremanageable. In 1980, interest on thedebt was $75 billion—that is a lot ofmoney, Mr. President, but it is no-where near the $950 billion we cur-rently pay. How much better off wewould be if, in 1980, congress had pos-sessed the courage to make the dif-ficult choices, and balance the budget.Not passing the balanced budgetamendment will not make our prob-lems go away. Our ability to meet ourpriorities will be much greater if weenact the balanced budget amendmentnow, if we tackle the tough problemsnow, instead of waiting until the coun-try is on the brink of financial ruin. Ifwe need any convincing about the needto address the deficit now, in 1995, weshould just look at the consequences ofour failure to address it then, in 1980.

But I disagree that deficit spending isthe most effective way to accomplishthat. In 1966, when our deficit totaled$3.7 billion, 2.6 percent of our budgetwent toward funding long-term invest-ment. Now, with our budget deficitabout to hit $268 billion, our long-terminvestment has shrunk to 1.8 percent ofthe budget. The reason, I think, is ob-vious—more and more of our fundsmust be devoted to paying interest onthe debt, leaving less and less for in-vestment.

I have heard opponents of HouseJoint Resolution 1 state that we shouldnot be tinkering around with the Con-stitution. Well, I couldn’t agree withthem more. The years I spent studyinglaw at the University of Chicago gaveme a deep appreciation for the Con-stitution. I believe the U.S. Constitu-tion to be the finest exposition ofdemocratic principles ever written. Imake that statement fully aware that,in its original form, the Constitutionincluded neither African-Americansnor women in its vision of a democraticsociety. But it changed to better real-ize the promise of America. The beautyof the Constitution is that it can,through a deliberate, cumbersome andsometimes painful process, be amendedto reflect the changing realities, andmeet new challenges faced by our Na-tion. This current problem—the prob-lem of our growing fiscal disorder—is

too important not to act on today. Whocould be opposed to affirmatively stat-ing in the Constitution that currentgenerations must act responsibly, sothat future generations will not beforced to bear the burden of their irre-sponsibility? What could be more im-portant than the fiscal integrity of ourNation? As another of our FoundingFathers, Thomas Jefferson once said,‘‘We should consider ourselves unau-thorized to saddle posterity with ourdebts, and morally bound to pay themourselves.’’ Why is that proposition notimportant enough to be included in theConstitution?

Last year I had the honor of readingGeorge Washington’s farewell addressto the Nation on the floor of the Sen-ate. In that address, Mr. Washingtonleft us with some words of wisdomthat, I believe, support the notion of abalanced budget amendment. I wouldlike to quote those here today:

As a very important source of strength andsecurity, cherish public credit. One methodof preserving it is to use it as sparingly aspossible, avoiding occasions of expense bycultivating peace, but remembering, also,that timely disbursements, to prepare fordanger, frequently prevent much greater dis-bursements to repel it; avoiding likewise theaccumulation of debt, not only by shunningoccasion of expense, by my vigorous exer-tions, in times of peace, to discharge thedebts which unavoidable wars may have oc-casioned, not ungenerously throwing uponposterity the burden which we ourselvesought to bear.

Finally, Mr. President, I would liketo take head on the political implica-tions of this debate, because it is animportant political question for theCongress. I am not a signatory of theContract with America. Indeed, I agreewith Senator BYRD; the only contractwith America that matters to me is theU.S. Constitution.

But I want to be clear that this issueis not a partisan one. It reflects philo-sophical differences that have little todo with party lines. The senior Senatorfrom my State of Illinois, SenatorSIMON, has been one of the chief advo-cates of the balanced budget amend-ment for years. Senator SIMON’s liberalcredentials are without question. He is,and has always been, a Democrat—hewas at one time even a candidate forour Presidential nomination. so this isnot a Republican versus Democrat de-bate. Nor is this a battle of the con-servatives against the liberals. I amproud to call myself a liberal, for thesimple reason that I believe govern-ment has a positive and constructiverole to play in promoting the publicgood. I do not believe government isthe enemy of progress. I believe it canpromote progress. In my lifetime, Ihave seen firsthand the positive con-tributions a commitment to the Amer-ican dream of equality and opportunitycan make, I would not be here but forthe struggles of people of good will tomake the American dream a reality.And it is precisely because I so valuetheir struggles that I believe we musttake the steps that a commitment to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3267February 28, 1995providing opportunity requires. Wehave a duty to use our decisionmakingpower in a manner that preserves free-dom and opportunity for all Ameri-cans, not only in this generation, butin every generation to come.

Poor people are not helped by thedeficits and out-of-control spendinghabits we cannot seem to shake. Its in-teresting as I listen to the debate thatswirls around the issue of the balancedbudget amendment and Social Secu-rity. The reason that debate is so in-tense, Mr. President, is that current re-cipients of Social Security—and eventhose of us in the baby boom genera-tion who will be collecting checks inthe not so distant future—have an ab-solute expectation that Social Securitywill provide for us in our retirement.The same cannot be said for those inour younger generations. When youspeak to people who are my son Mat-thew’s age, they have absolutely nofaith that Government will be there forthem when they need it, that it willhelp them enjoy retirement security oraffordable health care or a high stand-ard of living. And why should they, Mr.President? Since my son was born in1977, he has never seen a balancedbudget. He has no idea what it meansto live under a Federal Governmentthat spends within its means. He hasheard politician after politician prom-ise to balance the budget, yet has onlyseen the deficit skyrocket.

That cynicism grows deeper anddeeper every day, despite pronounce-ments of politicians that a brighterday is just around the corner. The factis, with current budget trends, abrighter day is not around the corner.What lies ahead, if we fail to act, isslower economic growth, greater debt,fewer options and higher taxes. Thetime has passed for us to realize thatby failing to act, we are indeed makinga choice—a choice that involves throw-ing away most of our options for deal-ing with our fiscal problems. The onlyway we will be able to turn currentbudget trends around is to face realitywith the help of the balanced budgetamendment.

Mr. President, I want to take this de-bate back to the beginning—to theConstitution. The Constitution states,in its preamble:

We the People of the United States, inOrder to form a more perfect Union, estab-lish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote thegeneral Welfare, and to secure the Blessingsof Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, doordain and establish this Constitution forthe United States of America.

Mr. President, I believe that this con-stitutional preamble sets the stage forthe vote we will soon cast on this bal-anced budget amendment, and tells usthe direction in which we should go.

This Constitution gives Congress thepower to protect Social Security, to re-spond to fiscal emergencies, and toforeclose judicial interference in budg-eting. It gives us the power to do ev-erything necessary to respond to con-

cerns that have been raised in opposi-tion to this balanced budget amend-ment.

Unfortunately, absent the balancedbudget amendment, the Constitutiondoes not give us what we now lack—thewill to make the difficult decisionsnecessary for us to get our fiscal housein order. That is what the balancedbudget amendment is calculated to do.It will impose on Congress the fiscaldiscipline to do what we should havedone years ago, what George Washing-ton exhorted us to do in his farewelladdress to the Nation, and what thepreamble to this Constitution tells usto do.

This is not a partisan debate, or atleast it shouldn’t be. The essence ofthis debate boils down to whether eachindividual Senator, regardless of party,believes we have a fundamental obliga-tion to our posterity, and a fundamen-tal obligation to the American people,to abide by the Constitution that weare all sworn to uphold.

Mr. President, I call upon my col-leagues to take the pledge by votingfor this amendment that we will deficitspend no more, that we will be respon-sible for the debts that we incur, thatwe will be responsible for the budgetswe pass, and that we will be responsibleto future generations, and not saddlethem with debt. I call on my fellowSenators to transcend the hysteria andfear that has fueled the opposition tothis balanced budget amendment, andrespond instead to our hopes, and tothe responsibility that we are given asMembers of this U.S. Congress to getour fiscal house in order, to dischargeour debts, and not to ungenerouslythrow upon posterity the burdenswhich we ourselves ought to bear.

Mr. President I thank the Senatorfrom Utah for his yielding, and I yieldthe floor.

Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Utah.Mr. HATCH. I yield 4 minutes to the

distinguished Senator from Virginia.Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I will be

brief. My views are already known tomost of the Members of this body. Isupport the balanced budget amend-ment reluctantly—as a bad idea whosetime has come. What I really supportare the balanced budgets this amend-ment seeks to achieve.

I support the amendment because Ido not believe we are ever going tohave the will to actually balance ourbudgets without it and that out failureto do so puts our future in doubt anddemands extraordinary and uncommonaction by this Congress.

Let me begin by saying that I en-dorsed this amendment more than adecade ago, not because I believed thenor now, that it will, in and of itself,bring our budget into balance, but be-cause it establishes both a call to ac-tion and a destination—and because ittakes away an excuse for not makingthe hard choices we are going to haveto make with or without the amend-

ment. It forces us to confront—head-on—the fiscal disaster we have created,and it will force an essential disciplinein our budget process that has beensadly absent.

President Clinton deserves enormouscredit for the $500 billion deficit reduc-tion package, which passed this body in1993. It took courage and he did nothave the bipartisan help he deserved.But it was not enough.

Mr. President, during the course ofthis debate, I have heard manythoughtful and sincere arguments inopposition to this amendment. Thismorning, I would like to address justtwo of them—whether or not theamendment will result in deep cuts toimportant programs and whether ornot the amendment is worthy of con-stitutional consideration.

Mr. President, those who oppose thisamendment because it will lead topainful cuts are arguing not againstthe amendment, but against actuallybalancing the budget. None of thechoices are easy.

But to oppose this amendment be-cause of the difficult choices it willforce, is to say to the American peoplethat we do not have the will to governresponsibly and live within our means.

Making these choices means estab-lishing essential priorities for our Na-tion, identifying effective programs,that provide hope and opportunity forour people, programs that defend ourfreedom at home and abroad, and pro-grams that invest in a better tomorrowfor our children and our grandchildren.

Protecting these priorities means:saying ‘‘no’’ to less critical spending;and having the fortitude to turn to therevenue side when we cannot respon-sibly cut spending any more; and refus-ing to enact new tax cuts we cannot af-ford and tackling entitlement reform,the 800 pound gorilla of the 21st cen-tury.

If we do not, Mr. President, if we con-tinue on our present course and speed,entitlements and interest on the debt—and nothing more—will absorb the en-tire tax revenue base of the FederalGovernment by the year 2012. It willabsorb all of it, with nothing left fornational defense or any other Federalprogram.

How then do we invest in our chil-dren?

Interest payments on the nationaldebt will not ever put a single poorchild through college. Interest pay-ments on the national debt will notever provide nutrition for a disadvan-taged pregnant woman, special edu-cation for a child with disabilities, orthe only hot meal of the day for a 6-year-old living in poverty.

I support this amendment, reluc-tantly, Mr. President, not because Iwant to endanger programs that pro-vide real opportunity for our children,but because I fear for the strength andsecurity of the world we leave them,and their children if we do not acttoday.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3268 February 28, 1995A child born today will be 17 years

old—a senior in high school—the yearentitlements and interest on the debtbegins to absorb all our tax revenue.

What kind of a nation will that childinherit? Will it even resemble theworld of unlimited possibilities thatour parents left us?

Today, we make that decision, Mr.President. Today, we decide the futureof the class of 2012. Today, we eitherbegin to assume the responsibility forour own debt or we leave it to our chil-dren and our grandchildren.

Our Founding Fathers would be dis-mayed to know that we have reachedthe point where amending their Con-stitution is necessary to protect thestrength and security of future genera-tions of Americans. And if we had gov-erned with the political courage of ourforefathers, we would not be facing afiscal crisis of such enormous propor-tion.

But I would argue, Mr. President,that paying our own bills is not a triv-ial matter. Protecting our ability toinvest in the kind of America we wantfor our children, is not a minor aca-demic argument. Tripling our debt in15 years is not an inconsequential act.Mr. President, $6 trillion is not trivial.

To me our own lack of will in payingour bills trivializes our Constitution—and this institution—far more than abalanced budget amendment.

To the children graduating from highschool in 2012, an amendment to bal-ance our Federal budget will be moreimportant to the kind of country theyinherit than the last amendment weadded to the Constitution. Thatamendment, the 27th, ratified in May,1992, required intervening elections be-fore congressional pay raises go into ef-fect.

The legacy of debt we leave our chil-dren, can never be trivial nor incon-sequential. It violates a sacred obliga-tion that has passed through genera-tions of Americans, an obligationwhich has endured since the birth ofour democracy and the adoption of ourConstitution. That obligation is toleave a future brighter than our past. Ifwe do not act today we are violatingthat obligation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and Ithank the manager.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we aredown to our last half-hour. It is myhonor to yield 4 minutes to the distin-guished Senator from South Carolina,who was the first to ever fight for abalanced budget amendment on ourside and who deserves a lot of credit ifthis amendment passes.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, wehave seen the national debt and defi-cits rise because, in large part, theFederal Government has grown. It hasgrown tremendously out of reason.

The first $100 billion budget in theNation occurred in 1962. This was al-most 180 years after the Nation wasfounded. Yet it took only 9 years, from1962 to 1971, for the Federal budget toreach $200 billion. Then, the Federal

budget continued to skyrocket: $300billion in 1975, $500 billion in 1979, $800billion in 1983, and the first $1 trillionbudget in 1987. The budget for fiscalyear 1995 was over $1.5 trillion.

Federal spending has gripped theCongress as a narcotic. It is time tobreak the habit and restore order tothe fiscal policy of the Nation. It is in-cumbent upon this body to send thebalanced budget amendment to theAmerican people for ratification. I ampleased that we have reached agree-ment to vote on final passage today.

I want to say this: The federal debt is$4.8 trillion. How did it come about?Big government, big spending, not fol-lowing sound fiscal policy at all. Theannual interest on this debt—the an-nual interest we pay for which we getnothing, it just goes down the drain—$235 billion. That is the second largestitem in the budget.

The average annual deficit for eachyear during this decade has been $259billion. It is unreasonable. How are wegoing to stop it? I have been here 40years. We have balanced the budgetonly one time in 32 years. The budgethas been balanced only eight times inthe last 64 years. When are we going tostop it? When are we going to stopspending more than we take in? Whenare we going to stop putting this debton our children and grandchildren andgenerations to come.

I say to Members that we must takeaction. Today is the day to do it.Today is the day to pass this amend-ment and let the American peopleknow we mean business and we aregoing to protect this country. We haveto protect it from this big spendingjust like we have to protect it in timeof war. Either can ruin this Nation.

Now, I want to mention this: Theleadership in both houses have statedthat Social Security will be protectedin the implementing legislation oncethe balanced budget amendment isadopted. I have long supported our sen-ior citizens and believe that the prom-ise of Social Security is not to be bro-ken. The Federal debt is the greatestthreat to Social Security. Adoption ofthe balanced budget amendment andstrong language in the implementinglegislation will ensure the viability ofSocial Security.

The Senate should pass this amend-ment. My home State of South Caro-lina has a balanced budget require-ment. We have abided by it for years.We do not run any deficits. Why? Be-cause we have the mandate of a bal-anced budget by constitutional provi-sion. That is what we are trying to gethere. We also have a statute.

I say to Members, if we do not passthis amendment today, we will miss agreat opportunity. There is no onepiece of legislation we can pass thisyear or any year to come that is moreimportant than this balanced budgetamendment. I hope we pass it today. Itis for the good of America. It is for thegood of our country. We ought to do itwithout delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield tothe distinguished Senator from Ten-nessee for 1 minute.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr.President.

Mr. President, there is nothing morebasic to human nature than lookingout for the interests of those we bringinto this world. Yet we are not doingthat in this country. On the contrary,we are creating an economic disasterfor the next generation, a debt thatthey will never be able to dig out ofand the prospects of living in a second-rate country.

We are doing this not because ofsome great depression. We are doingthis not because of some great war. Weare doing this not because of some nat-ural disaster. We are doing this simplybecause we have lacked the will tomake the tough decisions.

Mr. President, through the history ofthe course of this country, in times ofcrisis, leaders of both parties havebanded together to face that crisis andovercome it. We must do so again thisvery day because, indeed, it is a crisiswe face. We must do so by passing thisbalanced budget amendment.

The people’s voice could not be moreclear on this matter. They have spokenin the polls. They have spoken throughtheir legal, elected representatives inthe House. They stand ready to speakagain in State legislatures throughoutthis Nation once we have done ourduty. Let it not be said that it was theSenate of the United States of Americathat stifled the strong, clear voice ofthe American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom Maine.

Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator.Mr. President, Robert Louis Steven-

son once said, ‘‘These are my politics:To change what we can to better whatwe can.’’ With today’s vote, we havethe chance to do both.

Like so many other times in thisgreat Nation’s history, we are standingtoday before the American people onthe cusp of monumental change. Wehave inherited the challenges and theresponsibilities of leadership of pre-vious generations of Americans, Ameri-cans who have stood in this Chamberand voted for difficult votes that mold-ed the image of their generation.

In this century alone we had women’ssuffrage, the declaration of World WarII, and civil rights laws. Each of theseevents ended the status quo of one gen-eration and ushered in a new beginningfor the next.

The prophetic nature of this debatecannot be understated in the annals ofAmerica’s history. This is a definingmoment for our generation. This is ourchance to be remembered for what isjust and right in our time. This is ourlast chance to roll back the years of in-debtedness.

This legacy of debt is not just an im-balance between revenues and expendi-tures. It is an imbalance between trustand responsibilities. The last time the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3269February 28, 1995Congress balanced its budget was whenAmerica put a man on the noon.

If there is one thing that we havelearned in the last 26 years, it is this:We cannot balance our budget in theabsence of a stronger force than poli-tics.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom Arizona.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, outside theSenate Chamber on the Capitolgrounds, the debt clock is ticking: anadditional $9,600 every second, $576,000every minute, $35 million every hour,and $829 million every day. That isnearly $1 billion in additional debt theFederal Government is accumulatingeach and every day. It is a catastrophewaiting to happen.

The choice before the Senate today isclear. We can defuse that time bomb ofdebt by passing the balanced budgetamendment and begin to make thetough decisions necessary to put ourNation’s fiscal house in order, or wecan bury our collective heads in thesand and pretend that spending $1 bil-lion a day beyond our means will nothave devastating economic con-sequences.

But we ought to be honest with theAmerican people: Without the balancedbudget amendment, there is no plan tobalance the budget—not in 5 years, notin 10 years, or ever. The budget thatPresident Clinton submitted to theCongress earlier this month proposes$200 billion deficits as far as the eyecan see. The President has no plan tobalance the budget.

Although the new Congress is poisedto make significant cuts in spending,there is no assurance that when thepain begins to be felt in a few years, itwill not opt to mitigate pain by resum-ing Federal borrowing as Congresses inthe past have done. That is whyGramm–Rudman failed several yearsago. It is why nothing less than thebalanced budget amendment will suc-ceed in the future.

Mr. President, this is a debate aboutthe future, about preserving what isbest in America. It is about protectingsenior citizens on Social Security. It isabout letting our families keep whatthey earn. It is about protecting ourchildren’s future.

I am hopeful today when this dayends the U.S. Senate will have passedthe balanced budget amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom Ohio.

Mr. DEWINE. Mr. President, the pas-sage of a balanced budget amendmentwill do more to bring about the fun-damental change that the Americanpeople voted for in 1994 than anythingelse that we can do. This is a voteabout our future. This is a vote aboutour children.

Let me share some sobering facts.When my parents graduated from highschool in the early 1940’s, the debt oneach child that graduated was about$360 dollars. By the time my wife and I

graduated in the mid-1960’s it was up to$1,600. When my children, Patrick andJill and Becky, graduated in the mid-1980’s, it was up to almost $9,000.

If we continue to go the way we havebeen going, by the time my grandson,Albert, graduates in the year 2012, itwill be up to almost $25,000.

Mr. President, this is a defining mo-ment. We vote today to change theGovernment. We vote today to carryout the mandate that was given to thisCongress in 1994.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom Wyoming.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.CRAIG). The Senator from Wyoming isrecognized for 1 minute.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I amproud to rise today to urge the passageof House Joint Resolution 1, the bal-anced budget amendment to the Con-stitution. I am profoundly convincedthat the future of our Government, in-deed the future of our country, dependsupon reaching a measure of financialresponsibility. I am equally convincedthat failure to pass this amendmentwill result in continued deficit spend-ing and added burdens of debt and in-terest payments.

As Members of this body, we are hon-ored to be trustees in the area of publicpolicy for those who we represent, forthe people of the United States. The fi-nancial stewardship of this Congresshas not met the test of fiscal and moralresponsibility.

I am persuaded that the people ofWyoming demand that Congress re-spond to their voice in November. Theycalled for smaller Government, less ex-pensive Government. The test of goodGovernment is the responsiveness ofthat Government to the will of the peo-ple. We have that opportunity today.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom Pennsylvania.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Pennsylvania is recognizedfor 1 minute.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, wesee here 11 freshmen who were electedin the last election, and sophomoreswho are with us. You do not see thismany Members in the Senate—at leastI do not usually when I have gotten upto speak.

We are here because we got the mes-sage. We are here because the Amer-ican people sent us on a mission. Theysent us on a mission to make Govern-ment leaner, smaller and more effi-cient, and this balanced budget amend-ment is the vehicle by which all of thathappens.

If this does not pass, all those thingsthat the people voted for on November8 will not happen. But let me tell yousomething, the balanced budgetamendment will pass. Oh, it may notpass today —I think it will—but it maynot. But it will pass. The people whowill stand in the way of this balancedbudget amendment today will not bearound long to stand in the way the

next time. It will pass. It is just a mat-ter of when.

It is a matter of when we are going tobe able to look in the eyes, as I do, ofmy 2-year-old little boy and my 3-year-old little girl and say that ‘‘it is timeto look out for your future, too. It istime that someone stands up and caresabout you and your opportunities.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator’s time has expired.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom Minnesota.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, at theState capital building in St. Paul, MN,lawmakers presented Gov. ArneCarlson with this petition yesterday. Itsays:

We, the undersigned officials, duly electedby the citizens of the great State of Min-nesota, commit our support to congressionalpassage of the balanced budget amendmentand its ratification by the Minnesota StateLegislature.

Our petition is signed by 81 rep-resentatives on the Federal and Statelevel, Republicans and Democrats, whoare concerned that this debt that weare heaping onto the backs of our chil-dren is not just wrong, it is criminal.

I ask unanimous consent that thisdocument be printed into the RECORD.

There being no objection, the peti-tion was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

MINNESOTANS FOR A BALANCEDBUDGET AMENDMENT

(As of February 25, 1995)

We the undersigned officials, duly electedby the Citizens of the Great State of Min-nesota, commit our support to congressionalpassage of the Balanced Budget Amendmentand its ratification by the Minnesota StateLegislature:

United States Senator Rod Grams.Governor Arne Carlson.U.S. Representative Gil Gutknecht (IR–1st

CD).U.S. Representative David Minge (DFL–2nd

CD).U.S. Representative Collin Peterson (DFL–

7th CD).U.S. Representative Jim Ramstad (IR–6th

CD).State Senate Republican Leader Dean

Johnson.State House Republican Leader Steve

Sviggum.State Senator Charlie Berg (DFL–District

13).State Senator Joe Bertram, Sr. (DFL–Dis-

trict 14).State Senator Florian Chmielewski (DFL–

District 8).State Senator Dick Day (IR–District 28).State Senator Steve Dille (IR–District 20).State Senator Dennis Frederickson (IR–

District 23).State Senator Paula Hanson (DFL–50).State Senator Terry Johnston (IR–District

35).State Senator Sheila Kiscaden (IR–District

30).State Senator Dave Kleis (IR–District 16).State Senator Dave Knuston (IR–District

36).State Senator Cal Larson (IR–District 10).State Senator Arlene Lesewski (IR–Dis-

trict 21).State Senator Warren Limmer (IR–District

33).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3270 February 28, 1995State Senator Bob Lessard (DFL–District

3).State Senator Tom Neuville (IR–District

25).State Senator Ed Oliver (IR–District 43).State Senator Gen Olson (IR–District 34).State Senator Mark Ourada (IR–District

19).State Senator Pat Pariseau (IR–District

37).State Senator Martha Robertson (IR–Dis-

trict 45).State Senator Linda Runbeck (IR–District

53).State Senator Kenric Scheevel (IR–District

31).State Senator Dan Stevens (IR–District

17).State Senator Roy Terwilliger (IR–District

42).State Senator Jim Vickerman (DFL–Dis-

trict 22).State Representative Ron Abrams (IR–Dis-

trict 45A).State Representative Hilda Bettermann

(IR–District 10B).State Representative Dave Bishop (IR–Dis-

trict 30B).State Representative Fran Bradley (IR–

District 30A).State Representative Sherry Broecker (IR–

District 53B).State Representative Tim Commers (IR–

District 38A).State Representative Roxann Daggett (IR–

District 11A).State Representative Steve Dehler (IR–Dis-

trict 14A).State Representative Jerry Dempsey (IR–

District 29A).State Representative Ron Erhardt (IR–Dis-

trict 42A).State Representative Don Frerichs (IR–

District 31A).State Representative Jim Girard (IR–Dis-

trict 21A).State Representative Bill Haas (IR–Dis-

trict 48A).State Representative Tom Hackbarth (IR–

District 50A).State Representative Elaine Harder (IR–

District 22B).State Representative Mark Holsten (IR–

District 56A).State Representative Virgil Johnson (IR–

District 32B).State Representative Kevin Knight (IR–

District 40B).State Representative Le Roy

Koppendrayer (IR–District 17A).State Representative Ron Kraus (IR–Dis-

trict 27A).State Representative Philip Krinkie (IR–

District 53A).State Representative Peggy Leppik (IR–

District 45B).State Representative Arlon W. Kindner

(IR–District 33A).State Representative Bill Macklin (IR–Dis-

trict 37B).State Representative Dan McElroy (IR–

District 36B).State Representative Carol Molnau (IR–

District 35A).State Representative R.D. Mulder (IR–Dis-

trict 21B).State Representative Tony Onnen (IR–Dis-

trict 20B).State Representative Mike Osskopp (IR–

District 29).State Representative Dennis Ozment (IR–

District 37A).State Representative Erik Paulsen (IR–

District 42B).State Representative Tim Pawlenty (IR–

District 38B).State Representative Dick Pellow (IR–Dis-

trict 52B).

State Representative Walt Perlt (DFL–Dis-trict 57A).

State Representative Jim Rostberg (IR–District 18A).

State Representative Alice Seagren (IR–District 41A).

State Representative Steve Smith (IR–Dis-trict 34A).

State Representative Doug Swenson (IR–District 51B).

State Representative Howard Swenson (IR–District 23B).

State Representative Barb Sykora (IR–Dis-trict 43B).

State Representative Eileen Tompkins(IR–District 36A).

State Representative H. Todd Van Dellen(IR–District 34B).

State Representative Tom Van Engen (IR–District 15A).

State Representative Barb Vickerman (IR–District 23A).

State Representative Charlie Weaver (IR–District 49A).

State Representative Steve Wenzel (DFL–District 12B).

State Representative Gary Worke (IR–Dis-trict 28A).

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, whetherby fax or phone or during our conversa-tions together in town halls, Minneso-tans, just like the rest of America, aredemanding action on this balancedbudget amendment.

If this Senate is going to do the willof the people as we were elected to do,then this balanced budget amendmentwill pass and the final vote would be100–0. Mr. President, let us make Feb-ruary 28, 1995, the day we finally takeresponsibility for the uncontrolledspending of Congress in the 1980’s. Letus make February 28, 1995, the day thatwe, the Congress, keep our promise tothe American taxpayers and deliver abalanced budget amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom Missouri.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Missouri is recognized for 1minute.THREE WORST EXCUSES AGAINST THE BALANCED

BUDGET AMENDMENT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, hereare the three worst excuses that havebeen made against voting for the bal-anced budget amendment in this Cham-ber.

Bad excuse No. 1: We do not need abalanced budget amendment becauseCongress already has the authority tobalance the budget.

Of course, we have the authority tobalance the budget. What we need is aprohibition against doing what iswrong. The Constitution is not neededto protect Americans from Congressdoing what is right. Americans needthe Constitution to protect them fromCongress doing what is wrong: Spend-ing the money of the next generation.

The first five words of the Bill ofRights are, ‘‘Congress shall make nolaw.’’ These words shield the peoplefrom Congress. Now we need to protectthe rights and resources of the nextgeneration from debts incurred by Con-gress.

Bad excuse No. 2: Before we have abalanced budget amendment, we must

specify every detail about how we willachieve it. When President Kennedymade the commitment to send a manto the Moon, he did not lay out the de-sign for the Apollo spacecraft or thebooster rocket. He did not decide whichastronaut would be the first man to setfoot on the Moon. No, President Ken-nedy called America to greatness, hechallenged people to a higher standard,because it was critical to our future.

Today, we need to challenge Americato greatness again, because balancingour budget is essential for our future.

Bad excuse No. 3: A supermajority re-quirement is undemocratic because itgives a minority the right to block thewill of the majority.

What is undemocratic is that thisCongress spends the resources of theunrepresented next generation. No tax-ation without representation was thecry of our Founding Fathers, and it ismy cry on behalf of unrepresented gen-erations yet to come.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator’s time has expired.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the junior Senator from Ten-nessee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.GRAMS). The junior Senator from Ten-nessee is recognized for 1 minute.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, 4 monthsago, I was elected to the U.S. Senatewith the mandate to aggressively treatproblems that have been readily diag-nosed by the American people. The na-tional debt is a malignant cancer grow-ing every second of every day, consum-ing the health and vitality of this Na-tion.

The future hard work and dreams ofour children are being sacrificed everyday to feed this cancer. Conventionaltreatment has failed.

Congress has demonstrated a lack ofdiscipline to rein in Federal spending.The President has said he will tolerateincreasing the debt from $18,000 to$24,000 for every individual.

But there is a cure: The balancedbudget amendment.

Clearly, we are mortgaging the fu-ture of our children if we do not takeaction today. I want the children ofAmerica to inherit a prosperous future,not a legacy of debt. For this reason, Iurge my colleagues to join me in sup-porting the balanced budget amend-ment.

I yield the floor.Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1

minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom Michigan.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Michigan is recognized for 1minute.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I willundoubtedly cast many hundreds ofvotes during my tenure in the Senate,but it is unlikely I will cast any moreimportant vote than the one I willmake later today.

With that vote, I will seek to amendthe Constitution of our Nation to re-quire that our national budget be bal-anced. There are many reasons why I

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3271February 28, 1995will vote this way, but first amongthem is my conviction that our respon-sibility to secure the economic futureof our country can only be fulfilled ifwe adopt this amendment.

Last night, when I said good night tomy 20-month-old twin daughters, Ithought about the country they will in-herit when they grow up. I will not be-queath to them and their generation alegacy of debt.

For too long, this Congress has failedto meet this responsibility to futureAmericans. The failures have occurredon both sides of the political aisle, andso now the solution must be bipartisanas well.

I call on my colleagues to provideBetsy and Julie Abraham, and theother children of this country, the fu-ture they deserve—a future in whichthey will have the fullest opportunityto realize the promise of America.

Mr. President, I urge this Senate toadopt this amendment to the Constitu-tion.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yieldthe distinguished Senator from Okla-homa 1 minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator is recognized.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, forweeks on end now we have been debat-ing this issue, and I think we knowwhat the arguments are.

The other night I took to the floorand spent 1 hour and 10 minutes diffus-ing the 11 arguments that have beengiven against the balanced budgetamendment. The bottom line is thatthose are not real arguments. The bot-tom line is that those individuals whoare going to use arguments against thebalanced budget amendment really donot want to cut spending.

Mr. President, the American peopledo. Let us look at what happened onlast November 8. Last November 8,using the two indices of the stimulusbill for spending hikes and the Na-tional Taxpayers Union rating for taxincreases, virtually everyone in theHouse and the Senate that was de-feated on November 8 voted for thestimulus increase—that is the spendingincrease—and was rated either a ‘‘D’’or an ‘‘F’’ by the National TaxpayersUnion.

The bottom line is the big spendersand the big taxers do not want a bal-anced budget amendment, but theAmerican people do. And we have theunique opportunity to give them whatthey asked for on November 8.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am real-ly impressed that all 11 new Membersto the Senate have spoken for the bal-anced budget amendment. It shows thedifference between what has gone on inthe past and what is really going to goon in the future.

I hope our colleagues pay attention,because this is the wave of the future,and we have to pass this balancedbudget amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguishedSenator from Utah.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Utah is recognized for 1minute.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I amimpressed by the unanimity of thisfreshman class. I am reminded of onegreat truth around here, and that isthat people who come to Washingtonand stay a long time sometimes—and Iunderline sometimes because it is notuniversal. I see many Members on thefloor for whom it is not true—some-times lose touch with the people backhome. It is always the most dangerouspolitical thing that can happen to aMember of the Senate, is to lose touch.My father got to the Senate becausehis predecessor became too importantin Washington to pay attention to thepeople of Utah. My colleague, the sen-ior Senator from Utah, became a Sen-ator because the man he defeated gotout of touch. He was just reelected fora fourth term, indicating that has nothappened to him.

But the 11 Members who have comehere now, who are the most recent peo-ple to face the voters, come unani-mously in favor of the balanced budgetamendment. When I return home toUtah and conduct my efforts to stay intouch, I find, again, unanimously thevoice of the people are demanding thatwe do this. So I rise to say I think thepeople in this body should listen to thepeople of the country who are tellingus overwhelmingly this is what theywant, and as their representatives hereit is time for us to give them what theywant.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1minute to the distinguished Senatorfrom New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I say tomy colleagues, I have only been aroundhere 5 years. I am hardly considered aveteran. But I have never seen a moreimpressive display in my time in theSenate, indeed in all the years I havespent in the Congress, both the Houseand the Senate. This is a very personalappeal, talking about their children onbehalf of the millions of other Amer-ican children, and what this is going todo to them in the future. That kind ofunanimity, speaking on behalf of theelections in November as you have, issomething I hope my colleagues whoare still on the fence will hear.

This is much bigger than any oneSenator or any one Senator’s views.This is the American people at stakehere. This is the economic future ofAmerica. All this talk we hear abouthow we are going to get it done, we donot need the amendment—we are notgetting it done.

This has been a crusade for me sincethe first day I ran for Congress and an-nounced I was running in 1979. I amjust proud to be with you, all of you,and appreciate what you have done.

If this passes it will be because ofyou.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timeof the Senator has expired.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield aminute to the distinguished Senatorfrom New York.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from New York.

Mr. D’AMATO. Mr. President, let mecommend my colleagues, not only fortheir statements but for their clarity,the clarity they have brought to thisargument, that they campaigned on.They did not just forget their cam-paign promises. They are committed tocutting down the size of Government.

