Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me finish very briefly. Mr. President, I agree with exactly what the distinguished Senator from Mississippi said about what the issue is, with the exception of one word. He said the issue is very simply do we support a balanced Federal budget, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I think that is a legitimate question, and the answer should be yes. But it should not be are we willing to support any constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget, any constitutional amendment. The answer is no. This is going to be with us for all perpetuity, all posterity, and if it is going to be with us that long and if it is that important and will have that far-reaching a consequence, we had better do it right because we will not get a second chance. With that, again, I thank the Senator for yielding, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the willingness of the whip to do so.

Mr. DASCHLE. My friend, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, made reference to some comments I made last year. Let me respond briefly because I know there are others waiting. I made them in earnest last year, and I stand by them this year. Nothing the Senator from Mississippi said with regard to my comments last year are any less true this year. What I said then applies now, and that is my whole point. If we are going to have a balanced Federal budget, good intentions are not enough. It is not enough to just say we are going to do it. We must be serious about it, and that is the question. When I made those comments last year, we were serious, and we proved we were serious with a $500 billion deficit reduction plan that laid out with specificity exactly what we were going to do. Where is the plan this year? How are we going to do it this year? On just a hope, somehow the expectation that it is all going to magically come together? That is what we are saying. That is why this right to know amendment is so important.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from New York, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, in introducing the President's Middle-Class Bill of Rights, a modest package of measures that will make it easier for middle-income Americans to raise their children, educate themselves and/or their children, and save for retirement. These proposals are in stark contrast to the tax cut proposals advanced by Republicans. The tax cuts in the Republican Contract With America would cost four times as much as the President's tax cuts over the next 10 years, with the overwhelming majority of the benefit going to those making more than $100,000. According to a recent report prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, while the Republican tax cuts would cost $200 billion over the first 5 years, that cost would balloon to $704 billion over 10 years. The President's Middle-Class Bill of Rights would cost less than a quarter of that amount--$171 billion--over a 10-year period. In other words, Republicans are proposing tax cuts that will benefit the middle class, while at the same time asking those same middle- income Americans to pay for tax cuts for high-income taxpayers that are three times as large. That doesn't sound like a fair deal to me. While there are some similarities between the President's tax cuts and those contained in the Contract With America, the principal difference is that the contract includes tax cuts for high-income people and large corporations. And, as far as their impact on the budget and middle-income taxpayers is concerned, it is an exceedingly large difference. Another way the President's tax cuts can be distinguished from Republican proposals is that the President would provide middle-income tax relief specifically for higher education and job training. Education and job training expenses are among the largest costs faced by middle-income families. Yet, education and job training are critical tools needed by middle-class Americans to build more quality of life for themselves and their children. Mr. President, I understand that the Finance Committee already has held hearings on the President's proposal, and I look forward to reviewing the committee's report on the testimony presented at those hearings.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President pro tempore. I wish him a good morning. (Mr. COVERDELL assumed the chair.)

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every Member of the Senate is concerned about the national security of our country. I know each of my colleagues give serious thought and consideration to the details of how best to provide for our national defense and the strength and well- being of our Armed Forces. And for that reason call to the attention of my colleagues a recent article by the Secretaries of State and Defense, entitled ``Foreign Policy, Hamstrung,'' which appeared in the February 13 edition of the New York Times. Secretary Warren Christopher and Secretary William Perry have joined together to present what I believe is a most cogent and informative analysis of the National Security Revitalization Act, legislation which the other body is considering today and tomorrow. Secretaries Christopher and Perry point out that this act which is part of the so-called Contract With America that the Republican leadership of the House is rushing to pass, is in its current form, a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is their considered opinion that the measure would undermine any President's ability to safeguard our national security and to effectively exercise his or her constitutional role of commanding our Armed Forces. I believe we should give serious consideration to the concerned views expressed by these two able Cabinet officers, who are directly responsible for overseeing the day-to-day work of guiding our Nation's foreign and defense policies. They believe that the act's first major flaw is that it would return the United States to a crash-schedule deployment of a costly national missile defense system designed to protect against a nonexistent