Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It is my understanding that this proposal will be offered as an amendment on legislation the Senate will be considering shortly. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation to put the Federal Government on a path toward a balanced budget. The proposal we are introducing today contains elements of an amendment Senator Exon, the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, offered when the Senate considered the congressional accountability bill, and an amendment I offered during Senate consideration of the constitutional balanced budget amendment. In my opinion this proposal is one of the most sensible ideas ever presented to this body. It is sensible because it is more likely to actually achieve a balanced Federal budget than the amendment to the Constitution considered by the Senate last week and secondly because this proposal is statutory in nature, and thus would not trivialize the Constitution with an unenforceable amendment. The proposal we are introducing today would set the Federal budget on a glide path toward being balanced beginning this year. What this means is that, rather than waiting 7 years before acting, as the constitutional balanced budget amendment provided for, the Congress would have to begin reducing the deficit this year. Under this glide path the Federal budget deficit would be lower every year between now and 2002, when the budget presumably would be balanced. If the Budget Committee were to report a budget resolution that did not set us on a glide path toward a balanced budget or that failed to achieve a balanced budget by the targeted date, any Member of this body could raise a point of order. It would take 60 votes to overcome this point of order. In comparison, the constitutional balanced budget amendment failed to provide an enforcement mechanism. If Congress failed to achieve a balanced budget, nothing would happen unless Congress passed legislation permitting the courts to enforce the amendment--a result most proponents of the amendment said would not occur. When I offered my amendment as an alternative to the constitutional amendment, Senator Hatch, the distinguished manager of House Joint Resolution 1, pointed out that statutory budget restrictions don't work because they can be overcome by a simple majority vote. However, Senator Hatch failed to note that my amendment required 60 votes in order to modify or repeal the balanced budget requirement. The very same 60 votes that would have nullified the balanced budget requirement of the constitutional amendment. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which we are introducing today, contains the very same 60 vote requirement before changes could be made. The proposal we are introducing today is also far superior to the constitutional amendment because it addresses some of the very legitimate concerns expressed by Senators during the debate on House Joint Resolution 1. For instance, unlike the constitutional amendment, the Social Security trust fund would not be able to be used to mask the deficit. When we say the budget is balanced, it will really be balanced. In addition, our proposal would prevent a minority of Senators from sending this country into an economic tailspin. Congress could suspend the balanced budget requirement by passing a joint resolution in a fiscal year which CBO identified a period of low-growth--at least 2 consecutive quarters of below zero real economic growth. The constitutional amendment, in comparison, would have allowed 41 Senators to stop any effort by the Government to prevent a depression through stimulus spending. Mr. President, the people of this country do not expect miracles. They expect us to be sensible, and they expect us to keep faith with them in their demands to get our deficit under control. The beauty of the proposal we are offering today is that we can both achieve a balanced federal budget and save our sacred organic law called the Constitution of the United States, which every single one of us held up our hand to protect, preserve, and defend when we were sworn into the Senate. That did not just mean to protect the Constitution and all the rights it provides for the people of this country; it also meant protecting it against trivialization and politicization. There have been over 11,000 efforts to amend the Constitution since this country was founded. Think of it, 11,000. And because of the eminent good sense of the Congress and people of this country, we have only amended the Constitution on 18 separate occasions, and that includes the Bill of Rights, which was adopted at the same time the Constitution was. The only time we have ever attempted to put social policy into the Constitution was Prohibition. We found out that you can say as an amendment to the Constitution everybody will love the Lord, but you cannot enforce that. You should not put things that are unenforceable into the Constitution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed for 3 more minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, since last week's vote on the balanced budget amendment I have received calls and letters from people saying, ``Senator, you are going to be in big trouble if you run for reelection in 1998.'' My response is far better that I be in political trouble than the Nation be in big trouble by starting down the path of putting every single whim and caprice that somebody can come up with in some national magazine in the Constitution. The people in this body who do not want the issue for political purposes but who really want a balanced budget are not only going to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 when the Senate considers the proposal, they are going to support it strongly, because it has teeth and it requires action immediately. The people in this country are not interested in all the partisan bickering that has taken place in Congress. When it comes to the deficit, they expect the people of this body to hold hands and work together. I made a chamber of commerce speech the other night. I said the beauty of our system is that while you may not like our politics, the truth of the matter is that we agree on a lot more things than we disagree on. The people on that side of the aisle and the people on this side of the aisle get awfully partisan, almost personal at times. But the truth of the matter is where the country is at risk we join more things than we do not agree on. Mr. President, if there ever was a time when the American people have a legitimate demand that we join hands and agree on something, it is this deficit. And the proposal we are introducing today does what the American people want and it does not tinker or clutter our Constitution. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment may be laid aside so I may offer an amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will be very brief, and I think that the floor managers might be in a position to accept this. It goes right to the heart of something that is near and dear to me, and I think all Senators and, indeed, the country share my sentiments. This simply says that the funds which have been allocated to NASA in 1995, $251.9 million, for cooperation with the United States-Russian MIR space station will be suspended effective 30 days after the adoption of this amendment until the President certifies to us that the Russians will not sell nuclear reactors to Iran. Now, Mr. President, as you know, opposing cooperation with Russia is not normally my cup of tea. I have been a strong supporter of the Nunn- Lugar initiative to help the Russians dismantle their bombers and their nuclear weapons. That is in our interest. That is the reason we do it. But for the Russians to cavalierly sell nuclear reactors to the number one terrorist regime in the world is not in their interest; it certainly is not in our interest--indeed, Mr. President, it is not in the world's interest-- until there are significant changes in the governing body of Iran. It is a militant regime. To the State Department and everybody else who assesses the nations most culpable in shielding terrorism, Iran is always at the top of the list. Now, Mr. President, this does not need to be debated. What I have just said is absolute, and I believe that everybody in this country agrees with the principle. I wish to help Russia. I want them to become a real democracy. I want them to become viable economically. But I do not want to be sending all this money to Russia if they are going to demonstrate a callous, total indifference to the safety of this world from nuclear weapons by selling nuclear technology to renegade governments such as Iran. Until this very day, Mr. President, until this very day, whenever there is a demonstration in Tehran, Uncle Sam and the American flag are invariably the subject of all the venom that the speakers and the marchers can muster. I am not trying to destroy the cooperation between the United States and Russia in space. But we are funding almost one-third of the entire Russian space program, and it is on the ropes. Thus the Russians need space cooperation with us more than we need space cooperation with them. I do not want to kill the Russian space program. But I do not want them selling reactors to Iran either. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lautenberg be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment at the desk?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I would like the unanimous-consent order to also agree that upon the completion of the remarks of the Senator from Alaska, I be recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. BUMPERS. As a result, the Bureau of Land Management had no choice but to give Barrick a deed to the 1,800 acres of land for $9,000; $5 an acre. According to Barrick--not Dale Bumpers--the land contains $10 billion dollars' worth of gold. And so Barrick is going to mine 10 billion dollars' worth of gold-- and what do you think Uncle Sam's return will be? Absolutely nothing. Let me ask my colleagues: If you had 1,800 acres of land and Barrick Mining Co. was getting ready to mine 10 billion dollars' worth of gold off your land, what would you expect in return? Five percent? Ten percent? As a matter of fact, the Newmont Mining Co. in Nevada pays an 18-percent royalty to a private landowner in the Carlin Trend of Nevada. However, the U.S. taxpayers will not receive one red cent in royalties. And it is our land. It is our gold. It belongs to the people of this country. People who watch speeches like this on the floor of the Senate say this couldn't possibly be true. It not only can happen, but it has been happening for years and years and years. And I can tell you, with the makeup of the Senate in the 104th Congress, it will likely continue to happen. While I may not win this battle this year, I am certainly not going to quit speaking out about it. While the hardrock mining companies argue that the imposition of a reasonable royalty would put them out of business, they continue to ignore the fact that gross royalties are paid for all other minerals that are extracted from the taxpayer-owned land. We charge people who mine coal 12.5 percent. If you extract natural gas from Federal lands, you pay the U.S. Government a 12.5-percent royalty. If you mine geothermal resources, as we do out West, it is 10 to 15 percent of gross revenues. If you drill oil on Federal lands, you pay a 12.5- percent royalty. However, if you mine for gold, silver, or copper, you do not pay one red cent to the U.S. Government. Why? Because the mining companies have the political clout in this body to prevent the enactment of comprehensive