We must pass the balanced budgetamendment. Those who oppose thisamendment will face the wrath of thepeople. We must force the Federal Gov-ernment to live within its means. TheFederal Government spends too muchand taxes too much.

Today, as we vote on this amend-ment, it is ironic that the DenverInternational Airport is finally open-ing—more than 16 months late and $3billion over its original budget.

This $4.9 billion boondoggle dem-onstrates why we need the balancedbudget amendment. It demonstrateswhy we need less government, notmore.

If you have any question about thebalanced budget amendment, take alook at the Denver airport.

The FBI, SEC and the Denver districtattorney are investigating allegationsof fraud and public corruption involv-ing the construction of DIA.

This airport is a monument to Gov-ernment waste and mismanagement.The FAA has already poured almost$700 million of Federal dollars into thiswhite elephant. How much more will beneeded to keep this airport from crashlanding?

In 1989, when Denver voters approvedthe construction of DIA, the politicianspromised that the new airport wouldcost $1.7 billion and have 120 gates. Theairport’s price tax has now reached al-most $5 billion, and the airport hasonly 87 gates. What happened to gates88 to 120?

The taxpayers have a right to knowwhy DIA’s cost increased by $3 billionwhile the airport shrunk in size? Wheredid the extra $3 billion go?

The Denver airport was built on theexpectation of 56 million passengersper year. But a total of only about 32million passengers will fly in and outof Denver this year.

It is outrageous that Denver travel-ers will reportedly have to pay $40extra on every round-trip ticket to sup-port this airport.

Why was this Taj Mahal of the Rock-ies ever built? Why wasn’t Denver’s ex-isting airport, Stapleton, simply ex-panded? Who is to blame for this folly?

The new Denver airport was builtwith almost $4 billion in municipalbonds. In the wake of the Orange Coun-ty debacle, the Banking Committee islooking into the adequacy of disclosureto DIA bondholders.

Were bondholders adequately advisedof DIA’s projected revenues and costs?Was information about Denver’s faulty

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3272 February 28, 1995baggage system withheld? What is thelong-term viability of DIA? Will DIA’sbondholders be paid in full?

The airport’s bonds have a junk rat-ing. Standard & Poor’s says that ‘‘DIAfaces major ongoing uncertainties thatcould lead to inadequate capacity tomeet timely debt service payments.’’Will Denver’s taxpayers have to pickup the tab if the airport defaults?

As we vote on the balanced budgetamendment, we must remember theDenver airport. We must rememberwhat happens when taxpayers’ moneyis wasted on grandiose schemes. Wemust force Government to live withinits means.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.ASHCROFT). The Senator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this hasbeen a very good debate. I appreciateour friends and colleagues and the oth-ers who have spoken. There are a num-ber of others who would like to speak.Frankly, I would like to yield the re-mainder of our time to a person who Ithink has fought his guts out for thisamendment, who I think has shown agreat deal of courage, who I know hasbeen badgered both ways, and for whomI have the utmost respect in this mat-ter. That is the distinguished Senatorfrom Illinois.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, how muchtime do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has 3 minutes and 45 seconds.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thankSenator HATCH, Senator CRAIG, and ev-eryone who has played a part in this. Igot on the Dirksen elevator the otherday and right after me came in SenatorJOHN CHAFEE and he said, ‘‘What a hor-rible debt we are imposing on futuregenerations.’’ That sums it all up.

We heard precisely the same argu-ments in 1986. We had $2 trillion worthof debt and now we have $4.8 trillionworth of debt. This year we will spend$339 billion on interest. We will spendtwice as much as what we spend on ourpoverty programs, 11 times as much aswe spend on education, 22 times asmuch as we spend on foreign economicassistance. In fact, we spend twice asmuch money on foreign aid for thewealthy in terms of interest on bondsthat are held overseas than we spendon foreign aid for the poor.

Will it be painful if we pass this? Yes.There is going to be some pain. Thereis going to be infinitely more pain forthis Nation and a lowered standard ofliving if we continue to have thesehuge deficits. The pain we are asked toimpose upon ourselves is small com-pared to some of the steps that, for ex-ample, Margaret Thatcher took inGreat Britain to turn that countryaround.

If you assume no change in interestrates, and every projection is that if wepass this, interest rates are going to golower—but if you assume no change ininterest rates, and no deductions onSocial Security, it means that we cangrow 1.7 percent a year in income. Putanother way, in the year 2002, it is an-

ticipated we will have about $300 bil-lion more in income than we are spend-ing this year. We can have a gradualgrowth, but we will have to have re-strained growth.

I have read the editorials, Mr. Presi-dent, as have you, criticizing this. It isinteresting that not a single editorialhas mentioned economic history. Takea look at this chart right here. This isthe latest CBO estimate of where weare going in deficit versus national in-come, GDP. Historically, as nationshave come around 9 or 10 or 11 percent,right around here, they have startedmonetizing the debt, started the print-ing presses rolling, started devaluingtheir currency. Those who vote againstthis are taking the chance that we canbe the first nation in history to go upto this kind of debt without monetizingthe debt. But what a huge gamble withthe future of our country. As respon-sible Members of this body we shouldnot be making that gamble.

I have heard a lot of about Social Se-curity on the floor of the Senate todayand these past days. I want to protectSocial Security. The only way you canprotect Social Security is to make surewe do not devalue our currency. I thinkit is vital for the future of our Nationand our children and generations tocome that we pass this constitutionalamendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-maining time is under the control ofSenator BYRD.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thankthe Chair.

Mr. President, I note that we havethe entire Republican response team onthe floor here today. They are out infull numbers. I have thought here-tofore, when only one or two membersof the response team came to the floor,that the other seven might be com-pared with the Seven Sleepers of Eph-esus, to whom Gibbon referred in hismagnificent magisterial work, ‘‘TheDecline and Fall of the Roman Em-pire.’’ But they are all here today.They really did not sleep as long as theSeven Sleepers, who slumbered 187years, from the reign of Decius, whoreigned from 249 to 251 A.D., until thereign of Theodosius II, who reignedfrom 408 to 450 A.D. Congratulations tothe Republican response team. Theyhave worked hard and acquitted them-selves well.

Mr. President, it may be of historicalinterest to some Senators, as it is tome, that on this very day 200 years ago,the Congress was debating public debtlegislation—on February 28, 1795—justas we are today, on February 28, 1995.

I will ask to include in tomorrow’sRECORD, for the information of Sen-ators, the materials pertinent to thatdebate, and to the statute that resultedtherefrom.

Mr. President, rarely have I seen inall my years in the Senate a measureso flawed as the one before us today. Ifadopted, this constitutional amend-ment will surely create more mischief,generate more surprise consequences,

and spin-off more unfortunate crisesthan has any other single legislativeproposal in the history of this Nation.How something that seems so simpleand straightforward to the casual ob-server can be so truly diabolical anddestructive in nature confounds con-ventional wisdom. But a closer look re-veals the impossible nature of this oft-touted but little understood amend-ment.

Section VI of the amendment statesthat ‘‘The Congress shall enforce andimplement this article by appropriatelegislation, which may rely on esti-mates of outlays and receipts.’’ Theamendment is immediately renderedunworkable with those 20 words in sec-tion VI. If one looks at the history ofbudget forecasts, it quickly becomesapparent—and no one would know thisbetter than the distinguished Chair-man of the Budget Committee, SenatorDOMENICI—that forecasting budget re-ceipts and outlays is not unlike fore-casting the weather. Both are far fromexact sciences, although the localweatherman probably hits the bull’seye with much more frequency thaneven our best budget prognosticators.

Under Section VI of this balancedbudget proposal, erroneous and chang-ing budget forecasts would have usdealing with the budget almost contin-ually. Planned spending enacted beforethe fiscal year could have to bechanged one or more times during thefiscal year. In a constantly fluctuatingeconomy, where outlays and receiptsalter with business cycles, as well aswith unemployment, earthquakes,fires, and overseas conflicts, requiringrigid end-of-year budget balance, to bedetermined by estimates is nothingshort of a recipe for utter chaos. As ifthat were not enough, the problem ofinaccurate estimates is compounded bythe text of Section II. Section II re-quires that the limit on debt held bythe public not be increased absent athree-fifths vote. Since an increase indebt closely correlates with an excessof outlays over receipts, the amend-ment actually requires Congress totake two actions to allow for a deficitin any given fiscal year: pass a law toincrease the debt limit, and pass an-other law for a specific deficit for theyear.

To further elaborate on the ‘‘shop ofhorrors’’ which this amendment offers,let us discuss for a moment the prin-ciple of majority rule. This amendmentwould, for the first time, I believe,overturn the principle of majority rule.The budget of this Nation and criticaleconomic decisions that relate to thatbudget could, at the most critical oftimes, be placed in the hands of a mi-nority. Minorities are not elected tocontrol the Nation’s policies. Majori-ties are charged with that duty. Yet,this amendment would actually hand aminority the power to determine eco-nomic policy, and it would hand thatpower over during times of domestic orforeign economic crises, natural disas-ters, international turmoil, recessions,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3273February 28, 1995or other economic emergencies. Thatmakes no sense. It makes no sense atall.

Moreover, the amendment’s wordingin section II—‘‘The limit on the debt ofthe United States held by the publicshall not be increased. . . .,’’ allows theFederal Government to keep borrowingfrom the trust funds, including the So-cial Security trust fund, because ‘‘debtheld by the public’’ refers to exter-nally-held debt, not internally-helddebt. So, we can keep putting IOU’sinto the trust funds and borrowing tomask the true size of the deficit, with-out ever having to make good on ourIOU’s. In the case of the Social Secu-rity trust fund, when the baby boomersreach retirement age and the revenuesin the trust fund drop because fewerpeople are working and paying into thefund and more people are drawing bene-fits out of the fund, how will we ever beable to replace the nearly $3 trillionwhich we have borrowed?

The amendment is so full of flaws, soreflective of flabby thinking, so arro-gant in its disregard for the traditionalchecks and balances and separation ofpowers, that its consequences could benothing short of a calamity.

The amendment so blurs andsmudges the historical balance amongthe three branches that it renders ourtraditional constitutional structure toa mere shadow of its former clarity.Congress’s traditional power of thepurse is seriously hamstrung by theyearly supermajority requirements towaive the provisions of the amend-ment, and by the possibility of un-checked impoundments of appropriatedfunds by the Executive. The Presi-dent’s flexibility on budgetary mattersis also seriously impaired because hemust present a balanced budget everyyear whether he deems it wise or not.

The courts will either gain tremen-dous power over both branches andover matters of budget policy or berendered largely impotent, dependingupon how the implementing legisla-tion, if there ever is any, is written,and depending upon the course ofevents. One thing is certain: uncer-tainty will reign.

One additional thing is certain. Theghost of John Marshall was not lookingover the shoulders of the authors ofthis most unfortunate amendment.

There is no reason to spoil ourgrandest historical document with thismacabre twisting of the balance ofpowers. We can begin to address budgetdeficits right now by passing legisla-tion to further reduce the deficits, andwithout waiting on any constitutionalamendment to provide us cover for thehard choices we were elected to make.

Political cover has its place and canbe helpful in some situations, but thiscover is far too costly. Destroying theConstitution is too high a price to payfor political cover.

We can cut the deficit without thisamendment. But, I fear that the para-mount concern of some is whether, ab-sent this amendment, they can vote to

cut deficits and be reelected. That ishardly a noble reason to proceed to re-write our carefully preserved nationalcharter, preserved for us with bloodand protected through the statesman-ship and the courage of the past mem-bership of this and the other bodythrough 200 years of time. It is now upto the Members of this current Senateto live up to the standard of patriotismand courage set by our predecessors onimportant and critical mattersthroughout our history. There will beno more important vote any of us willever cast.

Before this day has passed, each of uswill be tested as to strength of char-acter and fealty to our sworn oath asSenators.

I hope, Mr. President, we will not, inthis critical moment, be found want-ing. The amendment will have con-sequences which no one can predict—noone. We have tried to explore some ofthose consequences throughout the 30days of debate which have beenconsumed on this proposal. But itseems that the more one studies theamendment, the more flaws become ap-parent.

I am confident that should we go onanother 30 days, additional flaws andproblems would very likely be found.However, here we are at the 11 hour,witnessing desperate—desperate —last-minute efforts to salvage this amend-ment through a cut-and-paste processdesigned only to win votes and tosomehow shove this extremely perilousproposal through the Senate. Have welost all of our senses? What other flawsare we writing into the Constitutionwith this quick editing process whichis currently going on on the Senatefloor? What other checks and balancesare we compromising with this insanebidding war for votes?

So here we are at the last minute,the 11 hour, the 59th minute of the 11hour, and there is this hurried, des-perate effort to find a way to garneranother vote. Cut and paste. Change.We see this frenetic exercise being car-ried on here, all the hurry at the lastmoment now to try to patch over someof the flaws that have been brought tolight.

Careful consideration has beenthrown to the four winds, and all thatseems to matter at this point now, Mr.President, is a victory for the pro-ponents, at all costs. We are not fillingin a crossword puzzle. We are not try-ing this word or that word out to wina prize. We are writing a constitutionalamendment. John Marshall said: ‘‘Letus not forget that it is the Constitutionwe are expounding.’’ I add my ownmodest footnote by saying that it isthe Constitution that we are amending.We are writing a constitutional amend-ment—something that will affect therepresentative democracy for genera-tions of Americans through the comingages. I regret the rather tawdry at-tempt at the last-minute tinkeringbeing made to try to salvage a proposalthat is so flawed that it ought to be

immediately rejected by the Senate. Ihope that we will come to our sensesand defeat this patched-up, pulled-to-gether ‘‘Frankenstein’’ before it is toolate.

Mr. President, on March 2, 1805—thatis only 2 days away from being exactly190 years ago—Aaron Burr, after he hadpresided over the impeachment trial ofSamuel Chase and before leaving theSenate Chamber for the last time,spoke to the Members of that bodyover which he had presided for 4 years.The speech was one which left many ofthe Senators of that ancient day intears. As we come to a close of this de-bate very soon, his closing wordsshould ring in the ears of today’s menand women who serve in this body.Aaron Burr said, with regard to theU.S. Senate: ‘‘This House is a sanc-tuary—a citadel of law, of order, and ofliberty; and it is here—it is here, inthis exalted refuge—here, if anywhere,will resistance be made to the stormsof political phrensy and the silent artsof corruption; and if the Constitutionbe destined ever to perish by the sac-rilegious hands of the demagogue orthe usurper, which God avert, its expir-ing agonies will be witnessed on thisfloor.’’

Mr. President, the decision which theSenate will make before this day’s sunhas set can very well turn out to be theprophetic end of Burr’s words. I havecast 13,744 votes in this Senate since Icame to the Senate, now going on 37years ago. This does not include themore than 400 votes that I cast in theother body before I came to the Senate.But barring none, this is the most im-portant vote of my political career onCapitol Hill. It is important, becausewe are tampering with the Constitu-tion of the United States, an immortaldocument that has served us well overa period of 206 years. And we are reach-ing a critical point in the history ofthis country and in the history of theConstitution when we face the awfulprospect of an amendment, which hasbeen rushed through the other body in2 day’s time, and which has the supportall over this country of the overwhelm-ing majority of the American people—because they have not been duly in-formed of its contents and of the rami-fications that will flow from its adop-tion and ratification. It is said thatthere is only one vote that stands be-tween the Senate and the Constitutionand that awful end which Burr prognos-ticated which would be witnessed onthis floor. ‘‘If the Constitution be des-tined ever to be destroyed by the sac-rilegious hands of the demagogue orthe usurper, which God avert, its expir-ing agonies will be witnessed on thisfloor.’’

Mr. President, I pray to God thatSenators will rise to the occasion—Ihave seen this Senate demonstratecourage and character before, and Ihope it will do so today—and that Sen-ators will cast their vote to protect fortheir children and their children’s chil-dren throughout all the ages to come,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3274 February 28, 1995this unique Constitution that was writ-ten by those illustrious men, like Ham-ilton and Madison and the other Fram-ers who sat in Philadelphia in 1797,lacking only 2 years, Mr. President, ofbeing 210 years ago.

Mr. President, I close with the urgentplea that we remember Marshall’s ad-monition. Let us not forget that it is aConstitution that we are expoundingand let us not forget also, Mr. Presi-dent, that it is a Constitution that weare amending.

God save the United States of Amer-ica! God save the Constitution of theUnited States! May this Senate rise todo its duty in order that our childrenmay have cause to honor the memoriesof their fathers as we have cause tohonor the memory of ours.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The timehas expired.

Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Maryland.Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to proceed for just30 seconds.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, Iknow time has expired. I asked for 30seconds to express my very profoundgratitude to the distinguished Senatorfrom West Virginia for his powerfulstatement on behalf of the Constitu-tion.

I know of no Member of the Congresswho has a deeper, more enduring dedi-cation to the Constitution than doesthe Senator from West Virginia. I takehis wise and moving words to heart. Iam privileged to serve with him. I wantto thank him for standing resolutelyon this floor day in and day out andeloquently championing the basic, fun-damental document of our Republic—the Constitution—which has served usso well for 206 years.

Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Connecticut.Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unan-

imous consent to proceed for 30 sec-onds.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I just wantto join my colleague from Maryland incommending our beloved colleaguefrom West Virginia.

However the Senate decides thisafternoon, I can speak with a greatdeal of certainty that the children,grandchildren, great grandchildren,and great-great-grandchildren of thedistinguished Senator from West Vir-ginia will indeed be proud of how hehas stood for his country and has stoodfor the Constitution. I am deeply proudto stand with him.

I have cast no vote in the past 20years that will be as important as theone I cast this afternoon. I am proud tocast my vote along with that of theSenator from Maryland and the Sen-ator from West Virginia in defendingour Constitution from this assault.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unan-imous consent for 30 seconds.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BYRD. I wish to express mythanks to the Senator from Marylandand the Senator from Connecticut fortheir constant and vigilant defense ofour Constitution of the United Statesagainst this assault that is being madeon the Constitution.

I thank them for their vigor, fortheir constant diligence, and for theirspirit of defense of a great Govern-ment.

f

RECESS UNTIL 2:15 P.M.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the hour of 12:30p.m. having arrived, the Senate willnow stand in recess until the hour of2:15 p.m.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:34 p.m.,recessed until 2:15 p.m.; whereupon, theSenate reassembled when called toorder by the Presiding Officer ( Mr.SANTORUM).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ate will now come to order.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me in-dicate to my colleagues the first votewill be a 20-minute vote. All subse-quent votes will be 10 minutes.

It is my hope that it will not take 10minutes on each vote. I urge my col-leagues on both sides to stay on thefloor. There will be 17, 18, 19, or 20votes, and we can complete action onthe votes, hopefully by 5 o’clock, if weall stay right here. There will not betime to go anywhere else. I urge mycolleagues to stay on the floor.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 274

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.THOMPSON). Under the previous order,the vote now occurs on the motion totable amendment No. 274 offered by theSenator from California [Mrs. FEIN-STEIN].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. FORD. I announce that the Sen-

ator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY]is necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 60,nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

YEAS—60

AbrahamAshcroftBennettBondBrownBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomenici

ExonFairclothFristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKerrey

KylLottLugarMackMcConnellMoseley-BraunMurkowskiMurrayNicklesPackwoodPresslerRobbRockefellerRothSantorumShelbySimon

SimpsonSmithSnowe

SpecterStevensThomas

ThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—39

AkakaBaucusBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyBreauxBryanBumpersByrdConradDaschleDodd

DorganFeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennGrahamHarkinHeflinHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKohl

LautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanMcCainMikulskiMoynihanNunnPellPryorReidSarbanesWellstone

NOT VOTING—1

Kerry

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 274) was agreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 291

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table amend-ment No. 291, offered by the Senatorfrom Wisconsin [Mr. FEINGOLD].

The yeas and nays have been ordered,and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.Mr. FORD. I announce that the Sen-

ator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY]is necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 99,nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

YEAS—99

AbrahamAkakaAshcroftBaucusBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBradleyBreauxBrownBryanBumpersBurnsByrdCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenConradCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDaschleDeWineDoddDoleDomeniciDorganExonFaircloth

FeingoldFeinsteinFordFristGlennGortonGrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHarkinHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeInouyeJeffordsJohnstonKassebaumKempthorneKennedyKerreyKohlKylLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLott

LugarMackMcCainMcConnellMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurkowskiMurrayNicklesNunnPackwoodPellPresslerPryorReidRobbRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarnerWellstone

NOT VOTING—1

Kerry

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 291) was agreed to.VOTE ON THE MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO.

259

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question is onagreeing to the motion to lay on thetable the amendment numbered 259 of-fered by the Senator from Florida [Mr.GRAHAM]. On this question, the yeas

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3275February 28, 1995and nays have been ordered, and theclerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk called the roll.Mr. FORD. I announce that the Sen-

ator from Massachusetts [Mr. KERRY]is necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 59,nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

YEAS—59

AbrahamAshcroftBaucusBennettBondBrownBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciFairclothFrist

GortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKerreyKylLottLugarMackMcCain

McConnellMoseley-BraunMurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—40

AkakaBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyBreauxBryanBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorganExon

FeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennGrahamHarkinHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKohlLautenbergLeahyLevin

LiebermanMikulskiMoynihanMurrayNunnPellPryorReidRobbRockefellerSarbanesWellstone

NOT VOTING—1

Kerry

So, the motion to lay on the tablewas agreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 298

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.ABRAHAM). Under the previous order,the question is on a motion to tableamendment No. 298, offered by the Sen-ator from Florida [Mr. GRAHAM].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.The assistant legislative clerk called

the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 57,nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

YEAS—57

AbrahamAshcroftBennettBondBrownBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomenici

FairclothFristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKerreyKyl

LottLugarMackMcCainMcConnellMurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerRobbRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnowe

SpecterStevens

ThomasThompson

ThurmondWarner

NAYS—43

AkakaBaucusBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyBreauxBryanBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorganExon

FeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennGrahamHarkinHeflinHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahy

LevinLiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayNunnPellPryorReidRockefellerSarbanesWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 298) was agreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 267

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table amend-ment numbered 267 offered by the Sen-ator from Massachusetts [Mr. KEN-NEDY].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 62,nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]YEAS—62

AbrahamAshcroftBennettBondBrownBryanBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciExonFairclothFeinstein

FristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCain

McConnellMurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerReidRobbRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—38

AkakaBaucusBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyBreauxBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorgan

FeingoldFordGlennGrahamHarkinInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahy

LevinLiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayNunnPellPryorRockefellerSarbanesWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 267) was agreed to.

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE MOTION TO REFER

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on agreeing to the motion to layon the table the motion to refer HouseJoint Resolution 1, offered by the Sen-ator from Arkansas [Mr. BUMPERS].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk called the roll.The result was announced—yeas 63,

nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

YEAS—63

AbrahamAshcroftBaucusBennettBondBoxerBrownBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciFairclothFrist

GortonGrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnell

Moseley-BraunMurkowskiNicklesNunnPackwoodPresslerReidRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarnerWellstone

NAYS—37

AkakaBidenBingamanBradleyBreauxBryanBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorganExon

FeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennHarkinHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenberg

LeahyLevinLiebermanMikulskiMoynihanMurrayPellPryorRobbRockefellerSarbanes

So the motion to lay on the table themotion to refer House Joint Resolution1 was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma-jority leader.

Mr. DOLE. Let me caution all Mem-bers to stay on the floor. From now onthe vote will end in 10 minutes regard-less. Members have been cautioned tobe on the floor. We would like to com-plete action. We have lost about 10 or15 minutes waiting throughout theafternoon. That will not happen again.Ten minutes, that is it.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 299

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table amend-ment No. 299, offered by the Senatorfrom Georgia [Mr. NUNN].

The yeas and nays have been orderedand the clerk will call the roll.

The result was announced—yeas 61,nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

YEAS—61

AbrahamAshcroftBaucusBennettBondBrownBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciFairclothFristGlenn

GortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnellMoseley-Braun

MurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerReidRobbRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—39

AkakaBiden

BingamanBoxer

BradleyBreaux

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3276 February 28, 1995BryanBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorganExonFeingoldFeinsteinFord

GrahamHarkinHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahy

LevinLiebermanMikulskiMoynihanMurrayNunnPellPryorRockefellerSarbanesWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 299) was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask forthe yeas and nays on the Nunn amend-ment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there asufficient?

There is a sufficient second.The yeas and nays were ordered.VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 300, AS MODIFIED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question occurson amendment No. 300, as modified, of-fered by the Senator from Georgia [Mr.NUNN].

On this question, the yeas and nayshave been ordered, and the clerk willcall the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 92,nays 8, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]YEAS—92

AbrahamAkakaAshcroftBaucusBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBradleyBreauxBryanBumpersBurnsByrdCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenConradCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDaschleDeWineDoddDoleDomeniciDorganExon

FairclothFeinsteinFordFristGlennGortonGrahamGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeInouyeJeffordsJohnstonKassebaumKempthorneKennedyKerreyKerryKohlKylLautenbergLevinLiebermanLott

LugarMackMcConnellMikulskiMurkowskiMurrayNicklesNunnPackwoodPellPresslerPryorReidRobbRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarnerWellstone

NAYS—8BrownFeingoldGramm

HarkinLeahyMcCain

Moseley-BraunMoynihan

So the amendment (No. 300), as modi-fied, was agreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 273

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question is onthe motion to table amendment No. 273offered by the Senator from Michigan[Mr. LEVIN].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.The bill clerk called the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

FRIST). Are there any other Senators inthe Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 62,nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

YEAS—62

AbrahamAshcroftBaucusBennettBondBrownBryanBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciFairclothFrist

GortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHarkinHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnell

MurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerReidRockefellerRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarnerWellstone

NAYS—38

AkakaBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyBreauxBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorganExon

FeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennGrahamHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenberg

LeahyLevinLiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayNunnPellPryorRobbSarbanes

So the motion to table the amend-ment (No. 273) was agreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 310

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table amend-ment No. 310, offered by the Senatorfrom Michigan [Mr. LEVIN].

The yeas and nays have been orderedand the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 57,nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

YEAS—57

AbrahamAshcroftBennettBondBrownBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciFairclothFrist

GortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCain

McConnellMurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerReidRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—43

AkakaBaucusBidenBingamanBoxerBradleyBreauxBryanBumpersByrd

ConradDaschleDoddDorganExonFeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennGraham

HarkinHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahy

LevinLiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihan

MurrayNunnPellPryorRobb

RockefellerSarbanesWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 310) was agreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 311

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table theamendment No. 311 offered by the Sen-ator from Michigan [Mr. LEVIN].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 100,nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

YEAS—100

AbrahamAkakaAshcroftBaucusBennettBidenBingamanBondBoxerBradleyBreauxBrownBryanBumpersBurnsByrdCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenConradCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDaschleDeWineDoddDoleDomeniciDorganExonFairclothFeingold

FeinsteinFordFristGlennGortonGrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHarkinHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeInouyeJeffordsJohnstonKassebaumKempthorneKennedyKerreyKerryKohlKylLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLottLugar

MackMcCainMcConnellMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurkowskiMurrayNicklesNunnPackwoodPellPresslerPryorReidRobbRockefellerRothSantorumSarbanesShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarnerWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 311) was agreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 307

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table amend-ment No. 307, offered by the Senatorfrom Arkansas [Mr. PRYOR].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk called the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 63,nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

YEAS—63

AbrahamAshcroftBennettBingamanBondBrownBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochran

CohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciExonFairclothFeinsteinFrist

GortonGrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollings

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3277February 28, 1995HutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCain

McConnellMurkowskiNicklesNunnPackwoodPresslerReidRothSantorumShelby

SimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—37AkakaBaucusBidenBoxerBradleyBreauxBryanBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorgan

FeingoldFordGlennHarkinInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevin

LiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayPellPryorRobbRockefellerSarbanesWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 307) was agreed to.VOTE ON THE MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO.

252

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question occurson the motion to lay on the tableamendment No. 252 offered by the Sen-ator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD].

On this question, the yeas and nayshave been ordered, and the clerk willcall the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 69,nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]YEAS—69

AbrahamAshcroftBaucusBennettBidenBingamanBondBrownBryanBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenConradCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciExon

FairclothFeinsteinFristGortonGrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKohlKylLottLugar

MackMcCainMcConnellMoseley-BraunMurkowskiNicklesNunnPresslerReidRobbRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—31

AkakaBoxerBradleyBreauxBumpersByrdDaschleDoddDorganFeingoldFord

GlennHarkinInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryLautenbergLeahyLevinLieberman

MikulskiMoynihanMurrayPackwoodPellPryorRockefellerSarbanesWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table wasagreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 254

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table amend-ment No. 254, offered by the Senatorfrom West Virginia [Mr. BYRD].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.The legislative clerk called the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 68,nays 32, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

YEAS—68

AbrahamAshcroftBaucusBennettBingamanBondBrownBryanBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenConradCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciExonFaircloth

FeinsteinFristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHarkinHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKohlKylLottLugarMackMcCain

McConnellMoseley-BraunMurkowskiNicklesNunnPackwoodPresslerReidRobbRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—32

AkakaBidenBoxerBradleyBreauxBumpersByrdDaschleDoddDorganFeingold

FordGlennGrahamHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryLautenbergLeahy

LevinLiebermanMikulskiMoynihanMurrayPellPryorRockefellerSarbanesWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 254) was agreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 255

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table amend-ment No. 255, offered by the Senatorfrom West Virginia [Mr. BYRD].

The yeas and nays have been orderedand the clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk called the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

COATS). Are there any other Senatorsin the Chamber who desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 62,nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]

YEAS—62

AbrahamAshcroftBaucusBennettBondBrownBryanBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenConradCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciFaircloth

FristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMackMcCain

McConnellMurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerReidRobbRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—38

AkakaBiden

BingamanBoxer

BradleyBreaux

BumpersByrdDaschleDoddDorganExonFeingoldFeinsteinFordGlennGraham

HarkinInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLieberman

MikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayNunnPellPryorRockefellerSarbanesWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 255) was agreed to.

MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 253

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order the question now oc-curs on the motion to table amend-ment No. 253 offered by the Senatorfrom West Virginia [Mr. BYRD].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk calledthe roll.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are thereany other Senators in the Chamber de-siring to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 63,nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

YEAS—63

AbrahamAshcroftBennettBidenBondBrownBryanBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciExonFaircloth

FeinsteinFristGortonGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugarMack

McCainMcConnellMurkowskiNicklesNunnPackwoodPresslerReidRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarner

NAYS—37

AkakaBaucusBingamanBoxerBradleyBreauxBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorganFeingold

FordGlennGrahamHarkinInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevin

LiebermanMikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayPellPryorRobbRockefellerSarbanesWellstone

So the motion to lay on the table theamendment (No. 253) was agreed to.VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 258

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table amend-ment No. 258 offered by the Senatorfrom West Virginia [Mr. BYRD].

The yeas and nays have been ordered.The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 75,nays 25, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

YEAS—75

AbrahamAshcroft

BaucusBennett

BidenBingaman

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3278 February 28, 1995BondBradleyBrownBryanBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciDorganExonFairclothFeingoldFeinsteinFristGorton

GrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHarkinHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHollingsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKohlKylLottLugarMackMcCainMcConnell

Moseley-BraunMurkowskiMurrayNicklesNunnPackwoodPresslerReidRobbRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarnerWellstone

NAYS—25AkakaBoxerBreauxBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddFord

GlennInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryLautenbergLeahyLevin

LiebermanMikulskiMoynihanPellPryorRockefellerSarbanes

So the motion to table the amend-ment (No. 258) was agreed to.

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE THE MOTION TOCOMMIT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the question nowoccurs on the motion to table the mo-tion to commit House Joint Resolution1, offered by the Senator from Massa-chusetts [Mr. KERRY].

The yeas and nays have been orderedand the clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk called the roll.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there

any other Senators in the Chamberwho desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 63,nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]YEAS—63

AbrahamAshcroftBaucusBennettBidenBondBrownBryanBurnsCampbellChafeeCoatsCochranCohenCoverdellCraigD’AmatoDeWineDoleDomeniciExon

FairclothFristGortonGrahamGrammGramsGrassleyGreggHarkinHatchHatfieldHeflinHelmsHutchisonInhofeJeffordsKassebaumKempthorneKylLottLugar

MackMcCainMcConnellMurkowskiNicklesPackwoodPresslerRothSantorumShelbySimonSimpsonSmithSnoweSpecterStevensThomasThompsonThurmondWarnerWellstone

NAYS—37

AkakaBingamanBoxerBradleyBreauxBumpersByrdConradDaschleDoddDorganFeingoldFeinstein

FordGlennHollingsInouyeJohnstonKennedyKerreyKerryKohlLautenbergLeahyLevinLieberman

MikulskiMoseley-BraunMoynihanMurrayNunnPellPryorReidRobbRockefellerSarbanes

So the motion to lay on the table themotion to commit was agreed to.

Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Florida.MOTIONS WITHDRAWN

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that motions of-fered by Senator DOLE be withdrawn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? Without objection, it is soordered.

The motions were withdrawn.MOTION TO RECONSIDER VOTES EN BLOC

Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consentthat I may move to reconsider andtable all previous votes en bloc at thistime.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is thereobjection? Without objection, it is soordered.

Mr. MACK. I move to reconsider andtable en bloc the previous rollcallvotes.

The motion was agreed to.The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the Senator fromWest Virginia is recognized for 15 min-utes.

The Senator from West Virginia.Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank

the Chair.Mr. President, I first would like to

commend the proponents of the con-stitutional amendment for their spir-ited defense of this balanced budgetamendment, misnamed though it is. Icannot commend them, however, onthe content of their proposal. I believethat the proposal is inherently flawed,wrong-headed and worth absolutelynothing in terms of real deficit reduc-tion. But I do believe that the debatehas been enlightening, and I also be-lieve that an adequate amount of timehas been accorded to a thorough dis-cussion of the amendment. So I thankSenator HATCH and Senator DOLE andall of the proponents for the time thatwe have deliberated. And I thank themfor their spirited defense of the amend-ment.

I also commend Senator SIMON. Heobviously believes so wholeheartedly inthis proposal that one must admire hisconstancy.

There have been many profiles incourage, Mr. President, and they willvery soon make themselves manifest.But the profiles in courage displayedby Senator MARK HATFIELD and Sen-ator TOM DASCHLE must not pass unno-ticed—must not pass unnoticed—as wenear the end of this long debate. Bothof these Senators, and others who like-wise will have displayed great couragein voting against this amendment,have lived up to the highest standardsimagined by the Framers when theydevised the marvelous institution ofthe Senate and envisioned Senators asmen who would be able to withstandpressure, lift themselves above the po-litical fray, and, according to theirconsciences, do the right and the hon-orable thing, regardless of politicalcover.