credible threat to our national security. They correctly point out that such an unwarranted and expensive system would not only divert billions of scarce defense dollars from other more urgent defense needs, such as the readiness and well-being of the men and women of our Armed Forces, but that the unnecessary expenditure of funds on continental defense against a nonexistent ballistic missile threat would also be detrimental to the ongoing development of an effective theater defense system. It is indeed ironic that while some on the other side of the aisle, both here and in the House, loudly proclaim the need for increased spending on a multibillion-dollar star wars program to defend against a theoretical intercontinental ballistic missile attack, they are, at the same time, unwilling to support the necessary funding for the Nunn- Lugar program to reduce the threat of nuclear attack by working cooperatively with Russia to dismantle the missiles and nuclear warheads which were once aimed at our cities. Secretaries Christopher and Perry also point out that the proposed act unilaterally designates certain Eastern European states for NATO membership without consideration of the concerns and desires of other NATO members, or the readiness of the designated states to assume the military and political obligations inherent in NATO membership. Furthermore, they contend that, by its restrictive language this act would effectively abrogate our U.N. treaty obligations to pay our share of U.N. peacekeeping operations. The end result of such short-sighted restrictive action would be the elimination of the availability to the United States of U.N. burden-sharing resources. We in the Congress must be extraordinarily careful not to permit overzealous partisanship to encourage the hurried enactment of legislation which restricts the ability of this, or any future President of the United States, to carry out his fundamental constitutional duty to protect the national security of our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the article by Secretary Christopher and Secretary Perry be printed in the Record, and I commend it to my colleagues' attention.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, first let me congratulate the Senator from Delaware for his eloquent presentation and the leadership he has shown once again on this very important issue. No one in the Senate has become more of an expert on this particular question than the junior Senator from Delaware. I applaud him and thank him for offering the amendment. We all know the purpose of a balanced budget amendment. The purpose, of course, is to free ourselves from our overwhelming debt burden and to promote economic expansion and growth for ourselves and our children. We are here to find a more certain path by which to accomplish that very purpose. A constitutional requirement to balance the budget is one means to attain that goal of a budgetary balance. But the point of the whole exercise is economic productivity and growth. That is what we seek. We want to be able to tell business and we want to be able to tell families that Government policies will create more of an opportunity to have more economic growth and activity than we have now. But if we are to ensure future economic growth, we certainly need to craft a balanced budget amendment carefully in a way that meets the objective of strengthening the economy. I support the idea of forcing the Federal Government to adopt budgetary discipline under which most families and businesses and States must live. As we all know, our current budget rules do not function that way, and we need to correct them. Today we have an amendment that would address that situation and force the Federal Government to live by the same budget, by the same rules and the same standards that every American family, every American business, and nearly every American in every State is required to live by. The Biden amendment would establish, for the first time at the Federal budget level, the principle that there is a distinction between capital costs and operating costs. We actually would, for the first time make the distinction between capital costs and operating costs. This is absolutely necessary to allow us to balance the budget and at that fall outside the scope of annual operating expenses. We have to come to the same conclusion that businesses and families and State governments already have: that there are different types of spending. On the one hand we have investments that can generate the economic growth in this country, in this business, or in this family. On the other hand, we have the operating expenses that daily, monthly or annually we have to pay the bills for, to do the work of government or business. That really is a principle that every family and every successful business has recognized. When a family buys a house or car, or a farmer buys a better tractor, they do not pay cash. If a business expands to a new location or upgrades its computer system or purchases modern machinery, it does not pay cash. People and businesses borrow for long- term investments. So the Biden amendment suggests that we draw the same distinction, economically and fiscally, between investment and operating expense. That is really what the vast majority of States do today. States do not finance road construction or new school buildings or State courthouses or prisons solely out of a single year's revenues. They issue State-backed bonds and pay them off over the useful life of these investments. That makes good, common business sense. So I support the idea of a constitutional budget amendment because I believe its goal is to strengthen our economy. But we do not strengthen the economy simply by writing new words into the Constitution. We strengthen the economy when we focus on the elements that make the economy strong, and shape the constitutional amendment to reflect those elements. We strengthen the economy by concentrating Federal spending on investments that promote long-term economic development, just as business do. So I have cosponsored the pending amendment