mining law reform. Last year the House of Representatives passed a comprehensive and reasonable mining law reform bill. However, when it came over to the Senate it fell into the same old sump hole. Occasionally, ``60 Minutes'' or ``20-20'' or ``Prime Time Live'' will do a 10- to 20-minute segment on this issue. Sam Donaldson will say, ``Can you believe this?'' And the next morning, my phone rings off the wall. Several years ago, after ABC did a story on the mining law, a Senator called and said, ``For God's sake, get me on your bill as a cosponsor. My phone hasn't stopped ringing.'' We put him on as a cosponsor. However, when it came time to vote on my amendment to impose a moratorium on the issuance of patents, he voted against it. He just had not yet heard from the mining industry when he cosponsored my bill. The 1872 mining law does not reflect modern environmental protection policies. Past mining activities have left a legacy of unreclaimed lands, acid mine drainage, and hazardous waste. Approximately 60 abandoned hardrock mining sites are currently on the Superfund National Priority List. Some estimate that it could cost taxpayers upward of $50 billion to clean up these sites. The 1872 mining law does not contain any bonding or reclamation requirements or any requirements for protecting the environment. While BLM and Forest Service regulations address these issues, their regulations, particularly BLM's, are full of loopholes and weak. The Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 1995 would provide BLM and the Forest Service with sufficient authority to regulate mining to minimize adverse impacts to the environment. It would mandate reclamation and bonding and would direct the agencies to promulgate specific reclamation standards. Some of the Senators who come on this floor and make these long speeches about what a wonderful thing the 1872 mining law is and how wonderful it has been to their States, should take a look at what the State governments do. For example, Arizona charges a 2-percent royalty on the gross value of the minerals extracted from State-owned land. If you mine on private or Federal lands, Arizona charges a 2.5-percent severance tax. What do we charge? Nothing. Montana gets a 5-percent royalty for raw metallic minerals mined on State lands and they charge a severance tax of 1.6 percent of the gross value in excess of $250,000 for gold, silver, and platinum mined on all lands in the State. The State of Utah charges a 4-percent gross value royalty on nonfissionable metalliferous metals. Utah also charges a 2.6-percent severance tax on all metalliferous minerals, including those that are on Federal lands. Whether there is a patent on it or not, whether it is private lands or Federal lands, you pay a severance tax in the State of Utah. What does the U.S. Government charge? absolutely nothing. Wyoming charges a 5-percent royalty on the gross sales value of gold, silver, and trona mined on State-owned land, and a 2-percent net of the minemouth value severance tax on everything that is mined anywhere in that State. However, the mining industry will continue to insist that if my bill or anything even close to it passes, it will be the end of the world as we know it. Now, Mr. President, I started out talking about the fact that this is the sixth year I have fought this battle. When I first started back about 1990, I could not even fathom that this was actually going on in this country. Sadly, it continues unabated. The argument of the mining industry then was, ``It will put us out of business if you charge us a royalty.'' ``How about 3 percent?'' ``No, we cannot afford 3 percent.'' ``Two percent?'' ``No, we cannot afford 2 percent. Cannot afford anything.'' Now they say: ``We will pay a small royalty, but you must allow us to deduct every imaginable and unimaginable cost of mining first''. Mr. President, at the beginning of the 103d Congress gold was selling in this country for $333 an ounce. The mining industry said, ``we cannot afford to pay an 8-percent royalty or even a 5-percent royalty when we are selling gold for $333 an ounce. It would bankrupt us.'' Gold is now selling for approximately $375 an ounce. However, the mining industry is still claiming poverty. Mr. President, when I first started fighting on this issue in 1990 we had 1.2 million mining claims in this country. Today, because a person now has to pay $100 a year in order to hold his claim, that number has been reduced to 330,000 claims. Do you know why there has been such a precipitous drop in the number of claims? All those claims out there were filed to build summer homes on the land or they were filed hoping some big mining company would come along and say, ``How about letting us explore your claim?'' because they did not have to pay a red cent to keep that claim viable. Mr. President, almost every one of these mining companies do, in fact, pay royalties. However, they don't pay royalties to the landowner--the American taxpayer. Rather, they pay royalties to somebody they bought the claim from. So who is really getting the royalty? It is the guy who had the claim. If I had claims amounting to 1,000 acres, never touched it, a mining company could come by and say, ``We would like to have that claim to mine on.'' If I said, ``OK,'' they will look it over. If they find out it has gold on it, they will say, ``We will pay you a 5-percent royalty on all the gold we take off of your land.'' That goes on time and time again. Virtually every major mining company in the United States that mines on Federal lands is paying a pretty good-sized royalty to the guy who went out there and drove the stakes into the ground with no intention of ever doing anything. Senate to enact comprehensive mining law reform. In addition, I have tried to impose a moratorium to prohibit the Interior Department from granting patents. The House of Representatives passed such a moratorium every year since I started this fight, and every year the Senate has killed it. Last year the Senate finally agreed to the moratorium during a House-Senate Appropriations conference. In 1991 I came within a single vote of passing the patent moratorium. Just 4 days later, the Stillwater Mining Co. filed applications for patents on a little more than 2,000 acres of land in Montana. It took them just 4 days to figure out that they might have to pay a royalty one of these days if they did not get a patent. Assuming they get these patents, Stillwater will pay just $10,000 for the 2,000 acres of land. According to Stillwater's own figures, the land contains roughly 35 to 38 billion dollars' worth of platinum and palladium. And, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, what do you think you are going to get for the 38 billion dollars' worth of platinum and palladium that you own? You guessed it. Not one penny. Mr. President, I will just make this little summation. The patent moratorium that we passed last year grandfathered-in about 350 patent applications. If we do not keep the moratorium pending until Congress is ready to enact comprehensive reform, the U.S. Government will continue to give away our public lands. In addition, we will continue to permit mining companies to walk away from unmitigated environmental disasters leaving the taxpayers to pick up the tab. They did not get a red cent out of it, but the taxpayers get the luxury of cleaning up the mess. Mr. President, my bill constitutes what I believe to be the minimum required for comprehensive mining law reform. It provides for the Secretary to have considerable input into the siting of mining operations to ensure that areas such as Yellowstone National Park are not ruined. My bill provides for an 8-percent gross royalty. It provides for bonding to make sure that the land is put back in half decent shape when mining operations are completed. It stops this business of giving deeds to people for $2.50 an acre. Opponents of comprehensive reform will soon introduce a bill that would continue to permit patenting. Rather than $2.50 or $5 an acre, the claimant would have to pay the fair market value for the surface of the land. That is only marginally better than the $5 an acre they pay now. Senators trying to pass this as reform will say: ``Well, they are paying fair market value.'' You give me the Gulf of Mexico; I will pay for the fair market of the surface of the Gulf of Mexico if you give me all the oil underneath it. Mr. President, I intend to pursue this matter as long as I am in the U.S. Senate. I want to say to my colleagues and to the American people, there is no greater travesty--no greater travesty--than the continuation of this mining law and allowing the mining interests of this country to take the valuable resources that belong to every taxpayer in the country. We have a $4.6 trillion debt and Speaker Gingrich and the proponents of the Contract With America want to put children in orphanages, take away school lunches, and dramatically cut food stamps. But the mining companies can't compensate the taxpayers because there are enough western Senators here to stop it. Where are our priorities? So I will probably not succeed this year. If I could not succeed last year, given the makeup of the Senate this year, I will not prevail and I am tired of fighting the battle, but I am not tired enough to quit. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mineral Exploration and Development Act of 1995. This is the fourth Congress that I have proposed comprehensive legislation to reform the 1872 mining law. Obviously, if I had been successful in the past, I would not be here again today. There are few issues around here that I have such strong feelings about as I have on this subject. Mr. President, as it provided for in 1872, and what it still permits today, the 1872 mining law allows for any citizen of this country to go on any of the 550 million acres of Federal lands open to mining, drive down four stakes encompassing 20 acres of land and notify the Bureau of Land Management that the land is subject to a mining claim. If, at some time in the future, the claimant decides that that 20-acre claim has gold, silver, copper, platinum, or any other hardrock mineral under it, the claimant can demand--literally demand--a deed from the U.S. Government for that 20 acres. If the BLM decides that yes, it does indeed have commercially mineable minerals under the claim, the Government will give you a deed to the land. Mr. President, they will give you a deed for either $2.50 an acre or $5 an acre, depending on the type of mining claim you have. Mr. President, it is very difficult to make this case because the people across the country say that this simply cannot be true. No government in its right mind, especially a government that is in debt $4.6 trillion, would give away the public domain and billions of dollars worth of minerals for $2.50 an acre, with billions of dollars worth of gold under it. Well, unhappily, we are crazy enough to do just that, and we have been doing it since 1872. Mr. President, there are estimates that between $1 and $4 billion worth of gold and other minerals are removed from our public lands every year. The taxpayers, the very owners of the public lands, don't even receive one red cent in return. by a subsidiary of American Barrick Resources, which is a Canadian corporation. Incidentally, many of the top gold-mining companies in this country are foreign owned. On September 10, 1992, Barrick filed an application for patents on 1,800 acres of its Golstrike Mine with the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM checked it out and found that there were commercial quantities of gold underneath that 1,800 acres. (Mr. CRAIG assumed the chair.)