Mr. President, I ask for attention inthis Senate, and I do not want the timeto be charged against me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ate will be in order. The time will notbe charged against the Senator fromWest Virginia. He will suspend whilethe Senate comes to order.

I ask that all Senators and staffplease take the conversations off thefloor.

The Senator from West Virginia.Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank

the Chair.Mr. President, I have spent most of

my adult life in service to my country.No small part of that time has been en-gaged in trying to protect the Framers’views of the powers of the legislativebranch, and particularly in attemptingto thwart attacks on the powers of theU.S. Senate. I am so thoroughly in aweof the genius of the Framers, theirforesight, their judgment, their tem-pered wisdom, that I would make anypolitical sacrifice to protect the Con-stitution from permanent harm.

But we have entered an age, Mr.President, when reverence for our Con-stitution and for the wisdom of historyhave rather gone out of fashion. Talkshows, public opinion polls, bumpersticker slogans, and a so-called politi-cal Contract With America are theorder of the day. There is little pa-tience with going against the tide, andone man’s courage may be judged asnothing more than foolhardy if thatcourage jeopardizes his chances for re-election.

Yet, I remain a believer in the oldvalues. I believe that a solemn oathbinds one. I believe that courage iseventually rewarded and has its ownreward in any event. And I believe thatpreserving the constitutional systemintact for future generations, insofaras the constitutional system itself isconcerned, is the most solemn and im-portant thing that a Member of thisbody can ever do.

There are those who would scoff atthese old-fashioned views. There arethose who would put efficiency, expedi-ency and political agenda before anyconsiderations of courage, fealty to anoath, loyalty to a higher purpose, orthe preservation of the genius of a 200-year-old charter.

‘‘Change’’ is the watchword of theday—change, merely for the sake ofchange, is suddenly a virtue above allothers, a goal to be achieved at allcosts. But I will never, never, neverbow to those messengers of expediencyor to the managers of any political par-ty’s agenda when basic principles areat stake.

The hurricanes may blow, the tidesmay rise, but there still remain thoseof us who will never, never bend, be-cause we believe it is our sworn dutynot to yield to attacks on our constitu-tional system of mixed powers andchecks and balances.

So whatever the final outcome of thisvote, I will retire to my bed tonightsatisfied that I have done all that oneman can do to live up to the oath thatI have taken over and over again to

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3279February 28, 1995protect the written framework of ourrepresentative democracy.

If the amendment should pass, I shallfervently hope that the States willhave the wisdom that the Senate couldnot find to reject this dangerous andunwise proposal. If the amendmentshould fail, I shall be enormously proudof this body to which I have devoted somuch of my life. And, most particu-larly, I will be proud of those Senatorswho set their sails against the windand who chose the harder course inorder that our venerable Constitutionmight be saved for yet a little whilelonger.

Our cherished liberties were not eas-ily won, and they are not easily main-tained. The preservation of our hard-won freedoms always has a price. Butwe who serve here are charged with theawesome duty of preserving those free-doms for generations yet unborn. Thebruising battle that we have just beenthrough demonstrates, once again, thatwe who have the honor of calling our-selves United States Senators must beever vigilant to guard what has beenbequeathed to us by wise men—men ofvision, men of courage, men of char-acter.

The political seas may churn andboil, but our solemn duty as Senatorsmust always be to drown out the noiseand keep faith with our own innervoices. The Senate, from time to time,is the very last bulwark against thetoo-hot passions that rail in this land.However various Senators may votetoday, it is my hope that each of uswill take away from this debate somelessons learned and wisdom gained. Asin no other institution of this greatand marvelous democracy—in the Sen-ate, one individual can make a dif-ference. Service here is difficult and itis demanding. It requires the very bestof one’s nature and the most assiduouscultivation of one’s character. Whenthe battle is over and the roar of thedebate has subsided, whether one’s sidehas won or lost is not the final thing.In the final analysis, service here boilsdown to one quality. Horace Greeleyexpressed it best when he said:

Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident;riches take wings, and those who cheer todaymay curse tomorrow—only one thing en-dures; character!

Mr. President, to all those who havestood straight and tall in the fight I sa-lute them with the words ‘‘morituri tesalutamus.’’ And may they, like I, feelas did the Apostle Paul in writing hissecond Epistle to Timothy, when hesaid: ‘‘I have fought a good fight, Ihave finished my course, I have keptthe faith.’’

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that a series of pertinent com-mentaries from the press be printed inthe RECORD.

There being no objection, the com-mentaries were ordered to be printed inthe RECORD as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 1995]THE URGENCY OF POLITICAL COURAGE

It is hard to decide which would be worse:if the balanced budget amendment that theSenate is voting on today functioned as itssponsors intend, thereby locking the countryinto what would often be an ill-advised eco-nomic policy; or if Congress found a way toduck the command, thereby trivializing theConstitution and creating a permanentmonument to political timidity

Take the second possibility. The Constitu-tion of the United States is remarkable be-cause no country in the world has taken itswritten Constitution so seriously. It is a con-cise Constitution, and it has not beenamended lightly. Other countries have actedas if their constitutions were merely piecesof legislation to be changed at will, but notthe United States.

The balanced budget amendment marksthe intrusion of the worst kind of legislativepolitics onto our constitutional tradition.For about a decade and a half, for mostly po-litical reasons, Congress has not found thefortitude to come even close to balancing thebudget. Instead of doing what it should andvoting the spending cuts and taxes to narrowthe deficit, Congress wants to dodge the hardchoices by changing the Constitution. But asSen. Daniel P. Moynihan argued on ‘‘Meetthe Press’’ this Sunday: ‘‘My proposition isthat you avoid trying to pretend a machinewill do this for you. . . . You have to do ityourself.’’ With or without the amendment,only Congress will get the budget balanced.And who is to say that the amendment,which becomes effective only in 2002, won’tdelay Congress from making the hard deci-sions until it is against the wall of its man-date, give it yet another excuse? ‘‘Gosh, wepassed the balanced budget amendment,’’ theunfailingly inventive members will be in-clined to say, ‘‘and it goes into effect in justa few years. Isn’t that enough? What do youwant us to do? Balance the budget?’’

Sen. Sam Nunn, whose vote could prove de-cisive, has argued forcefully that thisamendment could lead to the judiciary’smaking decisions on spending cuts and taxincreases that ought only be made by thelegislative branch. Last night, Sen. ByronDorgan, another whose vote had been indoubt, voiced a similar reservation. Support-ers of the amendment are now trying to wintheir votes by arguing that legislation couldbe passed to protect against judicial suprem-acy. But surely Mr. Nunn’s first instinct wasright: No legislation can supersede the Con-stitution. If the amendment itself does notprotect against judicial interference, there isno guarantee as to how a court will act. Andif, on the other hand, there is no enforce-ment mechanism for the amendment, thenwhy pass it in the first place? It becomes anutterly empty symbol, which is exactly whatthe United States Constitution has neverbeen and never should be.

As bad as this prospect is, an effective bal-anced budget amendment might be evenworse. By requiring three-fifths votes to passunbalanced budgets, it would enshrine mi-nority rule. And while deficits in periods ofprosperity make little sense, modest deficitsduring economic downturns have been pow-erful engines for bringing the economy backto prosperity. This amendment, if it workedas planned, would shackle government toeconomic policies that are plainly foolish.Since government revenues drop during re-cessions and since payments for benefitssuch as food stamps and unemployment com-pensation increase, the amendment would re-quire Congress by constitutional mandate topursue exactly the policies that would onlyfurther economic distress: to raise taxes, tocut spending, or do both.

Moreover, as Mr. Moynihan and othershave pointed out, the amendment could oneday lead to the devastation of the bankingsystem. This might happen because a bal-anced budget amendment could stall or stopthe government from meeting its obligationsto protect the depositors of banks that failedduring an economic downturn. Mr. Moynihanis not exaggerating when he says that ‘‘ev-erything we have learned about managingour economy since the Great Depression is atrisk.’’

Voting against this amendment should beeasy. It has been said that were today’s votesecret, the amendment would certainly fail.But the political pressures on the undecidedsenators—Mr. Nunn, Mr. Dorgan, JohnBreaux, Kent Conrad and Wendell Ford—areimmense and largely in the amendment’sfavor. These senators have an opportunityonly rarely given public figures: to displaygenuine courage on an issue of enormous his-torical significance. They should seize theirmoment and vote this amendment down.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 28, 1995]

WHY FEAR DEBT?

(By Robert Heilbroner)

It is doubtful that the balanced-budgetamendment, which the Senate votes ontoday, would be effective, even if ratified.The reason is there are many ways of placingexpenditures outside the budget—Social Se-curity, for example. What is not doubtful isthat the real cause for worry is a balanced,not an unbalanced, budget.

Here’s why: Deficit spending is legitimatewhen it is used to protect the future well-being of the nation.

Though one hears much about ‘‘living be-yond our means,’’ very few people can con-cisely define deficit spending. In fact, itmeans one and only one thing: borrowing. Adeficit refers to the amount the governmenthas borrowed. If there is no borrowing, therecannot be a deficit. That introduces a ray oflight into the darkness for it makes us askwhether there might be circumstances inwhich the Government ought to borrow.

Suppose a law enjoined households fromany borrowing. That would cut down gam-bling losses, but it would also prevent fami-lies from buying houses by taking out mort-gages. Similarly, a prohibition on all busi-ness borrowing might eliminate a few ex-travagances, but it would cripple private in-vestment. In the same way, a blanket injunc-tion against Federal borrowing might causethe Government to eliminate waste, but italso would make much public investmentimpossible.

That would mean goodbye to such im-provements as bridges, tunnels, highways,public-health research centers and other un-dertakings that would normally be consid-ered public-sector business but could not befinanced by taxation, because, as is the casewith mortgages and business capital expendi-tures, the outlay is too large to be chargedagainst one year’s income.

What about the Federal debt?We hear pious declarations about the need

to remove the burden of our profligacy fromthe shoulders of our innocent children. Ioften wonder how my own children wouldfeel if they opened my safe deposit box at mydeath to find it stuffed with Governmentdebt—bonds. Would my heirs feel I had bur-dened them unfairly, as they transferred thebonds to their own safe deposit boxes?

In a word, whatever its problems—and adebt, like all borrowing, always poses finan-cial management considerations—a nationaldebt also serves a vital purpose. It providesthe only asset in which households, insur-ance companies, corporations, banks and,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3280 February 28, 1995not least, pension funds, including Social Se-curity, can invest whatever assets need to beplaced in the least risky of all financial in-struments.

Do not forget, there is no income-produc-ing investment other than Government secu-rities that enjoys the power of the Govern-ment to assure that it will be redeemed atfull face value.

Obviously, these arguments are not an ex-cuse for Government profligacy any morethan the legitimacy of consumer or cor-porate debt is an excuse for mindless privateborrowing. But these arguments do suggestthat the Government needs to depict its bor-rowing in a more understandable way. Spe-cifically, it should have what it does not nowhave: a formal capital budget in which its ex-penditures for investment are identified.Such an accounting method would reassurethe anxious public that at least an identifi-able part of the ‘‘deficit’’ represents borrow-ing for purposes that most would approve.

Since there is no such accounting system,all public borrowing is deemed to be thework of the devil—when, properly under-stood, it may be crucial to the futurestrength and vitality of the nation.

[From Business Week March 6, 1995]THE WRONG WAY TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

(By Christopher Farrell)In the early days of the American republic,

financial panics often led to steep declines ineconomic activity. Yet the last time a finan-cial crisis triggered an economic collapsewas the Great Depression. In the half-cen-tury following World War II, financialblowups have had minimal impact, and theeconomy has enjoyed a relatively smoothride.

Now, Congress confronts the possibility ofreturning us to the chaotic days of yore. Inthe coming weeks, after years of debate, theSenate will decide whether to require thefederal government to balance its budget.Many GOP lawmakers back the amendment.They shouldn’t. The Balanced BudgetAmendment would strip away much of thegovernment spending that cushions the econ-omy in hard times—just when disinflationand the prospect of deflation are raising theodds of financial crises.

The U.S. economy is a remarkably stablesystem, in large part because of the govern-ment’s expansive safety net. Federal depositinsurance, for example, prevented the col-lapse of the savings-and-loan industry in thelate 1980s from turning into a depression ofthe 1990s. A market collapse in Mexicosparks jitters in the U.S. but not much more.

Needed Net. Impose the Balanced BudgetAmendment, however, and the system breaksdown. Today, as soon as the economy beginsto slump, government tax collections fall,and government transfer payments, such asfood stamps, increase. The result is higherdeficit spending during recessions—but theseautomatic stabilizers also put more moneyinto the hands of Americans precisely whenthey most need it.

A Balanced Budget Amendment, by con-trast, would require an explicit vote of Con-gress to run a larger deficit to counteract aneconomic slow-down. Given the current cli-mate against deficits, politicians may be re-luctant to approve large-scale deficit spend-ing until a recession is well under way. Theresult? Bigger swings in the economy and afar more volatile financial system.

This at a time when changing economicconditions are creating a world where stabil-ity will be particularly in demand. Foryears, the powerful interaction of inflationhawks at the Federal Reserve Board, bond-market vigilantes, and the new world eco-nomic order have been exerting a firm down-ward pressure on prices. As a result, ‘‘we are

a lot closer to the edge of deflation than wehave been in some time,’’ says Edward E.Yardeni, chief economist at C.J. LawrenceInc.

The Fed, for one, is pursuing an austeremonetary policy toward its goal of wringinginflation out of the economy. By almost anymeasure, the U.S. money supply is growingat an anemic rate—hardly fertile ground forprice increases. Similarly, bond-market in-vestors send interest rates sharply higher onany hint of inflation news. ‘‘The bond mar-ket will not whatever is necessary to makesure inflation won’t take off,’’ says Charles I.Clough Jr., chief investment strategist atMerrill Lynch & Co.

Meanwhile, with the collapse of com-munism and the embrace of freer markets bymuch of the developing world, the supply ofgoods, services, capital, and labor is soaring.White-hot domestic and international com-petition helps explain why last year’s infla-tion rate in the U.S., measured by hourlycompensation, was the lowest since 1949—easily offsetting price increases of manycommodities and crude-materials prices. Dis-inflation is here to stay.

Vicious Cycle. So what? In a world of lowinflation, the risk from unexpected financialcrises soars. A stock market crash, a bankfailure, or a drop in the dollar’s value couldsend asset prices plunging. Suddenly, inter-est payments become onerous. Credit con-tracts. This is the sort of vicious cycle thatwas common in the pre-World War II era—and that deficit spending later eased. ‘‘Thestability of our economy is drastically di-minished when the federal government ispowerless to intervene to prevent a disas-trous debt deflation,’’ says Hyman P.Minsky, an economist at the Jerome LevyEconomics Institute at Bard College.

The Balanced Budget Amendment wouldn’tleave us completely defenseless. The Fed al-ways can open the money spigots to offsetthe immediate impact of a financial panic,much as it did following the stock marketcrash of 1987. But monetary policy is a toolbest used to control inflation, not to coun-teract the cyclical ebbs and flows of theeconomy and financial markets. Getting thegovernment’s finances in order makes sense.But the Balanced Budget Amendment is adangerous step back into the 19th century.

[From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 28, 1995]

RISKY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

‘‘The last thing we want to do is turn overtaxing and spending to the federal courts,’’Sen. Sam Nunn told Ross Perot Sundaynight, in explaining why he wants to amendthe Balanced Budget Amendment to forbidcourts to get involved in any ‘‘case or con-troversy’’ arising out of Congress’ failure tobalance the budget. ‘‘I don’t think we wantto vest [judges] with spending and tax deci-sions. I think that would stand the Constitu-tion on its head. I think the taxpayers of thiscountry would be in revolt the first time afederal judge came down and said, ‘You’remandated to increase taxes by $50 billion.’ ’’

You bet taxpayers would be in revolt. Butwhat could they do?

Nothing without Senator Nunn’s modifica-tion, which will be voted on today before thevote on the Balanced Budget Amendment it-self (and maybe nothing with it). SenatorNunn fails and then the main amendmentpasses and ultimately becomes part of theConstitution, judges would soon be rewritingthe budget, based on lawsuits demandingthat this tax be raised and that one lowered,etc. And citizens whose benefits were cutwould also be in court, arguing that welfareshould go down but not agricultural pricesupports, etc.

That is what is really at stake if the Bal-anced Budget Amendment as now written be-comes the law of the land.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, leading the effort for theamendment, says Senator Nunn’s concernscan be met with legislation. We dispute that,and so do most legal scholars—from RobertBork on the right to Laurence Tribe on theleft. The result would likely be hundreds, ifnot thousands of lawsuits around the coun-try,’’ Judge Bork has written. And ProfessorTribe says, ‘‘Someone who has been cut offfrom a program, a taxpayer—these peoplewill be able to go to court. No question aboutit.’’

This nation has never constitutionalizedits taxing and spending process, so sayingwith complete confidence what judges woulddo is in a sense speculation. But there is arecord worth noting. In states which havebalanced budget requirements in their con-stitutions, judges have taken over the legis-lative and executive function regardingspending and taxing a result of lawsuits.That has happened in recent years in NewYork, Georgia, Wisconsin, California andLouisiana.

We have made it clear that we oppose theBalanced Budget Amendment for many rea-sons, including the prospect of judges takingover the budgeting process. So even if theNunn amendment is added, we would opposeit. And Senator Nunn and others who dreadjudicial control of taxing and spending bet-ter be careful. Even seemingly clear lan-guage in an amendment doesn’t guaranteehands off. There’s always a risk.

As Sen. Howell Heflin, a former chief jus-tice of the Alabama Supreme Court recentlyput it, ‘‘Every constitutional amendmentthat has ever been adopted has had to be in-terpreted, has had the court to have to lookat it and make some kind of interpretation.’’

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 1995]

HOW STATES HANDLE DEBT MAY NOT WORKFOR NATION—STAYING IN BALANCE REQUIRESSOME JUGGLING

(By Dan Morgan)

If the Senate approves today a constitu-tional amendment requiring a balanced fed-eral budget, 48 states will say, ‘‘Welcome tothe club.’’

Only Vermont and Wyoming do not havesome kind of similar statutory or constitu-tional requirement, and state officials havebeen among the loudest critics of the federaldebt spree.

But studies of how these requirementswork in practice show that states can findtheir ways around them when necessary. Andsome experts question whether the states area good model for the federal government tobe copying, given their vastly different re-sponsibilities and fiscal systems.

‘‘It is naive to believe that since states bal-ance their budgets, the federal governmentshould be able to do so as well,’’ said StevenD. Gold, director of the Center for the Studyof the States, who testified before the HouseBudget Committee in 1992. ‘‘States do not al-ways balance their budgets. Many statesavoid deficits only by using funds carriedfrom previous years, or by relying on gim-micks that often represent unsound policy.’’

A 1993 study by the General Accounting Of-fice for Congress, found that 10 states hadcarried over end-of-year deficits or borrowedmoney to finance such deficits in the pre-vious three years. ‘‘Furthermore,’’ the reportnoted, ‘‘some states reported balanced budg-ets at year end at least in part through one-time budget strategies,’’ such as dipping intocash reserves, delaying payments to suppli-ers or using their accounting tricks.

States balance their budgets most of thetime. But they have also been known to sell

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3281February 28, 1995assets, temporarily reduce pension contribu-tions and accelerate tax collection in orderto stay within the letter of budget law.

Despite a requirement that the governorsubmit a balanced budget to the legislature,California has had at least four deficits since1983, and its fiscal predicament ‘‘clearlyshows that a balanced budget provision is nopanacea—in fact, at present it seems almostan irrelevancy,’’ Gold told the Budget Com-mittee. Since then, California’s financialplight has worsened.

States with large, persistent operatingdeficits, including Louisiana, New York, andConnecticut, have issued bonds to financethe shortfall, a device that is permittedunder some state balanced budget require-ments.

Most of the 35 constitutional and 13 statu-tory balanced budget requirements on thebooks of the states apply only to state gen-eral funds—the operating budgets that payfor basic, day-to-day governmental servicesout of revenues from taxes, fees and some-times lottery proceeds.

Outside of this, however, states borrowheavily to finance longer-term needs forbuildings, roads, education and other infra-structure. They also maintain numerous ‘‘offbudget’’ public authorities (for ports, high-ways, pensions and mineral extraction, forexample) that issue bonds and incur debts.

Some experts say that longstanding politi-cal tradition, and fear of a downgraded creditrating, exert at least as much pressure ongovernors to run tight fiscal ships as the bal-anced budget requirements.

Because of these pressures, governors oftentake harsh austerity measures that wouldface far more resistance in Washington. Dur-ing the 1991 recession, 23 states did not giveworkers salary increases; 17 states cut wel-fare benefits and many cut funding for high-er education. According to Gold, a wide-spread response to state fiscal stress hasbeen to increase tuition at state colleges, en-abling state governments to reduce contribu-tions to higher education.

Some say this kind of austerity, if ex-tended to the federal budget because of thesanctions of a balanced budget amendment,would increase the severity and pain of eco-nomic downturns in a way that has not beentrue since the Depression.

State balanced budget requirements ‘‘gen-erally have worked for state and local gov-ernment,’’ said Philip M. Dearborn, directorof government finance research at the U.S.Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations. ‘‘But there is a substantial dif-ference between the management of statesand of the federal government.’’

(During today’s session of the Sen-ate, the following morning businesswas transacted.)f

COMMENDING DR. ROBERT D.REISCHAUER

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, todaybrings to an end the very distinguishedterm of the third Director of the Con-gressional Budget Office—Dr. Robert D.Reischauer. He has served in that officewith the highest degree of professional-ism. Under some very difficult condi-tions in his 6 years as Director he hasbeen able to maintain the independ-ence and high respect all of us have forthe CBO. He has always given his best,and called them as he saw them—some-times to the chagrin of both sides ofthe aisle.

In the 21 years of the CBO there havebeen only three Directors. The first,

Dr. Alice Rivlin, followed by Dr. RudyPenner and then Dr. RobertReischauer. Dr. Reischauer will now befollowed in the high tradition of thoseDirectors by Dr. June O’Neill. Quitefrankly, one of the difficulties in find-ing someone to replace Bob’s expiredterm was the very high standards ofprofessionalism and objectivity Boband his predecessors have brought tothat office.

This is as it should be. The CBO di-rectorship is a critical position and onethat must provide objective, nonbiased,and professional analysis to the Con-gress—not an easy task in this day ofinstant communications and many wellfunded, organized lobbyists’ ‘‘thinktanks.’’ Just being able to sort out thewheat from the chaff has become a fulltime responsibility of the CBO. Overthe years we have also given CBO moreresponsibilities as in the recent case ofthe unfunded mandates legislation. Ofcourse, we have not necessarily alwaysgiven them more resources to go alongwith the additional workload.

Last evening the U.S. Senate adoptedby unanimous consent, Senate Resolu-tion 81, commending Dr. Reischauer forhis long and faithful service to theCongress and the American public. Theresolution was cosponsored by myselfand the ranking member of the BudgetCommittee, the distinguished majorityand minority leaders of the Senate, allthe members of the Senate BudgetCommittee, and many others. I amsure, had time and resources permittedwe would have had 100 original cospon-sors.

The resolution we adopted unani-mously last evening can only be con-sidered a very small token of the Sen-ate’s appreciation of Dr. Reischauer’sservice to the Congress. In this arenatoday, where making decisions aboutcomplicated, complex, and difficultpublic policy issues that can affect thefuture course of this country, Dr.Reischauer has been a clear and con-cise voice. We may not have alwaysagreed with Dr. Reischauer’s analysis,but we always respected his analysis.He always gave his best. He always wasfair and honest in his analysis. Some-how, I think wherever BobReischauer’s career now takes him,that mantle of honesty and integritywill always go with him.

I now wish him and his family thebest and I congratulate him for hispublic service and a job well done.

f

HARRY V. McKENNA FUNERAL—THE PASSING OF A PIONEER

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise toshare with my colleagues the news thatHarry V. McKenna died last week and Irecently returned from his funeral inRhode Island.

Harry McKenna was not only thedean of broadcast journalism in ourState for many decades, he was a pre-mier broadcast journalist whose highstandards remain a challenge for hissuccessors.

Harry became the touchstone forRhode Island politicians until his re-tirement in 1983. It seems you wouldnot be taken seriously as a candidate,unless you were interviewed by HarryMcKenna.

When I first ran for the Senate, al-most 36 years ago, my first publicinterview was with Harry. His weekly‘‘Radio Press Conference’’ ran for 32years and was Rhode Island’s longest-running news broadcast.

I was saddened when I learned of hisdeath and I was touched by the gather-ing that honored him at his funeral. Hewas a good friend and an exemplaryjournalist.

After he retired, I missed him. Now Imiss him even more.

My wife’s and my deepest sympathygo to his wonderful wife, Julie, and hischildren and grandchildren.

I ask unanimous consent that thetext of an obituary that appeared inthe Feb. 22, 1995 issue of Providence(RI) Journal be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the obitu-ary was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

HARRY V. MCKENNA; DIRECTED NEWSPROGRAM ON LOCAL RADIO

(By S. Robert Chiappinelli)

CRANSTON—Harry V. McKenna, the formerWEAN news director who became an institu-tion himself while interviewing Rhode Is-land’s movers and shakers, died yesterday atthe Roger Williams Medical Center.

Mr. McKenna, of 107 Grace St., was the hus-band of Jule (Lister) McKenna.

A large man with a resonant voice, blus-tery style, and in later years, a shock ofwhite hair, Mr. McKenna was called the deanof Rhode Island news correspondents.

His weekly Radio Press Conference ran for32 years and was Rhode Island’s longest-run-ning news broadcast.

‘‘He had kind of a special place,’’ formerGov. J. Joseph Garrahy recalled yesterday.‘‘He always sat at the right-hand corner ofmy desk at a press conference.’’

After each press conference, Mr. McKennawould collar the willing governor for a spe-cial telephone interview for WEAN.

‘‘We had a wonderful relationship,’’Garrahy said.

Mr. McKenna, a member of the Rhode Is-land Heritage Hall of Fame, won respectboth among politicians and fellow membersof the press.

‘‘For more than three decades, Rhode Is-land radio audiences tracked the course ofstate government and politics through theWEAN news reports of Harry McKenna,’’James V. Wyman, Journal-Bulletin vicepresident and executive editor, said.

‘‘His familiar deep voice resonated withauthority and credibility as he applied hisaggressive style to interviews with key gov-ernmental officials,’’ Wyman said.

‘‘Harry’s approach to newsgathering wasboth straightforward and relentless. But hewas known and respected for his fairness.’’

Mr. McKenna joined the Journal-Bulletinin 1944 as nightside police and fire reporter.In 1949, he was named WEAN news directorand was the station’s news and public affairsdirector when he retired. More than 1,400persons attended his retirement party inFebruary, 1983.

John P. Hackett, former Journal-Bulletinchief editorial writer and longtime politicalwriter who often teamed with Mr. McKennaon Radio Press Conference, said he was a

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3282 February 28, 1995skilled interrogator who frequently knew theanswer to a question before he asked it.

‘‘He was a good newsman,’’ Hackett said.‘‘He dug up more stuff. He’d pass tips on tome.’’

Mr. McKenna was in great demand as amaster of ceremonies for community din-ners, Hackett said, and his introductionswould be a show in themselves.

‘‘Before he got through,’’ Hackett said, ‘‘hewould have recognized everyone in the audi-ence.’’

M. Charles Bakst, Journal-Bulletin politi-cal columnist, said: ‘‘He was a throwback tothe days when radio coverage of the StateHouse was an important part of the dailyscene, and governors deferred to him, givinghim extensive interviews and a seat of honorat press conferences.’’

‘‘He was a big man who could get angryand sound tough, but who also had a playful,generous, patient side,’’ Bakst said.

Mr. McKenna had served on the board ofdirectors of the Associated Press Broad-casters Association, was a former inter-national vice president of the Radio and Tel-evision News Directors Association, and wasthe first president of the Rhode Island PressClub.

In 1973, he caused a stir with a taped tele-phone interview with underworld informantVincent ‘‘Big Vinnie’’ Teresa from a secretlocation. Teresa alleged that there was wide-spread corruption in the Providence PoliceDepartment, and said New England crimeboss Raymond L.S. Patriarca had exerted in-fluence on the department.

Mr. McKenna was chairman of the TrafficSafety Commission of Cranston for 20 years.He also served in numerous community orga-nizations.

Besides his wife he leaves two daughters,Constance A. McKenna, and Deborah E.M.Brody, both of Cranston; a son, Robert W.McKenna of Warwick, and five grand-children.

The funeral will be held Saturday at 8:30a.m. from the Hoey Funeral Home, 168 Acad-emy Ave., Providence, with a Mass of Chris-tian Burial celebrated by Bishop Louis E.Gelineau at 10 at St. Matthew Church, Elm-wood Avenue. Burial will be in Swan PointCemetery in Providence.

f

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE?THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as Ipointed out yesterday in this daily re-port—which I began 3 years ago—Fed-eral debt has risen to astronomical pro-portions. As of the close of businessyesterday, Monday, February 27, theFederal debt stood at$4,839,489,402,270.31—or $18,370.79 on aper capita basis.

Mr. President, anyone even remotelyfamiliar with the U.S. Constitutionknows that no President can spend adime of Federal tax money that hasnot first been authorized and appro-priated by Congress—both the House ofRepresentatives and the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, I am convinced today,as I was back in 1973, that it is the ab-solute responsibility and duty of Con-gress to control Federal spending. TheU.S. Senate has a momentous chal-lenge later today in lowering this enor-mous debt by approving a balancedbudget amendment to the U.S. Con-stitution and sending it to the 50States for ratification.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of theUnited States were communicated tothe Senate by Mr. Thomas, one of hissecretaries.f

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session the PresidingOfficer laid before the Senate messagesfrom the President of the UnitedStates submitting sundry nominationswhich were referred to the appropriatecommittees.

(The nominations received today areprinted at the end of the Senate pro-ceedings.)f

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 3 p.m., a message from the Houseof Representatives, delivered by Mr.Hays, one of its reading clerks, an-nounced that the House has passed thefollowing bill, without amendment:

S. 257. An act to amend the charter of theVeterans of Foreign Wars to make eligiblefor membership those veterans that haveserved within the territorial limits of SouthKorea.

EXECUTIVE AND OTHERCOMMUNICATIONS

The following communications werelaid before the Senate, together withaccompanying papers, reports, and doc-uments, which were referred as indi-cated:

EC–442. A communication from the Chair-man of the Farm Credit Administration,transmitting, pursuant to law, the report ofthe 1995 salary structures; to the Committeeon Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

EC–443. A communication from the Assist-ant Secretary of State (Legislative Affairs),transmitting, pursuant to law, the report onmilitary expenditures for countries receivingU.S. assistance; to the Committee on Appro-priations.

EC–444. A communication from the UnderSecretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuantto law, the report of a violation of theAntideficiency Act, case number 94-2; to theCommittee on Appropriations.

EC–445. A communication from the Sec-retary of Commerce, transmitting, pursuantto law, the report of a violation of theAntideficiency Act; to the Committee on Ap-propriations.

f

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OFCOMMITTEES

The following executive reports ofcommittees were submitted:

By Mr. HELMS, from the Committee onForeign Relations:

Herman E. Gallegos, of California, to be anAlternate Representative of the UnitedStates of America to the Forty-ninth Ses-sion of the General Assembly of the UnitedNations.

Lee C. Howley, of Ohio, to be a Representa-tive of the United States of America to theForty-ninth Session of the General Assemblyof the United Nations.

Isabelle Leeds, of New York, to be an Al-ternate Representative of the United Statesof America to the Forty-ninth Session of theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations.

Frank G. Wisner, of the District of Colum-bia, a Career Member of the Senior ForeignService, Class of Career Minister, for the per-

sonal rank of Career Ambassador in recogni-tion of especially distinguished service overa sustained period.

Robert E. Rubin, of New York, to be UnitedStates Governor of the International Mone-tary Fund for a term of five years; UnitedStates Governor of the International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development for aterm of five years; United States Governor ofthe Inter-American Development Bank for aterm of five years; United States Governor ofthe African Development Bank for a term offive years; United States Governor of theAsian Development Bank; United StatesGovernor of the African Development Fund;United States Governor of the EuropeanBank for Reconstruction and Development.

Jeanette W. Hyde, of North Carolina, toserve concurrently and without additionalcompensation as Ambassador Extraordinaryand Plenipotentiary of the United States ofAmerica to Antigua and Barbuda, and asAmbassador Extraordinary and Pleni-potentiary of the United States of Americato St. Kitts and Nevis, and as AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary of theUnited States of America to Grenada.

Nominee: Jeanette W. Hyde.Post: Ambassador to Antigua and Barbuda

to St. Kitts & Nevis, and to Grenada.Contributions, Amount, Date, Donee.1. Self, Jeanette W. Hyde’s Federal Cam-

paign Contributions: 1990–94:1. Price for Congress Committee—$400

(1990).2. Gantt for Senate Committee—$1,000

(1990.3. Gore for Senate Committee—$1,000 (1990).4. Americans for Kerry Committee—$250

(1991).5. David Price Reelection Committee—

$1,000 (1991).6. Committee to Reelect Terry Sanford—

$500 (1991).7. Gephardt for Congress Committee—$250

(1991).8. Clayton for Congress Committee—$500

(1992).9. David Price for Congress Committee—

$1,000 (1992).10. Committee to Reelect Terry Sanford—

$1500 (1992).11. Committee to Elect Bill Clinton Presi-

dent—$1,000 (1992).12. Braun for Senate Committee—$1,000

(1992).13. NC Democratic Campaign (Federal Ac-

count)—$5,000 (1992).14. DNC Victory Fund (Finance Council

Membership)—$5,000 (1992).15. DNC Victory Fund—$5,000 (1992).16. DSCC—$200 (1992).17. Clayton for Congress Committee—$150

(1993).Spouse, Wallace N. Hyde’s Federal Cam-

paign Contributions, 1990–94:1. David Price for Congress—$500 (1990).2. Gantt for Senate Committee—$1,000

(1990).3. Clark for Congress Committee—$500

(1990).4. Democratic House and Senate Council—

$1,500 (1990).5. Gore for Senate Committee—$1,000 (1990).6. Bill Clinton for President—$250 (1991).7. David Price for Congress Committee—

$300 (1991).8. Clark for Congress Committee—$400

(1991).9. Stevens for Congress Committee—$300

(1991).10. Gephardt for Congress Committee—$250

(1991).11. Democratic House and Senate Council—

$1,500 (1991).12. Bradley for Senate Committee—$1,000

(1991).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3283February 28, 199513. Americans for Kerry Committee—$250

(1991).14. Terry Sanford for Senate Committee—

$2,000 (1992).15. Bill Clinton for President—$750 (1992).16. Stevens for Congress Committee—$500

(1992).17. DNC Victory Fund—$7,000 (1992).18. Friend of Clayton and Watt for Con-

gress—$200 (1992).19. Democratic House and Senate Council—

$1,500 (1992).20. Democratic House and Senate Council—

$625 (1993).21. DNC Business Leadership Council—

$10,000 (1994).22. Sandy Sands for U.S. Congress—$1,000

(1994).24. Gene Stucky for U.S. Congress—$500

(1994).3a. Children and spouses Names; None.3b. Stepchildren and spouses names, Mar-

tha Hyde Jones, None; Dan Jones (spouse),none; Charlie W. Hyde, none; Barbara HydeWhite, none; Joseph White (spouse), none.