because I believe it is a practical way to promote economic growth. The amendment would put the Federal budget on the same footing, and subject the Federal Government to the same requirements that govern most States, businesses, and family budgets today. It would establish a clear distinction between capital costs and operating costs. The amendment is tightly drawn, as the Senator from Delaware has pointed out, to prevent the Federal Government from sinking deeply into debt to finance capital investments. The capital budget would be limited to no more than 10 percent of the total outlays for each fiscal year. It would operate under the pay-as-you-go discipline imposed by the requirements of the balanced budget amendment itself. So would the operating budget. Depreciation and debt servicing costs would be assessed to the operating budget, so debt incurred for public investments would have to be repaid within a balanced operating budget. Just as any family must keep monthly car and mortgage payments affordable, the Government would not be able to take on more debt without cutting spending or increasing revenues in the operating budget. So the amendment would ensure that the Constitution preserves the ability of the Federal Government to do what it needs to do, to invest in our economic future in a meaningful way. Put simply, it would create a capital budget to clearly distinguish tax dollars used for public investments from tax dollars used for immediate consumption. It would create a powerful incentive to balance the operating budget--the consumption side--and it would offer an equally powerful incentive to subject all proposed investments to heightened scrutiny. We hear repeatedly that the States balance their budgets, so why does not the Federal Government do so? It is a good question. But it is a question that compares apples and oranges. Most States' balanced budgets requirements apply only to their operating budgets. They borrow for long-term investments and pay back the loans. They balance their books, they do not balance their budgets. The amendment before us provides for a way to make this an apples-to- apples comparison. It would place the Federal budget on the same plane as most State budgets that exist today. Again, the current Federal budget makes no distinction between operating and capital costs. We treat a highway that lasts 40 years precisely as we treat a traveling bureaucrat's lunch that is eaten and forgotten in 15 minutes. That is a prescription for shortchanging investment. A family does not treat a monthly mortgage payment the same as it treats a night at the movies. When the budget is tight, we clamp down on nights out. But we still pay the mortgage. So it is time to abandon the idea that we can operate in today's economy out of a cash drawer as we could two centuries ago. For too long, that attitude has forced the Federal Government into costly and senseless solutions that are short term and, frankly, shortsighted. For example, in the mid- 1980's, when President Reagan was anxious to avoid the appearance of higher deficits, the General Services Administration spent hundreds of millions of dollars on rental leases around the country, although it would have made more sense to build and own the buildings outright. In some cases, taxpayers are still paying on some of those leases today. The argument that Government should operate on a more business-like basis is really what this amendment is all about. Every wise business borrows money to make investments that will increase profits. Smart businesses do not have to guess how much of their borrowed capital, how much of their revenue, how much of their future capital is going to be sunk into wages instead of a new warehouse. They know how their money is allocated because they have capital budgets, and they have operating budgets. It is the instinctive response of any normal household to draw the distinction. But, under current law, the Federal Government cannot do what families or businesses do today. Madam President, a group of 435 leading economists recently called upon Congress and the President to increase public investment now and for the 21st century. They included six Nobel laureates, and their call reflects their professional judgment, not a political one. They said: ``There is a danger in the current antigovernment tone of our national political discourse that we as a nation will forget the essential economic contribution made by public investment in our people and in our infrastructure. * * * The cost of infrastructure decay, urban squalor, and social polarization is too high.'' Nearly every economist agrees that the United States is not investing enough in public infrastructure. Our public capital--roads, bridges, rails, and airports, our water systems, schools, and libraries--are all investments made in the past that support our present standard of living. Our ability to compete, our ability to improve the quality of life for ourselves, and our ability to prepare for the 21st century depends upon our willingness to make these kinds of investments. But our present budget structure, unchanged, guarantees that we will not be able to do so. The distinctive mark of American economic growth throughout its history has been productivity. Ours is an economy and a system that has given free rein to the investments, public and private, needed to sustain the productivity growth that we witnessed now for so long. We cannot, we should not, continue to live off our seed corn. We should be planting for our own futures, certainly not eating the very product that has produced the kind of economic vitality that we now enjoy. The reason these economists and other Americans had to call attention to infrastructure is that investment is not treated by our budget as a distinct budgetary cost separate from consumption, and I daresay that most of the people in the Chamber today would privately agree that it should be. The Biden amendment at long last would achieve just that. Polls show that Americans want much of what Government provides. They want to eliminate waste, of course. So do all