Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Because of the general fund, because the law of Social Security requires the Federal Government to borrow the money, and that usually is invested in the general fund account.

Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate the Senator's inquiry and he honors me by that inquiry. Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget was originally formed by both Senators and Representatives in the early 1980's. I chaired it in the House and the former Senator from California, now Gov. Pete Wilson, chaired it here in the Senate. We brought our staffs together and through that, along with experts we brought in overtime to testify on this, accumulated a base of knowledge and understanding of the issue. So the best and cleanest and appropriate answer is that it is an ad hoc group of both Senators today and House Members who work under Congressional Leaders United for a Balanced Budget for the purposes of promoting this legislation that we have before us.

Mr. CRAIG. It is my understanding that that is the stacked sequence; is it not? I believe that is the correct answer, yes.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am about to propose a unanimous consent. I will be more than happy to meet with the Senator from Florida and respond to those questions. I know he is sincere in his effort and I will make every effort to accommodate him. I now ask unanimous consent that the votes occur in relation to the pending amendments numbered 259 and numbered 298 on Tuesday, February 28, in the stacked sequence to begin at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to. There is nothing nefarious about it at all. Senators come together, as do House Members, for the purpose of discussion and they find organizational titles. I would be happy to do so.

Mr. CRAIG. Except by a three-fifths?

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. CRAIG. When you shift the debt from, in other words, that held by the Social Security trust fund to the public, where do you get the money to cause the shift because you have money outgoing to the recipient at that point? And we know that in this baby boomer scenario that becomes a very rapid demand level on the trust fund system. on the 1983 structure, was to go to the general public with Federal borrowings.

Mr. CRAIG. In other words, borrowing the money.

Mr. CRAIG. In the year 2020 to 2035 when that $3 trillion worth of liability, if you will, of those trust fund comes due. You are talking about either raising taxes by $3 trillion or borrowing and raising debt by $3 trillion dollar.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will make these questions constructive, as I hope they will be, because I helped craft this amendment over the last 5 to 6 years. We were faced with how do we deal with trust funds, because they are inside the budget, unique to Social Security. The law that created the Social Security system does not allow the trust funds to be invested outside Government. That is the law of the land today. Of course I do not think--certainly not this Senator, possibly the Senator from Florida--does not believe the trust funds of Social Security should be put at risk out in the private marketplace. What happens if you invest in stocks and bonds and they bottom out? Who comes back in and picks the system back up? That is a legitimate concern. I think those who were here in the 1930's when the Social Security system was crafted had that in mind. That was their concern. So here we were, faced with the situation of these revenues coming in as a result of the 1983 fix on Social Security, and having to deal with them. The Senator and I are on the Board of Trustees of the Social Security system. There are no others. It is the Congress of the United States that is pledged to keep this system solvent and secure for its recipients. But in come the revenues and we borrow them. We are doing it today and even under the Senator's amendment we will do it tomorrow. As a result of that understanding, as we crafted this amendment it was our concern, knowing that, that we cut down on the other debt that is out there and accumulating, recognizing this was a debt owed--it was a note owed so that is a debt, certainly--back to the trust funds of the system. But at the same time, this Government is caught in the dilemma that they must use those moneys. Obviously that system cannot earn money if the money is not borrowed from it. So we just do not collect it and set it off to the side and create a nonearning environment. We borrow it and pay back the going rate on the Treasury note. That is a responsibility that we have. That is what this amendment has in mind and why it was worded the way it was worded. I must say, while I find the argument of the Senator from Florida intriguing, we ran this through the system a good many times over the last 5 years to try to solve that problem, believing we have, and I am convinced we have. So I am curious. I mean it in all good faith, how do you deal with what the Senator is proposing? Obviously we are going to use those moneys inside Government and they will be needed, they will be owed at some time back to the trust fund. I am the baby boomer in this debate right now, whereas our colleague from Searchlight was not. I am one of those people who was born in 1945 and I am in that group that is going to be in that peak. The Federal Government, by its commitment through the Social Security system--not Social Security, the Federal Government--is going to guarantee that because they are taking the notes out at this moment and they must pay them back. That is the way the system is structured under the law. I find it confusing in this regard. Would we not have to change the law of Social Security that drives the system today to get to where we want to get, or to where the Senator wants to get with his amendment?

