Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank the Senator from Washington for his very clear explanation of why so many of us are frustrated by this motion by the Democratic leader and the rewriting, almost instant rewriting of an amendment that the Senator from Washington and I and others have spent almost a decade with constitutional scholars writing to make sure that it was extremely accurate and that it fit the mode and the style of our Constitution, an amendment that was thoroughly reviewed by the Judiciary Committee of both Houses and now all of a sudden this massive new amendment with all kinds of language in it. I truly appreciate, first of all, the Senator's legal mind and the clarity with which the Senator has spoken to this issue and pointed this out. I am amazed, and I think most Senators that are now examining this motion are extremely amazed, as to why would they do something like this. It is not even a very good diversion. It is a tragically poorly written document, and they are proposing by its presentation that it become a part of the Constitution. So I thank the Senator very much for that explanation and going into that kind of detail. I think it is terribly frustrating to the American people but, more importantly, I think now Senators on this floor are becoming extremely frustrated over why this kind of amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding and responding.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield again? Is it not true that as we write proposed constitutional amendments, the one concern we have is that the wording that goes into those amendments is not something that falls within the purview of the Congress on a daily basis? By that I mean they could simply rewrite or change a law and it would change the meaning of it. The Constitution, as we know it and as we are certainly pledged to uphold, is a document that we are constantly trying to comply with instead of change. The language that is put in the Daschle amendment used, as I mentioned earlier, and as the Senator has mentioned, and the Senator from Utah mentioned--the word ``aggregate'' sums, and it used a variety of other words that, is it not true, every year the Congress could pass by a majority vote here in the Senate and the House and change the definition and therefore change the approach of the amendment itself?

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me take from Stephen Moore's article this morning some of the examples he used as to what all of this means, because I really do believe that every Senator has been lost in the woods of trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars and no longer do we really understand budget of $1.6 trillion. And we turn and say, Mr. President, what does that mean? What kind of impact will that have on the economy of this country? What does it mean to every American? Well, you heard the chairman of the Judiciary Committee say it meant a debt structure per capita in this country, per individual citizen, going from $18,000 to $26,000. Here is another figure: A $1.6 trillion budget is representative of spending $23,000 for every household in America. Can you imagine that this President is saying to every American who owns a home or household--and that could be an apartment--that this Government is going to spend $23,000 per household? Well, that is what this $1.6 trillion budget represents. Here is another fascinating figure. We are all riveted--at least some are. In all fairness, I am not too riveted to the television set these days watching the O.J. Simpson trial. But we are told that O.J. is paying something like $55,000 a day in legal fees, at least that was a figure that came out several days ago. Well, here is an interesting figure--$55,000 a day, that is what O.J. apparently is paying his lawyers. Compare that to a $1.6 trillion budget, the American people would be privileged to watch O.J.'s trial for how many days? Twenty-six million days to get to a $1.6 trillion price tag. Again, that is 100,000 years of watching O.J. and the trial. Does that begin to focus what our President has just announced or will be announcing today with a $1.6 trillion budget? Twenty-six million days of O.J., 100,000 years at $55,000 a day. Have we lost our senses? Have we lost our perspective? Yes, we have. And that is why the House 2 weeks ago, by a very large and historic vote, passed a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. And that is why myself, the Senator from Utah, the Senator from South Carolina, and others for so many years have led the issue on the balanced budget amendment. And it is why we introduced House Joint Resolution 1 here on the floor and we are debating it today, because this Congress and this Government has lost its perspective. We do not know what a $1.6 trillion budget is all about or what a $6.6 trillion debt is all about. One trillion--12 zeros behind the deficit figure. That is equivalent to 1.5 million millionaires all giving up their fortune for 1 year of Federal budget. That is another perspective that Stephen Moore put in his article that I think begins to cause us to focus on what this budget is all about. Now, here is another good example. I am using these this morning because I think the American public's eyes glaze. They hear us talking about section 3, subsection (a). They hear us talking about the kind of language that the Daschle amendment has in it--``aggregate levels of new budget authority.'' I have a feeling that they do not understand that. Frankly, not many of us understand it. How about ``major functional category''? I doubt that they understand it. But, believe it or not, that is what the opponents to a balanced budget amendment want to put in the Constitution of our country today. Now here is an analysis that the American people will understand. Again, it is an analysis of what $1.6 trillion means. Imagine a train, a freight train, 50-foot boxcars, crammed with $1 bills, each boxcar 50-foot long, crammed with $1 bills. How long would that train have to be to house $1.6 trillion or President Clinton's budget? Well, here is an interesting statistics. You can get about $65 million in a boxcar. Now if any of you are quick with mind and calculate that, you may well be ahead of me. But my calculations and the calculations of Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute suggest that that is a train that is 240 miles long. So, in other words, if you are thinking of the Northeast corridor here of our rail system--that is from Washington, DC, through Baltimore, through Delaware, through Philadelphia, through New Jersey and into New York City--one train all hooked together, not moving, each boxcar 50-foot long, crammed with $1 bills, $65 million per boxcar, and Mr. President, you got your budget--$1.6 trillion. Now, I think the American people understand that analysis. I do not think they understand ``aggregate level of budgetary authority.'' I doubt that they understand ``account by account basis.'' Many Americans have read our Constitution and they understand what a beautifully simple and clear document it is. They understand the purpose of why it is clear, so that it cannot be reinterpreted and misinterpreted and reinterpreted again. And what is also very important is that every word that is in that Constitution does not allow the Congress, on a daily or yearly basis, to change the game plan or the definition of the words or the description of the program or the policy that might be enshrined within the Constitution. And, of course, that is exactly what the amendment that has been presented and is now known as the Daschle amendment does. And that is why there is no doubt that this Senate has to vote it down. We cannot trivialize our Constitution. We must stay on focus as to why the American people sent us here and to what they so