4. Parents names, Gurney C. Wallace, de-ceased; Effie W. Wallace, none.

5. Grandparents names, Nettie B.Whitlock, deceased; Jones J. Whitlock, de-ceased.

6. Brothers and spouses names; none.7. Sisters and spouses names, June W.

Smith, none; John G. Smith (spouse), none;Wanda W. Dobbins, none; Ralph A. Dobbins(spouse), none.

Martin S. Indyk, of the District of Colum-bia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary andPlenipotentiary of the United States ofAmerica to Israel.

Nominee: Martin S. Indyk.Post: U.S. Ambassador to Israel.Contributions, Amount, Date, Donee.1. Self, None.2. Spouse, $200.00, 1992, DNC.3. Children and spouses names, None.Johnnie Carson, of Illinois, a Career Mem-

ber of the Senior Foreign Service, Class ofMinister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Ex-traordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Unit-ed States of America to the Republic ofZimbabwe.

Nominee: Johnnie Carson.Post: U.S. Ambassador, Republic of

Zimbabwe.Contributions, Amount, Date, Donee.1. Self, None.2. Spouse, None.3. Children and spouses names, Elizabeth,

Michael, Katherine, None.4. Parents names, Dupree Carson, Aretha

Carson, None.5. Grandparents names, All deceased.6. Brothers and spouses names, Ronald Car-

son, Gregory Carson, None.7. Sisters and spouses names, Barbara Car-

son Latimer, None.Bismarck Myrick, of Virginia, a Career

Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Classof Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraor-dinary and Plenipotentiary of the UnitedStates of America to the Kingdom of Leso-tho.

Nominee: Bismarck Myrick.Post: Lesotho.Contributions, amount, date, donee.1. Self, Bismarck Myrick, $100, 1993, Jean

W. Cunningham (for the House of Represent-atives).

2. Children and spouses, Bismarck Myrick,Jr., none; Wesley Todd Myrick, none; AllisonElizabeth Myrick, none.

4. Parents, Elizabeth Lee Land, deceased;Maceo Lee Myrick, deceased.

5. Grandparents, Emmanuel Myrick, de-ceased.

6. Brother and spouse, James M. Lee, none.

7. Sisters and spouses, Carol Myrick Kitch-en, none; Steve Kitchen, none; Emily D.Thomas, none.

(The above nominations were re-ported with the recommendation thatthey be confirmed, subject to the nomi-nees’ commitment to respond to re-quests to appear and testify before anyduly constituted committee of the Sen-ate.)f

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS ANDJOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolu-tions were introduced, read the firstand second time by unanimous con-sent, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. MCCAIN:S. 479. A bill to provide for administrative

procedures to extend Federal recognition tocertain Indian groups, and for other pur-poses; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

f

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCEDBILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. MCCAIN:S. 479. A bill to provide for adminis-

trative procedures to extend Federalrecognition to certain Indian groups,and for other purposes; to the Commit-tee on Indian Affairs.

THE INDIAN FEDERAL RECOGNITIONADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT OF 1995

∑ Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, today Iam introducing the Indian Federal Rec-ognition Administrative ProceduresAct of 1995.

The Indian Federal Recognition Ad-ministrative Procedures Act providesfor the creation of the Commission onIndian Recognition. The Commissionwill be an independent agency of theexecutive branch and will be composedof three members appointed by thePresident. The Commission would beauthorized to hold hearings, take testi-mony and reach final determinationson petitions for recognition. The billprovides realistic timelines to guidethe Commission in the review and deci-sionmaking process. Under the existingprocess in the Department of the Inte-rior, some petitioners have waited 10years or more for even a cursory reviewof their petition. The bill I am intro-ducing today requires the Commissionto set a date for a preliminary hearingon a petition not later than 60 daysafter the filing of a documented peti-tion. Not later than 30 days after theconclusion of a preliminary hearing,the Commission would be required toeither decide to extend Federal ac-knowledgement to the petitioner or torequire the petitioner to proceed to anadjudicatory hearing.

To ensure fairness, the bill providesfor appeals of adverse decisions to theU.S. District Court for the District ofColumbia. To ensure promptness, thebill authorizes adequate funding for thecosts of processing petitions throughthe Commission and to assist petition-ers in the development of their peti-tions. This bill will also provide final-

ity for both the petitioners and the De-partment of the Interior.

The Department has had a process ofone type or another for recognizing In-dian tribes since the 1930’s. Great un-certainty has existed about how orwhen this process might be concludedand how many Indian tribes will ulti-mately be recognized. I believe that itis in the interests of all parties to havea clear deadline for the completion ofthe recognition process. Accordingly,the bill requires all interested tribalgroups to file their petitions within 6years after the date of enactment andthe Commission must complete all ofits work within 12 years from the dateof enactment.

This bill is similar to the bills whichI have introduced in each of the lastthree Congresses. It is also similar to abill which passed the House of Rep-resentatives in the 103d Congress, H.R.4462, and which has been reintroducedin this Congress by RepresentativeFALEOMAVAEGA, H.R. 671. The majordifferences between the bill I am intro-ducing today and H.R. 671 are; First,H.R. 671 would make naive Hawaiiansand Alaska Native villages eligible topetition for recognition while this billdoes not; second, H.R. 671 would createa part-time Commission, while this billcreates a full-time independent entityin the executive branch, and H.R. 671would not sunset the Commission orthe recognition process while this billwould terminate the Commission andrequire the process to be completed in12 years.

From the earliest times, the Con-gress has acted to recognize the uniquegovernment-to-government relation-ship with the Indian tribes. There areand always have been some Indiantribes which have not been recognizedby the Federal Government. This lackof recognition does not alter the fact ofthe existence of the tribe or of its re-tained inherent sovereignty; it merelymeans that there is no formal politicalrelationship between the tribal govern-ment and the Federal Government andthat the enrolled members of the tribeare not eligible for the services andbenefits accorded to Indians because oftheir status as members of federallyrecognized Indian tribes.

Over the years, the Federal courtshave ruled that recognition, while sole-ly within the authority of the Con-gress, may also be conferred throughactions of the executive branch. Boththe President and the Secretary of theInterior have historically acted inways which the courts have found toconstitute recognition of Indian tribes.And beginning in 1954, it was the estab-lished policy of the Congress to offi-cially sanction the termination of theFederal/tribal relationship. This mis-guided policy was only effectivelyended in 1970 when President Nixoncalled for the beginning of an era ofself-determination and the end of ter-mination.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3284 February 28, 1995In 1978, the Department of the Inte-

rior promulgated regulations to estab-lish criteria and procedures for the rec-ognition of Indian tribes by the Sec-retary. Since that time tribal groupshave filed 147 petitions for review. Ofthose, 31 have been resolved and 75 areletters expressing an intent to petition,and 7 require legislative authority toproceed. The remainder are in variousstages of consideration by the Depart-ment. During this same time, the Con-gress has recognized nine other tribalgroups through legislation.

In 1978, 1983, 1988, 1989, and 1992, theCommittee on Indian Affairs held over-sight hearings on the Federal recogni-tion process. At each of those hearingsthe record clearly showed that theprocess is not working properly. Theprocess in the Department of the Inte-rior is time consuming and costly, al-though it has improved somewhat inrecent years. Some tribal groups allegethat Interior Department’s processleads to unfair and unfounded results.It has frequently been hindered by alack of staff and resources needed tofairly and promptly review all peti-tions. At the same time, the Congressextends recognition to tribes with lit-tle or no reference to the legal stand-ards and criteria employed by the De-partment. The result is yet anotherlayer of inconsistency and apparent un-fairness.

The record from our previous hear-ings reveals a clear need for the Con-gress to address the problems affectingthe recognition process. I believe thatthe bill I am introducing today will goa long way toward resolving the prob-lems which have plagued both the De-partment and the petitions over theyears.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-sent that the full text of the IndianFederal Recognition AdministrativeProcedures Act of 1995 and a section-by-section summary be printed in theRECORD.

There being no objection, the mate-rial was ordered to be printed in theRECORD, as follows:

S. 479

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-resentatives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indian Fed-eral Recognition Administrative ProceduresAct of 1995’’.SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are—(1) to establish an administrative proce-

dure to extend Federal recognition to certainIndian groups;

(2) to extend to Indian groups that are de-termined to be Indian tribes the protection,services, and benefits available from theFederal Government pursuant to the Federaltrust responsibility with respect to Indiantribes;

(3) to extend to Indian groups that are de-termined to be Indian tribes the immunitiesand privileges available to other federallyacknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of theirstatus as Indian tribes with a government-to-government relationship with the UnitedStates;

(4) to ensure that when the Federal Gov-ernment extends acknowledgment to an In-dian tribe, the Federal Government does sowith a consistent legal, factual, and histori-cal basis;

(5) to establish a Commission on IndianRecognition to review and act upon petitionssubmitted by Indian groups that apply forFederal recognition;

(6) to provide clear and consistent stand-ards of administrative review of documentedpetitions for Federal acknowledgment;

(7) to clarify evidentiary standards and ex-pedite the administrative review process byproviding adequate resources to process peti-tions; and

(8) to remove the Federal acknowledgmentprocess from the Bureau of Indian Affairsand transfer the responsibility for the proc-ess to an independent Commission on IndianRecognition.SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

Unless the context implies otherwise, forthe purposes of this Act the following defini-tions shall apply:

(1) ACKNOWLEDGED.—The term ‘‘acknowl-edged’’ means, with respect to an Indiangroup, that the Commission on Indian Rec-ognition has made an acknowledgment, asdefined in paragraph (2), for such group.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGMENT.—The term ‘‘ac-knowledgment’’ means a determination bythe Commission on Indian Recognition thatan Indian group—

(A) constitutes an Indian tribe with a gov-ernment-to-government relationship withthe United States; and

(B) with respect to which the members arerecognized as eligible for the special pro-grams and services provided by the UnitedStates to Indians because of their status asIndians.

(3) AUTONOMOUS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘autonomous’’

means the exercise of political influence orauthority independent of the control of anyother Indian governing entity.

(B) CONTEXT OF TERM.—With respect to apetitioner, such term shall be understood inthe context of the history, geography, cul-ture, and social organization of the peti-tioner.

(4) BUREAU.—The term ‘‘Bureau’’ meansthe Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Depart-ment.

(5) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’means the Commission on Indian Recogni-tion established pursuant to section 4.

(6) COMMUNITY.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘community’’

means any group of people, living within areasonable territorial propinquity, that areable to demonstrate that—

(i) consistent interactions and significantsocial relationships exist within the mem-bership; and

(ii) the members of such group are differen-tiated from and identified as distinct fromnonmembers.

(B) CONTEXT OF TERM.—Such term shall beunderstood in the context of the history, cul-ture, and social organization of the group,taking into account the geography of the re-gion in which the group resides.

(7) CONTINUOUS OR CONTINUOUSLY.—With re-spect to a period of history of a group, theterm ‘‘continuous’’ or ‘‘continuously’’ meansextending from the first sustained contactwith Euro-Americans throughout the historyof the group to the present substantiallywithout interruption.

(8) DEPARTMENT.—The term ‘‘Department’’means the Department of the Interior.

(9) DOCUMENTED PETITION.—The term ‘‘doc-umented petition’’ means the detailed, fac-tual exposition and arguments, including alldocumentary evidence, necessary to dem-onstrate that such arguments specifically

address the mandatory criteria establishedin section 5.

(10) GROUP.—The term ‘‘group’’ means anIndian group, as defined in paragraph (12).

(11) HISTORICALLY, HISTORICAL, HISTORY.—The terms ‘‘historically’’, ‘‘historical’’, and‘‘history’’ refer to the period dating from thefirst sustained contact with Euro-Americans.

(12) INDIAN GROUP.—The term ‘‘Indiangroup’’ means any Indian, Alaska Native, orNative Hawaiian tribe, band, pueblo, villageor community within the United States thatthe Secretary does not acknowledge to be anIndian tribe.

(13) INDIAN TRIBE.—The term ‘‘Indiantribe’’ means any Indian tribe, band, pueblo,village, or community within the UnitedStates that—

(A) the Secretary has acknowledged as anIndian tribe as of the date of enactment ofthis Act, or acknowledges to be an Indiantribe pursuant to the procedures applicableto certain petitions under active consider-ation at the time of the transfer of petitionsto the Commission under section 5(a)(3); or

(B) the Commission acknowledges as an In-dian tribe under this Act.

(14) INDIGENOUS.—With respect to a peti-tioner, the term ‘‘indigenous’’ means nativeto the United States, in that at least part ofthe traditional territory of the petitioner atthe time of first sustained contact withEuro-Americans extended into the UnitedStates.

(15) LETTER OF INTENT.—The term ‘‘letterof intent’’ means an undocumented letter orresolution that—

(A) is dated and signed by the governingbody of an Indian group;

(B) is submitted to the Commission; and(C) indicates the intent of the Indian group

to submit a petition for Federal acknowledg-ment as an Indian tribe.

(16) MEMBER OF AN INDIAN GROUP.—Theterm ‘‘member of an Indian group’’ means anindividual who—

(A) is recognized by an Indian group asmeeting the membership criteria of the In-dian group; and

(B) consents in writing to being listed as amember of such group.

(17) MEMBER OF AN INDIAN TRIBE.—The term‘‘member of an Indian tribe’’ means an indi-vidual who—

(A)(i) meets the membership requirementsof the tribe as set forth in its governing doc-ument; or

(ii) in the absence of a governing documentwhich sets out such requirements, has beenrecognized as a member collectively by thosepersons comprising the tribal governingbody; and

(B)(i) has consistently maintained tribalrelations with the tribe; or

(ii) is listed on the tribal membership rollsas a member, if such rolls are kept.

(18) PETITION.—The term ‘‘petition’’ meansa petition for acknowledgment submitted ortransferred to the Commission pursuant tosection 5.

(19) PETITIONER.—The term ‘‘petitioner’’means any group that submits a letter of in-tent to the Commission requesting acknowl-edgment that the group is an Indian tribe.

(20) POLITICAL INFLUENCE OR AUTHORITY.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘political influ-

ence or authority’’ means a tribal council,leadership, internal process, or other mecha-nism which a group has used as a means of—

(i) influencing or controlling the behaviorof its members in a significant manner;

(ii) making decisions for the group whichsubstantially affect its members; or

(iii) representing the group in dealing withnonmembers in matters of consequence tothe group.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3285February 28, 1995(B) CONTEXT OF TERM.—Such term shall be

understood in the context of the history, cul-ture, and social organization of the group.

(21) PREVIOUS FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT.—The term ‘‘previous Federal acknowledg-ment’’ means any action by the Federal Gov-ernment, the character of which—

(A) is clearly premised on identification ofa tribal political entity; and

(B) clearly indicates the recognition of agovernment-to-government relationship be-tween that entity and the Federal Govern-ment.

(22) RESTORATION.—The term ‘‘restoration’’means the reextension of acknowledgment toany previously acknowledged tribe with re-spect to which the acknowledged status mayhave been abrogated or diminished by reasonof legislation enacted by Congress expresslyterminating such status.

(23) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’means the Secretary of the Interior.

(24) SUSTAINED CONTACT.—The term ‘‘sus-tained contact’’ means the period of earliestsustained Euro-American settlement or gov-ernmental presence in the local area inwhich the tribe or tribes from which the pe-titioner claims descent was located histori-cally.

(25) TREATY.—The term ‘‘treaty’’ meansany treaty—

(A) negotiated and ratified by the UnitedStates on or before March 3, 1871, with, or onbehalf of, any Indian group or tribe;

(B) made by any government with, or onbehalf of, any Indian group or tribe, fromwhich the Federal Government subsequentlyacquired territory by purchase, conquest, an-nexation, or cession; or

(C) negotiated by the United States with,or on behalf of, any Indian group in Califor-nia, whether or not the treaty was subse-quently ratified.

(26) TRIBE.—The term ‘‘tribe’’ means an In-dian tribe.

(27) TRIBAL RELATIONS.—The term ‘‘tribalrelations’’ means participation by an indi-vidual in a political and social relationshipwith an Indian tribe.

(28) TRIBAL ROLL.—The term ‘‘tribal roll’’means a list exclusively of those individualswho—

(A)(i) have been determined by the tribe tomeet the membership requirements of thetribe, as set forth in the governing documentof the tribe; or

(ii) in the absence of a governing documentthat sets forth such requirements, have beenrecognized as members by the governingbody of the tribe; and

(B) have affirmatively demonstrated con-sent to being listed as members of the tribe.

(29) UNITED STATES.—The term ‘‘UnitedStates’’ means the 48 contiguous States, andthe States of Alaska and Hawaii. Such termdoes not include territories or possessions ofthe United States.

SEC. 4. COMMISSION ON INDIAN RECOGNITION.(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established,

as an independent commission, the Commis-sion on Indian Recognition. The Commissionshall be an independent establishment, as de-fined in section 104 of title 5, United StatesCode.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—(1) IN GENERAL.—(A) MEMBERS.—The Commission shall con-

sist of 3 members appointed by the Presi-dent, by and with the advice and consent ofthe Senate.

(B) INDIVIDUALS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR

MEMBERSHIP.—In making appointments tothe Commission, the President shall givecareful consideration to—

(i) recommendations received from Indiantribes; and

(ii) individuals who have a background inIndian law or policy, anthropology, geneal-ogy, or history.

(2) POLITICAL AFFILIATION.—Not more than2 members of the Commission may be mem-bers of the same political party.

(3) TERMS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

subparagraph (B), each member of the Com-mission shall be appointed for a term of 4years.

(B) INITIAL APPOINTMENTS.—As designatedby the President at the time of appointment,of the members initially appointed underthis subsection—

(i) 1 member shall be appointed for a termof 2 years;

(ii) 1 member shall be appointed for a termof 3 years; and

(iii) 1 member shall be appointed for aterm of 4 years.

(4) VACANCIES.—Any vacancy in the Com-mission shall not affect the powers of theCommission, but shall be filled in the samemanner in which the original appointmentwas made. Any member appointed to fill avacancy occurring before the expiration ofthe term for which the predecessor of themember was appointed shall be appointedonly for the remainder of such term. A mem-ber may serve after the expiration of theterm of such member until a successor hastaken office.

(5) COMPENSATION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Each member of the Com-

mission shall receive compensation at a rateequal to the daily equivalent of the annualrate of basic pay prescribed for level V of theExecutive Schedule under section 5316 oftitle 5, United States Code, for each day, in-cluding traveltime, such member is engagedin the actual performance of duties author-ized by the Commission.

(B) TRAVEL.—All members of the Commis-sion shall be reimbursed for travel and perdiem in lieu of subsistence expenses duringthe performance of duties of the Commissionwhile away from their homes or regularplaces of business, in accordance with sub-chapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, UnitedStates Code.

(6) FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT.—Each memberof the Commission shall serve on the Com-mission as a full-time employee of the Fed-eral Government. No member of the Com-mission may, while serving on the Commis-sion, be otherwise employed as an officer oremployee of the Federal Government. Serv-ice by a member who is an employee of theFederal Government at the time of nomina-tion as a member shall be without interrup-tion or loss of civil service status or privi-lege.

(7) CHAIRPERSON.—At the time appoint-ments are made under paragraph (1), thePresident shall designate a Chairperson ofthe Commission (referred to in this sectionas the ‘‘Chairperson’’) from among the ap-pointees.

(c) MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall

hold its first meeting not later than 30 daysafter the date on which all members of theCommission have been appointed and con-firmed by the Senate.

(2) QUORUM.—Two members of the Commis-sion shall constitute a quorum for the trans-action of business.

(3) RULES.—The Commission may adoptsuch rules (consistent with the provisions ofthis Act) as may be necessary to establishthe procedures of the Commission and togovern the manner of operations, organiza-tion, and personnel of the Commission.

(4) PRINCIPAL OFFICE.—The principal officeof the Commission shall be in the District ofColumbia.

(d) DUTIES.—The Commission shall carryout the duties assigned to the Commission

by this Act, and shall meet the requirementsimposed on the Commission by this Act.

(e) POWERS AND AUTHORITIES.—(1) POWERS AND AUTHORITIES OF CHAIR-

PERSON.—Subject to such rules and regula-tions as may be adopted by the Commission,the Chairperson may—

(A) appoint, terminate, and fix the com-pensation (without regard to the provisionsof title 5, United States Code, governing ap-pointments in the competitive service, andwithout regard to the provisions of chapter51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of suchtitle, or of any other provision of law, relat-ing to the number, classification, and Gen-eral Schedule rates) of an Executive Directorof the Commission and of such other person-nel as the Chairperson considers advisable toassist in the performance of the duties of theCommission, at a rate not to exceed a rateequal to the daily equivalent of the annualrate of basic pay prescribed for level V of theExecutive Schedule under section 5316 oftitle 5, United States Code; and

(B) procure, as authorized by section3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, tem-porary and intermittent services to the sameextent as is authorized by law for agencies inthe executive branch, but at rates not to ex-ceed the daily equivalent of the annual rateof basic pay prescribed for level V of the Ex-ecutive Schedule under section 5316 of suchtitle.

(2) GENERAL POWERS AND AUTHORITIES OF

COMMISSION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may—(i) hold such hearings and sit and act at

such times;(ii) take such testimony;(iii) have such printing and binding done;(iv) enter into such contracts and other ar-

rangements, subject to the availability offunds;

(v) make such expenditures; and(vi) take such other actions,

as the Commission may consider advisable.(B) OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS.—Any mem-

ber of the Commission may administer oathsor affirmations to witnesses appearing beforethe Commission.

(3) INFORMATION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may se-

cure directly from any officer, department,agency, establishment, or instrumentality ofthe Federal Government such information asthe Commission may require to carry outthis Act. Each such officer, department,agency, establishment, or instrumentalityshall furnish, to the extent permitted by law,such information, suggestions, estimates,and statistics directly to the Commission,upon the request of the Chairperson.

(B) FACILITIES, SERVICES, AND DETAILS.—Upon the request of the Chairperson, to as-sist the Commission in carrying out the du-ties of the Commission under this section,the head of any Federal department, agency,or instrumentality may—

(i) make any of the facilities and servicesof such department, agency, or instrumen-tality available to the Commission; and

(ii) detail any of the personnel of such de-partment, agency, or instrumentality to theCommission, on a nonreimbursable basis.

(C) MAILS.—The Commission may use theUnited States mails in the same manner andunder the same conditions as other depart-ments and agencies of the United States.

(f) FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.—The provisions of the Federal Advisory Com-mittee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply tothe Commission.

(g) TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.—TheCommission shall terminate on the date thatis 12 years after the date of enactment ofthis Act.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3286 February 28, 1995SEC. 5. PETITIONS FOR RECOGNITION.

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) PETITIONS.—Subject to subsection (d)

and except as provided in paragraph (2), anyIndian group may submit to the Commissiona petition requesting that the Commissionrecognize an Indian group as an Indian tribe.

(2) EXCLUSION.—The following groups andentities shall not be eligible to submit a pe-tition for recognition by the Commissionunder this Act:

(A) CERTAIN ENTITIES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TORECEIVE SERVICES FROM THE BUREAU.—Indiantribes, organized bands, pueblos, commu-nities, and Alaska Native entities that arerecognized by the Secretary as of the date ofenactment of this Act as eligible to receiveservices from the Bureau.

(B) CERTAIN SPLINTER GROUPS, POLITICALFACTIONS, AND COMMUNITIES.—Splintergroups, political factions, communities, orgroups of any character that separate fromthe main body of an Indian tribe that, at thetime of such separation, is recognized as anIndian tribe by the Secretary, unless thegroup, faction, or community is able to es-tablish clearly that the group, faction, orcommunity has functioned throughout his-tory until the date of such petition as an au-tonomous Indian tribal entity.

(C) CERTAIN GROUPS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLYSUBMITTED PETITIONS.—Groups, or successorsin interest of groups, that prior to the dateof enactment of this Act, have petitioned forand been denied or refused recognition as anIndian tribe under regulations prescribed bythe Secretary.

(D) INDIAN GROUPS SUBJECT TO TERMI-NATION.—Any Indian group whose relation-ship with the Federal Government was ex-pressly terminated by an Act of Congress.

(E) PARTIES TO CERTAIN ACTIONS.—Any In-dian group that—

(i) in any action in a United States courtof competent jurisdiction to which the groupwas a party, attempted to establish its sta-tus as an Indian tribe or a successor in inter-est to an Indian tribe that was a party to atreaty with the United States;

(ii) was determined by such court—(I) not to be an Indian tribe; or(II) not to be a successor in interest to an

Indian tribe that was a party to a treatywith the United States; or

(iii) was the subject of findings of fact bysuch court which, if made by the Commis-sion, would show that the group was incapa-ble of establishing one or more of the cri-teria set forth in this section.

(3) TRANSFER OF PETITION.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any

other provision of law, not later than 30 daysafter the date on which all of the members ofthe Commission have been appointed andconfirmed by the Senate under section 4(b),the Secretary shall transfer to the Commis-sion all petitions pending before the Depart-ment that—

(i) are not under active consideration ofthe Secretary at the time of the transfer;and

(ii) request the Secretary, or the FederalGovernment, to recognize or acknowledge anIndian group as an Indian tribe.

(B) CESSATION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES OFSECRETARY.—Notwithstanding any other pro-vision of law, on the date of the transferunder subparagraph (A), the Secretary andthe Department shall cease to have any au-thority to recognize or acknowledge, on be-half of the Federal Government, any Indiangroup as an Indian tribe, except for thosegroups under active consideration at thetime of the transfer whose petitions havebeen retained by the Secretary pursuant tosubparagraph (A).

(C) DETERMINATION OF ORDER OF SUBMISSIONOF TRANSFERRED PETITIONS.—Petitions trans-

ferred to the Commission under subpara-graph (A) shall, for purposes of this Act, beconsidered as having been submitted to theCommission in the same order as such peti-tions were submitted to the Department.

(b) PETITION FORM AND CONTENT.—Exceptas provided in subsection (c), any petitionsubmitted under subsection (a) by an Indiangroup shall be in any readable form thatclearly indicates that the petition is a peti-tion requesting the Commission to recognizethe Indian group as an Indian tribe and thatcontains detailed, specific evidence concern-ing each of the following items:

(1) STATEMENT OF FACTS.—A statement offacts establishing that the petitioner hasbeen identified as an American Indian entityon a substantially continuous basis since1871. Evidence that the character of thegroup as an Indian entity has from time totime been denied shall not be considered tobe conclusive evidence that this criterionhas not been met. Evidence that the Com-mission may rely on in determining the In-dian identity of a group may include any oneor more of the following items:

(A) IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER.—Anidentification of the petitioner as an Indianentity by any department, agency, or instru-mentality of the Federal Government.

(B) RELATIONSHIP OF PETITIONER WITHSTATE GOVERNMENT.—A relationship betweenthe petitioner and any State government,based on an identification of the petitioneras an Indian entity.

(C) RELATIONSHIP OF PETITIONER WITH A PO-LITICAL SUBDIVISION OF A STATE.—Dealings ofthe petitioner with a county or political sub-division of a State in a relationship based onthe Indian identity of the petitioner.

(D) IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER ON THEBASIS OF CERTAIN RECORDS.—An identifica-tion of the petitioner as an Indian entity byrecords in a private or public archive, court-house, church, or school.

(E) IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER BY CER-TAIN EXPERTS.—An identification of the peti-tioner as an Indian entity by an anthropolo-gist, historian, or other scholar.

(F) IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER BY CER-TAIN MEDIA.—An identification of the peti-tioner as an Indian entity in a newspaper,book, or similar medium.

(G) IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER BY AN-OTHER INDIAN TRIBE OR ORGANIZATION.—Anidentification of the petitioner as an Indianentity by another Indian tribe or by a na-tional, regional, or State Indian organiza-tion.

(H) IDENTIFICATION OF PETITIONER BY A FOR-EIGN GOVERNMENT OR INTERNATIONAL ORGANI-ZATION.—An identification of the petitioneras an Indian entity by a foreign governmentor an international organization.

(I) OTHER EVIDENCE OF IDENTIFICATION.—Such other evidence of identification as maybe provided by a person or entity other thanthe petitioner or a member of the member-ship of the petitioner.

(2) EVIDENCE OF COMMUNITY.—(A) IN GENERAL.—A statement of facts es-

tablishing that a predominant portion of themembership of the petitioner—

(i) comprises a community distinct fromthose communities surrounding such com-munity; and

(ii) has existed as a community from his-torical times to the present.

(B) EVIDENCE.—Evidence that the Commis-sion may rely on in determining that the pe-titioner meets the criterion described inclauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) mayinclude one or more of the following items:

(i) MARRIAGES.—Significant rates of mar-riage within the group, or, as may be cul-turally required, patterned out-marriageswith other Indian populations.

(ii) SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS.—Significant so-cial relationships connecting individualmembers.

(iii) SOCIAL INTERACTION.—Significant ratesof informal social interaction which existbroadly among the members of a group.

(iv) SHARED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.—A signifi-cant degree of shared or cooperative labor orother economic activity among the member-ship.

(v) DISCRIMINATION OR OTHER SOCIAL DIS-TINCTIONS.—Evidence of strong patterns ofdiscrimination or other social distinctionsby nonmembers.

(vi) SHARED RITUAL ACTIVITY.—Shared sa-cred or secular ritual activity encompassingmost of the group.

(vii) CULTURAL PATTERNS.—Cultural pat-terns that—

(I) are shared among a significant portionof the group that are different from the cul-tural patterns of the non-Indian populationswith whom the group interacts;

(II) function as more than a symbolic iden-tification of the group as Indian; and

(III) may include language, kinship or reli-gious organizations, or religious beliefs andpractices.

(viii) COLLECTIVE INDIAN IDENTITY.—Thepersistence of a named, collective Indianidentity continuously over a period of morethan 50 years, notwithstanding changes inname.

(ix) HISTORICAL POLITICAL INFLUENCE.—Ademonstration of historical political influ-ence pursuant to the criterion set forth inparagraph (3).

(C) CRITERIA FOR SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.—The Commission shall consider the peti-tioner to have provided sufficient evidence ofcommunity at a given point in time if thepetitioner has provided evidence that dem-onstrates any one of the following:

(i) RESIDENCE OF MEMBERS.—More than 50percent of the members of the group of thepetitioner reside in a particular geographicalarea exclusively or almost exclusively com-posed of members of the group, and the bal-ance of the group maintains consistent so-cial interaction with some members of thecommunity.

(ii) MARRIAGES.—Not less than 50 percentof the marriages of the group are betweenmembers of the group.

(iii) DISTINCT CULTURAL PATTERNS.—Notless than 50 percent of the members of thegroup maintain distinct cultural patterns in-cluding language, kinship or religious orga-nizations, or religious beliefs or practices.

(iv) COMMUNITY SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS.—Dis-tinct community social institutions encom-passing a substantial portion of the membersof the group, such as kinship organizations,formal or informal economic cooperation, orreligious organizations.

(v) APPLICABILITY OF CRITERIA.—The grouphas met the criterion in paragraph (3) usingevidence described in paragraph (3)(B).

(3) AUTONOMOUS ENTITY.—(A) IN GENERAL.—A statement of facts es-

tablishing that the petitioner has main-tained political influence or authority overits members as an autonomous entity fromhistorical times until the time of the peti-tion. The Commission may rely on one ormore of the following items in determiningwhether a petitioner meets the criterion de-scribed in the preceding sentence:

(i) MOBILIZATION OF MEMBERS.—The groupis capable of mobilizing significant numbersof members and significant resources fromits members for group purposes.

(ii) ISSUES OF PERSONAL IMPORTANCE.—Mostof the membership of the group considers is-sues acted upon or taken by group leaders orgoverning bodies to be of personal impor-tance.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3287February 28, 1995(iii) POLITICAL PROCESS.—There is a wide-

spread knowledge, communication, and in-volvement in political processes by most ofthe members of the group.

(iv) LEVEL OF APPLICATION OF CRITERIA.—The group meets the criterion described inparagraph (2) at more than a minimal level.

(v) INTRAGROUP CONFLICTS.—There areintragroup conflicts which show controversyover valued group goals, properties, policies,processes, or decisions.

(B) EVIDENCE OF EXERCISE OF POLITICAL IN-FLUENCE OR AUTHORITY.—The Commissionshall consider that a petitioner has providedsufficient evidence to demonstrate the exer-cise of political influence or authority at agiven point in time by demonstrating thatgroup leaders or other mechanisms exist orhave existed that accomplish the following:

(i) ALLOCATION OF GROUP RESOURCES.—Allo-cate group resources such as land, residencerights, or similar resources on a consistentbasis.

(ii) SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES.—Settle dis-putes between members or subgroups such asclans or moieties by mediation or othermeans on a regular basis.

(iii) INFLUENCE ON BEHAVIOR OF INDIVIDUALMEMBERS.—Exert strong influence on the be-havior of individual members, such as the es-tablishment or maintenance of norms andthe enforcement of sanctions to direct orcontrol behavior.

(iv) ECONOMIC SUBSISTENCE ACTIVITIES.—Or-ganize or influence economic subsistence ac-tivities among the members, includingshared or cooperative labor.

(C) TEMPORALITY OF SUFFICIENCY OF EVI-DENCE.—A group that has met the require-ments of paragraph (2)(C) at any point intime shall be considered to have providedsufficient evidence to meet the criterion de-scribed in subparagraph (A) at such point intime.

(4) GOVERNING DOCUMENT.—A copy of thethen present governing document of the peti-tioner that includes the membership criteriaof the petitioner. In the absence of a writtendocument, the petitioner shall be required toprovide a statement describing in full themembership criteria of the petitioner andthe then current governing procedures of thepetitioner.