Mr. CRAIG. Please help me there, then.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. This most certainly is a serious discussion about the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia. Every time in our Constitution we have established a vote, in this case a constitutional majority, and in other cases a supermajority, we know that is the standard. That is the level we have to reach to perform in certain ways, to respond in certain ways, as so prescribed by the Constitution. The validity of analyzing prospectively a situation by the comparative of other situations done in an entirely different environment really has no context in this debate. This debate is about an amendment that sets new standards, constitutional requirements that we will meet. Certainly, the Senator from Maryland and I know that on certain votes on this floor, we have watched our leadership orchestrate votes. Some votes are very tough and some Members really do not care to vote. I have been on the floor on occasion when it was well known in advance that the vote more than likely would occur in which the Vice President would have to break the tie, simply because it was a tough vote. But we do know that in instances where, if that did not occur, there is a strong likelihood that if it was the position of the majority party or the majority of those here that this was the kind of vote required, and it was by Constitution the vote necessary, that it could be gained if it was of that importance. But as the Senator from Arizona has so clearly stated, if the priorities rested that we would not break the budget to fund an ongoing military operation that was outside the declaration of war, my guess is the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Idaho, if we agreed that it was important to fund that, and certainly the Senator from West Virginia, if he were in his past role as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, would change or shift the priorities necessary and move money from other programs of less importance to the program of high importance, in this instance military funding, for the purposes of doing those kinds of ongoing funding. That is the real role of this Congress and the most important role under a balanced budget amendment. That is, to establish priorities, not just to get enough votes to bust the budget or to go beyond balance, but in the environment of a declared war, which is distinctively different and we all know that because it is then the decision of this country to put its men and women at risk because our very freedom is at under that context, the simple majority. That is why those who have spent their time crafting this amendment have argued so and, therefore, established section 5 of this article to make sure that we force the priorities of spending the way they have never been forced before in the Congress of the United States. If we had had that kind of prioritizing before, most certainly we would not have the $4.8 trillion debt, the $18,000-plus debt per citizen, the $300 billion interest charge--it simply would not be here, because the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Idaho would have been operating during their presence here under a different mindset. We know our standards and levels of performance, and we may have argued very loudly over what the priorities of spending ought to be, but in the end, we know that those priorities would have to have been established under a balanced budget. So I am suggesting that the Senator from Arizona is absolutely right. To pull a vote from 1941 and argue that that is the context in which article V fits is to argue that every circumstance, every emotion, every understanding of the time and the situation would be identical and we, of course, know that is not the case. How do you justify that 21 Senators did not vote on that critical day? Well, probably because there may have been a few pacifists, there may have been a few who could not vote either way because they simply could not make such a critical decision as to send this Nation to war or, in this case, the draft. Those are the realities of the moment and time and the emotion and the politics of that vote, and certainly the Senator from West Virginia, who is senior to all of us with his experience on the floor, knows that every vote has its own chemistry, its own politics, and its own emotion. What we are saying here is this is a minimal standard to force the Senate to prioritize under fiscal matters which we think are terribly and critically important to maintaining the stability of the economy of this country and the fiscal responsibility of this Senate and our Government. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, and I resist in saying the words ``Here we go again,'' for the simple reason that I now have the privilege of serving on the Veterans' Affairs Committee of this Senate and, by the outcome of the last election, missed the opportunity to serve under the chairmanship of the Senator from West Virginia of this critical and important committee. So when the Senator from West Virginia stands up to speak about veterans and veterans issues, I know he speaks with the utmost sincerity as to his concerns, as does the Senator from Maryland. Because of that sincerity, because of the commitment that this Senator has, we will prioritize at the top of nearly every budget the responsibility we have to honor the commitment that this Government made to the men and women who put their lives in harm's way to provide for our safety and security as a nation. But there is no question that as we debated the Social Security issue and as we now debate veterans issues, that we find our services falling