profoundly said on November 8 of last year. Well, let me give you another analysis. If you do not understand what $1.6 trillion is all about, what $6.6 trillion of debt is all about, what a debt per every American of $26,000, as their share of the national debt, or a budget that spends $23,000 per American household is all about, here is a quote from the former Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Miller, who I believe headed that up under Ronald Reagan. He calculates that if a jet airplane were flying overhead at the speed of sound and spewing out a roll of $1 bills behind it--that is, all connected together, open up the side door and drop it out and let it roll out across the skies of America--what would happen. Well, that plane would have to fly more than 15 years nonstop, airborne, constantly spewing out those $1 bills all connected together to get to $6.6 trillion. Well, people are probably beginning to say, ``Senator Craig, we have had enough of that.'' But I think those are important visuals for the American people to begin to understand what we are talking about and why a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution is so critically important. Now let me for the next few minutes talk about the kind of impact that this will mean to the American people, our ability as a Government to establish priorities and to determine those areas where Government does have a legitimate role and a responsibility to spend the tax dollars of this country for a variety of purposes and priorities that the American people believe are necessary and essential. Here is one of the greatest problems we have today with a constantly mounting debt. This chart represents interest on the Federal debt through the year 2005. Yes, we do borrow money and, yes, that money is debt. It is real money. We owe it to someone. They expect a return from the money that we have borrowed from them. We do pay interest.This year in the budget that the President has just proposed, $1.6 trillion, that ``.6,'' ``.3 of the .6'' is interest on debt, now the second largest item in the Federal budget. It is now crowding out defense, crowding out discretionary spending, like the management, running of our Forest Service, our Department of Agriculture, and a variety of other programs that a lot of Americans think are pretty important and pretty essential. It is just interest on debt. It is not buying any program. It is not putting any food in any poor child's mouth. It is going out to pay for the amount of money that the Federal Government has already borrowed. That figure, as we know it, is today around $300 billion annually. Of course, with the growth from 4.9 to 6.6 in Federal debt, as this President has now sanctioned, that figure will progressively grow over the next good number of years. The gross interest payment exceeded, as I mentioned, in 1994, nearly $300 billion. This is the greater of the total outlays of the Federal Government in 1974. That is an interesting piece of history: That the interest on debt in 1994 was greater than the total outlays of the Federal Government in 1974. Is there any reason to try to understand why the American people spoke in the election of November of last year with running again for reelection, who tried to defend the status quo? I believe the American people are growing frightened of this kind of a debt structure, fearful that their Government and its spending are out of control, and that there is no way to rein it in and; as a result of that, we could risk out here, at a $6.6 trillion debt, loss of our ability to control our Government or our ability to pay interest, if not principle, on debt. Those are very real facts. That is why I believe the balanced budget amendment passed so soundly in the House for the first time in history, and why I believe it can pass here in the U.S. Senate. There is no doubt that we have our work cut out for Senators. As we watched some of the leaders of the Senate talking on national television in the news shows yesterday, one of them, strongly opposed to this, said he will speak weeks and weeks on the floor, convincing the American public that what we are doing is OK, that somehow we ought to just keep on doing what we are doing; while he, of course, recognized that reduction in deficit and control of debt was important and he said we ought to try to do that, too, and we ought to work toward that, and he even suggested that all of the successes of the last several years were producing a substantially better budget. Well, I am sorry, that Senator was not right. He was wrong, if we use the example of the very budget that the President is producing today, which is a reflection of the spending programs of the last several years. In other words, anyone who stands on this floor in the next 3 weeks and opposes a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution or, more importantly, the right of this Senate to agree with the House and send out to the American people a balanced budget amendment for them, the American people, to decide whether it ought to be a part of the Constitution, and whether it ought to control or bring into control the growth rate of our Federal budgets, what those people are simply advocating is the status quo. They are trying to avoid the people of our country taking their Government back. They do not want to give up the power they have: The power to spend, the power to go home and say, ``Look what I have done for you.'' Well, I think the message is changing. I think the American people are saying something entirely different from what they have said in the past. The reason is very simple: They now see, as far as the eye can see, the red of debt; or as far as the plane can fly, billions of dollars spewing out of it, year after year. Or to imagine that $1.6 trillion budget really is beyond the ability of any Member to imagine how much that kind of money really is. We are talking about a fundamental change in the course of our country that can be produced if the Congress of the United States is willing to address the demand of the public they were sent to represent. That, of course, is to pass a balanced budget amendment, and to send it forth to the States, and to begin a national debate across our country in every capital city of every State as it relates to the ratification of that amendment, where every citizen and every State legislator will begin to understand exactly what the Federal budget is all about and the kind of impact it has on the general economy of our country. Those are the issues. Over the next several days, as we look at the President's budget, as we hear the rhetoric from the other side, saying, ``We don't want a balanced budget amendment. We want business as usual,'' and more importantly, ``We want you to show every cut you would make to balance your budget.'' We cannot even get from this President the commitment that he told Members he would honor last year and the year before with his budget messages, and that was to reduce the deficit and to keep the deficit declining. Even this President has begun to walk away from it, so reflected by his proposal and by the budget that he is now presenting. There will be adequate time for me to discuss other issues over the course of the next several weeks. Several other Senators are joining me on the floor, and I certainly hope our colleagues from the other side will find it today in their ability to come to the floor and defend their amendment, their motion to recommit, their motion to duck and run from a balanced budget amendment, their motion that would muddy up the Constitution of our country with language like ``aggregate levels,'' and ``major functional categories,'' language that has no business in the Constitution. But, more importantly, the American people cannot even begin to understand. We know what the American people understand. They understand that every day and every week and every month and every year, they have to balance their checkbooks. Their budgets have to balance. They have to pay their bills, or they are in trouble. And they are now growing fearful that our unwillingness to do so could bankrupt our country, their country, their future. Now, that is very simple, and the American people clearly understand the importance of that kind of basic economic simplicity--balancing budgets, controlling debt, spending within your means. I am sorry, Mr. President, your budget just does not get it. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have just heard Senator Domenici from New Mexico, chairman of the Budget Committee here in the Senate, outline for us what many of us feared we would hear from this President as he presented his budget to the Nation which will now be presented today--statistics and facts and figures that I do not think any of us wanted to hear or that the American people can even begin to fathom as it relates to what it all means. Certainly, this chart I have with me reflects exactly what the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, said. From a debt structure for our country at the end of fiscal 1995 somewhere in the $4.9 trillion mark to, by this President's own admission with the submission of his budget today, a deficit out here in the outyears around the year 2002 of $6.6 trillion. What does all of that mean? I find it also very unique that as we debate the balanced budget amendment here on the floor--as we have been now for well over a week, and as we will, maybe, for the next several weeks--that the leader of the Democratic Party would come to us with an amendment that, in essence, says: Submit a budget in all of the detail of how you want to balance the budget, and if you do not, we cannot submit a balanced budget constitutional amendment as a matter of principle to the people for their consideration. I say that is an interesting combination, Mr. President, because as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are now saying that, the very leader of their party has presented a budget today that looks like this as it relates to debt structure. Not even their President was willing to talk about a reasonable approach toward the kind of deficit reduction that he himself pledged to us as a country but 1 year ago. In less than a year, this President has moved away from the very premise he ran on, on the very budgets he proposed, on the very premise by which he pushed through one of the largest tax increases in the history of the country, and that is, that we would have continually declining deficits toward a balanced budget, with a progressive reduction in the rate of debt growth for our country. Mr. President, what happened? Where are you? Why did you forsake us? Why did you say one thing in one budget year and now come forth with an entirely different approach in another budget year? Well, I may sound a little hard on the President this morning. Let me back off a little bit and say I guess I am not surprised, because for the last two decades, other Presidents have been making similar promises, and many of those Presidents have been Republican Presidents. Yet, we saw the deficit and the debt structure of our country grow from 1990, where we had a debt of around $3 trillion, now to a President walking before the cameras and talking to the American people and, in a straight-faced way, suggesting that this budget projected outward will produce a $6.6 trillion deficit. This morning in the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore, who is the director of fiscal policy at the Cato Institute here in Washington, tried to put these kinds of analyses and projections in perspective for the American people. I recommend to my colleagues that they read that article, because it begins to cause us to focus about why we are here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and will be here for the next 3 weeks debating a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator is so accurate about what he says about where the obligation rests. Those of us who have championed the cause of a balanced budget amendment and have argued that--and I think all of us currently on the floor have agreed in the text of the current balanced budget amendment. Within the next 48 hours the President of the United States--who stood on the floor of the other body for the State of the Union about a week ago and announced the concept of a balanced budget, and said, ``Show me how to balance it''--will be introducing his new budget. That new budget has $190 billion in deficits as far as the eye can see. This President with a straight face is going to look the American people in the eye and say I am going to put at least another trillion dollars to that $5 trillion debt that our colleague from New Hampshire just spoke about. That is responsibility? No, it is this President's obligation and his party's obligation--or at least those who are advocates of this new amendment that has just been proposed--to come up and say, here is how we get it done under our vision, because if they are committed to trillions of dollars more of debt structure, they are in fact being irresponsible. I thank my colleague for yielding. I think he is so accurate in those observations. I congratulate him on his tremendous strength and support of this issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last year I had the opportunity to visit the Republic of China on Taiwan and witness first hand the social, economic, and political progress in that country. During my visit I had the pleasure of meeting with President Lee Teng-Hui, who has been a strong agent of change and leader for his country. My home State, Idaho, has directly benefited by the developments in the Republic of China though an enhanced relationship and growing trade relations. have an opportunity to meet with Premier Lien Chan. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to enter into the Record the following statement detailing the efforts and accomplishments of Mr. Lien as presented to me by Winston L. Yang, chairman of Seton Hall University Department of Asian Studies. In so doing, I hope that others may benefit from Mr. Yang's comments and become more familiar with developments in the Republic of China. The statement follows: Premier Lien Chan's Reforms and Programs (By Winston L. Yang) It has been almost two years since Lien Chan became the 14th Premier of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan. As Premier, Mr. Lien has been carrying out polices of democratization and using Taiwan's economic power to break out of the international isolation created by Peking. Lien has reaffirmed the ROC's commitment to the official goal of eventual reunification with the mainland. But while following a pragmatic policy toward the mainland and working to expand unofficial exchanges between the two sides, he also insists on the need to strengthen Taiwan's defense and international standing. In implementing ``Pragmatic Diplomacy,'' Lien has advanced the possibility of Taiwan's renewed representation at the United Nations and membership in other international organizations. Mr. Lien wants to hasten the pace of Taiwan's modernization and economic development. One of his goals is to increase per capita income to at least $20,000 by the beginning of the twenty- first century. His economic recovery program, which is both realistic and well-designed, is intended to strengthen Taiwan's economy and competitiveness. Premier Lien has attached great importance to his administrative reform programs, which are designed to improve morale, to upgrade the quality and efficiency of government, and to reduce and ultimately eliminate corruption, insubordination, bureaucratic elitism, and waste in personnel and