of us. But they also want a strong national infrastructure with safer highways, with safe dams, with safe bridges, and good schools. over the investment end of it; they are over the operational costs. Such issues relating to welfare and some of the consumption questions certainly will come up in the coming weeks and months on this very floor. I have not heard much anger, frankly, over capital investments that past generations have made in this country. That is not what this debate is about. We all recognize that public investment continues to decline. We all recognize that someday the bill will come due. We all recognize that if we do not address it now, this problem is going to continue to become more complicated. It will compound and become even more expensive. The amendment before us is neither radical nor complicated. It is a coming of age for the Federal Government. It would give us the tools that every other competitive trading nation in the world already has. Twenty years ago, the first Budget Act was passed. Frankly, I think it was regarded as revolutionary. For the first time, Congress would know how much money was being spent, and on what, before it was spent, not afterward. By now, Congress has done practically everything possible to the Budget Act except to repeal it. But still we do not have a handle on spending. We cannot agree, between 1990 and today, whether the trust funds allocated to future Social Security benefits should be counted against current deficit spending. We took Social Security off budget 5 years ago. This week, we nullified that decision. No wonder there is budgetary confusion. It is time for another revolution, similar in scope to the one that brought the Budget Act into being. It is the single step that would give us the tools needed to change business as usual in Washington. The Biden amendment would make that revolutionary, commonsense change. It would allow us to balance the budget and at the same time promote the long-term investment that we all want, the long-term investment that would give us a real level of confidence that, indeed, we can look to the future in the belief that we can, indeed, improve our productivity and strengthen our economy. I yield the floor. Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in 1985, as part of the farm bill, Congress enacted landmark legislation to protect America's wetlands. The swampbuster provision, as it is called, significantly reduced artificial incentives to drain agricultural wetlands. In 1990, Congress reauthorized the farm bill. In the process, it evaluated problems that emerged from the implementation of the swampbuster provision and modified the law to meet those concerns. It is now time for Congress to pass a new multiyear farm bill. Once again, this exercise provides an opportunity to address legitimate problems in wetlands policy. Let me be clear. America's agricultural producers understand the need for wetlands conservation. Farmers accept that agricultural wetlands provide critical habitat for birds, animals and plants, and supply a mix of other benefits such as water storage, water purification and aesthetics that often decline when wetlands are altered. But farmers are also rightfully concerned about the arbitrary way in which certain wetlands regulations are enforced by the USDA. And so am I. I've spoken with farmers all across South Dakota who are deeply frustrated by the inflexibility of certain USDA wetlands regulations. I've heard horror stories about farmers who have been slapped with huge fines--ruinous fines--for unintentional and accidental violations of the law. I've looked into many of these claims and found the complaints to be legitimate. Farmers have been penalized unfairly because of the inflexibility of agricultural wetlands policy. And some of the problems are a result of a lack of agreement between various Federal agencies regarding the intent of the swampbuster legislation. The vast majority of farmers are doing everything they know how to preserve wetlands. They understand it is in their interest to do so. But no one can comply with regulations if they cannot understand them, or if the agencies responsible for enforcing them can't agree on policy. The bill we are introducing today establishes a simpler, more flexible agricultural wetlands policy. It provides a reasonable, commonsense approach to real problems that farmers face while at the same time protecting our Nation's precious wetlands. Our legislation addresses three major problems. First, it simplifies the rules under which farmers may mitigate wetlands. Second, it reforms the penalty system to distinguish between inadvertent or accidental damage and willful destruction of wetlands. And third, it provides farmers who voluntarily agree to conserve wetlands with a fair return from their land. Under the current law, farmers are allowed to move and replace an existing wetland, but only if they agree to restore a wetland that had been drained prior to December 31, 1985. This process is called mitigation. The new law extends this option to agricultural wetlands that are frequently farmed but were not drained before 1985. It will add flexibility for producers by giving them another option to choose from while still protecting valuable wetlands. That's the first section of this bill. The bill also makes a distinction between accidental and willful harm to wetlands. As many of you know, the penalties for wetlands violations--even minor violations--sometimes are so harsh that they can literally force farmers out of business. I spoke with one South Dakota farmer, for instance, who was going to be fined $97,000 because someone else had driven a tractor through a wetlands area on his farm without his knowledge or consent. The tractor had caused deep ruts and altered the condition of the wetland. Fortunately, the USDA agreed to reduce the fine if the farmer restored the property to its original condition. However, he still had to pay a fine of $2,000 for a violation he did not commit. This bill reduces the penalty for first-time violations if--and only if--the producer acted