Mr. BUMPERS. First of all, I wish to say that it is not just me saying it, and perhaps the Senator from Utah would not wish to have commendations from this side of the aisle, but I do want to say that my opinion of him is shared by my colleagues. It developed almost immediately when he came here. He is really one of the fine additions to the Senate. He came here in 1992, was elected in the same year I was reelected. I found him to be an extremely thoughtful, compassionate, truly dedicated public servant. We have worked together on two or three issues, most notably concessions contracts in the national parks. We have gotten along beautifully. He does not vote the way I tell him to all the time, that is my only objection. But I can tell you, he is a man of integrity and a man of intellect, and it pains me that we are on opposite sides of this issue. I do want to make two or three points in partial rebuttal to what my good friend from Utah has just said. First, upon the completion of exploration, mining companies generally have a good idea about the amount and type of minerals located at a particular site. They make big investments to mine, nobody denies that. And they provide a lot of jobs. But let me tell you, looking for oil can be a lot riskier than looking for minerals. Oftentimes, oil companies will spend, in deep sea water, almost $1 billion to drill a well and sometimes hit a duster. Yet, we charge them, if they do happen to hit oil, 12.5 percent of the gross value of the oil they produce. And we charge nothing to the mining industry. Second, the Senator said that he objected to gross royalties, which I am strongly supportive of. But the Senator's own home State of Utah charges a 4-percent gross royalty on any nonfissionable minerals taken from lands that belong to the State of Utah. And virtually every mining contractor in this country on private lands provides for either a gross royalty or a net smelter return, which is close to a gross royalty. So there is nothing new or unique about that. I would rather take a percentage point or two less in royalties then to go through all those convoluted methods that I have heard discussed in the Energy Committee. Finally, while I am reluctant to use a personal analogy, my son and a partner went into the baking business approximately 12 years ago. They worked, I would say, 2 or 3 nights a week trying to perfect different recipes, different cooking times, different temperatures, everything-- to make what they thought was a perfect product. Then they rented a restaurant that closed at 9 o'clock, and they baked until 1 o'clock in the morning and would go out the next day and sell the product on the streets. Then they leased a little spot, and then they leased a bigger spot, and they leased a bigger spot, and 2 years ago they bought a big building. It has been growing by leaps and bounds. I guess they would normally have about 20 employees--during the Christmas season, maybe 30 to 35. I guess that is just about the most graphic case I can think of, because it happens to be in the family, of somebody who went out and started a business, just as the Senator from Utah has big risk. And it looks as though it is going to be a very successful business. My point is, nobody gets up on the floor of the Senate to defend the thousands and thousands of people like my son who never asked for anything and built a business. Do you know something else? He pays taxes. Do you know something else? His employees pay taxes. And nobody gets up on the floor of the Senate and says, ``Ain't this wonderful?'' It is only the mining industry, only the mining industry that you hear that argument made for. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I did not intend to speak on this particular matter, but I heard the Senator from New York making some points. I do not know the particular situation in New York, but I know that the Senator and I share one thing in common, and that is the Pentagon's base closing nominations should not be considered as sacred by the Commissioners that we are about to confirm. I have no intention of speaking at length or trying to block any of their nominations. As far as I know, they are all very honorable people, and I come not to resist them, not even to admonish them, but to make a point which I hope they will seriously consider, and that is that the Pentagon's decisions are not perfect. They are not made in the cosmos. They are made by human beings who are subject to error. Needless to say, that I am upset about what they are doing in my State would be a gross understatement. In 1991, I daresay that my State was one of the two or three hardest hit States on the loss of jobs as a percentage of our people. We lost Eaker Air Force Base, a strategic bomber base, and we lost what we call the Joint Readiness Training Center in Fort Chaffee, AR, which was moved to Fort Polk, LA. Eaker Air Force Base was in Mississippi County, which is in the First Congressional District of my State, which happens to be one of the 10 poorest districts in the United States. I do not have to tell you what closing a very significant air base in that county did to that county and the surrounding area. But if you look at it in pure terms of dollars and cents, you could not argue with it. When Senator Pryor, and some of the rest of us, went before the Base Closure Commission and pleaded for them to take into consideration the economic consequences, they said, ``That is not a part of our mandate.'' That county had always had, even with the air base there, a very much higher unemployment rate than the rest of our State. We cannot consider the economic consequences, which is the same thing as saying we are not interested in human beings; we are not interested in the trauma and the tragedy that people experience when they lose their jobs and wonder how they are going to put bread on the table for their children. But it was closed. We might as well have been shouting in the rain barrel for all the attention we got from the Base Closure Commission. As far as Fort Chaffee was concerned, we showed conclusively, we crunched the numbers time and time and time again, and presented them to the Base Closure Commission and said, ``You are supposed to be saving money. You will save a lot of money by closing Eaker Air Force Base, even though you are creating unspeakable, horrible consequences for a lot of people who are going to be thrown into the streets, but in Chaffee's case you cannot even justify the savings.'' The figures we gave them which, in my opinion, were absolutely unassailable and are unassailable to this day, went unheard, unheeded. We might as well, again, have been shouting in a rain barrel. Now we have this new list of bases for closing that have been nominated by some faceless group in the Pentagon. After we took that kind of a hit in our State in 1991, I daresay that with this base closure list we are again one of the two or three hardest hit of any State as a percentage of our population. Red River Army Depot and the Defense Logistics Agency Depot, sit side by side a few miles from Texarkana, which my colleagues know includes parts of Arkansas and Texas, as is near Louisiana; a city of 77,000 to 80,000 people, about 30,000 of whom are on the Arkansas side of the line. Mr. President, since I have been in politics, I have stood with one leg in Texas and one leg in Arkansas 30 times. The line runs right through the Federal Building, half in Arkansas and half in Texas. Of the 4,100 people who work at the 3,600-acre Red River complex, 1,000 or so live in Arkansas. I know, as Deputy Secretary Deutch told me the other day, they do not consider economics, they do not consider red- blooded human beings who lose their jobs. Theirs is not to ameliorate that. Theirs is to look at hard, cold dollars-and-cents figures. They did not cut these facilities in half, which would have been traumatic enough. They didn't try to figure out how can we eliminate this human drama, this tragic human drama unfolding by cutting their workload in half and leaving at least 2,000 people working there, or 3,000, or whatever. I do not even know where they are going to transfer the work. I know there are two bases that do the same thing the Red River Depot does that are being left open that have never won the awards that Red River has won, such as the 1995 Presidential Quality Award. Red River is one of only six government facilities in the whole country to win that. I listened to the Base Closure Commission hearings yesterday afternoon in my office, and the chairman, our former colleague, Senator Dixon from Illinois, asked did they take into consideration all of the achievement awards and the meritorious awards that Red River Depot had won? No, they did not. I regret the chairman said he had a tendency to agree with that. Tell me, Mr. President, what is the purpose of people who have worked for the Federal Government trying to excel and be recognized for their excellent service if nobody is going to take it into consideration? What is that all about? One other thing, Mr. President. What is it about these people who make these nominations that make them perfect and infallible, and their judgments and their decisions unquestioned? Do you think somebody on the Army or Navy or Air Force groups that made these recommendations does not have a brother-in-law working someplace? Do you think the fact that he has a brother-in-law working someplace does not play a role in his thinking about whether that base is going to be closed or this base is going to be closed? That may be putting it a little strongly, but after all, we are all human beings, are we not? You may have a friend who gave your opponent money the last time, and it may have toward that guy again. That happens in the Pentagon too. Decisions are not always based on what is best according to the facts. Fort Chaffee, AK, is also on the list. It stands to lose 350 jobs. It is near Fort Smith, which is a city of about 80,000 people. They can withstand it. But I can tell you, the 350 people who are going to lose their jobs cannot stand it. Think of a city, all of you. I hope all of my colleagues will think of a city in their States with 77,000 people, like the entire city of Texarkana, in Texas and Arkansas. And take away 4,100 jobs. That is 5 percent of the total population. Each one of those jobs represents a family. Compute that. It is devastating, and it is unnecessary. And if it does cost a few more bucks to keep the place open, say, at half strength, or something of that kind, maybe the Pentagon should have decided to do that. But nobody in the Pentagon tried to work anything out. The Pentagon simply said, ``Close that sucker.'' Mr. President, I am emotional about it because I have been here 20 years and have not fired very many people. The people I really had to let go in my office had to be let go. But I know that when you take somebody's livelihood away from them, you are taking away everything. So I am really bothered when people lose their jobs. The reason I am talking now, and I will close on this, is because I want this Commission--whom we are about to confirm--to bear in mind that everybody who made these closure recommendations has something in the back of their minds that caused them to make them, other than just those cold dollars-and-cents figures that were coming out of a computer. Do you think there is no politics in any of this? Do you think these are sacrosanct things that people with noble purposes and no other goal conjured up? So, members of the Commission, I just want to say, do not think for a minute that you do not have a responsibility to look at these things-- not rubberstamp them, look at them--count the figures over and over again, take into consideration whose lives are being affected and whose children are not going to be educated as a result of the loss of their jobs. I hope this Commission will look especially look at the Pentagon's recommendation to close Red River Army Depot and Fort Chaffee. I know there are other Senators--Senator D'Amato has already spoken, and others will. A lot of people feel put upon. But let me reemphasize, Arkansas took the biggest hit in 1991 of all but two other States, and we are being asked to take one of the biggest hits in this one. What is going on? I yield the floor, Mr. President. nomination of alton w. cornella