resources. His sight is set on establishing a clean, efficient, capable, and streamlined government, making it Taiwan's greatest ``service enterprise.'' Personnel cuts, office automation, the closing or merging of unwieldy agencies, and an anticorruption campaign have been launched. The administrative reform programs call for a five percent reduction in the number of government employees, a close watch for corruption, heavy penalties for violations by officials, and less bureaucratic red tape for Taiwan people. Public officials involved in fourteen targeted areas, from handling construction bids to performing judicial duties, are being closely monitored. In the political arena, the government has overcome a number of obstacles to promote constitutional reform and established a framework for democracy that should lead to far broader democratization within the next few years. Furthermore, it has introduced an administrative reform bill to establish a clean and effective government. The plan is built on the cornerstones of honesty, efficiency, and public convenience. To achieve honest government, Lien Chan has taken concrete measures and moved simultaneously to eliminate corruption, prevent corruption, and revise laws to ensure that government employees at all levels dare not, cannot, do not, and need not be corrupt. In an effort to improve Taiwan-mainland relations, the Government has been devoting itself to the expansion of cultural and academic exchanges, and to building complementary economic relations for the benefit of both sides. Intermediary bodies from Taiwan and the mainland have held talks and negotiations to address problems resulting from people-to-people exchanges. In April 1993 in Singapore, the intermediary bodies signed four historic agreements, the first agreements to be reached by the two sides since 1949. In August 1994, representatives of the two bodies met in Taipei and achieved important breakthroughs after Peking's delegates made concessions by recognizing Taiwan's judicial authority over the fate of airline hijackers from the mainland and Taipei's authority to patrol fishing in the Straits of Taiwan. Naturally, Taiwan's economy is critical to the success of all programs. Mr. Lien's economic recovery program has already produced concrete results. Steady recovery and stable growth have been clearly evident since mid-1993, even though the ROC's trade surplus continues to decline. In 1993, Taiwan's economy grew by about six percent. Analysts expect the 1994 economic performance to improve further. Yet significant change must be made in the light of economic realities. The Six-Year National Development Plan has encountered a number of problems. Necessary modifications have been made after a thorough review on the basis of needs, priorities, and the availability of resources. Seven hundred seventy-five projects have been reduced to 632, and the original budget of NT$8,238.2 billion has been scaled down to NT$6,029.4 billion. The revised plan is much more realistic. Of the 632 projects, 69 have been completed, and 406 are being implemented. Seventy-four are well into the detailed planning stages and another 30 are on the drawing board. Feasibility studies are being made for 32 projects, while the remaining 21 are yet to be started. Lien's pragmatic approach to the ambitious plan for national development has been hailed by many experts as a prudent course toward the conservation of available resources, the reduction of waste, and the establishment of priorities. The review of the National Development Plan ordered by the Premier has revealed that supply and demand can be coordinated and balanced. Problems can be anticipated and resolved and the projected benefits can be realized through comprehensive planning concerning the use of land, manpower, and material resources.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon, the issue that brings Senators to the floor is the beginning of what I believe will be a historic debate in this Chamber, as it has been in the House the last several days of last week, and that is to debate and consider House Joint Resolution 1, a balanced budget resolution to the Constitution of our country. If I could, for a few brief moments, read to you, Mr. President, and to those who might be listening, the actual resolution. The reason I believe it is so fundamentally important that the American people and my colleagues in the Senate hear and understand what the resolution itself says is because a great deal will be said over the course of the next 3 weeks about this single 2-page document that will simply not be true. By the time we are through debating it, it will appear to some who might listen to be an overburdening action that this Government should not take. I think what is important in the processes of our constitutional requirement is for all of the Senate, and certainly for the American people, to understand that the Congress of the United States is only proposing--is only proposing--to the American people and to the 50 States a resolution that would establish a process to cause this Congress to begin to construct a budget for our country that would come into balance. Let me read: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years after the date of its submission to the States for ratification: Therein itself is a very clear statement, Mr. President, that this Senate begins today only the debate that would cause us to agree by a two-thirds vote to send forth to the States this simple document for them to consider, and by three-fourths to ratify, for it to become the 28th amendment to the Constitution of this country. Article-- One article, not article I, not article II, not article III, but one article with eight sections, 1\1/2\ pages in total. Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three- fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote. Section 2. The limit of the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote. Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed receipts. Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote. Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law. Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts. Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal. Section 8. And the last section. This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later. Passed by the U.S. House of Representatives January 26, 1995. And, of course, introduced into the Senate and brought to this floor today for the purposes of beginning the debate. Mr. President, the reason I read this document and the reason it is important that the Record show that it is but 1\1/2\ pages in length, it is 8 sections and only 1 article, as proposed as the 28th amendment to the Constitution of our country, is because if the average citizen just listened to the debate, they would think that the magnitude of this statement, so defined and so articulated by the opposition to it, surely must be 1,000 pages in length, or it must be one of those 1,700- or 2,000-page bills, like the health care bill of a year ago. If it is to cause for this country all of the dire predictions that the Senator from Massachusetts just proposed, how could a document so simple cause so much problem? In fact, how could a document so simple even suggest after it were ratified by the States that the Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation? In fact, what we are hearing and what we will hear for 3 or 4 weeks, and potentially hundreds of amendments later, is that the Congress itself has the cart before the horse; that we, the Senators, must see in great detail every item that will be cut, every 7-year period, and yet the constitutional amendment itself, as proposed, says that: The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation-- And that will come logically, at least, only after