(5) LIST OF MEMBERS.—(A) IN GENERAL.—A list of all then current

members of the petitioner, including the fullname (and maiden name, if any), date, andplace of birth, and then current residentialaddress of each member, a copy of eachavailable former list of members based onthe criteria defined by the petitioner, and astatement describing the methods used inpreparing such lists.

(B) REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP.—Inorder for the Commission to consider themembers of the group to be members of anIndian tribe for the purposes of the petition,such membership shall be required to consistof established descendancy from an Indiangroup that existed historically, or from his-torical Indian groups that combined andfunctioned as a single autonomous entity.

(C) EVIDENCE OF TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP.—Evi-dence of tribal membership required by theCommission for a determination of tribalmembership shall include the followingitems:

(i) DESCENDANCY ROLLS.—Descendancyrolls prepared by the Secretary for the peti-tioner for purposes of distributing claimsmoney, providing allotments, or other pur-poses.

(ii) CERTAIN OFFICIAL RECORDS.—State,Federal, or other official records or evidenceidentifying then present members of the pe-titioner, or ancestors of then present mem-bers of the petitioner, as being descendantsof a historic tribe or historic tribes that

combined and functioned as a single autono-mous political entity.

(iii) ENROLLMENT RECORDS.—Church,school, and other similar enrollment recordsidentifying then present members or ances-tors of then present members as being de-scendants of a historic tribe or historictribes that combined and functioned as a sin-gle autonomous political entity.

(iv) AFFIDAVITS OF RECOGNITION.—Affida-vits of recognition by tribal elders, leaders,or the tribal governing body identifying thenpresent members or ancestors of thenpresent members as being descendants of 1 ormore historic tribes that combined and func-tioned as a single autonomous political en-tity.

(v) OTHER RECORDS OR EVIDENCE.—Otherrecords or evidence identifying then presentmembers or ancestors of then present mem-bers as being descendants of 1 or more his-toric tribes that combined and functioned asa single autonomous political entity.

(c) EXCEPTIONS.—A petition from an Indiangroup that is able to demonstrate by a pre-ponderance of the evidence that the groupwas, or is the successor in interest to, a—

(1) party to a treaty or treaties;(2) group acknowledged by any agency of

the Federal Government as eligible to par-ticipate under the Act of June 18, 1934 (com-monly referred to as the ‘‘Indian Reorganiza-tion Act’’) (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25U.S.C. 461 et seq.);

(3) group for the benefit of which the Unit-ed States took into trust lands, or which theFederal Government has treated as havingcollective rights in tribal lands or funds; or

(4) group that has been denominated atribe by an Act of Congress or Executiveorder,

shall be required to establish the criteria setforth in this section only with respect to theperiod beginning on the date of the applica-ble action described in paragraph (1), (2), (3),or (4) and ending on the date of submission ofthe petition.

(d) DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF PETI-TIONS.—No Indian group may submit a peti-tion to the Commission requesting that theCommission recognize an Indian group as anIndian tribe after the date that is 6 yearsafter the date of enactment of this Act. Afterthe Commission makes a determination oneach petition submitted prior to such date,the Commission may not make any furtherdetermination under this Act to recognizeany Indian group as an Indian tribe.

SEC. 6. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF PETITION.(a) PETITIONER.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days

after a petition is submitted or transferredto the Commission under section 5(a), theCommission shall—

(A) send an acknowledgement of receipt inwriting to the petitioner; and

(B) publish in the Federal Register a noticeof such receipt, including the name, location,and mailing address of the petitioner andsuch other information that—

(i) identifies the entity that submitted thepetition and the date the petition was re-ceived by the Commission;

(ii) indicates where a copy of the petitionmay be examined; and

(iii) indicates whether the petition is atransferred petition that is subject to thespecial provisions under paragraph (2).

(2) SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR TRANSFERREDPETITIONS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to a petitionthat is transferred to the Commission undersection 5(a)(3), the notice provided to the pe-titioner, shall, in addition to providing theinformation specified in paragraph (1), in-form the petitioner whether the petition

constitutes a documented petition thatmeets the requirements of section 5.

(B) AMENDED PETITIONS.—If the petition de-scribed in subparagraph (A) is not a docu-mented petition, the Commission shall no-tify the petitioner that the petitioner may,not later than 90 days after the date of thenotice, submit to the Commission an amend-ed petition that is a documented petition forreview under section 7.

(C) EFFECT OF AMENDED PETITION.—To theextent practicable, the submission of anamended petition by a petitioner by the datespecified in this paragraph shall not affectthe order of consideration of the petition bythe Commission.

(b) OTHERS.—In addition to providing thenotification required under subsection (a),the Commission shall notify, in writing, theGovernor and attorney general of, and eachfederally recognized Indian tribe within, anyState in which a petitioner resides.

(c) PUBLICATION; OPPORTUNITY FOR SUP-PORTING OR OPPOSING SUBMISSIONS.—

(1) PUBLICATION.—The Commission shallpublish the notice of receipt of each petition(including any amended petition submittedpursuant to subsection (a)(2)) in a majornewspaper of general circulation in the townor city located nearest the location of thepetitioner.

(2) OPPORTUNITY FOR SUPPORTING OR OPPOS-ING SUBMISSIONS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Each notice publishedunder paragraph (1) shall include, in additionto the information described in subsection(a), notice of opportunity for other parties tosubmit factual or legal arguments in supportof or in opposition to, the petition.

(B) COPY TO PETITIONER.—A copy of anysubmission made under subparagraph (A)shall be provided to the petitioner upon re-ceipt by the Commission.

(C) RESPONSE.—The petitioner shall be pro-vided an opportunity to respond to any sub-mission made under subparagraph (A) priorto a determination on the petition by theCommission.SEC. 7. PROCESSING THE PETITION.

(a) REVIEW.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Upon receipt of a docu-

mented petition submitted or transferredunder section 5(a) or submitted under section6(a)(2)(B), the Commission shall conduct areview to determine whether the petitioneris entitled to be recognized as an Indiantribe.

(2) CONTENT OF REVIEW.—The review con-ducted under paragraph (1) shall include con-sideration of the petition, supporting evi-dence, and the factual statements containedin the petition.

(3) OTHER RESEARCH.—In conducting a re-view under this subsection, the Commissionmay—

(A) initiate other research for any purposerelative to analyzing the petition and ob-taining additional information about thestatus of the petitioner; and

(B) consider such evidence as may be sub-mitted by other parties.

(4) ACCESS TO LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AND NA-TIONAL ARCHIVES.—Upon request by the peti-tioner, the appropriate officials of the Li-brary of Congress and the National Archivesshall allow access by the petitioner to the re-sources, records, and documents of such enti-ties, for the purpose of conducting researchand preparing evidence concerning the statusof the petitioner.

(b) CONSIDERATION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise pro-

vided in this subsection, petitions submittedor transferred to the Commission shall beconsidered on a first come, first served basis,determined by the date of the original filingof each such petition with the Commission

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3288 February 28, 1995(or the Department if the petition is trans-ferred to the Commission pursuant to sec-tion 5(a) or is an amended petition submittedpursuant to section 6(a)(2)(B)). The Commis-sion shall establish a priority register thatincludes petitions that are pending beforethe Department on the date of enactment ofthis Act.

(2) PRIORITY CONSIDERATION.—Each petition(that is submitted or transferred to the Com-mission pursuant to section 5(a) or that issubmitted to the Commission pursuant tosection 6(a)(2)(B)) of an Indian group thatmeets one or more of the requirements setforth in section 5(c) shall receive priorityconsideration over a petition submitted byany other Indian group.

SEC. 8. PRELIMINARY HEARING.(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days

after the receipt of a documented petition bythe Commission submitted or transferredunder section 5(a) or submitted to the Com-mission pursuant to section 6(a)(2)(B), theCommission shall set a date for a prelimi-nary hearing. At the preliminary hearing,the petitioner and any other concerned partymay provide evidence concerning the statusof the petitioner.

(b) DETERMINATION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days

after the conclusion of a preliminary hearingunder subsection (a), the Commission shallmake a determination—

(A) to extend Federal acknowledgment ofthe petitioner as an Indian tribe to the peti-tioner; or

(B) that provides that the petitionershould proceed to an adjudicatory hearing.

(2) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION.—The Com-mission shall publish in the Federal Registera notice of each determination made underparagraph (1).

(c) INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED PRE-PARATORY TO AN ADJUDICATORY HEARING.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Commission makesa determination under subsection (b)(1)(B)that the petitioner should proceed to an ad-judicatory hearing, the Commission shall—

(A)(i) make available appropriate evi-dentiary records of the Commission to thepetitioner to assist the petitioner in prepar-ing for the adjudicatory hearing; and

(ii) include such guidance as the Commis-sion considers necessary or appropriate toassist the petitioner in preparing for thehearing; and

(B) not later than 30 days after the conclu-sion of the preliminary hearing under sub-section (a), provide a written notification tothe petitioner that includes a list of any de-ficiencies or omissions that the Commissionrelied on in making a determination undersubsection (b)(1)(B).

(2) SUBJECT OF ADJUDICATORY HEARING.—The list of deficiencies and omissions pro-vided by the Commission to a petitionerunder paragraph (1)(B) shall be the subject ofthe adjudicatory hearing. The Commissionmay not make any additions to the list afterthe Commission issues the list.

SEC. 9. ADJUDICATORY HEARING.(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days

after the conclusion of a preliminary hearingunder section 8(a), the Commission shall af-ford a petitioner who is subject to section8(b)(1)(B) an adjudicatory hearing. The sub-ject of the adjudicatory hearing shall be thelist of deficiencies and omissions providedunder section 8(c)(1)(B) and shall be con-ducted pursuant to section 554 of title 5,United States Code.

(b) TESTIMONY FROM STAFF OF COMMIS-SION.—In any hearing held under subsection(a), the Commission may require testimonyfrom the acknowledgement and researchstaff of the Commission or other witnesses.

Any such testimony shall be subject tocross-examination by the petitioner.

(c) EVIDENCE BY PETITIONER.—In any hear-ing held under subsection (a), the petitionermay provide such evidence as the petitionerconsiders appropriate.

(d) DETERMINATION BY COMMISSION.—Notlater than 60 days after the conclusion of anyhearing held under subsection (a), the Com-mission shall—

(1) make a determination concerning theextension or denial of Federal acknowledg-ment of the petitioner as an Indian tribe tothe petitioner;

(2) publish the determination of the Com-mission under paragraph (1) in the FederalRegister; and

(3) deliver a copy of the determination tothe petitioner, and to every other interestedparty.SEC. 10. APPEALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 daysafter the date that the Commission publishesa determination under section 9(d), the peti-tioner may appeal the determination to theUnited States District Court for the Districtof Columbia.

(b) ATTORNEY FEES.—If the petitioner pre-vails in an appeal made under subsection (a),the petitioner shall be eligible for an awardof reasonable attorney fees and costs undersection 504 of title 5, United States Code, orsection 2412 of title 28 of such Code, which-ever is applicable.SEC. 11. EFFECT OF DETERMINATIONS.

A determination by the Commission undersection 9(d) that an Indian group is recog-nized by the Federal Government as an In-dian tribe shall not have the effect of depriv-ing or diminishing—

(1) the right of any other Indian tribe togovern the reservation of such other tribe assuch reservation existed prior to the recogni-tion of such Indian group, or as such reserva-tion may exist thereafter;

(2) any property right held in trust or rec-ognized by the United States for such otherIndian tribe as such property existed prior tothe recognition of such Indian group; or

(3) any previously or independently exist-ing claim by a petitioner to any such prop-erty right held in trust by the United Statesfor such other Indian tribe prior to the rec-ognition by the Federal Government of suchIndian group as an Indian tribe.SEC. 12. IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS.

(a) ELIGIBILITY FOR SERVICES AND BENE-FITS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),upon recognition by the Commission of a pe-titioner as an Indian tribe under this Act,the Indian tribe shall—

(A) be eligible for the services and benefitsfrom the Federal Government that are avail-able to other federally recognized Indiantribes by virtue of their status as Indiantribes with a government-to-government re-lationship with the United States; and

(B) have the responsibilities, obligations,privileges, and immunities of such Indiantribes.

(2) PROGRAMS OF THE BUREAU.—(A) IN GENERAL.—The recognition of an In-

dian group as an Indian tribe by the Commis-sion under this Act shall not create an im-mediate entitlement to programs of the Bu-reau in existence on the date of the recogni-tion.

(B) AVAILABILITY OF PROGRAMS.—(i) IN GENERAL.—The programs described in

subparagraph (A) shall become available tothe Indian tribe upon the appropriation offunds.

(ii) REQUESTS FOR APPROPRIATIONS.—TheSecretary and the Secretary of Health andHuman Services shall forward budget re-quests for funding the programs for the In-

dian tribe pursuant to the needs determina-tion procedures established under subsection(b).

(b) NEEDS DETERMINATION AND BUDGET RE-QUEST.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 daysafter an Indian group is recognized by theCommission as an Indian tribe under thisAct, the appropriate officials of the Bureauand the Indian Health Service of the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services shallconsult and develop in cooperation with theIndian tribe, and forward to the Secretary orthe Secretary of Health and Human Services,as appropriate, a determination of the needsof the Indian tribe and a recommended budg-et required to serve the newly recognized In-dian tribe.

(2) SUBMISSION OF BUDGET REQUEST.—Uponreceipt of the information described in para-graph (1), the appropriate Secretary shallsubmit to the President a recommendedbudget along with recommendations, con-cerning the information received under para-graph (1), for inclusion in the annual budgetsubmitted by the President to the Congresspursuant to section 1108 of title 31, UnitedStates Code.

SEC. 13. ANNUAL REPORT CONCERNING COMMIS-SION’S ACTIVITIES.

(a) LIST OF RECOGNIZED TRIBES.—Not laterthan 90 days after the first meeting of theCommission, and annually on or before eachJanuary 30 thereafter, the Commission shallpublish in the Federal Register a list of allIndian tribes that—

(1) are recognized by the Federal Govern-ment; and

(2) receive services from the Bureau.(b) ANNUAL REPORT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date

that is 1 year after the date of the enactmentof this Act, and annually thereafter, theCommission shall prepare and submit a re-port to the Committee on Indian Affairs ofthe Senate and the Committee on Resourcesof the House of Representatives that de-scribes the activities of the Commission.

(2) CONTENT OF REPORTS.—Each report sub-mitted under this subsection shall include,at a minimum, for the year that is the sub-ject of the report—

(A) the number of petitions pending at thebeginning of the year and the names of thepetitioners;

(B) the number of petitions received duringthe year and the names of the petitioners;

(C) the number of petitions the Commis-sion approved for acknowledgment duringthe year and the names of the acknowledgedpetitioners;

(D) the number of petitions the Commis-sion denied for acknowledgment during theyear and the names of the petitioners; and

(E) the status of all pending petitions onthe date of the report and the names of thepetitioners.

SEC. 14. ACTIONS BY PETITIONERS FOR EN-FORCEMENT.

Any petitioner may bring an action in thedistrict court of the United States for thedistrict in which the petitioner resides, orthe United States District Court for the Dis-trict of Columbia, to enforce the provisionsof this Act, including any time limitationswithin which actions are required to betaken, or decisions made, under this Act.The district court shall issue such orders (in-cluding writs of mandamus) as may be nec-essary to enforce the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 15. REGULATIONS.The Commission may, in accordance with

applicable requirements of title 5, UnitedStates Code, promulgate and publish suchregulations as may be necessary to carry outthis Act.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3289February 28, 1995SEC. 16. GUIDELINES AND ADVICE.

(a) GUIDELINES.—Not later than 90 daysafter the first meeting of the Commission,the Commission shall make available to In-dian groups suggested guidelines for the for-mat of petitions, including general sugges-tions and guidelines concerning where andhow to research information that is requiredto be included in a petition. The examples in-cluded in the guidelines shall not precludethe use of any other appropriate format.

(b) RESEARCH ADVICE.—The Commissionmay, upon request, provide suggestions andadvice to any petitioner with respect to theresearch of the petitioner concerning the his-torical background and Indian identity ofsuch petitioner. The Commission shall not beresponsible for conducting research on behalfof the petitioner.SEC. 17. ASSISTANCE TO PETITIONERS.

(a) GRANTS.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health

and Human Services may award grants to In-dian groups seeking Federal recognition asIndian tribes to enable the Indian groupsto—

(A) conduct the research necessary to sub-stantiate petitions under this Act; and

(B) prepare documentation necessary forthe submission of a petition under this Act.

(2) TREATMENT OF GRANTS.—The grantsmade under this subsection shall be in addi-tion to any other grants the Secretary ofHealth and Human Services is authorized toprovide under any other provision of law.

(b) COMPETITIVE AWARD.—The grants madeunder subsection (a) shall be awarded com-petitively on the basis of objective criteriaprescribed in regulations promulgated by theSecretary of Health and Human Services.SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) COMMISSION.—There are authorized tobe appropriated to the Commission to carryout this Act (other than section 17)—

(1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1996; and(2) $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1997

through 2008.(b) SECRETARY OF HHS.—To carry out sec-

tion 17, there are authorized to be appro-priated to the Department of Health andHuman Services for the Administration forNative Americans $500,000 for each of fiscalyears 1996 through 2007.

SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE INDIANFEDERAL RECOGNITION ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURES ACT OF 1995

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.This section provides that the Act may be

cited as the ‘‘Indian Federal Recognition Ad-ministrative Procedures Act of 1995’’.SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

This section provides that the purposes ofthe Act are: to establish a procedure to ex-tend Federal recognition to Indian groups; toextend to Indian groups that are found to beIndian tribes the protection, services, bene-fits and privileges and immunities which areavailable pursuant to the Federal trust re-sponsibility and to those Indian tribes with agovernment-to-government relationshipwith the United States; to ensure that a con-sistent legal, factual and historical basis isutilized to determine when acknowledge-ment should be extended to an Indian tribe;to establish a Commission on Indian Rec-ognition; to provide clear and consistentstandards of administrative review of peti-tions for acknowledgement; to clarify evi-dentiary standards and provide adequate re-sources to process petitions; and to removethe Federal acknowledgement process fromthe Bureau of Indian Affairs.SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

This section provides definitions for thefollowing terms: ‘‘acknowledged’’, ‘‘acknowl-edgement’’, ‘‘autonomous’’, ‘‘Bureau’’,

‘‘Commission’’, ‘‘community’’, ‘‘continuousor continuously’’, ‘‘Department’’, ‘‘docu-mented petition’’, ‘‘group’’, ‘‘historically,historical, history’’, ‘‘Indian group’’, ‘‘Indiantribe’’, ‘‘indigenous’’, ‘‘letter of intent’’,‘‘member of an Indian group’’, ‘‘member ofan Indian tribe’’, ‘‘petition’’, ‘‘petitioner’’,‘‘political influence or authority’’, ‘‘previousfederal acknowledgement’’, ‘‘restoration’’,‘‘Secretary’’, ‘‘sustained contact’’, ‘‘treaty’’,‘‘tribe’’, ‘‘tribal relations’’, ‘‘tribal roll’’, and‘‘United States’’.

SEC. 4. COMMISSION ON INDIAN RECOGNITION.Subsection (a) of this section authorizes

the establishment of the Commission on In-dian Recognition as a three member inde-pendent agency of the Executive Branch.

Subsection (b) provides that Commissionmembers are to be appointed by the Presi-dent with the advice and consent of the Sen-ate. Indian tribes may make recommenda-tions to the President and the Presidentshall consider individuals with backgroundsin Indian law or policy, anthropology, gene-alogy or history in making appointments tothe Commission. Commissioners will servefor a term of four years, except in the case ofthe initial commissioners, whose terms shallbe staggered. Vacancies in the Commissionwill be filled in the same manner as originalappointments. Commissioners are to be paidat a rate equivalent to level V of the Execu-tive Schedule and are to be reimbursed forall travel and per diem expenses. Commis-sioners are to be full-time employees of theFederal Government and cannot be other-wise employed by the Federal Governmentduring their service on the Commission. TheChairperson of the Commission is to be des-ignated by the President at the time theCommissioners are nominated.

Subsection (c) provides that the first meet-ing of the Commission will occur no laterthan 30 days after all of the Commissionershave been confirmed by the Senate. Twomembers of the Commission will constitutea quorum for the conduct of business. TheCommission is authorized to adopt any rulesnecessary to govern its operation, organiza-tion and personnel. The principal office ofthe Commission is required to be in the Dis-trict of Columbia.

Subsection (d) requires the Commission tocarry out the duties assigned to it and tomeet the requirements imposed on it by thisAct.

Subsection (e) authorizes the Chairpersonof the Commission to appoint, terminate andfix the compensation of an Executive Direc-tor of the Commission and such other per-sonnel as the Chairperson considers advis-able to assist in the work of the Commission.The Chairperson is also authorized to pro-cure temporary and intermittent services. Ingeneral, the Commission is authorized tohold hearings, take testimony, enter intocontracts and take such other actions as theCommission may consider advisable. Anymember of the Commission may administeroaths to witnesses appearing before the Com-mission. The Commission is authorized to se-cure such information as it may need tocarry out this Act from any officer or entityof the Federal Government. Other federal de-partments and agencies are authorized toprovide personnel and facilities or servicesto the Commission on a nonreimbursablebasis. The Commission is also authorized touse the U.S. Mails on the same terms andconditions as other Federal departments andagencies.

Subsection (f) provides that the FederalAdvisory Committee Act does not apply tothe Commission.

Subsection (g) provides that the Commis-sion shall terminate 12 years after the dateof enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. PETITIONS FOR RECOGNITIONSubsection (a) of this section provides that

any Indian group, subject to the exceptionsin this section, may submit to the Commis-sion a petition requesting that the Commis-sion recognize the Indian group as an Indiantribe. Indian tribes already recognized by theUnited States, splinter groups or factions ofsuch Indian tribes, groups which have pre-viously been denied recognition groupswhich were terminated by an Act of Con-gress, and groups which have been deniedrecognition by a Federal court are not eligi-ble to petition the Commission for recogni-tion. Not later than 30 days after all mem-bers of the Commission have been confirmedby the Senate, the Secretary is required totransfer to the Commission all petitionspending before the Department of the Inte-rior that are not under active consideration.All authority of the Secretary to recognizeor acknowledge an Indian group as an Indiantribe, except for those groups under activeconsideration, shall cease on the date oftransfer to the Commission. All petitionstransferred to the Commission shall be con-sidered as having been submitted to theCommission in the same order they weresubmitted to the Department.

Subsection (b)(1) provides that a petitionmust be readable and contain detailed, spe-cific evidence showing that the petitionerhas been identified as an American Indianentity on a substantially continuous basissince 1871. The Commission can determinethe Indian identity of a group based on anyone or more of the following: Identificationas an Indian entity by the Federal Govern-ment; a relationship of petitioner with astate government or a unit of local govern-ment based on the Indian identity of the pe-titioner; identification as an Indian entityby public or private records, by anthropolo-gists or historians, newspapers, books, otherIndian tribes and Indian organizations, orforeign governments.

Subsection (b)(2) provides that the petitionmust contain a statement of facts establish-ing that the membership of the petitionercomprises a distinct community which hasexisted from historical times to the present.The Commission can determine the existenceof an Indian community based on one ormore of the following items: marriages with-in the group; social relationships and inter-action within the group; shared labor or eco-nomic activity; discrimination or other so-cial distinctions by nonmembers; shared rit-ual activity and cultural patterns; collectiveIndian identity continuously over a period ofmore than 50 years; and a demonstration ofhistorical political influence.

Subsection (b)(2) further provides that theCommission shall find that the petitionerhas provided sufficient evidence of a commu-nity if the petitioner has provided evidencethat demonstrates any one of the following:more than 50% of the members of the groupreside in a particular geographic area exclu-sively composed of members of that groupand the remainder of the group maintainsconsistent social interaction with somemembers of the community; not less than50% of the marriages of the group are be-tween members of the group; not less than50% of the members of the group maintaindistinct cultural patterns including lan-guage, kinship or religious beliefs and prac-tices; and distinct community social institu-tions encompassing a substantial portion ofthe members of the group.

Subsection (b)(3) requires the petition tocontain a statement of facts establishingthat the petitioner has maintained politicalinfluence or authority over its members asan autonomous entity from historical times.The Commission may rely on one or more of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3290 February 28, 1995the following items to determine if the peti-tioner is an autonomous entity: the group iscapable of mobilizing a significant number ofits members and member resources for grouppurposes; most of the group considers issuesacted upon by the group leadership to be ofpersonal importance; there is widespreadknowledge and involvement in political proc-esses by most group members; and there areintragroup conflicts which show controversyover valued group goals, properties, policiesand processes.

Subsection (b)(3) also provides that theCommission shall determine that a peti-tioner has provided sufficient evidence todemonstrate the exercise of political influ-ence or authority by demonstrating thatleaders or other mechanisms exist to accom-plish the following: allocation of group re-sources; settlement of disputes betweenmembers or subgroups; influence the behav-ior of individual members; and organize orinfluence economic activities among themembers.

Subsection (b)(4) provides that the petitionmust include a copy of the governing docu-ment of the petitioner that includes the peti-tioner’s membership criteria or a descriptionof the governing procedures and membershipcriteria.

Subsection (b)(5) requires the petition tocontain a list of all of the petitioner’s cur-rent members and a statement describingthe methods used to prepare such list. Agroup’s membership must consist of estab-lished descendancy from an Indian groupthat existed historically or from historicalIndian groups that combined and functionedas a single autonomous entity. Evidence oftribal membership shall include the follow-ing items: descendancy rolls prepared by theSecretary; state, federal or other officialrecords; church, school and similar enroll-ment records; and affidavits of recognitionby tribal elders, leaders or the tribal govern-ing body.

Subsection (c) provides that a petitionfrom a group that is able to demonstrate bya preponderance of the evidence that thegroup was or is the successor in interest to aparty to a treaty; or a group acknowledgedby the Federal Government as eligible toparticipate in the Indian ReorganizationAct; or a group for which the United Statesholds lands in trust; or a group that has beendenominated a tribe by an Act of Congress oran Executive Order shall only have to provecontinuity of its existence as an Indiangroup from the date of such event ratherthan from the date of 1871.

Subsection (d) provides that no petitionscan be submitted to the Commission afterthe date that is 6 years after the date of en-actment of this Act.SEC. 6. NOTIFICATION OF RECEIPT OF PETITION.

Subsection (a) of this section provides that30 days after a petition is submitted ortransferred to the Commission, the Commis-sion shall send a written acknowledgementof receipt to the petitioner and publish a no-tice of such receipt in the Federal Register.With regard to a petition that is transferredto the Commission from the Secretary, theCommission shall also advise the petitionerwhether the petition meets the requirementsof Section 5 of this Act and, if necessary,provide the petitioner with 90 days to submita petition to the Commission which doesmeet the requirements of Section 5.

Subsection (b) provides that the Commis-sion shall provide written notification to theGovernor, attorney general and each feder-ally recognized Indian tribe located in thestate in which the petitioner resides.

Subsection (c) provides that the Commis-sion shall publish the notice of the receipt of

each petition in a major newspaper or gen-eral circulation in the town or city locatednearest the petitioner. These notices shallinclude a statement of the opportunity forany interested parties to submit factual orlegal arguments in support of or in opposi-tion to the petition. A copy of any suchstatements shall be made available to thepetitioner by the Commission and the peti-tioner shall be afforded an opportunity to re-spond to such statements from other parties.SEC. 7. PROCESSING THE PETITION.

Subsection (a) requires the Commission toconduct a review of all documented petitionswhich it receives. The review shall includeconsideration of the petition, supporting evi-dence and the factual statements containedin the petition. The Commission may alsoinitiate other research relative to an analy-sis of the petition and consider such evidenceas may be submitted by other parties. Upona request by a petitioner, the Library of Con-gress and the National Archives shall allowthe petitioner access to their resources,records and documents to conduct researchand prepare evidence concerning the statusof the petitioner.

Subsection (b) provides that petitions shallbe considered on a first come, first servedbasis, determined by the date of the originalfiling, except for those petitions which meetthe requirements of Section 5(c) which shallreceive priority consideration.SEC. 8. PRELIMINARY HEARING.

Subsection (a) provides that not later than60 days after the Commission receives a doc-umented petition, it shall set a date for apreliminary hearing. At the preliminaryhearing the petitioner or any other con-cerned party may provide evidence concern-ing the status of the petitioner.

Subsection (b) provides that not later than30 days after the conclusion of a preliminaryhearing, the Commission shall either decideto extend Federal acknowledgement to thepetitioner or to require the petitioner to pro-ceed to an adjudicatory hearing.

Subsection (c) provides that if the Com-mission requires an adjudicatory hearingthen it must: make appropriate records ofthe Commission available to the petitionerand provide such guidance as the Commis-sion considers necessary to assist the peti-tioner in preparing for the hearing. Not laterthan 30 days after the conclusion of the pre-liminary hearing, the Commission is re-quired to make available to the petitioner awritten list of any deficiencies or omissionsthe Commission relied upon in the prelimi-nary hearing. The scope of the adjudicatoryhearing is limited to the list of deficienciesor omissions and the Commission cannotmake any additions to the list after it is is-sued to the petitioner.SEC. 9. ADJUDICATORY HEARING.

Subsection (a) provides that the adjudica-tory hearing shall be held not late than 180days after the preliminary hearing.

Subsection (b) provides that the Commis-sion may require testimony from the ac-knowledgement and research staff of theCommission or from other witnesses. Allsuch testimony shall be subject to cross ex-amination by the petitioner.

Subsection (c) provides that the petitionercan provide such evidence as the petitionerconsiders appropriate.

Subsection (d) provides that not later than60 days after the conclusion of an adjudica-tory hearing the Commission shall make adetermination concerning the acknowledge-ment of the petitioner as an Indian tribe.The determination shall be published in theFederal Register and shall be delivered tothe petitioner and every other interestedparty.

SEC. 10. APPEALS.Subsection (a) provides that not later than

60 days after the publication of a determina-tion by the Commission, the petitioner mayappeal the determination to the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Co-lumbia.

Subsection (b) provides that petitionermay be awarded attorney fees and costs ifthe petitioner prevails on the appeal.

SEC. 11. EFFECT OF DETERMINATIONS.This section provides that a determination

by the Commission that a petitioner is rec-ognized by the United States as an Indiantribe will not have the effect of depriving ordiminishing: (1) the right of any other Indiantribe to govern its reservation as such res-ervation existed prior to the recognition ofthe Indian group; (2) any property right heldin trust by the: United States for such otherIndian tribe as such property existed prior tothe recognition of such Indian group; or (3)any previously or independently existingclaim by a petitioner to any such propertyright held in trust by the United States forsuch other Indian tribe prior to the recogni-tion of the Indian group.

SEC. 12. IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS.Subsection (a) provides that upon recogni-

tion by the Commission of an Indian groupas an Indian tribe, the Indian tribe shall beeligible for the benefits and services madeavailable to Indian tribes by the FederalGovernment because of their status as In-dian tribes with a government-to-govern-ment relationship with the United States.Newly recognized Indian tribes shall alsohave the responsibilities, obligations, privi-leges and immunities of such Indian tribes.The programs, services and benefits avail-able to Indian tribes shall only become avail-able to a newly recognized tribe upon the ap-propriation of funds.

Subsection (b) provides that not later than180 days after an Indian group is recognizedby the Commission, officials of the BIA andIHS shall consult with and develop in co-operation with the Indian tribe a determina-tion of the needs of the Indian tribe and arecommended budget required to serve thetribe. The appropriate Secretary will forwardthe recommended budget to the President forinclusion in the President’s annual budgetrequest to the Congress.

SEC. 13. ANNUAL REPORT CONCERNING COMMIS-SION’S ACTIVITIES.

Subsection (a) provides that 90 days afterthe first meeting of the Commission and an-nually thereafter the Commission shall pub-lish in the Federal Register a list of all In-dian tribes that are recognized by the Fed-eral Government and receive services fromthe BIA.

Subsection (b) provides that the Commis-sion shall submit an annual report on its ac-tivities to the Congress prior to January 30of each year. Each such report shall containthe number of petitions pending and thenames of the petitioners; the number of peti-tions approved or denied during the year andthe names of the petitioners and the statusof all petitions pending on the date of the re-port.

SEC. 14. ACTIONS BY PETITIONERS FOR EN-FORCEMENT.

This section authorizes any petitioner tobring an action in the Federal courts to en-force the provisions of the Act, including anytime limitations within which actions are re-quired to be taken.

SEC. 15. REGULATIONS.This section authorizes the Commission to

promulgate and publish regulations to carryout the Act.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3291February 28, 1995SEC. 16. GUIDELINES AND ADVICE.

Subsection (a) provides that not later than90 days after the first meeting of the Com-mission, the Commission shall make avail-able to Indian groups suggested guidelinesfor the format of petitions.

Subsection (b) provides that the Commis-sion may provide any petitioner with sugges-tions and advice with respect to researchconcerning the historical background and In-dian identity of the petitioner.SEC. 17. ASSISTANCE TO PETITIONERS.

Subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary ofthe Department of Health and Human Serv-ices to award grants to Indian groups seek-ing recognition as Indian tribes to enablesuch groups to conduct research and preparethe documentation necessary to submit a pe-tition under this Act.

Subsection (b) provides that grants shallbe awarded competitively on the basis of ob-jective criteria prescribed in regulationswhich are published by the Secretary ofHHS.SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Subsection (a) authorizes $1.5 million to beappropriated to the Commission to carry outthis Act for each fiscal year from 1996through 2008.

Subsection (b) authorizes $500,000 to be ap-propriated to HHS for the fiscal years 1996through 2007 to carry out the grant programauthorized in Section 17 of this Act.∑

f

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 190

At the request of Mr. PRESSLER, thename of the Senator from North Caro-lina [Mr. HELMS] was added as a co-sponsor of S. 190, a bill to amend theFair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to ex-empt employees who perform certaincourt reporting duties from the com-pensatory time requirements applica-ble to certain public agencies, and forother purposes.

S. 198

At the request of Mr. CHAFEE, thename of the Senator from New Hamp-shire [Mr. GREGG] was added as a co-sponsor of S. 198, a bill to amend titleXVIII of the Social Security Act topermit Medicare select policies to beoffered in all States, and for other pur-poses.

S. 304

At the request of Mr. SANTORUM, thenames of the Senator from North Caro-lina [Mr. HELMS], the Senator fromAlabama [Mr. SHELBY], and the Sen-ator from Michigan [Mr. ABRAHAM]were added as cosponsors of S. 304, abill to amend the Internal RevenueCode of 1986 to repeal the transpor-tation fuels tax applicable to commer-cial aviation.