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I had thought that I might wait until tomorrow to speak on the vote that occurred this afternoon, but I think perhaps now is as good a time as any simply to reflect on what happened today, what has happened in the past and what is likely to happen in the future. First of all, taking Social Security out of the amendment was a perfectly legitimate issue and I supported the Reid amendment and I supported the efforts of the Senator from North Dakota to take it out, but that is not the real reason I voted against this amendment. I voted against it because I have a reverence for the Constitution of the United States. I do not want it trivialized. I do not want to put economic theory in it. I do not want to put an unenforceable requirement in it. I do not want to put a requirement in there which can be taken away by 60 votes. And I do not want to have the people expecting to see the budget balanced in the year 2002 when that is highly unlikely in any case and utterly impossible under the other provisions of the Contract With America. That would raise the cynicism level about Congress still higher. What I want to do is put this Nation on a glidepath toward a balanced budget and stick with it. We could reduce the deficit $20 billion a year and not disrupt the economy. The economy could handle it. And if the American people saw us doing that, year after year, they would be happy, they would see that we are solving the problem. It is true the polls show that about 70 to 80 percent of the people of the country favor the so-called constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but I promise you they favor it because they are frustrated and they think it is the last best hope. And, second, they think there is some magic machine in the amendment that will balance the budget if they just put it in the Constitution as the 28th amendment. Unhappily, nothing could be further from the truth. This afternoon the argument was made, why not submit it to the people? It is a powerful argument. The people like that argument. But for just a moment let me give a couple of extra thoughts on that. Since this great Republic of ours was founded in 1789, there have been over 11,400 proposals by Members of Congress to change that document--11,400. And we have adopted 18 of them, counting the Bill of Rights as one--that is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution all adopted at the same time. Since then, 17 amendments have been ratified out of 11,400 proposed. What if we took the argument that every time a constitutional amendment came up on the floor we had a duty to submit it to the people? The people would not have time to work. They would be so busy voting on constitutional amendments they would not have time to hold a job. Why do the Members of this body think that James Madison and Ben Franklin and all the rest of the Framers, in 1787, when they crafted this document--why do they think they gave Congress the first responsibility? And more important, why do they think they insisted that 67 percent of the Congress vote for it before it is submitted to the people? They did not say lay down in the aisle of the Senate and vote aye. They said we should deliberate. If they expected a two-thirds majority of both Houses to approve this thing before it went to the people of the country, surely to God they intended us to have a sensible debate on it. And we had one. Mr. President, when you start tinkering with the Constitution of the United States, I belong to the ``wait just a minute'' club. I do not care how meritorious a proposal sounds. The Constitution has given this Nation 205 years of unfettered freedom the likes of which no other nation on Earth has enjoyed. And when you start trivializing the Constitution with amendments that are wholly unenforceable, people will lose their reverence for that sacred document. You see, I do not want just a balance-the-budget amendment that merely says we will balance the budget. I want actually to balance the budget. The people in my State and your amendment is like saying ``I oppose a balanced budget.'' Who in this body does not favor a balanced budget? No one, but there are some who are not quite as committed to it as others. But in 1993, in August, the President and the Democrats in the Congress proposed a $500 billion deficit reduction. We stood up and we said exactly what the people in the pool hall say, ``I wouldn't mind paying taxes if they cut spending.'' So we raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of the people in this country. You had to have an income of $180,000 to affected by it. I wish I were in that category, I would be tickled to death to pay those taxes. We raised taxes on 1.2 percent of the wealthiest people in the country to the tune of $250 billion over 5 years and we cut spending, dollar for dollar, $250 billion, for a total of $500 billion in deficit reduction. And, yes, we said in that same bill, in the future couples who make $44,000 a year and are on Social Security will pay taxes on 85 percent of that amount that exceeds $44,000. Who thinks I enjoyed voting for that? I hated it. But you are not going to solve the deficit problem on people flipping hamburgers down at McDonald's. Justice Holmes said taxes are what you pay in order to live in a civilized society. So we passed that deficit reduction bill and we have now lowered the deficit for three straight years for the first time since Harry Truman was in the White House. Mr. President, it has been said time and time again, and it is worth repeating: not one single Republican favored deficit reduction that day--not one. They said, ``We hate taxes.'' I do, too, but I hate deficits as well. And on October 1, 1994, the deficit was $100 billion less than it would have otherwise been if we had not passed the deficit reduction package. You think about it. We cut the deficit $100 billion last year. And it will be down $110 to $120 billion this year from what it would have otherwise been. The distinguished majority leader, whom I respect and admire and consider to be my friend, this afternoon said that the Senate walked away from the American people today. In August 1993, the Republicans ran away from the people of this country. Not one vote. Mr. President, we have never put anything into the Constitution in 205 years that you can suspend with 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. You think about it. Anytime this amendment is adopted and subsequent thereto, 60 people in this body can say we vote for an unbalanced budget and those words will mean nothing. What if I came on this floor and said: Here is an amendment that says, the fourth amendment, which protects us against unlawful searches and seizures--can be suspended by 60 percent of the Congress? You would be home calling the carpenter to put some more locks on your door, never knowing when Congress might cast 60 votes to suspend your right to be protected from police who might want to knock your door down on any flimsy excuse they can find, or ne excuse at all. Women are now permitted to vote as a result of the 19th amendment adopted in 1921. Can you believe the women have only had the right to vote in this country since 1921? Suppose we passed an amendment saying, with 60 votes of both Houses, we could suspend the right of women to vote. With 60 votes, we can suspend the right of due process. With 60 votes, we can suspend religious freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of speech. With 60 votes, we will put the poll tax back in. With 60 votes, we will take any right in the Constitution out of it. The people would be marching in the streets. So where does that leave us on this amendment? We say, ``Well, here is an amendment that requires us to balance the budget by the year 2002.'' How? I do not know. Well, can we go to court? No. We took care of that in order to accommodate the Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn. The courts could not involve themselves in the budget unless Congress expressly gave them jurisdiction . Next question: Who can enforce this amendment? Search me. I do not know. If you have an amendment that requires a balanced budget by the year 2002 and the courts are taken out in that same amendment, who does that leave you to enforce it? The same U.S. Congress that has refused to do it in the past. We are back to square one. You pass this amendment, and the American people will have been hoodwinked like they have never been hoodwinked before in the history of this Nation. That is right. We are right back where we started, with the U.S. Congress having to balance the budget, and with the right to ignore it with 60 votes. We have never put anything in the Constitution that was not absolute and inviolate. We act as if we are dealing with a State constitution around here. The balanced budget amendment is legislation all dressed up in the finery of the Constitution. I remember that spectacle in 1993 where only the Democrats voted for a bill to actually reduce the deficit. It is the most significant thing that has happened since I have been in the U.S. Senate. Every fall, for 7 years, I have stood at this desk and offered amendment after amendment after amendment to cut spending. In 1993 I offered six amendments to kill or cut appropriations. Those amendments would have saved the taxpayers over $420 billion, including interest over the next 35 years, but 13 Republican votes was my highwater mark on those votes. It reminds me of the back bencher who hears the preacher say ``Who all here wants to go to Heaven?'' and replies, ``I do, but not tonight.'' I want a balanced budget, and I do not like to have to go home and tell the voters that we cut the spending that affects their job or affects something else important to them or raises their taxes. We just want to talk about it. Here on this chart are the budget-cutting amendments I put in just the other day for this year. I want my colleagues to look at these right now because they are coming, I promise you. The space station, 5- year savings of $10 billion; long-term savings, $52 billion. The same people who will vote to cut food stamps, Medicare, put children in orphanages, will vote to spend every dime of that. The F-22 fighter, we do not need it. We can postpone it for at least 4 years; it will cost $6 billion next year; in 5 years, $24 billion. I will not go through all of them, but we could save $33 billion over the next 5 years, and $114 billion over the next 15 years just on the amendments that I have introduced. Mr. President, if I get 13 votes on the Republican side this year for any of those, I will be absolutely amazed. Everybody wants to go to Heaven. But not just yet. There is not one thing in this amendment that would require us to do anything between now and the year 2002. There is not one single enforceable thing about this that would require us to cut the deficit one dime between now and the year 2002. I offered an amendment. I got 37 votes. The