we find out if three-fourths of the States of our Nation are willing to ratify it. I think myself and the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Illinois know that we will try to do better than that. We will work at explaining and trying to articulate what we believe this process, this procedure would require as it relates to changes in budget and changes in budgetary practices. But I think for all of us who will become involved in this debate over the next several weeks, it is constantly important that we remember that it is but a simple document proposed to the States and, yes, out of that simplicity will probably come one of the most significant changes in the way the central Government of this country operates than ever in the history of its central Government since the Constitutional Convention and the proposed Constitution that this would become an amendment of as it was proposed some 208 years ago. The Senator from Utah, who leads the debate on this side, has clearly spelled out the efforts and the work that has gone into the crafting of this amendment. Certainly, the Senator from Illinois, who is here in the Chamber this afternoon, and the Senator from South Carolina know, because they have been involved in this issue for a good many years, as have I, that it is not a partisan issue, that it cannot be a partisan issue. By the very nature of the two-thirds vote that is required in this body, it is uniquely bipartisan. And over the years we have worked hard to accomplish that. The vote in the House of last week demonstrates very clearly that it was again a uniquely bipartisan debate and vote, with many members of both parties voting for it, to acquire that two-thirds vote. The gravity and the magnitude of changing the Constitution of this country must be something that a majority, a very large majority, of the American people agree with, two-thirds in the Senate and the three- fourths of the States. It is so critically necessary. I have mentioned Paul Simon of Illinois, former chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, leader on the Democrat side on this issue. Strom Thurmond, who is here to speak this afternoon, from South Carolina, President pro tempore of the Senate and former Judiciary chairman who introduced this issue in the 1950's; Orrin Hatch, who now chairs the Judiciary Committee, who spoke and opened up this debate as he brought the House resolution to the floor; and Howell Heflin, Carol Moseley-Braun, Pete Domenici, and many other Senators including myself have been involved in this issue for well over a decade now. The reason I mentioned breadth of time and all of those from a bipartisan point of view that have been involved in this issue is because, as attitude and ideas change here in this body or in the other about how we govern our country, one idea that has been around now for well over two decades has been this idea. I think it has met the test of change and time. And I think all of us recognize that, if we truly are going to bring about the kind of changes in the central Government of this country that many of us believe the American people spoke to on November 8, this is the issue, this is the resolution, that can bring that change because while all of those ideas change about how we change our Government and how we look at it, this one has not changed. Interestingly enough, it was not just one of those items in the Contract With America that Republican candidates for the House of Representatives ran on last year and now work on as Members of the Congress. It was the centerpiece. The reason it was the centerpiece, and the reason we know why it should be, was the importance it plays in what it will cause this Congress and this Senate to do differently. The Senator from Massachusetts was talking about a variety of very important programs. Many of us call them Great Society welfare programs, ideas of the past, ideas that appeared to be good in their day, ideas that would have solved a great many problems for our country. But when you look at the breadth of time that they have been funded and have been operating, have they addressed our problems? Have they solved the problems they set out to solve? The answer is quite simply no, because if they had and had there have been no more poverty and been no more people on welfare, if the budget had been balanced, I doubt that the election last November would have been the way it was, that our American people would have spoken so strongly to this issue and to other issues and would have demanded the change. So it is not in spite of them; it is largely because of a variety of ideas that have transformed our Government that have caused us to have a $4.6 trillion debt and on average $200 billion deficit and a $300 billion annualized interest payment. The American people are saying in a very loud way and in a very clear way, Congress, pass a balanced budget amendment and in so doing transform our Government for us and do as you will to change it. Be kind. Use good priority. Recognize those in need. But do not continue to fund it by deficit in the manner that you have. This year in a Wirthlin poll, 70 percent of the American people said that, or said some form of what I have just said, and 19 percent disagreed. A Washington Post-ABC poll beginning this year showed that 80 percent of the American people agreed or said something like that when asked the question. Even when the question was asked, well, what about, or if, or this might be changed, they said, we want a balanced budget because we fear that the Government and those who govern us have lost sight of the impact of a debt and a deficit of the kind we have as a country and its potential impact on future generations. Well, those polls were taken in 1994 and 1995, just this year. But in September 1992, again, 81 percent of the American people spoke out and said change, balance the budget, pass a balanced budget amendment, begin to restrict yourselves, begin to control yourselves as a government. So it is an issue that has withstood the test of time. It is not something new, nor is it unique or different. You will hear in the course of this debate quotes from our Founding Fathers. You have heard the Senator from Massachusetts refer to the Federalist papers. Let the new Federalist papers of 1995 be crafted by this Congress to speak to the States of our Nation and to tell them the virtues of a balanced budget amendment and what it will do to change the powerful central Government and what it will do to bring back the 10th amendment and the 14th amendment and the power to the States and the power to the citizens to once again control themselves. Yes, this is a most critical time in our Nation's history, and, yes, I believe this is a most historic debate we begin this afternoon. Coincidentally, as we meet here in the Chamber of the Senate today, Governors from all 50 States are meeting in this Capital City, and they are gathered around preparing to convene a national conference of Governors in the coming months to develop a dialog and a presentation to the central Government, to the Congress of the United States, cajoling, arguing, emphatically stating that it is time the States began to reclaim some of their power under the 10th and 14th amendments. A Democrat Governor this morning from Indiana said on national television: And if the Congress does not listen, then maybe we will have to do what States did when they brought about a Constitutional Convention as a result of a meeting in Annapolis, as a result of a failing document called the Articles of Confederation. That was a Democrat Governor that said that this morning in a mild but direct way. A Republican Governor sitting right beside him said, yes; it is absolutely true. If the arrogance of power today in the central Government and here in this Senate and in the House is