in good faith. Instead of being subjected to huge fines, the farmer would be required to restore the wetland to its former condition. The proposal would still deal firmly with repeat violators by subjecting them to graduated fines up to $10,000. And those who willfully destroy wetlands would face repayment of program benefits and expulsion from future farm programs. Finally, this legislation gives farmers who voluntarily retire some of their acreage a fair return for their land by permitting them to enroll wetlands in the Federal Conservation Reserve Program. Farming is risky business that often operates on narrow profit margins. Farmers cannot afford to retire productive acreage without receiving some compensation. Mr. President, our proposal is based on the original intent of the Swampbuster legislation, which was to encourage producers to do the right thing, not to drive them out of business. We can protect America's fragile wetlands without ruining producers financially or punishing them unjustly. The key is sensible, flexible regulations that motivate, rather than discourage, compliance. This legislation meets that test, and I hope that the appropriate congressional committees will give it timely and serious consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, generations of Americans have been raised to believe that hard work is a virtue and that if you work hard, you can get ahead and share in the American dream. But for many Americans today, putting in 40 hours per week will not ensure that they will be able to buy their own home or send their children to college. In fact, for some workers, a full-time job doesn't even pay enough to keep their families out of poverty. Workers who earn the minimum wage have seen their standard of living decline dramatically since the 1970's. Even with an adjustment for inflation, the minimum wage is now 27 percent lower than it was in 1979. Looked at another way, the minimum wage is at its second lowest level in four decades. And if it remains at $4.25 per hour, its buying power will continue to erode. As the value of the minimum wage has fallen, the number of working families living in poverty has increased. I'm sure that many Americans would be shocked to learn that more than 11 percent of families with children where the householder is employed have incomes below the poverty line. That an individual could work 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year and still not provide for his or her children goes against our most basic notices of fairness and equity. This startling fact becomes even more important as the Nation turns its attention to the issue of welfare reform. Most Americans--Democrats and Republicans alike--feel strongly that we must break the cycle of dependency upon public assistance and require those who are able to work. But the simple truth is this. We can't encourage people to work if the wages they earn will not even pay for their most basic needs and the needs of their children. So we must find a way to make work pay. Raising the minimum wage is not the sole solution to this problem, but it is a good first step. And for the 36 percent of minimum-wage workers who are the sole breadwinners in their families, it is a very meaningful first step. The legislation I am introducing today with Senators Kennedy, Pell, Dodd, Simon, Harkin, Mikulski, Wellstone, Leahy, Kerry, and Lautenberg will help to restore the earning power of the minimum wage. Modeled on the last increase in the minimum wage--which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed by President Bush--the bill calls for a 45-cent increase in July, followed by a second 45-cent increase next year. This modest increase will not fully compensate for the erosion in the value of the minimum wage since the 1970's. However, when combined with the 1993 expansion of the earned income tax credit, this increase will ensure that minimum-wage workers and their families remain above the poverty level. The American public understands that men and women should be paid a living wage for their labor. In a poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC, 75 percent of those polled support an increase in the minimum wage. Despite the broad public support for an increase, some Republican leaders have expressed their opposition, arguing that requiring businesses to pay higher wages will lead to overall job loss. However, recent studies by some of the Nation's leading labor economists have concluded that when the minimum wage is at a low level, a modest increase will not effect employment negatively. In 1992, for example, New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents per hour, from $4.25 to $5.05. Economists found no reduction in employment opportunities as a result of this increase. Paying workers a living wage is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an issue of fairness and equity. It's my hope that Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle will join together to do what is right for low-wage workers. I think a recent editorial in the Huron, SD, Plainsman said it best: ``Taking home $5 per hour is hardly making a living. But those on the lower end of the pay scale * * * deserve at least that much.