S. 351

At the request of Mr. HATCH, thename of the Senator from California[Mrs. BOXER] was added as a cosponsorof S. 351, a bill to amend the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 to make perma-nent the credit for increasing researchactivities.

AMENDMENT NO. 299

At the request of Mr. NUNN the nameof the Senator from North Dakota [Mr.CONRAD] was added as a cosponsor ofamendment No. 299 proposed to House

Joint Resolution 1, a joint resolutionproposing a balanced budget amend-ment to the Constitution of the UnitedStates.

AMENDMENT NO. 300

At the request of Mr. CONRAD hisname was added as a cosponsor ofamendment No. 300 proposed to HouseJoint Resolution 1, a joint resolutionproposing a balanced budget amend-ment to the Constitution of the UnitedStates.

f

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TOMEET

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I askunanimous consent that the Commit-tee on Foreign Relations be authorizedto meet during the session of the Sen-ate on Tuesday, February 28, 1995, at 2p.m. to hold a business meeting to voteon pending nominations.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

f

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

TRIBUTE TO STATE REPRESENTA-TIVE KATHY HOGANCAMP

∑ Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, Irise today in honor of an inspiring Ken-tucky leader—Kathy Hogancamp,State representative for Kentucky’sFourth District.

Representative Hogancamp’s resil-iency determination, and strong senseof community service is clearly re-flected in the course of her career priorto political service. She is a formerteacher, and also served as an officialof the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services and Department ofEducation from 1985 to 1991. Most re-cently, Kathy applied her master’s de-gree in guidance and educational psy-chology in her work as a private tutor.

As our Nation struggles to recapturethe initiative and stamina essential toreviving the American Dream, KathyHogancamp exemplifies what self-empowerment and the courage to makea difference truly mean. Since age 17,Kathy has been wheel-chair bound.Yet, she has never allowed her physicallimitations to deter her work in serv-ing her community and fulfilling herChristian mission. Kathy believes thatcharacter and intellect are far moreimportant than her physical condition.Her optimism and drive to achieve arethe basis of her personal philosophy—ifthere are obstacles to overcome, thenovercome them.

In 1994, Kathy Hogancamp set out towin Kentucky’s Fourth District Houseseat. Despite the odds in a predomi-nately Democratic district,Hogancamp won the confidence of thevoters and the title of State represent-ative. Representative Hogancamp’scampaign reflected the needs and inter-ests of her district, not herself, as herplatform focused on cutting taxes and

revising the Kentucky Education Re-form Act.

In February, RepresentativeHogancamp encountered a challengethat tested her will and strength as aserious automobile accident left herbattered and bruised in the hospital. Iam pleased to tell the Chamber thatKathy is recovering quite well and iseager to return to her duties as Staterepresentative. Mr. President, I wantto share with my colleagues herthoughts on public service and sense ofresponsibility in her role as a law-maker and community leader. It is myhope that her words will serve to re-mind us what our role as Members ofthe U.S. Senate means to our constitu-ents and the future of our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask that the Padu-cah Sun’s February 14, 1995, article onRepresentative Hogancamp be printedin the RECORD.

The article follows:[From the Paducah Sun, Feb. 14, 1995]

REP. HOGANCAMP RESOLVED, UPBEAT SINCELAST BRUTAL BRUSH WITH DEATH

(By Donna Groves Haynes)

Bruised, battered and lying in a hospitalbed, state Rep. Kathy Hogancamp still radi-ates strength and determination.

‘‘That’s the way God built me,’’ saidHogancamp, who has been paralyzed since acar wreck 23 years ago and is now recoveringfrom serious injuries sustained in a vanwreck Feb. 7 near Beaver Dam.

‘‘I could have decided to be a couch potatowhen I was 17 and would have been justifiedin doing so,’’ Hogancamp said in an inter-view from her hospital room Monday. ‘‘Imade the decision to make something of mylife because I do believe I have something togive back to our culture.’’

Now after a second serious car crash,Hogancamp is displaying the same resil-ience. ‘‘I’ve learned that accidents do striketwice, and God still has His hand on myhead,’’ she said.

Doctors do not expect Hogancamp’s mobil-ity to be any more impaired than it was be-fore the wreck. ‘‘It’s just all the logistics—getting a new (wheel) chair, a new car . . .new makeup,’’ she said jokingly, referring tothe fact that her personal belongings werestrewn over about a 30-foot area in thewreck.

Over the weekend, Hogancamp was movedout of intensive care and into a privateroom. Although she has been told she couldbe released Thursday, Hogancamp added,‘‘but I don’t trust doctors.’’

Even in the hospital, Hogancamp was be-ginning to talk about business again. WhenU.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell called Monday toask her how she was feeling, she volunteeredto speak at the upcoming Lincoln Day fes-tivities ‘‘if at all possible.’’

Hogancamp views her latest ordeal as a‘‘wake-up call from God,’’ an attempt on Hispart to ensure she is properly motivated inher legislative endeavors. ‘‘God had to getmy attention again, a second time, tellingme to stay on the track. When you reachadulthood, it’s easy to slip into lifeless faith,I had not escaped that.

‘‘He was saying to me; ‘I put you in thisposition of responsibility. Don’t blow it.’ ’’

Asked if she ever wanted to question,‘‘Why me?’’ Hogancamp explained that shelearned from the Biblical character Job thatthat would be futile. ‘‘Job never got his ques-tion answered. He just saw God, and his ques-tion paled in comparison.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3292 February 28, 1995‘‘It’s an insignificant question. You can

waste your life on it. You just need to takewhat you can from your past and move on. Alot of the things I learned when I was walk-ing are helpful to me now. I used to be inspeech and drama. That helped me learn towrite a heck of a speech.’’

Although Hogancamp is alert and makingjokes, she realizes she has a long road of re-covery ahead of her. ‘‘I’m a lot more recov-ered upstairs than my body is,’’ she said.‘‘My whole body is one big bruise.’’

Among her more serious injuries are a fewcracked ribs and a compound fractured wrist.But because it’s her left wrist, Hogancampmade light of that. ‘‘It’s not my major make-up hand anyway,’’ she said.

Hogancamp is optimistic that the wrist in-jury will not prevent her from using anadaptive device to write on her computer.

And she believes her injuries could even re-sult in some benefits. ‘‘It banged up my legspretty good, so much so that I may end upsitting straighter. It banged me around somuch, I may end up with better posture.Isn’t that ironic?’’

Hogancamp said she remained conscious asthe van tumbled out of control Tuesdaynight. ‘‘Bright lights, going round and roundand wondering, ‘When is this going to end?’I’ve never done drugs, but that’s got to beclose to what a drug experience would be.’’

When the van finally came to rest,Hogancamp found herself face down in themud with her body twisted. She could seethat her left wrist was severely mangled,but, being paralyzed, had no idea what herother injuries might be.

Still, she said, her faith helped her to re-main calm. ‘‘I knew if God had brought methat far, it wasn’t going to be the end.’’∑

f

TRIBUTE TO ALEX MANOOGIAN

∑ Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this Fri-day, March 3, 1995, the Armenian Gen-eral Benevolent Union of Detroit isholding a tribute banquet honoring Mr.Alex Manoogian. Mr. Manoogian is oneof the most inspiring people I have evermet. This Friday evening at St. John’sArmenian Church in Southfield, MI,the Republic of Armenia will awardhim the National Hero of ArmeniaAward and an honorary doctorate de-gree from Yerevan State University.

As an appropriate tribute to Mr.Manoogian’s stature, the president ofthe Armenian Parliament, His Excel-lency Babken Ararktsian will be thekeynote speaker.

Alex Manoogian’s life is an affirma-tion of the American dream. And yetthe key to understanding the meaningof his vast worldly success is to knowof the love, fidelity, and loyalty thatAlex Manoogian has held in his heartfor his family, his people, and his com-munity.

He was born in Asia Minor in 1901,and came to America in 1920. Settlingin Detroit in 1924, he founded his owncompany in 1928 which has grown intothe multinational Masco Corp.

He was married to Marie Tatian in1931. In over 60 years of marriage theywere blessed with two loving childrenand six adoring grandchildren. To un-derstand the depth of his love of familyand his embrace of the Armenian com-munity is to understand the magnani-mous actions of his remarkable life.

His involvement and generosity havecreated or expanded hospitals, muse-ums, libraries, universities, schools,and other important institutionsthroughout the world. Close to home,it is his former residence, donated tothe city of Detroit, that is the officialresidence for the mayor of Detroit.

Mr. President, the positive impact ofhis life cannot be overestimated, andhis legacy will live forever through thecountless people around the world thathave been changed by, and benefitedfrom, the vast array of cultural, edu-cational, humanitarian, and charitableinstitutions that have thrived as theresult of his efforts.

His awards and honors have beenmany, and his international renown iswell-deserved. His life has been a trib-ute to all that is possible and good inthis great country, his adopted home.And the loyalty for and love of his her-itage have been the guiding light andbeneficiary of his remarkable life. It isan honor to know him, and an honorfor me to pay tribute to him.∑f

AMERICAN HEART MONTH

∑ Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I standin support of February, AmericanHeart Month. February 1995 marks the32d annual American Heart Month. Toconvey the importance that all Ameri-cans participate in the battle againstcardiovascular diseases, includingheart attack and stroke, in 1963 theU.S. Congress passed a joint resolutionrequesting that the President proclaimeach February as American HeartMonth. But the battle has not beenwon, cardiovascular diseases remainAmerica’s No. 1 killer and a majorcause of disability.

During American Heart Month, theAmerican Heart Association and itsmore than 3.7 million volunteers can-vass neighborhoods nationwide distrib-uting educational materials and solic-iting public support for the AHA mis-sion, the reduction of disability anddeath from cardiovascular diseases, in-cluding heart attack and stroke. TheAmerican Heart Month theme this yearis ‘‘Life. It’s What We’re FightingFor,’’ highlighting the value of bio-medical research and its significance indaily life for many Americans. AHA-sponsored activities and informationduring this American Heart Monthfocus on the importance of currentmedical research projects in the fightagainst cardiovascular diseases andoutline some medical miracles respon-sible for longer and healthier lives ofmillions of Americans. Through theseeducational efforts, the AHA hopes toenhance public support and knowledgeabout the critical nature of biomedicalresearch in the battle against cardio-vascular diseases.

Since 1949, the American Heart Asso-ciation has invested about $1.3 billionin medical research and hopes to reachthe $2 billion mark by the year 2000.The AHA reports that it will contrib-

ute about $94 million in support of al-most 2,900 medical research projectsacross this country in 1995.

American Heart Association-sup-ported research has produced some sig-nificant results, such as CPR, life-ex-tending drugs, bypass surgery, pace-makers and other surgical techniquesto repair heart defects. In addition,four physicians who received the NobelPrize in Physiology or Medicine hadbeen supported, at one time, by theAHA, including Dr. Edwin G. Krebs ofthe University of Washington in Se-attle. Doctor Krebs and Dr. Edmond H.Fischer, also of the University of Wash-ington in Seattle, both were awardedthe 1991 Nobel Prize in Physiology orMedicine for their discovery of howproteins in the body are switched on toperform functions within cells.

I can personally attest to the benefitof medical research. According to theAmerican Heart Association, each year1.5 million Americans suffer a heart at-tack—that is approximately 1 heart at-tack every 20 seconds. As my col-leagues know, unfortunately, last No-vember, I suffered a heart attack. But,thanks to medical research, I am livinga healthy, productive life.

As a recent beneficiary of medical re-search, I welcome this opportunity tosalute the American Heart Associationfor their research support and publicand professional education and commu-nity service programs to advance thebattle against heart attack and stroke.I am particularly proud of the con-tribution of the American Heart Asso-ciation Washington affiliate. The AHAWashington affiliate in 1994–1995 willsupport about $797,332 on researchbeing conducted at the following re-search facilities in Washington: Uni-versity of Washington, WashingtonState University, Children’s Hospitalin Seattle, VA Medical Center, and theFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Cen-ter.

However, I am still concerned aboutthe federal commitment to the battleagainst cardiovascular diseases, includ-ing heart attack and stroke. The Amer-ican Heart Association estimates thatabout 1 in 4 Americans suffers fromcardiovascular diseases that will costthis Nation approximately $138 billionin medical expenses and lost productiv-ity in 1995. But, the fiscal year 1993 Na-tional Institutes of Health budget forresearch on heart disease and stroke isonly $855 million, representing a re-search investment of less than 1 per-cent of the expenditures for these dis-eases.

Again, I encourage my colleagues toreaffirm our dedication to the fightagainst cardiovascular diseases. A sig-nificant growth in Federal resources isneeded to take advantage of promisingresearch projects in this area.

I ask that this year’s Presidentialproclamation be printed in the RECORD.

The proclamation follows:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3293February 28, 1995

1 As amended by S. Res. 78, 95th Cong., lst Sess.(1977), S. Res. 376, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978), S. Res.274, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979), S. Res. 389, 96thCong., 2d Sess. (1980).

[Proclamation 6768 of February 10, 1995]

AMERICAN HEART MONTH, 1995

(By the President of the United States ofAmerica)

A PROCLAMATION

Throughout history, the heart has been asymbol of health and well-being. Yet nothingnow overshadows Americans’ health as muchas heart disease—the leading cause of deathamong men and women. Diseases of theheart and blood vessels kill nearly a millionAmericans each year, most from the effectsof atherosclerosis, the narrowing and stiffen-ing of blood vessels fro the buildup of plaquethat usually begins early in life.

Today, Americans are enjoying the re-wards of the progress humanity has made inunderstanding and treating cardiovasculardisease. Advances in diagnosis make it pos-sible to see the heart beat without the use ofinvasive procedures. Thousands of heart at-tack victims are being saved by the rapid ad-ministration of drugs to dissolve blood clots.Soon, gene therapy may be able to preventthe smooth muscle cell multiplication thatcontributes to the narrowing of blood ves-sels. Perhaps most important, we have great-er understanding of how to prevent the de-velopment of heart disease. By controllingblood pressure and blood cholesterol, beingphysically active, and not smoking ciga-rettes, more Americans can have the chanceto lead long, healthy lives.

The Federal Government has contributedto these successes by supporting researchand education through the National Heart,Lung, and Blood Institute. Through its com-mitment to research, its programs to height-en public awareness, and its vital network ofdedicated volunteers, the American HeartAssociation also has played a crucial role inbringing about these remarkable accom-plishments.

Yet the heart has not revealed all of itsmysteries. No one knows why heart diseasebegins. And, while it is known that heart dis-ease develops differently in men and women,the reasons for those variations are stillbeing studied. About 50 million Americanscontinue to suffer from hypertension, amajor cause of stroke, and 1.25 million Amer-icans have heart attacks every year.

Conquering these diseases requires unwav-ering national and personal commitment. Onthe national level, the Federal Governmentwill continue to support research into theprevention, diagnosis, and treatment ofheart disease. On the personal level, Ameri-cans can take steps to prevent heart diseasefrom striking their families, including teach-ing their children heart-healthy habits.Working together, we can make the tragedyof heart disease a nightmare of the past.

In recognition of the need for all Ameri-cans to become involved in the ongoing fightagainst cardiovascular disease, the Congress,by Joint Resolution approved December 30,1963 (77 Stat. 843, 36 U.S.C. 169b), has re-quested that the President issue an annualproclamation designating February as‘‘American Heart Month.’’

Now, Therefore, I, William J. Clinton,President of the United States of America,do hereby proclaim February 1995 as Amer-ican Heart Month. I invite the Governors ofthe States, the Commonwealth of PuertoRico, officials of other areas subject to thejurisdiction of the United States, and theAmerican people to join me in reaffirmingour commitment to combating cardio-vascular disease and stroke.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto setmy hand this tenth day of February, in theyear of our Lord nineteen hundred and nine-ty-five, and of the Independence of the Unit-

ed States of America the two hundred andnineteenth.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.∑

f

LOUIS E. CURDES

∑ Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I risetoday to pay tribute to the outstandinglife and service of Louis E. Curdes. Mr.Curdes, who recently passed away athis home in Fort Wayne, IN, served hiscountry with honor, and was a recog-nized hero of World War II.

Mr. Curdes demonstrated his skilland valor during his first 2 weeks as afighter pilot in World War II, when heshot down a total of five Germanplanes to become a flying ace. Severalmonths later, when his plane was dam-aged in fighting, he was forced down inItaly and spent months in war prisons,until his eventual escape and walk tofreedom.

Late in the war, Louis Curdes saw ac-tion in the South Pacific. He shot downaircraft from Japan and Italy, as wellas Germany. Two of the Italian aircrafthe shot down are displayed at theSmithsonian Air and Space Museum.

In 1963, Mr. Curdes retired as a lieu-tenant colonel after 22 years of servicein the U.S. Air Force. He earned nu-merous medals including the Distin-guished Flying Cross, Purple Heart,and Air Medals. Upon his retirement,he began Curdes Builders Co., and de-voted his life to his family and work inFort Wayne, IN.

Mr. President, it is with great re-spect that I call to my colleagues’ at-tention the contributions Louis Curdesmade to his country. He is truly an ex-ample and inspiration for all who fol-low him .∑f

HOMICIDES BY GUNSHOT IN NEWYORK CITY

∑ Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I risetoday, as I have done each week of the104th Congress, to announce to the Sen-ate that during the past week, 6 peoplewere murdered by gunshot in New YorkCity, bringing this year’s total to 95.

Today I received a letter from SarahBrady, chairman of Handgun ControlInc., which brought some very welcomenews. The letter, which not coinciden-tally arrives on the 1-year anniversaryof the implementation of the Bradylaw, announces the results of a newsurvey unequivocally proving that theBrady law is working. Conducted joint-ly by the International Association ofChiefs of Police and Handgun Control,Inc., the survey of 115 law enforcementagencies in 27 States reveals that back-ground checks in those jurisdictionsprevented the sale of guns to over19,000 persons prohibited by law frompurchasing firearms. Mrs. Brady alsoinforms me that, according to Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms esti-mates, the Brady law has preventedsome 70,000 persons nationwide from il-legally purchasing firearms.

Mr. President, this demonstratesthat Congress can make a difference in

the fight to reduce gun violence. I hopeit will convince the Senate to adopt fu-ture measures to address this terribleproblem.

I ask that the letter from Mrs. Bradybe printed in the RECORD.

The letter follows:FEBRUARY 27, 1995.

Hon. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR MOYNIHAN: Thanks to you,it’s working. The results are in! Tuesday,February 28, 1995 marks the first anniversaryof the implementation of the Brady Law anda new survey confirms that the new law ishelping to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Attached for your review are the results ofa survey conducted by the International As-sociation of Chiefs of Police (IACP) andHandgun Control, Inc. The survey found thatbackground checks in 115 state and local ju-risdictions, covering all or part of 27 states,stopped 19,000 felons and other prohibitedpersons from obtaining handguns.

While that is no national reporting re-quirement, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobaccoand Firearms estimates that backgroundchecks in the past year stopped 70,000 con-victed felons and other prohibited personsfrom making an over-the-counter purchaseof a handgun. Forty-thousand of those deni-als came from ‘‘new’’ states which did notpreviously meet the requirements of theBrady Law. As a result of these backgroundchecks, hundreds of arrests have been madeof those wanted on outstanding warrants.

If you have any questions regarding thisinformation, please do not hesitate to callHCI’s Marie Carbone.

On behalf of Jim and myself, please acceptour deepest appreciation for all that you didto make these results possible.

Sincerely,SARAH BRADY,

Chair.∑

f

RULES OF THE SENATE SPECIALCOMMITTEE ON AGING

∑ Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, today Iam filing the committee rules of theSenate Special Committee on Aging. Iask that the rules be printed in theRECORD.

The rules follow:SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING—JURISDICTION

AND AUTHORITY

(S. Res. 4 § 104, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) 1

(a)(1) There is established a Special Com-mittee on Aging (hereafter in this section re-ferred to as the ‘‘special committee’’) whichshall consist of nineteen Members. The Mem-bers and chairman of the special committeeshall be appointed in the same manner andat the same time as the Members and chair-man of a standing committee of the Senate.After the date on which the majority and mi-nority Members of the special committee areinitially appointed on or after the effectivedate of title I of the Committee System Re-organization Amendments of 1977, each timea vacancy occurs in the Membership of thespecial committee, the number of Membersof the special committee shall be reduced byone until the number of Members of the spe-cial committee consists of nine Senators.

(2) For purposes of paragraph 1 of ruleXXV; paragraphs 1, 7(a)(1)-(2), 9, and 10(a) of

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3294 February 28, 1995rule XXVI; and paragraphs 1(a)-(d), and 2 (a)and (d) of rule XXVII of the Standing Rulesof the Senate; and for purposes of section 202(i) and (j) of the Legislative ReorganizationAct of 1946, the special committee shall betreated as a standing committee of the Sen-ate.

(b)(1) It shall be the duty of the specialcommittee to conduct a continuing study ofany and all matters pertaining to problemsand opportunities of older people, including,but not limited to, problems and opportuni-ties of maintaining health, of assuring ade-quate income, of finding employment, of en-gaging in productive and rewarding activity,of securing proper housing, and when nec-essary, of obtaining care or assistance. Noproposed legislation shall be referred to suchcommittee, and such committee shall nothave power to report by bill, or otherwisehave legislative jurisdiction.

(2) The special committee shall, from timeto time (but not less often than once eachyear), report to the Senate the results of thestudy conducted pursuant to paragraph (1),together with such recommendation as itconsiders appropriate.

(c)(1) For the purposes of this section, thespecial committee is authorized, in its dis-cretion, (A) to make investigations into anymatter within its jurisdiction, (B) to makeexpenditures from the contingent fund of theSenate, (C) to employ personnel, (D) to holdhearings, (E) to sit and act at any time orplace during the sessions, recesses, and ad-journed periods of the Senate, (F) to require,by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance ofwitnesses and the production of correspond-ence, books, papers, and documents, (G) totake depositions and other testimony, (H) toprocure the services of individual consulta-tions or organizations thereof, in accordancewith the provisions of section 202(i) of theLegislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and(I) with the prior consent of the Governmentdepartment or agency concerned and theCommittee on Rules and Administration, touse on a reimbursable basis the services ofpersonnel of any such department or agency.

(2) The chairman of the special committeeor any Member thereof may administeroaths to witnesses.

(3) Subpoenas authorized by the specialcommittee may be issued over the signatureof the chairman, or any Member of the spe-cial committee designated by the chairman,and may be served by any person designatedby the chairman or the Member signing thesubpoena.

(d) All records and papers of the temporarySpecial Committee on Aging established bySenate Resolution 33, Eighty-seventh Con-gress, are transferred to the special commit-tee.

RULES OF PROCEDURE

(139 Cong. Rec. S1929 (Daily ed. Feb. 18, 1993))I. CONVENING OF MEETINGS AND HEARINGS

1. MEETINGS. The Committee shall meet toconduct Committee business at the call ofthe Chairman.

2. SPECIAL MEETINGS. The Members of theCommittee may call additional meetings asprovided in Senate Rule XXVI (3).

3. NOTICE AND AGENDA:(a) HEARINGS. The Committee shall make

public announcement of the date, place, andsubject matter of any hearing at least oneweek before its commencement.

(b) MEETINGS. The Chairman shall give theMembers written notice of any Committeemeeting, accompanied by an agenda enumer-ating the items of business to be considered,at least 5 days in advance of such meeting.

(c) SHORTENED NOTICE. A hearing or meet-ing may be called on not less than 24 hoursnotice if the Chairman, with the concurrenceof the Ranking Minority Member, deter-mines that there is good cause to begin the

hearing or meeting on shortened notice. Anagenda will be furnished prior to such ameeting.

4. PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chairman shallpreside when present. If the Chairman is notpresent at any meeting or hearing, theRanking Majority Member present shall pre-side. Any Member of the Committee maypreside over the conduct of a hearing.

II. CLOSED SESSIONS AND CONFIDENTIALMATERIALS

1. PROCEDURE. All meetings and hearingsshall be open to the public unless closed. Toclose a meting or hearing or portion thereof,a motion shall be made and seconded to gointo closed discussion of whether the meet-ing or hearing will concern the matters enu-merated in Rule II.3. Immediately after suchdiscussion, the meeting or hearing may beclosed by a vote in open session of a majorityof the Members of the Committee present.

2. WITNESS REQUEST. Any witness called fora hearing may submit a written request tothe Chairman no later than twenty-fourhours in advance for his examination to be inclosed or open session. The Chairman shallinform the Committee of any such request.

3. CLOSED SESSION SUBJECTS. A meeting orhearing or portion thereof may be closed ifthe matters to be discussed concern: (1) na-tional security; (2) Committee staff person-nel or internal staff management or proce-dure; (3) matters tending to reflect adverselyon the character or reputation or to invadethe privacy of the individuals; (4) Committeeinvestigations; (5) other matters enumeratedin Senate Rule XXVI (5)(b).

4. CONFIDENTIAL MATTER. No record madeof a closed session, or material declared con-fidential by a majority of the Committee, orreport of the proceedings of a closed session,shall be made public, in whole or in part orby way of summary, unless specifically au-thorized by the Chairman and Ranking Mi-nority Member.

5. BROADCASTING.(a) CONTROL. Any meeting or hearing open

to the public may be covered by television,radio, or still photography. Such coveragemust be conducted in an orderly and unob-trusive manner, and the Chairman may forgood cause terminate such coverage in wholeor in part, or take such other action to con-trol it as the circumstances may warrant.

(b) REQUEST. A witness may request of theChairman, on grounds of distraction, harass-ment, personal safety, or physical discom-fort, that during his testimony cameras,media microphones, and lights shall not bedirected at him.

III. QUORUMS AND VOTING

1. REPORTING. A majority shall constitutea quorum for reporting a resolution, rec-ommendation or report to the Senate.

2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS. A third shall con-stitute a quorum for the conduct of Commit-tee business, other than a final vote on re-porting, providing a minority Member ispresent. One Member shall constitute aquorum for the receipt of evidence, theswearing of witnesses, and the taking of tes-timony at hearings.

3. POLLING.(a) SUBJECTS. The Committee may poll (1)

internal Committee matters including thoseconcerning the Committee’s staff, records,and budget; (2) other Committee businesswhich has been designated for polling at ameeting.

(b) PROCEDURE. The Chairman shall cir-culate polling sheets to each member speci-fying the matter being polled and the timelimit for completion of the poll. If any Mem-ber so requests in advance of the meeting,the matter shall be held for meeting ratherthan being polled. The clerk shall keep arecord of polls; if the Chairman determinesthat the polled matter is one of the areas

enumerated in Rule II.3, the record of thepoll shall be confidential. Any Member maymove at the Committee meeting following apoll for a vote on the polled decision.

IV. INVESTIGATIONS

1. AUTHORIZATION FOR INVESTIGATIONS. Allinvestigations shall be conducted on a bipar-tisan basis by Committee Staff. Investiga-tions may be initiated by the Committeestaff upon the approval of the Chairman andthe Ranking Minority Member. Staff shallkeep the Committee fully informed of theprogress of continuing investigations, exceptwhere the Chairman and the Ranking Minor-ity Member agree that there exists tem-porary cause for more limited knowledge.

2. SUBPOENAS. Subpoenas for the attend-ance of witnesses or the production of memo-randa, documents, records, or any other ma-terials shall be issued by the Chairman, orby any other Member of the Committee des-ignated by him. Prior to the issuance of eachsubpoena, the Ranking Minority Member,and any other Member so requesting, shallbe notified regarding the identity of the per-son to whom the subpoena will be issued andthe nature of the information sought, and itsrelationship to the investigation.

3. INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS. All reports con-taining findings or recommendations stem-ming from Committee investigations shallbe printed only with the approval of a major-ity of the Members of the Committee.

V. HEARINGS

1. NOTICE. Witnesses called before the Com-mittee shall be given, absent extraordinarycircumstances, at least forty-eight hours’notice, and all witnesses called shall be fur-nished with a copy of these rules upon re-quest.

2. OATH. All witnesses who testify to mat-ters of fact shall be sworn unless the Com-mittee waives the oath. The Chairman, orany Member, may request and administerthe oath.

3. STATEMENT. Any witness desiring tomake an introductory statement shall file 50copies of such statement with the Chairmanor clerk of the Committee 24 hours in ad-vance of his appearance, unless the Chair-man and Ranking Minority Member deter-mine that there is good cause for a witness’sfailure to do so. A witness shall be allowedno more than ten minutes to orally summa-rize his prepared statement.

4. COUNSEL:(a) A witness’s counsel shall be permitted

to be present during his testimony at anypublic or closed hearing or depositions orstaff interview to advise such witness of hisrights, provided, however, that in the case ofany witness who is an officer or employee ofthe government, or of a corporation or asso-ciation, the Chairman may rule that rep-resentation by counsel from the government,corporation, or association creates a conflictof interest, and that the witness shall be rep-resented by personal counsel not from thegovernment, corporation, or association.

(b) A witness who is unable for economicreasons to obtain counsel may inform theCommittee at least 48 hours prior to thewitness’s appearance, and it will endeavor toobtain volunteer counsel for the witness.Such counsel shall be subject solely to thecontrol of the witness and not the Commit-tee. Failure to obtain counsel will not excusethe witness from appearing and testifying.

5. TRANSCRIPT. An accurate electronic orstenographic record shall be kept of the tes-timony of all witnesses in executive and pub-lic hearings. Any witness shall be afforded,upon request, the right to review that por-tion of such record, and for this purpose, acopy of a witness’s testimony in public or

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3295February 28, 1995closed session shall be provided to the wit-ness. Upon inspecting his transcript, withina time limit set by the committee clerk, awitness may request changes in testimony tocorrect errors of transcription, grammaticalerrors, and obvious errors of fact; the Chair-man or a staff officer designated by himshall rule on such request.

6. IMPUGNED PERSONS. Any person who be-lieves that evidence presented, or commentmade by a Member or staff, at a public hear-ing or at a closed hearing concerning whichthere have been public reports, tends to im-pugn his character or adversely affect hisreputation may:

(a) file a sworn statement of facts relevantto the evidence or comment, which shall beplaced in the hearing record;

(b) request the opportunity to appear per-sonally before the Committee to testify inhis own behalf; and

(c) submit questions in writing which herequests be used for the cross-examination ofother witnesses called by the Committee.The Chairman shall inform the Committee ofsuch requests for appearance or cross-exam-ination. If the Committee so decides, the re-quested questions, or paraphrased versionsor portions of them, shall be put to the otherwitness by a Member of by staff.

7. MINORITY WITNESSES. Whenever anyhearing is conducted by the Committee, theminority on the Committee shall be entitled,upon request made by a majority of the mi-nority Members to the Chairman, to call wit-nesses selected by the minority to testify orproduce documents with respect to the meas-ure or matter under consideration during atleast one day of the hearing. Such requestmust be made before the completion of thehearing or, if subpoenas are required to callthe minority witnesses, no later than threedays before the completion of the hearing.

8. CONDUCT OF WITNESSES, COUNSEL ANDMEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. If, during publicor executive sessions, a witness, his counsel,or any spectator conducts himself in such amanner as to prevent, impede, disrupt, ob-struct, or interfere with the orderly adminis-tration of such hearing the Chairman or pre-siding Member of the Committee presentduring such hearing may request the Ser-geant at Arms of the Senate, his representa-tive or any law enforcement official to ejectsaid person from the hearing room.

VI. DEPOSITIONS AND COMMISSIONS

1. NOTICE. Notices for the taking of deposi-tions in an investigation authorized by theCommittee shall be authorized and issued bythe Chairman or by a staff officer designatedby him. Such notices shall specify a time andplace for examination, and the name of thestaff officer or officers who will take the dep-osition. Unless otherwise specified, the depo-sition shall be in private. The Committeeshall not initiate procedures leading tocriminal or civil enforcement proceedings fora witness’s failure to appear unless the depo-sition notice was accompanied by a Commit-tee subpoena.

2. COUNSEL. Witnesses may be accompaniedat a deposition by counsel to advise them oftheir rights, subject to the provisions of RuleV.4.

3. PROCEDURE. Witnesses shall be examinedupon oath administered by an individual au-thorized by local law to administer oaths.Questions shall be propounded orally byCommittee staff. Objections by the witnessesas to the form of questions shall be noted bythe record. If a witness objects to a questionand refuses to testify on the basis of rel-evance or privilege, the Committee staff mayproceed with the deposition, or may at thattime or at a subsequent time, seek a rulingby telephone or otherwise on the objectionfrom a Member of the Committee. If theMember overrules the objection, he may

refer the matter to the Committee or he mayorder and direct the witness to answer thequestion, but the Committee shall not initi-ate the procedures leading to civil or crimi-nal enforcement unless the witness refusesto testify after he has been ordered and di-rected to answer by a Member of the Com-mittee.

4. FILING. The Committee staff shall seethat the testimony is transcribed or elec-tronically recorded. If it is transcribed, thewitness shall be furnished with a copy for re-view. No later than five days thereafter, thewitness shall return a signed copy, and thestaff shall enter the changes, if any, re-quested by the witness in accordance withRule V.6. If the witness fails to return asigned copy, the staff shall note on the tran-script the date a copy was provided and thefailure to return it. The individual admin-istering the oath shall certify on the tran-script that the witness was duly sworn in hispresence, the transcriber shall certify thatthe transcript is a true record to the testi-mony, and the transcript shall then be filedwith the Committee clerk. Committee staffmay stipulate with the witness to changes inthis procedure; deviations from the proce-dure which do not substantially impair thereliability of the record shall not relieve thewitness from his obligation to testify truth-fully.

5. COMMISSIONS. The Committee may au-thorize the staff, by issuance of commis-sions, to fill in prepared subpoenas, conductfield hearings, inspect locations, facilities,or systems of records, or otherwise act on be-half of the Committee. Commissions shall beaccompanied by instructions from the Com-mittee regulating their use.

VII. SUBCOMMITTEES

1. ESTABLISHMENT. The Committee will op-erate as a Committee of the Whole, reservingto itself the right to establish temporarysubcommittees at any time by majorityvote. The Chairman of the full Committeeand the Ranking Minority Member shall beex-officio Members of all subcommittees.

2. JURISDICTION. Within its jurisdiction, asdescribed in the Standing Rules of the Sen-ate, each subcommittee is authorized to con-duct investigations, including use of subpoe-nas, depositions, and commissions.

3. RULES. A subcommittee shall be gov-erned by the Committee rules, except thatits quorum for all business shall be one-thirdof the subcommittee Membership, and forhearings shall be one Member.