amendment I offered said that, starting this year, the budget resolution must contain a deficit smaller than last year. And, in addition to that, it must show us how we are going to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002; that would be difficult to achieve but at least my amendment would keep us honest. I submit that the people of this country would be immensely gratified if they could go to bed tonight and realize that Congress is going to cut the deficit every year for the next 7 years, not wait until the year 2002. Do it now. The Contract With America--and to the eternal credit of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate, they are not a party to that. They want us to spend $471 billion in tax cuts and defense increases between now and the year 2002, and then start dealing with the deficit. Do you think I enjoy standing here and saying I am not going to support a so-called middle-class tax cut? Do you think the people of my State do not need tax relief? If you do what the Contract With America proposes, I will tell you where you wind up. You will wind up with a deficit that will choke a mule, that will cause interest rates to start soaring again, and the poor guy who would have otherwise gotten a tax cut that might buy him a pizza every Friday night will lose two pizzas every Friday on interest costs. And 74 percent of the people of this country agree that they would rather see the savings put into deficit reduction. Over and over and over again, I heard people say the balanced budget amendment is very popular, that 75 percent of to a little tax cut, I will be saying that 75 percent of the people would rather see this go on the deficit than into a middle-class tax cut. You say we must do what 75 percent of the people want on one thing. But on the next thing that 75 percent of the people want, you say something else. Mr. President, I will tell you what ought to happen. The Republican and Democratic leaders ought to get together and say, look, we share a common goal, and that common goal is to keep faith with the American people. In order to do that, we have to start getting the deficit under control. You go back to your people and submit a list of cuts, and we will come up with our own cuts; then we will get back together and try to figure out what we can agree on. Once we agree on what we can cut, once we are convinced in our own minds that we are going to actually cut the deficit this year and the next year and the next year, the leaders, Democrats and Republicans, can go before the television cameras and say solemnly to the American people: Here is our contract. We all agree on it. If we keep going like we are going, Mr. President, the Constitution and the American people both are going to lose mightily. I did not sign that contract. As far as I know, not a single one of the 100 Members of the U.S. Senate signed that contract. Can you believe that that contract would be as dramaticaly unrealistic as it is--we are going to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, provide $471 billion in tax cuts, and defense increases. Most of the people who signed that are wannabes, people running for Congress who will say anything, sign their name to anything, and worry about the details later, after they have been elected. And they will do it in 100 days. We are supposed to be a deliberative body. If it takes 100 days, fine; if it takes 300 days, fine. These things are supposed to be seriously considered. 100 days? It would not have been unthinkable in this Senator's mind to spend half of that-- which we almost did--on this amendment until the American people focused on it and understood precisely what the consequences were going to be. I must say I was terribly chagrined when I realized that no change to the constitutional amendment was going to be adopted. We were presented with a constitutional amendment that was crafted by the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate, and they said here it is, do not change one word. Do not uncross one ``t,'' do not undot one ``i,'' do not change anything. Think of that, saying to Senators here, who represent the people of their States, who want to improve it or kill it or otherwise change it. And they say, no, you do not count. We have 52 votes locked up over here and we will table anything you try to do. What kind of deliberative body is that? It is like saying we do not care that we are dealing with this precious document and we do not care what you think. That is not a fan you hear, Mr. President, that is the sound of James Madison whirling in his grave. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the democratic leader's time. I request that the Chair notify me when I have used 8 of the 10 minutes. Mr. President, I have just been looking at the modification that apparently the majority party has agreed to in order to accommodate Senator Nunn's concerns about the court's role in enforcing this amendment. I do not want the courts involved, but I do not want to tinker with our sacred organic law, either. Because when you take the courts out, what you have are the same people charged with the responsibility of enforcing this amendment that are now in charge. The only difference is you have the requirements of a supermajority of 60 votes. The Nunn proposal apparently says that the courts may not involve themselves in this matter unless we grant them that authority in the future. I can tell you now, I am not ever going to grant them the authority to meddle in this. That makes another portion of the Constitution, of which James Madison was proudest, a eunuch, because then you torpedo the separate branches of Government. My amendment, which we are going to vote on this afternoon, is more powerful in getting the budget balanced than is this constitutional amendment. If you take the courts out, the only thing you have left is a 60-vote majority required to unbalance the budget. My amendment does that by amending the Budget Act and saying you may not change--you may not change--the year--not in the year 2002, this year--must provide for a deficit smaller than the preceding year and a balanced budget in the year 2002. This constitutional amendment does not require this body to do one blessed thing until the year 2002. We may do it, but there is not anything in this thing that requires it. My amendment would require it now, not in 2002, not after the Republicans have spent another $471 billion. That is what the contract calls for between now and 2002, $471 billion in additional tax cuts and defense spending, and then--and then--we will start talking about balancing the budget. It is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting nation. There has to be some ambivalence on the other side among some people about whether they really want this or not. If they do not get it, it will be the No. 1 issue in the 1996 election. ``He voted against a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.'' And to the ordinary American citizen that is tantamount to voting against a balanced budget. Is that not a tragedy, that we have not been able to separate the two during this debate? I yield to nobody in this body in my efforts to get spending under control for 20 years, but I am not willing to tinker with, literally trivialize, the sacred organic law of this Nation that makes us the oldest living democracy, living under the oldest living document, for political purposes. So if they lose, they have it all going their way in 1996. ``He voted against a budget resolution.'' And the reason I think they are ambivalent is because, if they win, then they have to say to the American people sometime between now and the year 2002, ``We overpromised. It cannot be done.'' Do you think $1.5 trillion can be cut from the budget between now and 2002? Why, of course, it is ridiculous. The question answers itself. My amendment is tougher than the constitutional amendment, as I say, because it puts us on a glidepath now. It starts balancing the budget now, not in the year 2002. Let me ask my colleagues who are still perhaps undecided: If you vote to take the courts out, what do you have? You have a constitutional amendment that nobody but the U.S. Congress can enforce. It is wholly unenforceable unless we have the spine to do it. That is what this amendment is all about. It is an admission to the American people that we cannot be trusted to trust them with the truth. And it is an admission that we cannot bring the budget into balance. And if you take the courts out of this, that is what you have. One Senator told me the reason he was voting for it was because he wanted the courts to enforce it. And I am wondering now how that Senator is going to vote, now that there is going to be a provision in the amendment saying they cannot enforce it. And if you put the courts in or if you do nothing, there is a chance that the courts would take jurisdiction, and then you have unmitigated chaos. Do you know what the litmus test is going to be in 1996 and 1998 and the year 2000? It will not be, ``If you elect me, I will vote for a balanced budget amendment. I will vote for a line-item veto. I will vote for term limits. I will vote for prayer in school. You tell me whatever has a majority of popular opinion. Count me in, I will vote for it.''

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute of the minority leader's time. I have been looking at this chart now for 30 days. It is a beautiful chart, very impressive, all these microfigures, $4.6 trillion and so on. We should remember one thing, between 1981 and 1992, the national debt tripled in 12 years--tripled. I am not going to go through the rest of it because you have heard it too many times. In 1993, we proposed to cut the deficit by $600 billion. I say ``we,'' the Democrats proposed to cut the deficit by $600 billion in 5 years and we did it without one single Republican vote--50 Democrats plus the Vice President. That is the reason the deficit was down $100 billion less last year than anticipated. If you want to be honest, add one-third to the top of each one of those green bars. Add one-third to the top of each one of those green bars and that is what it would have been if the Republicans had had their way in August 1993. I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Connecticut on behalf of the minority leader.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair. Everybody will be campaigning with one additional provision-- ``I will never vote and be one of the 60 votes to unbalance the budget.'' So what do you have? You have a depression, you have a hurricane, you have an earthquake, you have floods, you have an S&L bailout, the banks fail, and we sit here trying to muster 60 votes and everybody says, ``No, I promised my people in the last campaign that I would never be one of the people who would vote to unbalance the budget.'' A depression, so be it. Precisely what Herbert Hoover said, precisely the reason we had 25 percent unemployment in 1933. I talked to one of my law school classmates yesterday who is a couple years older than I. We both remember the Depression. He said to me, ``Do you know what this country needs? A good depression.'' They have forgotten why all these laws are in effect--FDIC, FSLIC, the Securities and Exchange Commission. They are there because we put them in during the Depression to protect people. Mr. President, the distinguished floor manager from Utah was quoted in the press this morning as saying, ``I pity''--I pity--``anybody in this body who votes no.'' Mr. President, I pity an unsuspecting nation if we vote yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Let me name three elements.

Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator favor the Contract With America?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Utah for not yet moving to table. I have a few remarks I want to make and then I understand he will move to table. There is not anyone in the Senate for whom I have a higher regard or a better personal relationship--off the floor--than the Senator from Utah. He is unfailingly delightful, courteous, accommodating, and I appreciate it very much. Let me start off by saying what I said last evening when I first laid this motion down; that is, I am offended by the fact that there are 100 Senators in the U.S. Senate but House Joint Resolution 1, the pending constitutional amendment, was adopted by the House and sent to the Senate, and they said do not uncross one ``t'' or undot one ``i''. Otherwise, do not send it back to us. Think of the arrogance of debating for almost 4 weeks now an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, where we are told by the majority party, ``We will not accept one single change of one word.'' James Madison went to Philadelphia knowing precisely what he wanted to do, but he had to contend with the likes of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and George Washington. Can you imagine them in Philadelphia saying that? Let us assume that Washington and Madison got together and said: Here it is, boys, put your seal of approval on it and let us go home. Why, they fought like saber-toothed tigers over every word for 119 days. We are told, in 30 days, that we may not make one single change. And indeed we have voted about 20 times, and every single amendment that has been offered has been offered on this side and summarily shelved, tabled, with not even an up-or-down vote. I suppose there have been times when my party was in the majority that maybe we have been that insensitive--but not on the Constitution. The Senator from Utah was not here when I described my amendment earlier. So I will try to state it again, because some of the assumptions the Senator was making are in error. But before doing that, let me say to the Senator that, before he arrived, I pointed out that in 1993 we voted in the U.S. Congress to cut the deficit by $500 billion over the next 5 years--half taxes, half spending cuts. Because the economy is better than we anticipated, there will actually be closer to $600 billion in deficit reduction. Tragically, while the American people want us to be bipartisan and they want us to work together--you can be a Democrat and you can be a Republican, but when the chips are down, you ought to collaborate, you ought to cooperate, just like when you declare war. The chart the Senator from Utah has used over the last 26 days points out that the deficit has risen $23 billion since Congress began debate on the constitutional amendment. The Senator fails to make two points though. First, the constitutional amendment requires no action until 2002. Even if the amendment had passed the Congress and been ratified by the States on the first day of the debate, the deficit figures on the Senator's chart would be no different. In addition, the figures on the chart would be closer to $30 billion had it not been for the 1993 deficit reduction package voted for only by Democrats, many of whom lost their seats--particularly in the House--because they voted for it and were accused of being tax-and-spend liberals when they went home. If it had not been for the courage of 50 Democrats and the Vice President's tie breaking vote in the Senate, the Senator's chart would have to be much taller. I have never cast a vote that I was prouder of. The Senator from Utah made a statement that we have tried legislative remedies before and that is the reason we are here debating the Constitution. Let me make a couple of points. First, as far as I know, we have never tried a legislative remedy requiring 60 votes to repeal. If 60 votes to eliminate the constitutional balanced budget requirement is enough assurance, no one could argue in good faith that the very same 60 vote requirement to eliminate my proposed statutory requirement is insufficient. Second, the constitutional amendment calls for a balanced budget by the blessed thing for the next 7 years. The Speaker's Contract With America in the House says we will do it all in 2002. They say if the Congress will just adopt this and send it to the States and 38 States approve it, we will do it in the year 2002. The thing that makes my amendment so much more preferable is that I say let us not wait until 2002. Start now. Cut the deficit this year below what it was last year. If Congress had done nothing in 1993, the deficit would be approaching $400 billion. However, we have caused the deficit to decline below $200 billion. Even the President's budget, with which I disagree, calls for $190 billion to $200 billion a year between now and the turn of the century. My amendment says that the Budget Committee must come out here with a budget resolution that contains a glide path towards a balanced budget. If they do not do that, I will raise a point of order and it will take 60 votes to overrule the point of order. That is exactly what the constitutional amendment calls for, 60 votes, not a simple majority, Senator. The Senator says one of the flaws of my proposed amendment is that it does not say how much we would have to cut the deficit next year. That is true. But my amendment says the same thing the constitutional amendment says--that they not only must cut the deficit below what it was last year, they have to submit a budget that shows we are going to have it balanced by the year 2002--not wait until 38 States ratify this crazy constitutional amendment. Do it now and it will require 60 votes, just like the constitutional amendment. It is absolutely a more enforceable amendment than the constitutional amendment because it requires us to do it now. It requires us to start reducing the deficit now, not in 2002. I will tell you what I think. I may have said this earlier. I think I did, but I will say it again. If we reduce the deficit $10 billion or $15 billion next year, below what it is this year, the American people will be happy. They know that you cannot cut a trillion dollars in spending all at once. If we were to reduce the deficit under my amendment by $10 billion to $15 billion a year for the next 7 years, that would be half the battle won, and you would not have thrown the economy into a tailspin. Can you believe that we are going to wait? I have never seen a constitutional amendment that people were willing to vote for, with a serious look on their face, that says we are not going to do anything until the year 2002, or at least we are not obligated to do anything. The beauty of my amendment is that it tracks the constitutional amendment. It says a three-fifths vote will be required if we do not reduce the deficit every year and balance it by the year 2002. It does not undercut the Constitution, it protects Social Security, and mandates that we start now. My proposed amendment ought to get 100 votes in the U.S. Senate, but it will not. People will walk up to the door and up to the manager and say, ``What is our vote on this?'' Well, they will not have to ask, they know what their vote is. They know there has been a motion to table every single amendment. What kind of democracy is that? What kind of thinking is that? Well, we ought to have the ability in our offices to just push a button ``no'' or ``yes.'' You do not have to listen to the debate. You do not have to think. Just ask, ``What's our vote?'' What a travesty. What a trivialization of that sacred document we call the Constitution. I have been sitting in that seat for a long time. I can remember walking up and down this aisle in 1981 during the debate on the Reagan economic proposal to cut taxes and increase spending. President Reagan told the American people that those two, in combination, would balance the budget. I stood right here, as I am standing right now, and I said, ``You pass this budget, you pass this tax cut and this increase in defense, and you are going to create deficits big enough to choke a mule.'' And only 11 Senators--11--said no, 89 Senators voted yes. The Senator alluded to what happened over the last several years in our efforts to balance the budget. I am telling you that my vote on the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act was one of the most unpopular votes I ever cast. Think how easy it is to vote for tax cuts. If you are looking for approval ratings back home, you just put your finger to the wind and whatever is popular that day, vote for it. Eleven Senators said this is palpable nonsense. And do you know what it turned out to be? Just $3.6 trillion of palpable nonsense. Did you know that if we had defeated that proposal in 1981, the budget would be much closer to being balanced today? If you exclude the interest payments on the debt accumulated during the Reagan and Bush administrations the deficit today would be just $800,000. Think of that. And there was not any one of those 11 Senators that did not know what was popular. Sure, I knew what was popular. I always know what is popular. But I can tell you, what is popular today may be patently unpopular tomorrow. You pass this constitutional amendment and say, ``Well, we will do it all in the year 2002.'' There is not one soul in this body that does not know that that is absolutely impossible. As Alexander Hamilton said, ``It raises the cynicism level of the people in this country who think that Congress cannot do anything right. And usually it is because Congress has not done anything right.'' Again, I plead with my colleagues to support a legislative amendment that has more power and effect than the constitutional amendment and does not tinker with the Constitution. To repeat a statement I made last night, Robert Goldman, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said something I could not agree with more. ``True conservatives do not muck with the Constitution.'' I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair in allowing us to talk about something other than the pending motion, to which I will now return. Let me, for the benefit of my colleagues, once again describe my proposed amendment. As I said last evening, I consider it to be an absolutely ingenious idea. When I first began to think about it, I wasn't sure that a legislative fix could cure the problems associated with the balanced budget amendment. Everybody knows that I have consistently been a leader in the Senate on constitutional amendments. When it comes to people who willy-nilly throw these constitutional amendments around, I belong to the wait- just-a-minute club. I revere that document as I revere no other document, other than the Holy Bible. And the Constitution is our legal bible. It is the legal guide that provides people in this country with individual liberties, provides for the general health and welfare of the people of this country and for the common defense. We should not put ``willy-nilly'' economic policy or social policy--particularly social policy that is incapable of being enforced--into this magnificent document known as the U.S. Constitution. People in this country literally put their hands over there hearts when they hear the Constitution mentioned, almost as