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader is certainly within his rights to offer the cloture motion. We understand his reasons for doing so. But I must say I am disappointed that he has seen the need to do so this soon. This is not just another bill. This is not just another amendment. This is a proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States for the first time in 200 years to directly affect the fiscal policy of this country. We have only had the opportunity thus far to offer two amendments. As I have watched the debate I have been very pleased with the extraordinary participation on both sides on both issues. We debated the right to know for several days. We had a good vote. Unfortunately we did not get any Republican support for the effort to propose the right to know. We then had a very good debate on the Social Security amendment that has just been completed. Again we had very little Republican support. But we have only had those two amendments, two very significant amendments. We have amendments relating to capital budgeting, additional amendments relating to natural disasters--issues that have a very consequential effect on how ultimately this amendment may be proposed to the Constitution. I certainly hope we could hold off on cloture votes and some effort to curtail debate, given the consequence of this amendment, given the legitimate concerns expressed, I think, by people on this side of the aisle with regard to just what ought to be a constitutional amendment on balancing the budget. So I urge the leader, with all of the concerns he has with scheduling--legitimate as they are--to give us an opportunity to have the debate that this amendment deserves. As I say, we will debate a lot of issues in this session of Congress relating to virtually everything. But to have a debate longer on unfunded mandates or on congressional coverage than we have on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would certainly not serve the country and not serve this body. I certainly hope we can continue to have the kind of debate we have had, now, for several good days on issues that are of direct concern to the American people and certainly affecting the people in this body as we continue to come to some conclusion on this amendment itself.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his statement this morning and for the great leadership he has shown on this issue. This has been an issue that the Senator from Nevada has been associated with now for a long period of time. He has led our caucus, he has led the Senate, and I commend him for the tremendous effort that he has put forth, especially now over the last couple of days. As our colleagues know, we are about to vote on a motion by the majority leader to request a Budget Committee report on how to protect current Social Security from the effects of a balanced budget amendment. I support that request, but unfortunately, we all know to get the job done. First, the request is just that, it is a request. It does not bind the Congress. It does not bind any future Congresses. Second, the job is more significant than that. It is more significant than simply requesting that somehow at some point in the future we hope that Congresses can protect this important trust fund. The real job is to protect it, and the only way to protect the dedicated funds into which every working American pays to help secure his or her future or the futures of their parents or their children, the only way to do that is to do as the Senator from Nevada has now proposed. Even if the majority leader's request was binding, which we all know it is not, it would do nothing to protect those funds in the future. There is no way that we can guarantee future Congresses are going to do what we ask them to do this year. And so they remain vulnerable to the inevitable attempts to use these funds in future Congresses as we have used them in past Congresses: To hide the true size of the deficit. So as we contemplate amending the Constitution, it is essential--it is essential--that we completely be up front with the American people about how we are going to do it. If we want to build a trust, a faith, a confidence in this institution, we have to level with the public and acknowledge that the nonbinding request upon which we are about to vote is fine, but it simply does nothing, nothing to protect Social Security in the future. When we talk about amending the Constitution, it is the future that we are obligated to consider. The Senate has been debating this issue for some time now, and as it has, many of us have attempted to put teeth and honesty into this particular amendment. We have done so because it is evident from the so-called Contract With America that the only reliable cutting promised by the new congressional majority is going to be made in revenues. The Contract With America promises no spending cuts at all. Let me repeat that. The Contract With America does not delineate any cuts whatsoever in spending. To the contrary, it would commit the Government to substantial new spending. At the same time, it offers a balanced constitutional amendment--a promise with no hint on how it will be fulfilled. And that responsibility is ultimately passed on to future Congresses in a future year. It avoids the responsibility, it avoids outlining the spending cuts that will be required, and we all know we are going to have to vote for if we are here over the next 7 years. In November of last year, the majority told us they would show us a budget cutting plan that would establish a glidepath to a balanced budget. Well, we are still waiting. Then we began to hear that we would reach a budgetary balance painlessly by curtailing program inflation. But we have now looked at the numbers and this easy, pain-free method will not work. It will not work because the numbers do not add up. Then the idea was to wait for the President's 1996 budget and complain that he did not do what the majority said they themselves would do in November--set out a plan to cut spending and balance the budget by the year 2002. So since November, we have heard pledges that Social Security will not be touched, promises that a plan will be written, and declarations that it is not fair to ask when. Current Medicare enrollees were told earlier that Medicare would not be on the chopping block. Now we are hearing complaints that the President did not put it there. I weigh the promises against the hard facts of budget numbers, and I think a lot of colleagues would share my view that the promises do not add up, but the numbers do. And what the numbers add up to is that these promises are, frankly, unrealistic. The promise to lay out a spending plan has not been kept and apparently will not be. Intentionally or not, the new majority sent that signal 2 days ago when every single Senator on the other side voted against telling the American people how the budget would be balanced in 7 years' time. And now they