to say to our States, we do not hear you and we do not care; we will continue to put down upon you one Federal law after another that will erode your power and your ability to govern under a Constitution that puts States in a preeminent power position and put the do that--and that is what those Governors were saying this morning--we will speak even louder to transform our Government once again like the States over 200 years ago had to do because of a central Government that was not working. If we pass this resolution, if we send to the States the 28th amendment to the Constitution of this country, and if it is ratified, then we will begin a historic dialog with those Governors and State legislatures to decide what of these programs that make up this huge Federal budget have priority to the States and to the citizens of those States, which should be paid for by the State legislatures and the taxpayers of States and which should be funded by the Federal Government. And I sincerely believe until we pass this amendment, that kind of debate, that kind of dialog, that kind of cooperative relationship between the States and their central Government will really never begin. Last Friday night we passed another historic piece of legislation, the unfunded mandates legislation. My colleague from Idaho authored that and brought it to the floor of the U.S. Senate. There is no doubt that was a phenomenally important step. But, still, there is adequate room for the Federal Government to create great havoc with State governments and their ability to control. That unfunded mandates bill, coupled with a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal Government's budget would for the first time in the life and the history of this Government under this Constitution create a dialog and debate that will go on for a long, long while as we begin the process I have just outlined: A sorting out of our differences and deciding what we can do and what we cannot do and what is within the fiscal means of our country to do. Yes, to the Senator from Massachusetts, we would establish a lot of unique and new priorities. You see what he was saying a few moments ago when he talked about all those cuts, is that his vision of America is a Government like the one we currently have, only bigger and bigger and bigger. Not changed, not rejuvenated, not redistributed, not redesigned and reenvisioned and recreated. But that is what the American people are saying. And that is why we began this debate this afternoon. Over the course of the next several weeks I am sure all of my colleagues who are joined in this debate in favor of a balanced budget amendment will work overtime to explain to our colleagues here in the Senate and to the American people how the processes will work. But one thing we know is clear. We must pass a clean amendment, because it is nothing but a prescription, a process, a procedure placed in the Constitution which mandates to the Congress of the United States that they will bring their receipts and expenditures into balance on an annual basis and they will do so in a certain manner. And if they find it impossible to do they will offer it up in another different manner under a different prescription. But it will be so required and the American people will know why we are spending in deficit if we must. But more important, that in the good years we will pay it off. We will get back in balance. We will do what our Founding Fathers did for well over 100 years during the history of this country, the first 100 years, when a balanced budget was an ethic. It was believed to be the responsibility of a central Government. Slowly but surely we have walked away from that. Slowly but surely our debt began to mount. Slowly but surely we began to lose control of our Government to an autopilot that now many will argue we must retain. I do not believe that is what our Governors are saying. It is most certainly not what the citizens are speaking to. And it is something this Congress should never agree to again. So we begin this debate with the recognition that House Joint Resolution 1 that is before us as a resolution proposed to the States to provide a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution can bring about profound change. But it will bring about change so designed in the image of the citizens of this country, as they envision their central Government. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, President Clinton outlined the many challenges facing this Nation in his State of the Union Address. Paramount amongst those challenges was the need to bring fiscal responsibility back to the Congress and the Federal Government. I appreciate the President's acknowledgement of the need to balance our budget. In this same speech, coupled with the challenges that we face as a nation, the President outlined his proposed action to assist our neighbors in Mexico. The Congress will soon be faced with a vote on whether to support this proposal, which will provide Mexico with $40 billion in loan guarantees. The purpose of the loan guarantees is to reschedule overextended short-term maturities, assisting Mexico through what is now a difficult financial situation. With our current budgetary problems, I cannot support the exposure of my fellow American taxpayers to the tune of $40 billion in loan guarantees as initially proposed by President Clinton. Mr. President, as the administration and Congress struggle with this fiscal crisis, I am concerned that we are overlooking many important factors. Mexico's financial situation seems to be the result of past policy decisions, not external factors outside of Mexican control. The Mexican Central Bank, in an attempt to hold interest rates down, printed a huge excess of pesos. By creating excess pesos, Mexico undermined the exchange rate and drove many investors away. The devaluation was forced by bad monetary policy. The mistakes made by Mexico do not give me confidence that this loan package is a good idea. If we are asking taxpayers to risk their hard- earned money, we must guarantee that this loan is not throwing good money after bad. I suggest that we ask for four specific conditions: (1) Sound money policy. This could be guaranteed by the institution of a currency board. (2) Guarantees that tax policy will be pro-growth and wage and price controls will be eliminated. (3) Reasonable and adequate collateral. (4) Full disclosure of how the moneys raised under the guarantee are disbursed. Mr. President, the problems in Mexico are not new, and they are certainly not simple. Therefore, in an effort to further review this problem, members of the Senate Steering Committee invited several speakers to provide more-in-depth information. Those speakers included Walker Todd, Lawrence Kudlow, Steve Hanke, and Riordan Roett. My purpose in pointing this out is to emphasize that my position on this issue has not been formed hastily. My support of pursuing a currency board for Mexico is not an effort to ignore the needs or problem that Mexico now faces. Quite the opposite. A currency board, from the information I have reviewed, seems the most viable option to provide a solution to this problem rather than a Band-Aid response that will provide only temporary relief. Mr. President, Steve Hanke, who is a professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and has researched and written extensively on monetary policy and the use of currency boards, made a number of cogent points which I would like to share my with my colleagues. The simplicity of a currency board is one of its greatest assets: A currency board is a monetary institution that only issues notes and coins. It maintains full convertibility of that money at a permanently fixed exchange rate with a foreign anchor currency, such as the dollar. As reserves, it holds assets in the anchor currency