though the flag is going by. And yet the people of this Nation have been led to believe that if we would just put a few words in the Constitution, this nagging budget deficit somehow will be made to disappear. It is deceptive in the extreme. Everybody here who has read the constitutional amendment knows that this amendment does nothing to balance the budget; does very little more than we are doing right now. But there is this reverence for the Constitution we put language in the Constitution we are going to get a balanced budget out of it. But during this entire debate, not one person has told you how. We invited those who believe in the Contract With America that the Republican House Members all strongly favor to tell us. ``How are you going to balance the budget?'' ``I don't know.'' ``Who has standing to sue under this amendment?'' ``I don't know.'' ``When will a lawsuit ripen?'' ``I don't know.'' ``Would I, as a Senator, have standing to sue the Congress if they did not balance the budget?'' ``I don't know.'' ``Could the courts raise taxes in a lawsuit? Could the Supreme Court entertain a lawsuit saying, yes, indeed, Congress is out of compliance with this amendment. It is not in balance. Therefore, we are going to give the Congress 60 days to balance the budget unless 60 percent of the Members of each House vote otherwise.'' Sixty percent is not a majority. It literally defies democracy. But if the Court says, ``60 percent of you have to vote to unbalance the budget or we are going to take over the legislative affairs of Congress and raise taxes and cut spending ourselves.'' What if 60 days have gone by and Congress has done nothing. And the Court says, ``OK, we gave you 60 days. You are still sitting on your duff. Therefore, we are going to raise all income taxes by 3 percent and we are going to cut spending across the board, including defense, by 3 percent. And, according to our calculations, that will balance the budget.'' As Lincoln told Chief Justice Taney when Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus in the State of Maryland, ``He's made his ruling. Let him enforce it.'' So under this scenario, assume the Congress says to the Supreme Court, ``We have three branches of Government. You are only one. We are not going to waive the balanced budget requirement with 60 votes because we can't. We have 41 obstreperous people over there who will not let us unbalance it. In addition, we are not going to raise taxes and we are not going to cut spending.'' And so the Supreme Court Chief Justice calls the President and says, ``Mr. President, you are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws of this country. Now do it.'' And the President says, ``Look, how am I going to enforce the laws of the country? If they refuse to act under the Constitution, I can't make Congress do anything. I am on bended knee to the Congress all the time anyway trying to get them to pass my bills.'' The Court is asking me to alienate 100 Senators by removing them from office or taking some other action against them.'' I do not know what the President would do. What you then have is an unsolvable constitutional crisis that would threaten this Nation as nothing since the Civil War has threatened the country. Sometimes people say to me, ``You do not care what your constituents think; this is very popular.'' I care deeply about what my constituents think. But do you know what I want my constituents to think more than anything else? I want them to think they have a Senator up here who is thinking, who understands the Constitution, has studied it all of his life, who reads the Federalist Papers and knows what the Framers of the Constitution have said on every issue, and who has some idea about what will work in the Constitution and what trivializes the Constitution. A Senator told me 2 days ago, ``I'm going to support the constitutional amendment because I want the courts involved.'' If anyone wants the courts involved they should go down to Kansas City and talk to the people down there, where a judge did not literally raise taxes, but he said, ``Here is what you are going to do to achieve integration.'' And in order to do that, the Kansas City school district had no choice but to raise taxes. That decision was affirmed by the eighth circuit and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and is getting ready to be reargued next week. Nobody here should suffer under the delusion that the Supreme Court will, as it does in certain cases involving Congress say, ``That is a political matter and this Court does not resolve political matters; you people get back over there and do your duty.'' It is just as likely that the Court wouldn't say that, as it would. Is it not interesting, the contradictions we have seen in this Chamber since we started debating the constitutional amendment? The distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Bennett Johnston, offered an amendment which would prohibit the courts from enforcing the balanced budget amendment. When that was defeated he considered offering another amendment saying the courts must enforce the constitutional amendment. And I promise, Mr. President, that, too, would have been defeated. The Senator who said he wanted the courts involved in enforcing the amendment probably should not say that back home. The people in my State have a very healthy apprehension about people who are not elected to office, such as judges, determining their lives. How many times have you heard, ``I want the Supreme Court to enforce the law, not to make laws.'' So what we have is this contradiction here. On the one hand, we have some Senators saying, ``I want the courts to enforce this because we won't,'' and you have a whole chorus of Republicans and Democrats who say, ``I don't want the courts involved in this at all.'' I have never heard, in my 20 years in the U.S. Senate, as many questions answered with ``I don't know.'' Cumulatively, I have heard more ``I don't knows'' since this debate started than in the other 20 years combined. Do you know what Norm Ornstein calls these constitutional amendments? The fix of last resort. What he should have said is the fig leaf of last resort, something to hide behind. Senators say privately, ``Well, we can't do it politically because we will lose all these interest groups. It would be disastrous if we did what we have to do. So let's put it in the Constitution, and we can hide behind that.'' You can put it in the Constitution, but you cannot hide. I understand that there is probably only one Republican who will vote against the balanced budget amendment. While my Republican colleagues in the Senate did not sign the Contract With America, they are pushing House Joint Resolution 1, which passed the House and was included in the contract. If I had signed the contract, I would be praying that the Democrats could muster enough votes to kill this, because it is totally, wholly impossible to enforce. One look at the contract would demonstrate that the Republicans in the House are not serious about balancing the budget. The Contract With America and Speaker Gingrich have proposed substantial increases in defense spending and tax cuts for the middle class, defined as people who make as much as $200,000 a year. That is hardly middle class. I do not consider myself middle class. And I do not make that much money. But if I did, I certainly would not consider myself middle class. In addition, the Republicans want to cut the capital gains tax, which mostly benefits the wealthiest 5 percent of the people in the country. When we add it all up the contract would cost an additional $471 billion over the next 7 years and more than $700 billion over 10 years. If we were to start right now trying to balance the budget between now and the year 2002--do not increase defense, do not cut taxes, just leave the trend line as it is--if we set out right now in the next 7 years to balance the budget, we would have to raise taxes, cut spending, or a combination of the two, to the tune of a little more than $1 trillion. If we were to exclude Social Security it would be approximately $1.6 trillion. Do you know what that means? That means that we would have to cut almost $250 billion a year for the next 7 years. Senator, you will not get a check for your salary, because it will be abolished. The FBI will be abolished; the Justice Department will be abolished; judges will be abolished; student loans will be abolished; highways will be abolished; the FAA will be abolished; that people can look at you with a straight face and say we will balance the budget by the year 2002, not by cutting $1 trillion between now and then, but after we add a half trillion dollars in tax cuts and increased defense spending. Do you want to know something else? I went home and told my constituents that I would like to cut taxes, but I am not going to vote for a middle-class tax cut. I am not going to vote for the President's middle-class tax cut, and I am not going to vote for the Contract With America's middle-class tax cut. Because I can go home and talk sense to the people in my State, and I have never hesitated to do it. Not to make too fine a self-serving point, but this is the fourth time I have voted against the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and I do not think I have gotten less than 60 percent of the vote any time I have run since then. Do you know why? When I say I have a lot of faith in the American people, I mean it. I told people all over Arkansas that I do not favor term limits. I do not favor the balanced budget amendment, and I do not favor a middle- class tax cut that can only do one thing, and that is exacerbate the very problem we pretend to be dealing with here. If we can find $100 billion in cuts in this budget, for God's sake, we should put it on the deficit. People do not expect miracles. But under my proposed alternative amendment, people say, ``Well, the deficit problem is not subject to a legislative fix.'' They are wrong. It is subject to a legislative fix. Do you know the beauty of this amendment? Look at those charts. The constitutional amendment calls for a balanced budget by the year 2002, but leaves this body the discretion of not doing anything until the year 2002. My amendment says it requires a balanced budget by the year 2002. And when do we start--now. Not 2002--now. I do not like the supermajorities. I do not even like filibusters. I have participated in a few, but I really do not like them. And I do not like the requirement of 60 votes for this and 60 votes for that. If my amendment is adopted and then subsequently the Budget Committee comes back to this floor in April or May with a resolution on the budget that does not reduce the deficit in 1996 from what it is in 1995, I will raise a point of order, and it is going to require 60 votes in this body to overcome that point of order. Now, if that is not a fair deal, I never heard of one. My proposal is enforceable; the constitutional amendment is not. The 60-vote requirement, which is included in both the constitutional amendment and my proposal, is not without problems. Franklin Roosevelt was detested by a lot of fairly wealthy people when he first became President because he started spending money that the Government had to borrow. But do you know what he was borrowing it for? To keep this