VIII. REPORTS

Committee reports incorporating Commit-tee findings and recommendations shall beprinted only with the prior approval of theCommittee, after an adequate period for re-view and comment. The printing, as Commit-tee documents, of materials prepared bystaff for informational purposes, or theprinting of materials not originating withthe Committee or staff, shall require priorconsultation with the minority staff; thesepublications shall have the following lan-guage printed on the cover of the document:‘‘Note: This document has been printed forinformational purposes. It does not representeither findings or recommendations formallyadopted by the Committee.’’

IX. AMENDMENT OF RULES

The rules of the Committee may be amend-ed or revised at any time, provided that notless than a majority of the Committeepresent so determine at a Committee meet-ing preceded by at least 3 days notice of theamendments or revisions proposed.∑

RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THECOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTALAFFAIRS

∑ Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I herewithsubmit a copy of Rules of Procedureadopted by the Committee on Govern-mental Affairs pursuant to rule XXVI,section 2, Standing Rules of the Sen-ate, and ask that they be printed in theRECORD at this point.

The Rules of Procedure follow:RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMIT-

TEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

(Pursuant to rule XXVI, Sec. 2, StandingRules of the Senate)

RULE 1. MEETINGS AND MEETING PROCEDURESOTHER THAN HEARINGS

A. Meeting dates. The Committee shallhold its regular meetings on the first Thurs-day of each month, when the Congress is insession, or at such other times as the chair-man shall determine. Additional meetingsmay be called by the chairman as he deemsnecessary to expedite Committee business.(Rule XXVI, Sec. 3, Standing Rules of theSenate.)

B. Calling special Committee meetings. Ifat least three members of the Committee de-sire the chairman to call a special meeting,they may file in the offices of the Committeea written request therefor, addressed to thechairman. Immediately thereafter, the clerkof the Committee shall notify the chairmanof such request. If, within three calendardays after the filing of such request, thechairman fails to call the requested specialmeeting, which is to be held within sevencalendar days after the filing of such re-quest, a majority of the Committee membersmay file in the offices of the Committeetheir written notice that a special Commit-tee meeting will be held, specifying the dateand hour thereof, and the Committee shallmeet on that date and hour. Immediatelyupon the filing of such notice, the Commit-tee clerk shall notify all Committee mem-bers that such special meeting will be heldand inform them of its date and hour. (RuleXXVI, Sec. 3, Standing Rules of the Senate.)

C. Meeting notices and agenda. Written no-tices of Committee meetings, accompaniedby an agenda, enumerating the items of busi-ness to be considered, shall be sent to allCommittee members at least three days inadvance of such meetings, excluding Satur-days, Sundays, and legal holidays in whichthe Senate is not in session. In the eventthat unforeseen requirements or Committeebusiness prevent a three-day notice of eitherthe meeting or agenda, the Committee staffshall communicate such notice and agenda,or any revisions to the agenda, as soon aspracticable by telephone or otherwise tomembers or appropriate staff assistants intheir offices.

D. Open business meetings. Meetings forthe transaction of Committee or Sub-committee business shall be conducted inopen session, except that a meeting or seriesof meetings on the same subject for a periodof no more than fourteen calendar days maybe closed to the public on a motion made andseconded to go into closed session to discussonly whether the matters enumerated inclauses (1) through (6) below would requirethe meeting to be closed, followed imme-diately by a record vote in open session by amajority of the Committee or Subcommitteemembers when it is determined that thematters to be discussed or the testimony tobe taken at such meeting or meetings—

(1) will disclose matters necessary to bekept secret in the interests of national de-fense or the confidential conduct of foreignrelations of the United States;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3296 February 28, 1995(2) will relate solely to matters of Commit-

tee or Subcommittee staff personnel or in-ternal staff management or procedure;

(3) will tend to charge an individual withcrime or misconduct, to disgrace or injurethe professional standing of an individual, orotherwise expose an individual to public con-tempt or obloquy or will represent a clearlyunwarranted invasion of the privacy of an in-dividual;

(4) will disclose the identity of an informeror law enforcement agent or will discloseany information relating to the investiga-tion or prosecution of a criminal offense thatis required to be kept secret in the interestsof effective law enforcement;

(5) will disclose information relating to thetrade secrets of financial or commercial in-formation pertaining specifically to a givenperson if—

(A) an Act of Congress requires the infor-mation to be kept confidential by Govern-ment officers and employees; or

(B) the information has been obtained bythe Government on a confidential basis,other than through an application by suchperson for a specific Government financial orother benefit, and is required to be kept se-cret in order to prevent undue injury to thecompetitive position of such person; or

(6) may divulge matters required to bekept confidential under other provisions oflaw or Government regulations. (Rule XXVI,Sec. 5(b), Standing Rules of the Senate.)

Notwithstanding the foregoing, wheneverdisorder arises during a Committee or Sub-committee meeting that is open to the pub-lic, or any demonstration of approval or dis-approval is indulged in by any person in at-tendance at any such meeting, it shall be theduty of the chairman to enforce order on hisown initiative and without any point oforder being made by a member of the Com-mittee or Subcommittee; provided, further,that when the chairman finds it necessary tomaintain order, he shall have the power toclear the room, and the Committee or Sub-committee may act in closed session for solong as there is doubt of the assurance oforder. (Rule XXVI, Sec. 5(d), Standing Rulesof the Senate.)

E. Prior notice of first degree amendments.It shall not be in order for the Committee, ora subcommittee thereof, to consider anyamendment in the first degree proposed toany measure under consideration by theCommittee or Subcommittee unless a writ-ten copy of such amendment has been deliv-ered to each member of the Committee orSubcommittee, as the case may be, and tothe office of the Committee or Subcommit-tee, at least 24 hours before the meeting ofthe Committee or Subcommittee at whichthe amendment is to be proposed. This sub-section may be waived by a majority of themembers present. This subsection shallapply only when at least 72 hours written no-tice of a session to mark-up a measure isprovided to the Committee or Subcommit-tee.

F. Meeting transcript. The Committee orSubcommittee shall prepare and keep a com-plete transcript or electronic recording ade-quate to fully record the proceeding of eachmeeting whether or not such meeting or anypart thereof is closed to the public, unless amajority of the Committee or Subcommitteemembers vote to forgo such a record. (RuleSSVI, Sec. 5(e), Standing Rules of the Sen-ate.)

RULE 2. QUORUMS

A. Reporting measures and matters. A ma-jority of the members of the Committeeshall constitute a quorum for reporting tothe Senate any measures, matters or rec-ommendations. (Rule XXVI, Sec. 7(a)(1),Standing Rules of the Senate.)

B. Transaction of routine business. Fivemembers of the Committee shall constitutea quorum for the transaction of routine busi-ness, provided that one member of the mi-nority is present.

For the purpose of this paragraph, theterm ‘‘routine business’’ includes the con-vening of a meeting and the consideration ofany business of the Committee other thanreporting to the Senate any measures, mat-ters or recommendations. (Rule XXVI, Sec.7(a)(1), Standing Rules of the Senate.)

C. Taking testimony. One member of theCommittee shall constitute a quorum fortaking sworn or unsworn testimony. (RuleXXVI, Sec. 7(a)(2), and 7(c)(2) Standing Rulesof the Senate.)

D. Subcommittee quorums. Subject to theprovisions of sections 7(a)(1) and (2) of RuleXXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate,the Subcommittees of this Committee areauthorized to establish their own quorumsfor the transaction of business and the tak-ing of sworn testimony.

E. Proxies prohibited in establishment ofquorum. Proxies shall not be considered forthe establishment of a quorum.

RULE 3. VOTING

A. Quorum required. Subject to the provi-sions of subsection (E), no vote may be takenby the Committee, or any Subcommitteethereof, on any measure or matter unless aquorum, as prescribed in the preceding sec-tion, is actually present.

B. Reporting measures and matters. Nomeasure, matter or recommendation shall bereported from the Committee unless a ma-jority of the Committee members are actu-ally present, and the vote of the Committeeto report a measure or matter shall requirethe concurrence of a majority of those mem-bers who are actually present at the time thevote is taken. (Rule XXVI, Sec. 7(a)(1) and(3), Standing Rules of the Senate.)

C. Proxy voting. Proxy voting shall be al-lowed on all measures and matters before theCommittee, or any Subcommittee thereof,except that, when the Committee, or anySubcommittee thereof, is voting to report ameasure or matter, proxy votes shall be al-lowed solely for the purposes of recording amember’s position on the pending question.Proxy voting shall be allowed only if the ab-sent Committee or Subcommittee memberhas been informed of the matter on which heis being recorded and has affirmatively re-quested that he be so recorded. All proxiesshall be filed with the chief clerk of theCommittee or Subcommittee thereof, as thecase may be. All proxies shall be in writingand shall contain sufficient reference to thepending matter as is necessary to identify itand to inform the Committee or Subcommit-tee as to how the member establishes hisvote to be recorded thereon. (Rule XXVI,Sec. 7(a)(3) and 7(c)(1), Standing Rules of theSenate.)

D. Announcement of vote. (1) Whenever theCommittee by roll call vote reports anymeasure or matter, the report of the Com-mittee upon such a measure or matter shallinclude a tabulation of the votes cast infavor of and the votes cast in opposition tosuch measure or matter by each member ofthe Committee. (Rule XXVI, Sec.7(c), Stand-ing Rules of the Senate.)

(2) Whenever the Committee by roll callvote acts upon any measure or amendmentthereto, other than reporting a measure ormatter, the results thereof shall be an-nounced in the Committee report on thatmeasure unless previously announced by theCommittee, and such announcement shall in-clude a tabulation of the votes cast in favorof and the votes cast in opposition to eachsuch measure and amendment thereto byeach member of the Committee who was

present at the meeting. (Rule XXVI, Sec.7(b), Standing Rules of the Senate.)

(3) In any case in which a rollcall vote isannounced, the tabulation of votes shallstate separately the proxy vote recorded infavor of and in opposition to that measure,amendment thereto, or matter. (Rule XXVI,Sec. 7(b) and (c), Standing Rules of the Sen-ate.)

E. Polling. (1) The Committee, or any Sub-committee thereof, may poll (a) internalCommittee or Subcommittee matters includ-ing the Committee’s or Subcommittee’sstaff, records and budget; (b) steps in an in-vestigation, including issuance of subpoenas,applications for immunity orders, and re-quests for documents from agencies; and (c)other Committee or Subcommittee businessother than a vote on reporting to the Senateany measures, matters or recommendationsor a vote on closing a meeting or hearing tothe public.

(2) Only the chairman, or a Committeemember or staff officer designated by him,may undertake any poll of the members ofthe Committee. If any member requests, anymatter to be polled shall be held for meetingrather than being polled. The chief clerk ofthe Committee shall keep a record of polls; ifa majority of the members of the Committeedetermine that the polled matter is in one ofthe areas enumerated in subsection (D) ofRule 1, the record of the poll shall be con-fidential. Any Committee member may moveat the Committee meeting following the pollfor a vote on the polled decision, such mo-tion and vote to be subject to the provisionsof subsection (D) of Rule 1, where applicable.

RULE 4. CHAIRMANSHIP OF MEETINGS ANDHEARINGS

The chairman shall preside at all Commit-tee meetings and hearings except that heshall designate a temporary chairman to actin his place if he is unable to be present ata scheduled meeting or hearing. If the chair-man (or his designee) is absent ten minutesafter the scheduled time set for a meeting orhearing, the ranking majority memberpresent shall preside until the chairman’s ar-rival. If there is no member of the majoritypresent, the ranking minority memberpresent, with the prior approval of the chair-man, may open and conduct the meeting orhearing until such time as a member of themajority arrives.

RULE 5. HEARINGS AND HEARINGS PROCEDURES

A. Announcement of hearings. The Com-mittee, or any Subcommittee thereof, shallmake public announcement of the date, timeand subject matter of any hearing to be con-ducted on any measure or matter at leastone week in advance of such hearing, unlessthe Committee, or Subcommittee, deter-mines that there is good cause to begin suchhearing at an earlier date. (Rule XXVI, Sec.4(a), Standing Rules of the Senate.)

B. Open hearings. Each hearing conductedby the Committee, or any Subcommitteethereof, shall be open to the public, exceptthat a hearing or series of hearings on thesame subject for a period of no more thanfourteen calendar days may be closed to thepublic on a motion made and seconded to gointo closed session to discuss only whetherthe matters enumerated in clauses (1)through (6) below would require the hearingto be closed, followed immediately by arecord vote in open session by a majority ofthe Committee or Subcommittee memberswhen it is determined that the matters to bediscussed or the testimony to be taken atsuch hearing or hearings—

(1) will disclose matters necessary to bekept secret in the interests of national de-fense or the confidential conduct of foreignrelations of the United States;

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3297February 28, 1995(2) will relate solely to matters of Commit-

tee or Subcommittee staff personnel or in-ternal staff management or procedure;

(3) will tend to charge an individual withcrime or misconduct, to disgrace or injurethe professional standing of an individual, orotherwise expose an individual to public con-tempt or obloquy or will represent a clearlyunwarranted invasion of the privacy of an in-dividual;

(4) will disclose the identity of an informeror law enforcement agent or will discloseany information relating to the investiga-tion or prosecution of a criminal offense thatis required to be kept secret in the interestsof effective law enforcement;

(5) will disclose information relating to thetrade secrets of financial or commercial in-formation pertaining specifically to a givenperson if—

(A) an Act of Congress requires the infor-mation to be kept confidential by Govern-ment officers and employees; or

(B) the information has been obtained bythe Government on a confidential basis,other than through an application by suchperson for a specific Government financial orother benefit, and is required to be kept se-cret in order to prevent undue injury to thecompetitive position of such person; or

(6) may divulge matters required to bekept confidential under other provisions oflaw or Government regulations. (Rule XXVI,Sec. 5(b), Standing Rules of the Senate.)

Notwithstanding the foregoing, wheneverdisorder arises during a Committee or Sub-committee meeting that is open to the pub-lic, or any demonstration of approval or dis-approval is indulged in by any person in at-tendance at any such meeting, it shall be theduty of the chairman to enforce order on hisown initiative and without any point oforder being made by a member of the Com-mittee or Subcommittee; provided, further,that when the chairman finds it necessary tomaintain order, he shall have the power toclear the room, and the Committee or Sub-committee may act in closed session for solong as there is doubt of the assurance oforder. (Rule XXVI, Sec. 5(d), Standing Rulesof the Senate.)

C. Full Committee subpoenas. The chair-man, with the approval of the ranking mi-nority member of the Committee, is author-ized to subpoena the attendance of witnessesor the production of memoranda, documents,records, or any other materials at a hearingof deposition, provided that the chairmanmay subpoena attendance or productionwithout the approval of the ranking minor-ity member where the chairman or a staff of-ficer designated by him has not received no-tification from the ranking minority mem-ber or a staff officer designated by him ofdisapproval of the subpoena within 72 hours,excluding Saturdays and Sundays, of beingnotified of the subpoena. If a subpoena is dis-approved by the ranking minority memberas provided in this subsection, the subpoenamay be authorized by vote of the members ofthe Committee. When the Committee orchairman authorizes subpoenas, subpoenasmay be issued upon the signature of thechairman or any other member of the Com-mittee designated by the chairman.

D. Witness counsel. Counsel retained byany witness and accompanying such witnessshall be permitted to be present during thetestimony of such witness at any public orexecutive hearing or deposition to advisesuch witness while he or she is testifying, ofhis or her legal rights; provided, however,that in the case of any witness who is an offi-cer or employee of the government, or of acorporation or association, the Committeechairman may rule that representation bycounsel from the government, corporation,or association or by counsel representing

other witnesses, creates a conflict of inter-est, and that the witness may only be rep-resented during interrogation by staff orduring testimony before the Committee bypersonal counsel not from the government,corporation, or association or by personalcounsel not representing other witnesses.This subsection shall not be construed to ex-cuse a witness from testifying in the eventhis counsel is ejected for conducting himselfin such manner so as to prevent, impede, dis-rupt, obstruct or interfere with the orderlyadministration of the hearings; nor shall thissubsection be construed as authorizing coun-sel to coach the witness or answer for thewitness. The failure of any witness to securecounsel shall not excuse such witness fromcomplying with a subpoena or deposition no-tice.

E. Witness transcripts. An accurate elec-tronic or stenographic record shall be kept ofthe testimony of all witnesses in executiveand public hearings. the record of his or hertestimony whether in public or executivesession shall be made available for inspec-tion by the witness or his or her counselunder Committee supervision; a copy of anytestimony given in public session or thatpart of the testimony given by the witness inexecutive session and subsequently quoted ormade part of the record in a public sessionshall be provided to any witness at his or herexpense if he or she so requests. Upon in-specting his or her transcript, within a timelimit set by the chief clerk of the Commit-tee, a witness may request changes in thetranscript to correct errors of transcriptionand grammatical errors; the chairman or astaff officer designated by him shall rule onsuch requests.

F. Impugned persons. Any person whosename is mentioned or is specifically identi-fied, and who believes that evidence pre-sented, or comment made by a member ofthe Committee or staff officer, at a publichearing or at a closed hearing concerningwhich there have been public reports, tendsto impugn his or her character of adverselyaffect his or her reputation may:

(a) file a sworn statement of facts relevantto the evidence or comment, which state-ment shall be considered for placement inthe placement in the hearing record by theCommittee;

(b) request the opportunity to appear per-sonally before the Committee to testify inhis or her own behalf, which request shall beconsidered by the Committee; and

(c) submit questions in writing which he orshe requests be used for the cross-examina-tion of other witnesses called by the Com-mittee, which questions shall be consideredfor use by the Committee.

G. Radio, television, and photography. TheCommittee, or any Subcommittee thereof,may permit the proceedings of hearingswhich are open to the public to be photo-graphed and broadcast by radio, television orboth, subject to such conditions as the Com-mittee, or Subcommittee, may impose. (RuleXXVI, Sec.5(c), Standing Rules of the Sen-ate.)

H. Advance statements of witnesses. A wit-ness appearing before the Committee, or anySubcommittee thereof, shall provide 100 cop-ies of a written statement and an executivesummary or synopsis of his proposed testi-mony at least 48 hours prior to his appear-ance. This requirement may be waived bythe chairman and the ranking minoritymember following their determination thatthere is good cause for failure of compliance.(Rule XXVI, Sec.4(b), Standing Rules of theSenate.)

I. Minority witnesses. In any hearings con-ducted by the Committee, or any Sub-committee thereof, the minority members ofthe Committee or Subcommitee shall be en-

titled, upon request to the chairman by amajority of the minority members, to callwitnesses of their selection during at leastone day of such hearings. (Rule XXVI, Sec.4(d), Standing Rules of the Senate.)

J. Full Committee depositions. Depositionsmay be taken prior to or after a hearing asprovided in this subsection.

(1) Notices for the taking of depositionsshall be authorized and issued by the chair-man, with the approval of the ranking mi-nority member of the Committee, providedthat the chairman may initiate depositionswithout the approval of the ranking minor-ity member where the chairman or a staff of-ficer designated by him has not received no-tification from the ranking minority mem-ber or a staff officer designated by him ofdisapproval of the deposition within 72hours, excluding Saturdays and Sundays, ofbeing notified of the deposition notice. If adeposition notice is disapproved by the rank-ing minority member as provided in this sub-section, the deposition notice may be au-thorized by a vote of the members of theCommittee. Committee deposition noticesshall specify a time and place for examina-tion, and the name of the Committee mem-ber or members or staff officer or officerswho will take the deposition. Unless other-wise specified, the deposition shall be in pri-vate. The Committee shall not initiate pro-cedures leading to criminal or civil enforce-ment proceedings for a witness’ failure to ap-pear or produce unless the deposition noticewas accompanied by a Committee subpoena.

(2) Witnesses may be accompanied at adeposition by counsel to advise them of theirlegal rights, subject to the provisions of Rule5D.

(3) Oaths at depositions may be adminis-tered by an individual authorized by locallaw to administer oaths. Questions shall bepropounded orally by Committee member ormembers or staff. If a witness objects to aquestion and refuses to testify, the objectionshall be noted for the record and the Com-mittee member or members or staff may pro-ceed with the remainder of the deposition.

(4) The Committee shall see that the testi-mony is transcribed or electronically re-corded (which may include audio or audio/video recordings). If it is transcribed, thetranscript shall be made available for inspec-tion by the witness or his or her counselunder Committee supervision. The witnessshall sign a copy of the transcript and mayrequest changes to it, which shall be handledin accordance with the procedure set forth insubsection (E). If the witness fails to sign acopy, the staff shall note that fact on thetranscript. The individual administering theoath shall certify on the transcript that thewitness was duly sworn in his presence, thetranscriber shall certify that the transcriptis a true record of the testimony, and thetranscript shall then be filed with the chiefclerk of the Committee. The chairman or astaff officer designated by him may stipulatewith the witness to changes in the proce-dure; deviations from this procedure whichdo not substantially impair the reliability ofthe record shall not relieve the witness fromhis or her obligation to testify truthfully.

RULE 6. COMMITTEE REPORTING PROCEDURES

A. Timely filing. When the Committee hasordered a measure or matter reported, fol-lowing final action the report thereon shallbe filed in the Senate at the earliest prac-ticable time. (Rule XXVI, Sec.10(b), StandingRules of the Senate.)

B. Supplemental, minority, and additionalviews. A member of the Committee whogives notice of his intention to file supple-mental, minority or additional views at thetime of final Committee approval of a meas-ure or matter, shall be entitled to not less

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3298 February 28, 1995than three calendar days in which to filesuch views, in writing, with the chief clerkof the Committee. Such views shall then beincluded in the Committee report and print-ed in the same volume, as a part thereof, andtheir inclusion shall be noted on the cover ofthe report. In the absence of timely notice,the Committee report may be filed andprinted immediately without such views.(Rule XXVI, Sec. 10(c), Standing Rules of theSenate.)

C. Notice by Subcommittee chairmen. Thechairman of each Subcommittee shall notifythe chairman in writing whenever any meas-ure has been ordered reported by such Sub-committee and is ready for consideration bythe full Committee.

d. Draft reports of Subcommittees. Alldraft reports prepared by Subcommittees ofthis Committee on any measure or matterreferred to it by the chairman, shall be inthe form, style, and arrangement required toconform to the applicable provisions of theStanding Rules of the Senate, and shall be inaccordance with the established practicesfollowed by the Committee. Upon completionof such draft reports, copies thereof shall befiled with the chief clerk of the Committeeat the earliest practicable time.

E. Impact statements in reports. All Com-mittee reports, accompanying a bill or jointresolution of a public character reported bythe Committee, shall contain (a) an esti-mate, made by the Committee, of the costswhich would be incurred in carrying out thelegislation for the then current fiscal yearand for each of the next five years thereafter(or for the authorized duration of the pro-posed legislation, if less than five years); and(2) a comparison of such cost estimates withany made by a Federal agency; or (3) in lieuof such estimate or comparison, or both, astatement of the reasons for failure by theCommittee to comply with these require-ments as impracticable, in the event of in-ability to comply therewith. (Rule XXVI,Sec. 11(a), Standing Rules of the Senate.)

Each such report shall also contain anevaluation, made by the Committee, of theregulatory impact which would be incurredin carrying out the bill or joint resolution.The evaluation shall include (a) an estimateof the numbers of individuals and businesseswho would be regulated and a determinationof the groups and classes of such individualsand businesses, (b) a determination of theeconomic impact of such regulation on theindividuals, consumers, and businesses af-fected, (c) a determination of the impact onthe personal privacy of the individuals af-fected, and (d) a determination of theamount of paperwork that will result fromthe regulations to be promulgated pursuantto the bill or joint resolution, which deter-mination may include, but need not be lim-ited to, estimates of the amount of time andfinancial costs required of affected parties,showing whether the effects of the bill orjoint resolution could be substantial, as wellas reasonable estimates of the recordkeepingrequirements that may be associated withthe bill or joint resolution. Or, in lieu of theforgoing evaluation, the report shall includea statement of the reasons for failure by theCommittee to comply with these require-ments as impracticable, in the event of in-ability to comply therewith. (Rule XXVI,Sec. 11(b), Standing Rules of the Senate.)

RULE 7. SUBCOMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEEPROCEDURES

A. Regularly established Subcommittees.The Committee shall have three regularlyestablished Subcommittees. The Subcommit-tees are as follows:

Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga-tions.

Oversight of Government Management andthe District of Columbia.

Post Office and Civil Service.B. Ad hoc Subcommittees. Following con-

sultation with the ranking minority mem-ber, the chairman shall, from time to time,establish such ad hoc Subcommittees as hedeems necessary to expedite Committeebusiness.

C. Subcommittee membership. Followingconsultation with the majority members,and the ranking minority member of theCommittee, the chairman shall announce se-lections for membership on the Subcommit-tees referred to in paragraphs A and B,above.

D. Subcommittee meetings and hearings.Each Subcommittee of this Committee is au-thorized to establish meeting dates andadopt rules not inconsistent with the rules ofthe Committee except as provided in Rules2(D) and 7(E).

E. Subcommittee subpoenas. Each Sub-committee is authorized to adopt rules con-cerning subpoenas which need not be consist-ent with the rules of the Committee; pro-vided, however, that in the event the Sub-committee authorizes the issuance of a sub-poena pursuant to its own rules, a writtennotice of intent to issue the subpoena shallbe provided to the chairman and ranking mi-nority member of the Committee, or staff of-ficers designated by them, by the Sub-committee chairman or a staff officer des-ignated by him immediately upon such au-thorization, and no subpoena shall be issuedfor at least 48 hours, excluding Saturdaysand Sundays, from delivery to the appro-priate offices, unless the chairman and rank-ing minority member waive the 48 hour wait-ing period or unless the Subcommittee chair-man certifies in writing to the chairman andranking minority member that, in his opin-ion, it is necessary to issue a subpoena im-mediately.

F. Subcommittee budgets. Each Sub-committee of the Committee, which requiresauthorization for the expenditure of fundsfor the conduct of inquiries and investiga-tions, shall file with the chief clerk of theCommittee, not later than January 10 of thefirst year of each new Congress, its requestfor funds for the two (2) 12-month periods be-ginning on March 1 and extending throughand including the last day of February of thetwo following years, which years comprisethat Congress. Each such request shall besubmitted on the budget form prescribed bythe Committee on Rules and Administration,and shall be accompanied by a written jus-tification addressed to the chairman of theCommittee, which shall include (1) a state-ment of the Subcommittee’s area of activi-ties, (2) its accomplishments during the pre-ceding Congress detailed year by year, and(3) a table showing a comparison between (a)the funds authorized for expenditure duringthe preceding Congress detailed year byyear, (b) the funds actually expended duringthat Congress detailed year by year, (c) theamount requested for each year of the Con-gress, and (d) the number of professional andclerical staff members and consultants em-ployed by the Subcommittee during the pre-ceding Congress detailed year by year andthe number of such personnel requested foreach year of the Congress. The chairmanmay request additional reports from theSubcommittees regarding their activitiesand budgets at any time during a Congress.(Rule XXVI, Sec. 9, Standing Rules of theSenate.)

RULE 8. CONFIRMATION STANDARDS ANDPROCEDURES

A. Standards. In considering a nomination,the Committee shall inquire into the nomi-nee’s experience, qualifications, suitability,

and integrity to serve in the position towhich he or she has been nominated. TheCommittee shall recommend confirmation,upon finding that the nominee has the nec-essary integrity and is affirmatively quali-fied by reason of training, education, or ex-perience to carry out the functions of the of-fice to which he or she was nominated.

B. Information Concerning the Nominee.Each nominee shall submit the following in-formation to the Committee:

(1) A detailed biographical resume whichcontains information relating to education,employment and achievements;

(2) Financial information, including a fi-nancial statement which lists assets and li-abilities of the nominee and tax returns forthe 3 years preceding the time of his or hernomination, and copies of other relevantdocuments requested by the Committee,such as a proposed blind trust agreement,necessary for the Committee’s consideration;and,

(3) Copies of other relevant documents theCommittee may request, such as responsesto questions concerning the policies and pro-grams the nominee intends to pursue upontaking office.

At the request of the chairman or theranking minority member, a nominee shallbe required to submit a certified financialstatement compiled by an independent audi-tor.

Information received pursuant to this sub-section shall be made available for public in-spection; provided, however, that tax returnsshall, after review by persons designated insubsection (C) of this rule, be placed underseal to ensure confidentiality.

C. Procedures for Committee inquiry. TheCommittee shall conduct an inquiry into theexperience, qualifications, suitability, andintegrity of nominees, and shall give particu-lar attention to the following matters:

(1) A review of the biographical informa-tion provided by the nominee, including, butnot limited to, any professional activities re-lated to the duties of the office to which heor she is nominated;

(2) A review of the financial informationprovided by the nominee, including tax re-turns for the three years preceding the timeof his or her nomination;

(3) A review of any actions, taken or pro-posed by the nominee, to remedy conflicts ofinterest; and

(4) A review of any personal or legal mat-ter which may bear upon the nominee’squalifications for the office to which he orshe is nominated.

For the purpose of assisting the Committeein the conduct of this inquiry, a majority in-vestigator or investigators shall be des-ignated by the chairman and a minority in-vestigator or investigators shall be des-ignated by the ranking minority member.The chairman, ranking minority member,other members of the Committee and des-ignated investigators shall have access to allinvestigative reports on nominees preparedby any Federal agency, except that only thechairman, the ranking minority member, orother members of the Committee, upon re-quest, shall have access to the report of theFederal Bureau of Investigation. The Com-mittee may request the assistance of theGeneral Accounting Office and any othersuch expert opinion as may be necessary inconducting its review of information pro-vided by nominees.

D. Report on the Nominee. After a reviewof all information pertinent to the nomina-tion, a confidential report on the nomineeshall be made by the designated investiga-tors to the chairman and the ranking minor-ity member and, upon request, to any othermember of the Committee. The report shall

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3299February 28, 1995summarize the steps taken by the Commit-tee during its investigation of the nomineeand identify any unresolved or questionablematters that have been raised during thecourse of the inquiry.

E. Hearings. The Committee shall conducta public hearing during which the nomineeshall be called to testify under oath on allmatters relating to his or her suitability foroffice, including the policies and programswhich he or she will pursue while in that po-sition. No hearing shall be held until at least72 hours after the following events have oc-curred: the nominee has responded to pre-hearing questions submitted by the Commit-tee; and the report required by subsection(D) has been made to the chairman and rank-ing minority member, and is available toother members of the Committee, upon re-quest.

F. Action on confirmation. A mark-up on anomination shall not occur on the same daythat the hearing on the nominee is held. Inorder to assist the Committee in reaching arecommendation on confirmation, the staffmay make an oral presentation to the Com-mittee at the mark-up, factually summariz-ing the nominee’s background and the stepstaken during the pre-hearing inquiry.

G. Application. The procedures containedin subsections (C), (D), (E), and (F) of thisrule shall apply to persons nominated by thePresident to positions requiring their full-time service. At the discretion of the chair-man and ranking minority member, thoseprocedures may apply to persons nominatedby the President to serve on a part-timebasis.

RULE 9. PERSONNEL ACTIONS AFFECTINGCOMMITTEE STAFF

In accordance with Rule XLII of the Stand-ing Rules of the Senate and the Congres-sional Accountability Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–1),all personnel actions affecting the staff ofthe Committee shall be made free from anydiscrimination based on race, color, religion,sex, national origin, age, state of physicalhandicap, or disability.

f

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my voteon the motion to table amendment No.253 should have been ‘‘no.’’ I was mis-taken on the sequence of the amend-ments before us today. I believe that asimple majority, as now provided inthe Constitution, is appropriate for de-cisions to increase revenues. I do notbelieve that we—or future genera-tions—should be constrained in the op-tions available to keep the budget inbalance.

(Ms. SNOWE assumed the Chair.)Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I

yield 3 minutes to the distinguishedSenator from Idaho.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underthe previous order, the Senator fromUtah has 15 minutes.

The Senator from Idaho is recognizedfor 3 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, thankyou. Let me thank the Senator fromUtah for yielding. There are so manypeople that I would like to thank thisevening who have been direct partici-pants in what I believe to have beenone of the most important debates thatthe Senate of the United States has en-gaged in—at least in my tenure and inthe tenure of many of our Senators.

I certainly would like to thank theSenator from Utah for his leadershipon this issue and a good many otherswho have been directly responsible forbringing this most important issue andstatement to the floor. I also thank theSenator from Illinois, PAUL SIMON, forhis stalwart leadership in pursuit ofthe fiscal responsibility that most of usaspire to, which the Constitutionalamendment would allow.

But tonight, let me talk to my col-leagues here in the Chamber, for I be-lieve we suffer the wrong idea. Some-how tonight, those who plan to voteagainst this amendment believe thattheir vote against it is like the passageof the vote for or against a bill that of-tentimes comes to the floor. It is notthat kind of vote.

Article V of our Constitution—thevery organic document that we at-tempt to offer out an amendment to to-night—says this very clearly: ‘‘TheCongress, whenever two-thirds of bothHouses shall deem it necessary, shallpropose an amendment.’’

So tonight we are not voting on anamendment to pass it or to fail it. Weare voting on an amendment to proposeit to the citizens of this country, toallow them to decide what the organiclaw of this land will be about.

And anyone who suggests tonightthat they will stand in opposition tothis amendment stands in oppositionto the right of the people of their Stateto say, ‘‘Yes, we support it,’’ or ‘‘No,we don’t.’’ And that is the fundamentalissue.

So I ask you to search your soul to-night and decide whether you, as aSenator of the U.S. Senate, are goingto stand in the way of the citizens ofyour State, if you know better thanthey, if you really have a better visionthan the average citizen of this coun-try that supports you and elects youand sends you to this Congress to rep-resent their interest.

But in this instance, you are not al-lowed to do that. You are not allowedto say, ‘‘I know better.’’ What you cansay is, ‘‘I propose.’’

Let us allow tonight the right of thecitizens to decide. The Constitution isa basic document. It protects the peo-ple’s right. Tonight we want to protectthe people’s right against an overbur-dening debt structure that has deniedthis country the kind of economic free-dom that all Americans are entitled to.

I ask all of you to join with us to-night in proposing to the citizens ofthis great Nation a constitutionalamendment for their decision.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, Iyield 5 minutes to my distinguishedcolleague and prime cosponsor of thisamendment, the Senator from Illinois.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Illinois.

Mr. SIMON. Madam President, andmy colleagues, first, let me pay tributeto Senator BYRD, who is a very worthy

foe and certainly one of the most dis-tinguished Members of this body.

I also appreciate the leadership ofSenator HATCH on this, Senator CRAIG,and my colleagues on this side, SenatorHEFLIN, Senator ROBB, SenatorMOSELEY-BRAUN, Senator EXON, Sen-ator CAMPBELL, and I should be men-tioning others.