want us to accept on faith the promise to protect Social Security. While I have no doubt that many of my colleagues truly want to keep that promise, the fact is we all know that the pending motion does not bind even this Congress, much less future Congresses. There is no binding way with which we can take this resolution and tell anybody in the future that anything is changed that would give them confidence in knowing their benefits will be there. So, Mr. President, that is why the Reid-Feinstein amendment is necessary, to ensure that our good intentions will be realized. The amendment solidifies the Social Security promise. It writes into the Constitution, it says to Social Security enrollees, who include virtually all working people in this country, as well as their retired parents, that these trust funds will be protected from ever being used in the future to balance the Federal budget. It is the only thing--the only thing we know of that will absolutely guarantee in writing, in black and white, that Social Security is a trust fund that will always be there. I supported it last year. I will vote for it again this year. It is just as necessary today as it was back then. Why does it deserve special treatment? Because it is a contract between generations, that is why. Because it protects older Americans against poverty, that is why. Because it protects working families in case of premature death, that is why. Because it protects workers if they are disabled by illness or accident; that is why, too. It says to every working person: You pay into these trust funds and when it is your turn, when it is time for you to use them--when you are too old, when you are too sick, too disabled to work--your Nation will make sure you do not lose everything, everything that you have worked for. Today, 60 years after President Franklin Roosevelt sealed the real contract with Americans, Social Security is still a promise that is honored by Government. It is something people can count on to be there when they need it. It is a contract which recognizes that we are all human, that we all grow old, we are all vulnerable to illness and to ill health and to accident. It says that we, as Americans, will not let hard-working people sink into poverty through no fault of their own regardless of the circumstances. And that is a contract. That is a commitment that has not withstood 1 year, or one election, but generations--lifetimes. From its very creation in 1935 until 1969, everyone here knows that the program was off budget. And then everyone also knows what happened in 1969. In an attempt to mask the costs of the Vietnam war and the growing deficit, guess what happened? Social Security was put back on the budget. Then, in 1990, Congress again voted to take it off budget. We may have forgotten what that vote was, Mr. President. It was 98 to 2--98 to 2, almost unanimous. The people in this body said Social Security ought to be off budget and not used for other things, not used to mask the debt, not used to pay for other things that may come along, whether foreign or domestic. We said then that Social Security revenues held in trust for retirement should not be used to balance the Federal budget. And we did the right thing. The flaw in the proposal now before us is that it includes in the budget Social Security surpluses that should be set aside to pay future retirement benefits. That is the flaw. Everybody knows it is there. Everybody knows we do not want it to be there. The question is, How serious are we about taking it out of there? Social Security is not responsible for one dime of the national debt, and it should not be raided to pay off that debt now. Those who oppose the Reid amendment argue that while Social Security did not cause the deficit, they are very concerned about what happens if we take it off the table to pay down that deficit. They do not want to acknowledge the Reid amendment can be used to ensure we protect it in the future. As long as the trust funds are part of the unified budget, we all know that they help hide the real dimensions of the budgetary imbalance. The program is currently generating a surplus. We all know that, too. There is a critical reason for accumulating those surpluses. It was laid out yesterday. Following World War II, the level of Social Security taxes was raised so that adequate funds would be available to pay the retirement benefits that will come due as those of us who are baby boomers retire. Those surpluses are meant to be there as a confidence- building effort to ensure the trust fund meets the predictable benefit payments in the future. If they are not there, from where will they come? The Federal Government will owe the Social Security system nearly $3 trillion by the year 2017--$3 trillion. That is why we need to preserve the surpluses and protect them, because that $3 trillion is going to come due one day. Whether we have masked the deficit, whether we have used those funds to pay for other things or not, that money will be needed. So the Social Security system today is taking in far more revenues than it is paying out in benefits for that reason alone. This year it will take in $69 billion more than it pays out. Between now and 2002, when the balanced budget amendment would take effect, Social Security will have amassed $705 billion in additional revenue. Here is the point. If there is one point to the vote we are about to take, it is this. Without the Reid amendment, every dollar of those revenues will be placed on budget--every dollar --to give the false impression that there is $705 billion in available cash. Future Congresses would be able to avoid reducing the deficit by that amount, by $705 billion, in the next 7 years alone. That is why this issue is so important. The threat of the use of trust funds is a very real one. It is happening right now. It has been tried before. It will be tried again. Our late colleague, the highly respected Senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz, used the right word, ``embezzlement,'' when he helped to lead the fight to take Social Security off the budget. The