into the Gramm-Rudman trap of taking away or exempting from any budget consideration, under a controlled scenario and under this instance of a balanced budget, these programs. What does that say? I guess it could say they are at the top of our priority list, but it says we can also spend in a lot of other areas that have less priority, and we exempt these programs from any budgetary consideration that is fair and responsible. Two weekends ago, Mr. President, I visited a new veterans home in Idaho that I am very proud of. I helped gain the money for that home and the State of Idaho moved that money. It now is the residence for 70 veterans who served their country well but find the need to have shelter provided by this unique and beautiful home. I visited with most of them, spoke to them. We were talking about the very issue that we are debating on the floor tonight, the balanced budget amendment. All of them said, ``Senator, get the budget under control. I am really worried about the future of this country and I am worried about my grandchildren. So I hope you win. I hope you balance the Federal budget,'' because what those members of that Idaho veterans home knew was that the commitment their Senator had was to always put their issues at the front, to prioritize, as the history of this Congress has always demonstrated that we will treat fairly and responsibly those who served our country, because of the commitment we made when they took the oath. That does not mean we move them outside of the arena of budgetary considerations or the intent to be fiscally responsible. If we allow but one exemption, then there are a lot of other priority areas that many other Senators would find necessary. I would have to say to the Senator from West Virginia, what about his coal miners? What about our they did not put their lives in harm's way to ensure the safety and security and freedom of this country. But we have said for a long, long time we have an obligation to them for a variety of reasons. Yet, we have not chosen to exempt them, nor should we choose to exempt anyone, but to force this Congress to maintain the priorities we think are critically necessary. We believe that that has to be done under the context of a balanced budget. As I said when we debated the Social Security amendments, the threats to veterans benefits is not this amendment, the threat to veterans benefits is the debt and the deficit. The deficit itself is crowding out the benefits, because we have to pay interest on that debt. I say now if we did not have the $300 billion deficit payment, interest on debt payment on an annualized basis, the Senator from West Virginia and I would not have to make the critical decisions we are going to be making in this budgetary cycle, with or without a balanced budget requirement, which will entail reductions in growth rates of certain veterans benefits, not because of a balanced budget amendment, but because for too long this Senate has not been fiscally responsible, and we are now crowding out the very real programs that are extremely valuable. Mr. President, at this time, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming and the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee here in the Senate, such time as he might require.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public a hearing which has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 1, 1995, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 391, the Federal Lands Forest Health Protection and Restoration Act. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at 202-224-2878. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I then ask unanimous consent for 4 hours equally divided on the Johnston amendment, prior to a motion to table, and that no amendments to the Johnston amendment be in order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator knows he is not talking about that. The Senator is talking about an annual payment on the bond, not emptying out the trust funds. We are not emptying out Social Security. The bottom line is that GAO agrees with me against the Senator on the concept of a unified budget. Now, the Senator can play the rhetorical games but the reality is States cannot print money. They must borrow.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. I would yield only on the Senator's time.

Mr. CRAIG. No, I will not. They keep their rating by their fiscal responsibility. That is exactly what they do. Interestingly enough, when you put it all together State by State, while we do not have a capital budget--and we know we do not have it, and the reason we do not have it is because we like the pay-as-you-go basis; it controls our ability to spend and we know we cannot control our ability to spend-- then States are not in a bad shape. States have been offered this financing mechanism simply because they do not have the ability to print money, because they are a part of the whole. Now, we know that. Senators know that. And it comes down to the reality of fiscal solvency. States do not borrow beyond their ability to pay.

Mr. CRAIG. But the Federal Government does look at it in the eyes of a unified budget, because that is how we treat Social Security--and that has been argued here in the Chamber--then, I say to my friend, the rest of the story is that when you put it all together, the State of New Jersey, being as fiscally responsible as they are, is balancing capital, capital reserves in the trust funds of the retirement system versus the investment of the bonds they floated and the obligation they get as an A or a AAA rating and their operating fund and they have a near balanced budget. That is the reality of the report.