If we had a proposal in here that said,two decades after we balance a budget,we are going to have an average in-crease in income of every American of36 percent, we would vote for it over-whelmingly. And yet that is preciselywhat the General Accounting Officesays will happen if we balance thebudget in this country.

Data Resources, Inc., one of the twotop econometric forecasters in thiscountry, says if we balance the budget,the prime rate will go down 2.5 percentand we will have an increase in na-tional income of 2 percent. CBO says atleast 1 percent growth in income. TheWharton School in Philadelphia saysthe prime rate will go down 4 percent.We have an opportunity to do thesethings that can help our economy im-mensely. And I hope we do not muffthat opportunity.

I heard a reference from SenatorBYRD to history. It is important to re-member that Thomas Jefferson, in 1787,said, ‘‘If I could add one amendment tothe Constitution, it would be to pro-hibit the Federal Government fromborrowing.’’

And remember the rallying cry of theAmerican Revolution—taxation with-out representation.

What are we doing to our grand-children and generations to come? Ifthat is not taxation without represen-tation, nothing is.

And talk about history, I have notheard one opponent talk about eco-nomic history here. I have not read oneeditorial talking about economic his-tory. The reality is the history of na-tions is that when they pile up debtand they get around 9, 10 or 11 percentof deficit versus national income, theystart monetizing the debt. They startthe printing presses rolling.

CBO says we are headed for 18 per-cent. We can take a chance that wewill be the first nation in history to goup 18 percent without monetizing thedebt, but we are taking a huge, hugegamble.

The Declaration of Independence. Weare making, every year as we add tothe deficit, a declaration of depend-ence. We now owe roughly $800 billionin our bonds to other countries. If theSIMON family gets too deeply into debt,we start losing our independence; andif a nation does, it starts losing itsindependence.

Senator DODD and I are old enough toremember 1956, when three nationfriends of ours—Israel, France, andGreat Britain—went in and seized theSuez Canal, which President Nasserhad taken. They did it because theywere our friends; thought they couldget by with it, and it was just before an

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3300 February 28, 1995election. President Eisenhower said,‘‘This is wrong.’’

But something else happened we didnot know about, or most of us did notknow about until sometime later. TheUnited States threatened to dump theBritish pound sterling. And withoutfiring a shot, the troops of Great Brit-ain, France, and Israel withdrew.

We are in that situation.Talk about American foreign aid. We

now spend twice as much in foreign aidto the wealthy through interest andbonds than we do in foreign economicassistance to poor people. This year,the current estimate is $339 billion oninterest, 11 times as much on interestas education, twice as much on interestas all our poverty programs combined,22 times as much on interest as foreigneconomic assistance. It gets worse eachyear, and it will continue to get worseunless we pass this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator has used his 5 minutes.

Mr. SIMON. I ask unanimous consentfor 30 more seconds.

Mr. HATCH. I yield 30 seconds to theSenator.

Mr. SIMON. I would simply pointout, is there going to be pain if we passthis? Yes. But it is very interesting,there were polls by the Wirthlin Groupwhich showed 76 percent of the popu-lation favors this, and 53 percent saidthey favor it, but they also believe it isgoing to cause them pain.

The American people are yearningfor leadership. Tonight, my friends inthe Senate, let us give it to them.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, Iyield 21⁄2 minutes to the distinguishedBudget Committee chairman, SenatorDOMENICI.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair recognizes the Senator from NewMexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distin-guished chairman, Senator HATCH, foryielding me 21⁄2 minutes.

Madam President, fellow Senators,this is a historic night. We have neverbeen so close to putting our Nation’sfiscal house in order as we will be in 40minutes. It is on our shoulders, but Ican tell you that our children andgrandchildren, whether they arepresent, whether they are listening,whether they are capable of listeningor they are too small, they will eitherthank us tonight for doing somethingfor them or they will wonder where wewere when they needed us most.

The truth of the matter is there aremany risks, but the status quo will notwork. For those who come to the floorand raise the risks of a balanced budg-et, the risks of this amendment, theyshould be asked what are the risks ofdoing nothing. I am convinced that thestatus quo, with reference to fiscal pol-icy for our Nation, means that the leg-acy for our children is very close tozero.

I want to close by quoting LaurenceTribe, a very liberal constitutional

scholar. He was testifying on the bal-anced budget. I asked him whether ornot it made sense to do something likethis. And listen carefully to what hesaid:

Given the centrality in our revolutionaryorigins of the precept that there should be notaxation without representation, it seems es-pecially fitting in principle that we seeksomehow to tie our hands so we cannot spendour children’s legacy.

That is the issue. Do we spend ourchildren’s legacy or do we leave a leg-acy to them? Plain and simple. That isthe issue.

I thank the Senator for yielding, andI yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, Iyield 1 minute to the distinguishedSenator from Nebraska, the rankingmember of the Budget Committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair recognizes the Senator from Ne-braska.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend andcolleague, the manager of the bill.

Let me be brief. I just want to saythat I have listened to what SenatorSIMON just said about the debt thatcontinues to consume America. Even ifwe pass this in the next half-hour—which I hope and urge we do—we arestill at least 8 years away from begin-ning to cut down the national debt.That shows how far we are behind thecurve.

I just wish to say, Madam President,that it has been a real experience inworking with the many people on bothsides of the aisle. I hope we have the 67votes in the next few minutes when wecast this historic vote. I think thisamendment must be approved.

I yield back the remaining time.The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is

no remaining time.Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Utah.Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as a

Member of the Senate, I have had thegreat honor of voting on many historicbills, but few in the history of the Sen-ate are as significant as this one. It isso rare that we have a vote that so dra-matically and directly affects the fu-ture of our children and our grand-children. This vote is clearly a vote forfuture generations.

This vote is especially significant be-cause of who it will help and who itwill hurt. It will help our children andour grandchildren. By removing the on-erous burden of debt that we have beenaccumulating on their shoulders, weare helping to level the generationalplaying field. It will restore the Amer-ican dream for another generation ofAmericans.

Who does this vote hurt if we prevail?For starters, the politics-as-usualcrowd, the special interest groups, andthose with vested interests in the sta-tus quo, all those groups who keepfeeding at the trough and who think

the gravy train will never run out ofgas.

The balanced budget amendmentmeans no more pork for the special in-terests. And while I am at it, I want togive the special interests and thosewith vested interests in the status quoone piece of advice: Pack your bags andhit the road. The show is over.

Do Members know who else is hurtby the balanced budget amendment?You may find this hard to believe—ev-eryone in this Chamber. Gone are thedays when politicians can take theeasy way out. Gone are the days whenpoliticians can say ‘‘Pass it; we willworry about how to pay for it later.’’We can no longer pass anything thatwe cannot come up with the money for.It is called accountability, and it startsright here, right now.

That is why I am so proud to havebeen a part of this debate. And when Isee my grandchildren I can look themin the eye and tell them that todaymarks a new beginning in their lives. Ican smile, knowing that when it comestime for them to go to college, to trainfor a career, to buy a house, to raise afamily, they will be able to do so. TheAmerican dream will live on for an-other generation.

To the President of the UnitedStates, I have a caution for him: Mr.President, you have joined forces withthe special interests. Let me ask youone simple question. How can you lookyour daughter, Chelsea, in the eyeafter what you are trying to do here?How can you justify the trillions ofdollars of red ink that you and otherswho are voting against this have sub-jected the children of America to?

Madam President, over the next sev-eral months, we will be working lateinto the evening, examining every sin-gle line of the Federal budget, search-ing for waste, fraud and abuse, cuttingprograms that have outlived their use-fulness, and finding the money forthose that still work. It will all beworth it. For our grandchildren, it isworth it.

Madam President, I want to thankeverybody who has participated. I wantto pay tribute to the distinguishedSenator from West Virginia for the dig-nified manner in which he has con-ducted his opposition to this amend-ment. I want to pay great tribute tomy friend from Illinois, Senator SIMON,and to my friend from Idaho, SenatorCRAIG, and all the others who haveworked so hard on this floor, especiallythose 11 brandnew Senators. They havemade a real difference here. They haveshown Members that this is the newway.

Adopting this amendment is what wehave to do. We have to do so to have afuture for our children and grand-children. We can no longer afford tospend this country into bankruptcy. Iwant to thank all of the loyal and dedi-cated staff people and those who haveworked so hard during this debate andin preparation for it.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3301February 28, 1995And above all, I thank all those who

will vote for this amendment thisevening. I urge my colleagues to votefor it. It is one of the most importantvotes we will ever cast. Our nationallife depends upon it. The salvation ofthis country depends on it. And the fu-ture of our children depends on it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair now recognizes the Democraticleader, who has the next 15 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President,this has been a good debate. It has beena long and historic debate. But it hasnot been a debate about a balancedbudget.

No one supports the current debt ordeficit. Every Senator believes, as I be-lieve, that deficit spending must end.We heard the figures. We have debatedhow we got to this point. We havenoted all of our efforts so far. I havenot heard anyone argue for doing noth-ing. The debate has been about how weachieve what we all say we want, andover what time period, and whether ornot to accomplish what we say we allwant, we amend the Constitution forthe 28th time.

During this debate, we have heardmany who have argued eloquently thatthere is no purpose in amending theConstitution for this reason. Our col-league, the senior Senator from NewYork, emphasizes over and over againthat while 1 machine can do the workof 100 men and women, no machine canreplace the need to take fundamentalresponsibility.

No provision in the Constitution cancreate a formula for automatic deficitreduction. Nothing we do here will em-bolden Senators to make decisionswhich we are otherwise unable to makefor ourselves.

This debate has also underscored therole the Federal Government playswithin our economy. No one can denythat fiscal policy has moderated theextraordinary consequences of a deeprecession.

This countercyclical strategy em-ployed since World War II has had pro-foundly positive consequences for theeconomy during our lifetimes. We haveseen them. We have seen the charts. Wehave seen all of the arguments made onthe other side, and nothing will dis-suade me that the fiscal policy initi-ated since World War II has had the de-sired result.

Many who will vote no today will doso out of legitimate fear that our abil-ity to counter economic downturns willbe severely jeopardized—severely jeop-ardized—with the passage of thisamendment.

There are also many who believe thatfiscal policy should never be writteninto the Constitution because it doesnot belong there. They have arguedthat, like the thousands of otheramendments proposed in 200 years,this, too, should be defeated.

Many Members have listened to thelogic of many of these arguments andappreciate each and every one. ManyMembers have also decided that the

time has come for a balanced budgetamendment—that the question of aconstitutional amendment is beforeMembers for a good reason.

But we also question the wisdom ofthe amendment that is now presentedto the Senate, and we are deeply trou-bled by the attitude of many of our Re-publican colleagues that we take thisamendment or there will be no amend-ment at all. We are troubled, really, forthree reasons: First, it is our beliefthat this ought to be our very best ef-fort. We cannot come back later as wecan with statutes. We cannot comeback later and say, if we could onlychange that phrase or that paragraphor even that word. That is not some-thing we can do with the Constitution.We will have to admit that we mademistakes in drafting, and, if we have,we will have to live with them for alltime. This is going to be with us along, long time. Even the prohibitionamendment was with us for 13 years,long after we came to the conclusionthat it, too, was a mistake.

Second, this debate has been politi-cized, unfortunately. The RNC has usedthis debate as a membership drive. Infact, in my State of South Dakota,they are interrupting ads with pro-grams, there are so many these days.The practical ramifications of thisamendment, as well, as currently draft-ed, are profound, and we ought to real-ize that. We ought to understand theramifications of this particular lan-guage, regardless of how we view theconstitutional amendment itself. LetMembers look at this language. LetMembers examine this draft, and leteach and every one ask, are we pre-pared, tonight, to put it into the Unit-ed States Constitution?

This amendment could pass by 70votes, yet it will fail perhaps by twotonight. Why? Not because two-thirdsof a majority opposes the concept of abalanced budget amendment—I amsure that two-thirds and more supportit—but because some of us have a graveconcern about the specific draft ourRepublican colleagues tonight insistupon, a draft which is filled with prom-ise but devoid of details.

That was the reason I offered, manyweeks ago, the Right to Know amend-ment requiring that we spell out thedetails, insisting that we know how weget from here to there, recognizing theimportance of a blueprint, of a glide-path, knowing that, as you cannotbuild a house without a blueprint, youcannot balance the budget without one,either.

Today the chairman of the FinanceCommittee indicated that Medicareand Medicaid may be cut by $400 billionover the course of the next severalyears. This is a detail that happens tobe very important, that we recognizemay be part of the mix. If we are notwilling to spell it out, if we are notwilling to put on paper the details,then, indeed, I think we are asking fora pig in the poke, and we are asking forit in the U.S. Constitution.

The Republicans promise, eventhough they are unwilling to spell itout, to leave Social Security un-touched. But while they argue we needto put a balanced budget requirementinto the Constitution for purposes ofcertainty, they are unwilling to do sofor Social Security. Without the prom-ise in writing, we cannot require futureCongresses to comply with our expecta-tions.

I will predict tonight, if this amend-ment passes, that the Social Securitytrust fund will be used, and that iswrong. The American people oppose it.We have made a commitment to themnow for over 60 years. We compoundthe deficit reduction problem, and wemask the size of the deficit, but we in-vite the cynicism of the American peo-ple all over again. If we are prepared toreduce the deficit using Social Secu-rity trust funds, what confidenceshould they have in us with any futuredecision, after we have made the com-mitment that has stood for this long?

In my view, the amendment is alsoespecially lacking when it comes to en-forcement and the role of the courts.Something this important should notbe unresolved. In spite of the best ef-forts of the senior Senator from Geor-gia, as written, it is very likely we willsee a constitutional crisis as Congressand the courts face off on the veryquestion of jurisdiction in the yearsahead.

It is also unfortunate that the Fed-eral Government cannot be allowed tofunction budgetarily like virtually ev-eryone else does. We should not treatinvestment and operating costs alike,and yet that is exactly what we will re-quire as a result of the actions taken inthis body now for the last severalweeks.

No one does that at any level of Gov-ernment, no one does that in business,no one does that in their family budg-eting. We should not do it either. Andyet tonight, by the action taken onthis amendment, we will be, if indeedthe amendment passes, requiring theFederal Government to do somethingno one else does.

Madam President, the bottom line,regardless of whether we are talkingabout Social Security, a capital budg-et, the right to know, enforcement, orany one of a number of the issues thatwe have raised for the last severalweeks, the bottom line is this: We cando better. This is not the best we cando. This is a shoot-now-ask-later ap-proach, and we will regret it. Thatcould destroy the very fabric uponwhich this Nation was built. And Ihope—I just hope—that we all come tothe realization of what the stakes areas we cast our vote tonight. It is, asothers have said, one of the most criti-cal votes we will cast, a vote whichcould change not only the budget butthe economy and the perception of thevery Constitution itself. Let us takecare to do it right. Let us defeat thisamendment and go back to the drawing

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3302 February 28, 1995board before it is too late. Future gen-erations are counting upon us tonightto do just that.

I retain the remainder of my timeand yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair recognizes the distinguished Sen-ate majority leader.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, do Iunderstand the Democratic leader re-tains the remainder of his time? Arethere additional requests?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, Iwas anticipating others who may askfor time, but if there is no other re-quest for time, I yield it back.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is theSenator yielding back?

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield back the re-mainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ate majority leader is recognized for 15minutes.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, theSenator from South Dakota asked ear-lier for 1 minute, which I am preparedto allow.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, forthose who follow this debate, we havehad 19 days of consideration. We havehad 115 hours 54 minutes of debate.That does not include votes or quorumcalls or morning business, where a lotof the morning business was directed atthe balanced budget amendment. So wehave had a lot of debate. I just say thatfor the RECORD for some who thinkmaybe we have not been on this longenough.

My view is we are down to about onevote—one vote. Maybe it is 68; maybeit is 66. I think we do stand at thecrossroads in American history. I thinkthis vote is one of the most importantmany of us will have cast in decadesbecause now we have an opportunity todo it, and we have not had that oppor-tunity before. In fact, this may be thesingle most important vote we cast inour careers.

I will say at the outset, and I thinkthe figures I quoted indicate, we do nottake amending the Constitution light-ly. This certainly has been consideredat length. Everybody has had an oppor-tunity to say just about everythingthey wanted to say. I think we alsomust understand that there was nevera more serious time when Washingtonneeded the discipline, when Congressneeded the discipline, that the Con-stitution and only the Constitution canimpose.

We heard a lot of talk about lawsthat were passed, and we passed since1969—the last time we passed a bal-anced Federal budget—we passed sevendifferent laws containing balancedbudget requirements. And despite allthe speeches and the good intentionsand everything else that went with itover the past quarter of a century, theFederal debt has grown each year andevery year.

Why is it so important to balance thebudget? There are probably a lot of rea-sons that have been stated on this floor

from people who oppose and people whosupport the balanced budget amend-ment. Oh, it is important to balancethe budget and maybe it is even impor-tant to vote for the balanced budgetamendment if you are in a tough racefor reelection. But in 1969, the Amer-ican taxpayers paid $12.7 billion for in-terest on the national debt. This yearinterest on the national debt will de-vour a staggering $234 billion, morethan all the Government spent on agri-culture, crime, crime fighting, veter-ans, space and technology, infrastruc-ture, natural resources, the environ-ment, education and training—all ofthat and more was spent for interest onthe debt.

We have gone through this debatewhere some are trying to scare Ameri-ca’s senior citizens, but by doing whatwe hope we can do in about 20 minutes,by passing a constitutional amendmentwith 67 votes, we take the oppositeview, that we are protecting the veryprograms that they try to scare seniorswith—Medicare and Social Security.

What they fail to mention is the na-tional debt threatens every program.Every program is threatened—Medi-care, Medicaid, Social Security, agri-culture, nutrition programs, you nameit. If the debt continues to escalate, asit will, each year interest payments aregoing to be larger and larger andconsume more and more of its share ofthe Federal dollar.

According to President Clinton’sbudget, interest on the debt is going toconsume 16 percent of every Federaldollar. And anyone who is still not con-vinced need look no further than Presi-dent Clinton’s recent budget, which es-sentially gave up on ever balancing thebudget and ever balancing the Nation’sbooks.

In 1992, Candidate Clinton seized onthe $292 billion deficit, the highest inhistory, and he campaigned against thedeficit. He was successful. He agreed tocut it in half. Now, 2 years into his ad-ministration, his own budget abandonsthe pledge, predicting a deficit of $196.7billion next year and roughly $200 bil-lion a year through the year 2000. Ineach of the next 5 years, the amountthe Federal Government collects intaxes is projected to rise, but spendingwill go up much more.

The picture only gets worse in thenext century when the deficit is pro-jected to rise to $421 billion—$421 bil-lion—by the year 2005. So we are goingto double it, we are going to double itif we fail to take action in the next fewmoments.

If there was any message last Novem-ber—and different people heard dif-ferent messages; some did not hear anymessage at all and some are here, andsome will be voting. There was a revo-lution last November. The Americanpeople said, ‘‘Stop. Stop. Wait aminute. We want less Government, wewant to rein in Government, we wantto dust off the 10th amendment, wewant to return power to the States andpower to the people, and one way to do

that is to rein in Federal spending andnot increase Federal taxes.’’

So the American people—Democrats,Republicans, Independents, voters gen-erally—sent us a message. I am notcertain what the precise message was,but I think the general message was, asI stated, ‘‘Rein in the Federal Govern-ment.’’

I believe adoption of this amendmentis a big step in that effort. If we areever going to rein in the Federal Gov-ernment, rein in spending, we needhelp. We do not have the will in thisbody to do it. Oh, I have heard all thespeeches, and then I checked the votingrecords and they do not match.

Oh, I hear speeches. I hear speechesat night when I cannot sleep.

People on the Senate floor say all wehave to do is make these tough deci-sions. But then when the tough deci-sion comes, oh, that is too tough, or itis not tough enough, or any other ex-cuse to duck. We cannot wait for statu-tory changes. We cannot count onthem. They have not worked, as I said,since 1969. I think the American peoplewant us to stand up to the special in-terests and they want us to do theright thing.

Many say, oh, well this is the easyway out. You all vote for the balancedbudget amendment. Then you go outand say, well, I voted for the balancedbudget amendment. Then you continueto vote for all the spending programs.

I do not think so. My view is, if weadopt this amendment and three-fourths of the States ratify it, it isgoing to fundamentally change the waywe do business in the Congress and allover Washington.

So this is an amendment whose timehas come. Thomas Jefferson said in1789:

The question whether one generation hasthe right to bind another by the deficit itimposes is a question of such consequence asto place it among the fundamental principlesof government. We should consider ourselvesunauthorized to saddle posterity with ourdebts, and morally bound to pay them our-selves.

Now, if you think about that for amoment, this was just 1 year after thenew Constitution went into effect.Thomas Jefferson himself was ponder-ing whether a constitutional amend-ment requiring a balanced budget wasneeded.

So, Madam President, the time for abalanced budget amendment to theConstitution has come. Since our firstConstitution went into effect in 1788, atotal of 27 amendments have beenadopted. The first 10, commonly re-ferred to as the Bill of Rights, madethe United States a model for theworld by limiting the powers of Gov-ernment and securing rights for indi-viduals and States. The Bill of Rightswas proposed to the legislatures of theseveral States by the first Congress onSeptember 25, 1789, and ratified by De-cember 15, 1791.

I think there is a common threadthat runs through all the amendments

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S 3303February 28, 1995that have been adopted, whether it isthe first 10, the Bill of Rights—there isa common thread. Most have eitherlimited the power of Government orprovided constitutional protection togroups of Americans. And I believe thebalanced budget amendment would doboth. By limiting the Federal Govern-ment’s ability to borrow, it will helpprovide constitutional protection to fu-ture generations of Americans andthose who are not adequately rep-resented in our current system.

Nobody has contacted me on behalfof the 5-year-olds or the 10-year-olds orthe 15-year-olds about their future. No-body is lobbying for them. They arewaiting for us.

I do not believe we can continue tomortgage America’s future. If we con-tinue current tax-and-spend policies,we are going to saddle that future gen-eration with lifetime tax rates, effec-tive rates of more than 80 percent. Soif we want to take away representationof our children and our grandchildren,if we want to take away the discipline,if we want to have it one way in anelection year and another way in thenext year, then we can vote against thebalanced budget amendment.

As I look around the Chamber, I seeDemocrats and Republicans saying,wait a minute; it is time we act. Thisis a bipartisan effort. We need Demo-crats and Republicans to make thishappen. It is not going to happen un-less it is bipartisan.

We also took an oath of office to sup-port and defend the Constitution of theUnited States against all enemies, for-eign and domestic. Well, I consider therising debt and the interest rates to besort of a domestic enemy, and I thinkthat simple oath illustrates why thebalanced budget amendment is so im-portant. We have not been successful inthe past. We have not balanced thebudget in the past because the Federalbudget never became a national prior-ity, and if you want to make it a na-tional priority, we adopt a balancedbudget amendment and say we aregoing to have a balanced budget by theyear 2002. That makes it clear to every-one in this body that balancing thebudget is not only a national prioritybut also a constitutional duty and thatevery Senator will be sworn to upholdand defend this amendment to the Con-stitution. That is the way it works.That is the way it should work.

So we have had a healthy debate, asI have said, of 115 hours, or 116 hours,plus a lot of other morning businesshours. I certainly wish to commend mycolleague, Senator HATCH, who hasbeen on this floor day after day afterday, and my colleague, Senator CRAIG,who every morning in my office hashad a meeting with the group to workon the balanced budget amendment,trying to find out what we need to ad-dress, how we can pick up one morevote. And if anybody ever questionedanybody’s motives, you cannot ques-tion the motives of the Senator fromIllinois, Senator SIMON. He has been forthe balanced budget as long as I have

known him. He can go any way hewants. He is not running again. This isnot politics to PAUL SIMON. This is acommitment he has made to the peopleof Illinois and a commitment he hasmade to his colleagues on both sides ofthe aisle. So I appreciate the effortsmade by my friend from Illinois.

Certainly the Senator from West Vir-ginia deserves our thanks, hopefullynot to overdo that. He has made agreat contribution to the debate. Infact, I have been saying around thecountry that Senator BYRD is the ex-pert, and I say it with admiration; he isa master of the game. He also under-stands Roman history, at least he un-derstands it better than the rest of usbecause we never question what hesays about Roman history. I am tryingto get C-SPAN to give college credit tothose who watch it. And it would be de-served because the Senator from WestVirginia does understand it, and cer-tainly he has contributed to this de-bate.

Then let me just have the last word.I think everybody has said out herefrom time to time that the Constitu-tion is a living document, and that iswhy it includes article V, which out-lines the process for proposing andratifying constitutional amendments.The Founding Fathers did not makeamending the Constitution easy, andthe action we take today, if we suc-ceed, is not the last word. And if wefail, it is not the last word, because thefinal word of whether or not there isgoing to be a balanced budget goes out-side Washington, goes away from thisbody and out to our respective States.

I will say to those who still maybehave not quite decided which way togo—there may be two or three of those,maybe four—maybe you are not quitecertain, but certainly you have someconfidence in your State legislature,wherever it may be. Why not give thema chance? It takes three-fourths of theStates to ratify. Why not say that wehave some confidence in the peoplewho live in our respective States anddeal on a daily basis with problemsthat affect our constituents, too, be-cause the Founding Fathers said in thefinal analysis it is going to be deter-mined by the people, by those who areclosest to the people, and those are themen and women who serve in state-houses around the country.

I think we ought to remember thatas we vote. The Founding Fathers didnot put the final authority in thehands of Congress; they put it in thepeople, members, men and women,State legislators who are closest to thepeople.

So I remind my colleagues as we pre-pare to vote here of just a few facts. Ithink many Senators referred to theseearlier. Depending upon which poll youuse—and polls change from time totime—about 80 percent of the Americanpeople favor the balanced budgetamendment. Now, maybe 80 percent arewrong and the 20 percent are right. Ithas happened in the past. But thesepolls have been consistent—71, 75, 78,

81, somewhere between 75 and 80 per-cent. Three hundred Members of theother body voted for a balanced budgetamendment, 72 Democrats and 228 Re-publicans. They joined together to giveus this historic opportunity. And Iwould state what every Member al-ready knows, that adoption of thisamendment, if it is adopted, is only thefirst step in securing our Nation’s fi-nancial future. Whatever happens, weare going to have to make difficultchoices.

Republicans will begin work on a de-tailed 5-year plan to put the budget ona path of balance by the year 2002, andour plan will not raise taxes. Our planwill not touch Social Security. Every-thing else, from agriculture to zebramussel research, will be on the table.

So, Madam President, as GeorgeWashington reminded us in his farewelladdress:

The basis of our political system is theright of the people to make and alter theirinstitutions of government.

The time has come for us to exercisethat right. So I would just say, let usget prepared for this fundamentalchange. It is going to come. If not to-night, it will come maybe next monthor the next month or the next year. Itis not going to be business as usual inWashington.

So I just urge my colleagues to votefor this amendment—it will take 67 ofus—and send it back to the States forratification. Let those closest to thepeople then decide if we spelled outhow we will reach the balanced budgetamendment. Let us not take that judg-ment away from them.

Madam President, I suggest the ab-sence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Theclerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call theroll.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I askunanimous consent that the order forthe quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I movethat the Senate stand in recess until 10a.m.——

Mr. BYRD. Before the distinguishedleader makes his motion, would he ex-plain to the Senate why we are goingout and why we are not having thevote, as we all anticipated we would behaving a vote?

Mr. DOLE. Let me explain to myfriend from West Virginia that we stillthink there is some chance of gettingthis resolved by tomorrow morning, be-cause we could have 67 votes or maybemore.

We have been on this now for 115hours. I do not know how many days.Everybody has had a right to debate.We are up to the critical time of thevote. This Senator wants to makeevery effort he can to see if we canreach the 67 votes. If we fail, we willfail, and it will be 10 o’clock or perhapsnoon tomorrow morning.

Madam President, I renew the mo-tion.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES 3304 February 28, 1995Mr. BYRD. Madam President, would

the Senator allow me 5 minutes beforehe makes that motion?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Debate isnot in order at this point.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I askunanimous consent to speak for 5 min-utes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, Ithank the distinguished majority lead-er for allowing me to have this privi-lege to address this question before hemakes the motion to adjourn.

Madam President, I think this is asad spectacle. We have had 30 days ofdebate. Both sides have poured outtheir hearts, have worked hard, and wecame to the moment that we thoughtwe were going to have a rollcall vote.We entered into an agreement to thateffect. Now, if we had known that wewere going to reach this kind of a trav-esty, this Senator would never haveagreed to that unanimous-consent re-quest.

Madam President, the Framers in-tended that, before the people at theState level should have an opportunityto ratify a constitutional amendment,it must be approved by both Houses ofthe Congress by a two-thirds vote, andit was here that the amendment wassupposed to be probed and examinedand carefully studied before it was senton its way to the States.

Now, here is what we see: We see thesad spectacle of Senators on the otherside trying to go over until tomorrowin order to get another vote for thisamendment. It should be obvious to ev-eryone that the main object here is toget that vote, as the distinguished ma-jority leader says.

It boils down to an insatiable, insa-tiable desire to get a vote for victory.We are tampering with the Constitu-tion of the United States! This is noplace for deal-making, back-room hud-dles. No wonder the people have such alow estimation of the Congress. Goingto make deals in the back room. I donot imply by what I am saying—I donot want to cast any aspersions on anySenator in particular.

But this is a process that we haveworked our way through. We were toldthere would be a vote. We have waitedon a vote. Up here the press is gath-ered. They want to see the outcome ofthis debate.

(Disturbance in the visitors’ gal-leries.)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. TheChair will remind the occupants of thegalleries there will be no expressions ofapproval or disapproval.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, thishas every appearance of a sleazy, taw-dry effort to win a victory at the costof amending the Constitution of theUnited States.

We have had our chances, why do wenot vote? I hope we will vote, MadamPresident. Let us not wait until tomor-row. Now is the time for the decision.That is what we were told.

I deplore this tawdry effort here togo over until tomorrow so that addi-tional pressures can be made on somepoor Member in the effort to get thisvote. Laugh if you must. Laugh! This isno laughing matter. We are talkingabout the Constitution of the UnitedStates. We were ready for a vote. Obvi-ously, the proponents on the other sidefelt they were going to lose. We cannotwin them all. We cannot lose them all.I think it is a sad day for the U.S. Sen-ate if this is the way that we are goingto go about amending the Constitutionof the United States.

I thank the distinguished majorityleader. I hope we will vote tonight.

Mr. DOLE. I ask for 5 minutes to re-spond and then I will make the motion.This is probably, as I said in my state-ment, the most important vote we willcast around here, maybe in our careers.

We do not take amending the Con-stitution lightly. But to suggest thatsomehow this is unprecedented, taw-dry, whatever, in my view, is out ofbounds. We have every right to use therules to determine if we have the votesor if we can pick up votes, and I intendto do that. We have been on thisamendment 115 hours, plus 20-somehours of quorum calls and votes. No-body complained about that.

What about the 80 percent of theAmerican people? Do you think theycare whether we vote at 7 o’clock or7:30 or 10 o’clock in the morning, the 80percent who want this passed? DoMembers think they feel the way theSenator from West Virginia feels? Ab-solutely not.

Now, we have some obligation to our-selves. Obviously, nobody is trying toput the arm on anybody around here.We have not made house calls. We havenot knocked on the doors. We havegone in their offices. But we have good-faith negotiations going, and maybethey have helped. That is fine. If theyhave ended, there are still other op-tions.

So I just suggest, Madam President,this is an important vote. If I thoughtthere was one more vote tomorrowmorning or two more votes or threemore votes next week, I would makeevery effort I could to secure thosevotes, just as the distinguished Senatorfrom West Virginia has done time aftertime after time in this body.

I think the sad spectacle is that wemay lose this vote, whether it is to-night—it is not going to be tonight—whether it is tomorrow or later, wherepeople who voted for the amendmentbefore their election, vote against itafter their election. What are theAmerican people to think? What arethe American people to think aboutany Member in this body? They sent usa loud and clear message last Novem-ber, and as I said, nobody knows whatthe precise message was, but generally,it was to rein in the Federal Govern-ment, to give power back to the peopleand back to the States. That is whatthis amendment does.

So, in my view, by postponing thisvote, we will attempt to reflect the willof 76 to 80 percent of the American peo-

ple and not the will of 20 percent. Wemay fail this time. I quoted earlierstatements of Jefferson and Washing-ton who had a little knowledge aboutwhat the Founding Fathers had inmind and who suggested themselvesthat there might come a time we wouldhave to amend the Constitution. Weshould not pile up a debt on the nextgeneration as we continue to do.

I want to commend, again, those whois worked on both sides of the aisle.This has been bipartisan, and it shouldbe, and it still can be. I know the Presi-dent is very strongly opposed to thebalanced budget amendment. I know hehas called Members. I know what hap-pens when your President calls. Wehave gone through it on this side. Itputs a lot of pressure on a Senator or aMember of Congress.

We have tried to improve the condi-tions by accepting or agreeing to anamendment offered by the distin-guished Senator from Georgia, SenatorNUNN. I just hope that all Senators willthink about this overnight. Somebodycould decide to vote the other way. Wetake a gamble. We might lose a vote.But in my view the gamble is worthtaking. The risk is worth taking. Iknow the Senator from West Vir-ginia——

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distin-guished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DOLE. No, I will not yield for aquestion.

I know the Senator from West Vir-ginia feels strongly about this amend-ment, and he has a right to feel strong-ly about it. It does not mean he isright. He might be wrong. We may beright. If we cannot determine that to-night or tomorrow night we will deter-mine it the next time the voters havea chance to speak.f

RECESS UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROWMr. DOLE. Madam President, I move

that the Senate stand in recess until 10a.m., Wednesday, March 1.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thequestion is on agreeing to the motionto recess.

So the motion was agreed to, and at7:41 p.m., the Senate recessed untilWednesday, March 1, 1995, at 10 a.m.f

NOMINATIONSExecutive nominations received by

the Senate February 28, 1995:THE JUDICIARY

Peter C. Economus, of Ohio, to be U.S. Dis-trict Judge for the Northern District of Ohio,vice Frank J. Battisti, resigned.

Joseph Robert Goodwin, of West Virginia,to be U.S. District Judge for the SouthernDistrict of West Virginia, vice Robert J.Staker, retired.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Henry W. Foster, Jr., of Tennessee, to beMedical Director in the Regular Corps of thePublic Health Service, subject to qualifica-tions therefor as provided by law and regula-tions, and to be Surgeon General of the Pub-lic Health Service, for a term of 4 years, viceM. Joycelyn Elders, resigned.