equal to 100 percent of all notes and coins in circulation. This requirement provides credibility for the fixed rate because a board cannot expand the monetary base faster than it obtains foreign reserves. Consequently, a board cannot cause a balance of payments crisis because of a lack of foreign reserves. Indeed, no currency board system has ever succumbed to a balance of payments crisis. In addition to their simplicity, currency boards have a proven record. Professor Hanke discussed the success of currency boards in Hong Kong, Estonia, Lithuania, and Argentina. I was especially interested in the success of the currency board in Argentina. That country was experiencing annual inflation rates of 2,315 percent in 1990. In April of 1991, President Menem of Argentina Installed a currency board. Since the adoption of a currency board, the rate of inflation in that country has dropped to around 3.9 percent--the lowest in Latin America--and, the budget is virtually balanced with economic growth up to about 7 percent. The successes in Argentina need to be very carefully reviewed and considered as a model for resolving the problems experienced in Mexico. Rather than writing a blank check, I hope that this administration will consider opening discussions with the Mexicans to review this option. Professor Hanke also pointed out that a currency board could be established easily and inexpensively. In fact, language on currency boards, included in the 1993 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill provides that: There is appropriated for an increase in the United States quota in the international monetary fund, the dollar equivalent of 8,608.5 million special drawing rights, to remain available until expended and, among other uses, Such funds may be used to support monetary stability in member countries through the instrumentality of currency boards. (Public Law 102-391, 106 U.S. Statutes at Large 1636). In short, Mr. President, I cannot support the extension of $40 billion in loan guarantees to Mexico. With respect to the issues of adequate collateral and full disclosure of receipts, in my estimation these issues should be addressed fully in this debate. The need for adequate collateral for a loan guarantee is fairly straightforward. I have grave concerns about accepting Mexican oil receipts as collateral when they are previously obligated and limited--Pemex, the National Petroleum Co.'s gross export receipts per year are about $8.5 billion. There is an excellent discussion of this issue and the need for full disclosure in a recently published article from The Nation magazine by Walker Todd. Let me add, I do not often agree with the positions raised in this publication, but hope that my colleagues will take a moment to review it. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to enter a copy of the article in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during a session of the Senate on Wednesday January 25, 1995, at 10 a.m., in Senate Dirksen room 226, on congressional term limits.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. I wish to table amendment No. 185.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me conclude the time on our side by looking at what past Congresses have done when they proposed amendments to the Constitution. What the Senator is suggesting in his amendment is that the first Congress would have been able to anticipate that in the first amendment we would have said that yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater is against that amendment. But that is not what the first Congress said about the first amendment, because they did not know at the time. They did not understand, or they could not anticipate, what a court would suggest. What this is saying is that in the second amendment we would have said it was intended to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. That is not what our Founding Fathers said at the time. They did not know. Or we could have said the fourth amendment required reading aspects of the Miranda rights into the decision. Or maybe we would have said, in a post-Civil War Congress, that we knew 100 years subsequent how we would anticipate all of the civil rights that would have come under the Constitution. No, I do not think that was intended, and I do not believe that any Congress can anticipate what a constitutional amendment will do beyond the clarity of the language of the Constitution itself, and that is that we will have a balanced budget amendment in a period of time. Now it would then be the responsibility of Congresses following the enactment of an amendment as they begin to shift the priorities of Government, as they begin to downsize the rate of growth in Government, to turn to States and say: These kinds of impacts could occur. I think that would be the responsibility. I hope the Senate will vote down this amendment in a tabling motion, because I do not believe it is possible for us to project 7 years out into the future what future Congresses might do and what impact it would have upon the States.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield a few moments to the Senator from Utah to respond.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Utah for purposes of responding.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Very briefly. I thank my colleague for engaging in this issue this morning. I will say that clearly the balanced budget amendment is a bipartisan issue. I have always appreciated the support of my colleague in this issue. It must be bipartisan. This is a national debate that involves all partisan interests. I thank my colleague for coming to the floor this morning and making that very important point.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in my concluding minutes, let me thank my colleague from Montana for his strong support and for the always strong dose of good common sense he brings to the floor of the U.S. Senate, which sometimes does not prevail here when we debate fiscal matters, when we work in setting the priorities that he so clearly spelled out are the responsibilities of legislators like ourselves in meeting the mandates of a constitution and of the kind of government we have. I think we all recognize that our Government cannot be all things to all people, and yet for well over three decades we have had a Congress that largely believed we could continue to spend and get involved in almost every aspect of American life, stimulating, offering, providing, adding to and always directing and controlling ultimately when we put the Federal tax dollar there. That has amounted, as I mentioned in my opening comments, to a $4.7 trillion debt that is now more than $18,500 of debt for every man, woman, and child in the United States. In just a few moments we will resume debate of S. 1. That again is symbolic of a Congress and a government that has lost its vision of what our Government and country ought to be like. Our State Governors said, if you are going to pass a balanced budget, then pass S. 1 first so that you will not have the ability of a central Federal Government to push through to us mandates and then require that we raise the taxes. In other words, S. 1 really forces the priority process that my colleague from Montana so clearly talked about, which is part of the debate that is very much important in the whole of what we plan to do in the reorganization and redirection of our Government that was demanded of us by the electorate on November 8. But, once again, let me remind my colleagues that as we begin this debate, there will be loud cries of: Show us your nickel and show us your dime, show us where you are going to spend, show us every bite of food you are going to take as you scale down your diet and you plan to lose weight. Let me remind my colleagues we are talking about, with this Senate resolution, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is a process. That then requires a procedure to be adopted by the Congress of the United States to establish the priorities and spending and to bring us to a federally balanced budget. So let the debate begin. Let us recognize over the next several weeks that this is only the beginning, that if this Congress sends forth a constitutional amendment, it must go to every State capital in this Nation and every legislator. And I hope every citizen becomes involved in what could be one of the most unique national debates in the history of our country as the citizens determine whether they want to ratify require the Congress of the United States to live within the parameters of a process that we will soon begin to debate and hope to establish. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the writer of this article suggests that one of the standard arguments we are hearing, and we have now heard before both the committees--the Judiciary Committees in the House and the Senate--that have taken testimony on a balanced budget amendment, have come from people like Alice Rivlin who, in testimony for the White House as the Budget Director, suggests that we cannot possibly strive to balance the budget because, she suggests, that when purchasing power falls in the private sector--in other words referencing a recession-- that the Federal budget must be there to stimulate, to cushion the slide, to cushion the downfall. She and others have used that as a standard argument, that under the ``straitjacket of a balanced budget amendment, the Federal Government will not have that kind of flexibility. As a result, recessions will become deeper, verging on to depressions. Certainly our citizens will suffer as a result of it.'' That is what she and other economists believe. They would argue that is largely the substantial majority of belief embodied in the community of economists in our Nation today. I would like to argue differently. James Bennett, who is an economist at George Mason University, along with 235 other economists, have signed a letter supporting a balanced budget amendment of the very kind that the Judiciary Committee here in the Senate has brought forth that we will begin debate on next week. Ohio University economist Richard Vedder agrees that the automatic stabilizers, if you will, that Alice Rivlin talks about, really are not necessary if you treat the economy of this country and if you treat the budget of our Government in an interesting way, and that is to keep it balanced and in the good years run a little surplus like they used to do, a good many years ago, and use that surplus in the more difficult times or recessionary times, to provide the cushion, and that in fact you will have fewer recessions, fewer radical swings in the economy, because you have created a much more stable private sector with a much stronger private sector financing base than to constantly be pulling from the private sector ever larger sums into the Federal package. Every major stimulus package, this article says--which I think is fascinating--every major stimulus package that the Federal Government has passed to soften a recession since 1949 was passed after the recession was over. If you remember, last year our President brought a stimulus package to the floor of this Senate, and to the Congress of the United States, arguing that this was going to be a cushion in the recession. Yet we were out of the recession. We had been out of the recession a year and a half. Last night this President touted that in his 2 years of Presidency so far we have had the jobs, that our economy is stronger now than at any other time in the Nation. How could, just a year ago, this President have been offering a stimulus package to pull us out of a recession because we were still in one? Mr. President, you cannot have it both ways. Because what you were suggesting last night was true, or what you were suggesting last year was true, but both cannot be true. This article points out that historically, every time we have used a stimulus package since 1949 it has been at least 1 year after a recession was over with, and in the case of last year, nearly 2 years after the recession was over with. What that references then is that it was not necessary, that, in fact, it created a deficit and it created debt, and it may well have brought on the next recession by pulling an excessive amount of money out of the private sector at just the time it was lifting off, growing, and creating jobs. Mr. President, at this time let me yield to my colleague from Montana to use such time as he may desire. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Michigan for saying that a balanced budget amendment should be a fundamental principle. It was historically. While it was not embodied in our Constitution, it was a fundamental principle of our Founding Fathers. And it was a fundamental principle of many Congresses for well over a century. This Congress, this Government recognized there might be times of deficit. But during the good times, after you had overspent--whether it was for war or for other extraordinary purposes--you paid off your debt. In fact you ran a surplus. That was an important part of the way our Nation kept its fiscal house in order. Of course we have lost that principle and now, for many decades, we have run deficits that mounted the debt I referred to earlier. Over the course of the next good many weeks there will be a variety of arguments about why we cannot balance the Federal budget. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from Business Daily that appeared this morning entitled ``A Balanced Budget Myth Bared: Economic Cycles Unlikely To Worsen Under Plan.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Georgia for those well-placed comments and pointing out some of the stark reality of the debate and the support and the opposition for this most important issue. I was in the Chamber of the House last night for the State of the Union speech, and I was very disappointed when our President used the old argument: well, if you are going to balance the budget, show us where you are going to cut. That is like saying to a man or a woman who is terribly overweight and they are just getting ready to start a diet, tell me every bite of food you are going to take over the next 4 or 5 years to lose all of your weight--every bite, every kind of food. You and I know that is not possible. What we do know, when someone announces they are on a diet and has consulted a doctor and is beginning to work, they have started a process, and they have begun to work toward a goal and they have put themselves on a regimentation. Mr. President, that is a phony argument, and you used it last night, and you know it is. Over the next 5 or 6 or 7 years, as the Senator from Wyoming spoke, as we balance the Federal budget, priorities may shift, they may change a little, and we may choose to spend less in one area and more in another because we have seen that is where the American citizenry needs their tax dollars spent. So as the Senator from Georgia said, what we speak about today and what begins in the House today and on this floor next week is the debate about putting into the Constitution a process requiring a procedure through a process that gets us to a balanced budget and begins to build the enforcement of what we hope would become a standard discipline in this Congress, and that would be to balance the budget on an annual basis. Mr. President, we are now joined by our colleague from Michigan who just in the past few months has campaigned on this issue and others. The people of Michigan decided to send him here to work in their behalf on issues like the balanced budget, and I would now yield to that Senator such time as he might consume. balanced budget amendment