country out of the hands of communism, which was a threat. Why? Because people were hungry. I am just barely old enough to remember, but I am a depression child. My mother had saved a $1,000--hen and egg and cream money--and lost every dime of it because the Bank of Charleston went broke, and by the time the receivers got through with it, she did not get one nickel. My mother never got over that. We lived in a house which did not have natural gas. We burned coal to stay warm. My father was making $75 a month when almost everybody else in town was making $21 a month, plus getting a little cheese and beans at the courthouse on Saturday afternoon. By today's standards, people cannot understand that kind of unspeakable poverty--food lines, food lines all over the country--25 to 30 percent of the people in this country out of work. So what did Roosevelt do? He started building public buildings. The gymnasium in which I played high school basketball was built by the WPA to create jobs. He built roads. We had nothing but dirt roads, except the main highway that went through town 18 feet wide. Everything else was dirt and mud. We lived a block north of Main Street, and when it rained, you could not get home without getting stuck in the mud. In the summer, every time a car went down the street, the dust was insufferable. It choked us to death. The Federal Government loaned us and gave us enough money to pave our streets, to give us healthy water where people had died all summer long of typhoid fever before. We eventually got indoor plumbing. My brother and I started taking five baths a day when we had indoor bathrooms. We just did not know people lived like that. We built roads, we built public buildings, we got rural electrification. It saved my father's business. He could sell radios and electric ranges and refrigerators to country people because the Government was spending money; yes, going into debt to try to give people a fighting chance to work their way out of that Depression. There were a few New York bankers who thought it was terrible, but I can tell you, there was not one soul in Charleston, AR, who thought it was terrible. That is the reason Roosevelt carried 46 States in 1936. We are not likely to have a depression of that magnitude in this country again, but let me ask my colleagues, what do you intend to do if we have a 10- to 20-percent unemployment rate? Let us assume further that the deficit is beginning to climb because people are out of work, they are not paying taxes and we are having to pay unemployment insurance and more welfare payments. Our costs are going up and our revenues are going down. But let us assume we have 41 New York banker types in the U.S. Senate who say, ``I promised my people I will never vote to unbalance that budget.'' That will be an issue. If we pass this constitutional amendment, I promise you everybody in this country will be running on the proposition, ``You'll never catch me being a part of those 60 votes to unbalance the budget.'' So you have 41 people here who are insensitive enough not to care what happens. What do you do then? You have a country on your hands that is a basket case, that has turned its back on everything we really believe and that has made this country great. It is a dicey thing we are voting on. Let me say to my colleagues--some on this side--those of you who say, ``Well, the Republicans will just beat us up in 1996. If I vote against this thing and I am up for reelection next year, I can just see it now. There will be millions of dollars spent to defeat me,'' and if we only get 34 votes, then all 34 of them will be accused of being the deciding vote. I am with Harry Truman, if you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Do not mess with the Constitution because you are up for reelection in 1996. The people did not send you here to play games. They sent you here to preserve and protect and defend the Constitution. When you walked down to the well of the Senate on January 3 and held up your hand, you said: ``I hereby swear that I will defend and uphold and protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States.'' You did not say, ``I am going to vote for every trivial cockamamie idea anybody can come up with because it is popular. You think of it, Mr. President, since 1789 when this country adopted the Constitution, Members of Congress have tried over 11,000 times to change the Constitution. You think of it: 11,000. Take the Bill of Rights out, which is the first 10 amendments. They were adopted the same time the Constitution was. Remove those, and in 205 years, do you know how many times we have tinkered with the Constitution? Eighteen times. That speaks well for both Congress and the people. Prohibition was the one time that we slipped up. I was from a devout Methodist family and my mother considered liquor as big a demon as we ever had. As far as I know, neither my mother nor my father ever had a drink in their lives. They hated it. In 1919, I guess it was, the Congress submitted a resolution to the people and said, ``Let's make the 18th amendment a prohibition against drinking.'' I am sure my mother and father supported that. Is it not ironic that they were killed by a drunken driver? But that is not the point. The point is, we were trying to put a kind of social and religious policy about drinking in the Constitution, and people were going to drink. You can put a constitutional amendment outlawing marijuana and cocaine, and was with prohibition. So by the time Al Capone had turned this country into an absolute bloody, bullet-ridden country, we decided we made a mistake and we repealed it. If you don't consider the two amendments dealing with prohibition, actually the people have tinkered with the Constitution 16 times, though we have had 11,000 opportunities. Mr. President, I have a tendency to get a little too personal sometimes during these debates, but I want to be as dramatic as I can be in sounding the alarm about what we are about to do. In 1993, the President of the United States said, ``I committed myself to the people of this country to reduce the deficit,'' and so he, along with the leaders of the Congress, came up with a dramatic proposal to cut $500 billion off the deficit over the next 5 years. We adopted that proposal. We said we are going to cut a dollar of spending for every dollar in taxes we increase. And so what did we do? We raised the income tax rate on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of the people and raised the gasoline tax by less than 5 cents per gallon and cut spending by approximately $250 billion. I consider myself a friend of virtually everybody in this body, including the people who sit on the other side of the aisle, but we stood on this floor for days on end pleading with the people on that side of the aisle to help us get the deficit under control. We had to bring the Vice President over here to break the tie, and we passed it 51 to 50. And so the deficit in 1993 was about $40 billion less than it was projected to be. The deficit in 1994 was $100 billion less than it had been projected to be. This year, the deficit will be down again, and it ought to come down more. The people do not expect miracles, as I said, but if we reduce the deficit by $10 billion from now until the year 2002, I promise you Wall Street, the bond brokers, and the people in Charleston, AR, will be rhapsodic. But, in 1993 we had to reduce the deficit with nothing but Democratic votes. Not one single Republican voted for it. They said, ``Why, you are raising taxes.'' We did, on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of the people, and we cut a lot of spending that I did not want to vote for. And so what happened then? We lost a lot of Members on November 8, 1994, who had voted for it, and whose opponents said, ``He is a tax and spender. He is a liberal tax and spender.'' But we passed the deficit reduction bill and the deficit is down dramatically because we did it. And what happened after that? They said, ``Well, that's not good enough. Let's put some words in the Constitution.'' I say stiffen your spines, colleagues. Let us deal with it. Under my amendment, if the Budget Committee comes out here with a resolution that does not cut the deficit, I will make a point of order and it will take 60 votes for them to pull that off. If they cannot recruit 60 votes, they have to go back to the drawing board and get the deficit down below what it was the preceding year. I have never seen anything that makes better common sense, more imminent common sense than this proposal. Not to coin a phrase but to emulate our friend from Texas, it is just that simple. So, colleagues, I plead with you. This could very well be the most important vote ever cast. I have cast some really important votes in the Senate. In the past, we have always had enough votes to defeat this thing. It is going to be close. It may pass. And when the year 2002 comes and the deficit is soaring out of sight, which it certainly is going to do if this Contract With America is passed, I do not know if we will get the blame for it, but I am sure somehow or other we will. I am willing to accept the blame if my amendment is adopted. But when it comes to the Constitution, I ask my colleagues to remember what they said when they held up their right hand with their left hand on the Bible. They took a solemn oath to defend this sacred document, and not trivialize it with something that is only going to do what Alexander Hamilton said will be the most degrading, deteriorating thing to democracy he could imagine, and that is to raise people's expectations beyond any hope of fulfillment, and make them that much more in the dark about what needs to be done. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUMPERS. I appreciate the Senator's comment. As the Senator knows, we are experimenting with a credit card type food stamp program--I am hoping that will be successful--where a grocery store just takes your credit card and they can tell you exactly how much you have left for the month. It can also kick out any ineligible commodities or groceries you have picked up so that you are not paying for something like cigarettes or toiletries, for examples. The other thing the Senator makes a very good point on is the earned income tax credit. I happen to be a strong proponent of the earned income tax credit. I think it is a very good tool to keep people working, because you have to be working and you have to be a parent before you qualify for it. But the IRS was in my office just recently telling me that I could expect quite a few calls from constituents about the delay in getting their tax refunds. And, of course, the papers are now full of that. But one of the reasons it is late is because they are trying to audit two or three things. One is to make sure people report all the income that they received on 1099 forms. If the Senator, for example, gets a gas royalty at the end of the year, the gas company would send you a 1099 saying we paid you $1,800 this year. So they want to check those against what you reported. That is very legitimate. But the other thing, which is more time-consuming but in my opinion probably is more rife with fraud, and that is the earned income tax credit. I did not realize until recently that some people really are ripping the system off.