Senator from New York, the one to whom I have just recently referred, Senator Moynihan, has described it as ``thievery.'' I have supported a balanced budget amendment because I believe it is completely unfair to leave the current legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren. But what happens if we deplete the Social Security trust fund that they are now counting on for their retirements? We will have failed. It is that simple. We will have failed to live up to our commitment to them. The Reid amendment would restore budgetary honesty by requiring an accurate accounting of the true size of the Nation's deficit problem. That is what it does. Taking Social Security out of the calculation would protect the fiscal integrity of the Social Security trust funds. It would require us to enact the tough policies needed to eliminate the deficit. Many of our colleagues argue it is unnecessary, that they will help protect Social Security in the future. But I urge those Senators, if they are truly sincere, to solidify that commitment in the Constitution itself to put an end to public concerns that the budget will be balanced at the expense of trust funds. So again, I remind everyone that less than 5 years ago, 98 Senators, across party lines, voted to take Social Security off the unified budget. Solemn commitments were made then--no less solemn than today's promises--that the special status of Social Security is acknowledged and, more important, will be respected by this Congress and by future Congresses. But the future is now, and it is again necessary to defend Social Security's unique mission. So I hope my colleagues will do the only thing that will ensure that Social Security is able to continue that mission into the future. We need to support the Reid amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the Senator another minute.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to talk for just a moment about the nomination of Dr. Henry W. Foster, Jr., to be Surgeon General of the United States. No one could deny that Dr. Foster has had a distinguished career both in terms of his service as a practicing physician as well as his contributions as a medical educator and community leader. No one can deny that. For the last two decades now, Dr. Foster has served in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Meharry Medical College where he has helped to train some of our Nation's finest doctors. At Meharry, Dr. Foster has demonstrated his vast leadership abilities by serving not only as professor and chairman of the department, but also as dean of the school of medicine and the acting president of the college. Throughout his distinguished career, Dr. Foster has been a clear voice for personal responsibility. His work on teen pregnancy prevention has been a valuable contribution at a time when we are struggling desperately to identify effective solutions to this nationwide problem. The ``I Have A Future'' program which Dr. Foster developed and directed was chosen by President Bush as one of his ``thousand points of light.'' The program stresses abstinence. It engages communities in helping teenagers make positive decisions about their future. Dr. Foster is endorsed by the American Medical Association, the Association of Schools of Public Health, the National Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He has been endorsed by Dr. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bush. I have no doubt that this man's background makes him well qualified to be Surgeon General. It is a shame that his distinguished career and many contributions to society have now been clouded by his opponents' attempts to turn this nomination into a debate about abortion. But this debate is not about abortion. No doctor in this country should be disqualified from consideration for the post of Surgeon General for performing a legal medical procedure. This debate is about qualifications. Dr. Foster is the President's choice for the position of Surgeon General. He is qualified for this position and I daresay most people know that today. Of course, the Senate has a constitutional advice and consent role. Any remaining questions about this nominee should be dealt with during the confirmation process where they belong. This is what we do with every nomination, and it is critically important. I must say, this town can be pretty mean. I hope, as we consider this nomination, we remember that Dr. Foster is a man who has come forward to serve his country at the request of the President of the United States to serve in an important role. It is a role to help children, to help families, to make as positive a contribution as possible in what time he may have to do it. We ought to respect that. We ought to be careful about what we say and about asking people to join in public service if every time they accept the call to public service they are beaten down, and ultimately characterized as people they are not. Let us be careful about that. Let us also recognize if we are going to deal in a bipartisan manner, as we have attempted to do on a whole array of issues, it must be a two-way street. Democrats and Republicans need to work with one another. But if this becomes a one-way street, if this becomes a partisan issue, that sends a clear message, it seems to me, about what expectations the majority may have as they look to us for cooperation on many issues in the future. This man deserves confirmation. This man deserves our support. And I hope we will all give it to him. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the British poet John Donne said that ``every person's death diminishes us.'' That is certainly true, and it is especially true today, for yesterday America and, indeed, the world said goodbye to a man whose death diminishes us all, Senator William Fulbright. He served in the Senate for 30 years. He served with distinction. Some in this Chamber had the privilege of working with him. But whether or not we knew Senator Fulbright personally, we were all touched by him. Our Nation and our world are better for him having passed through it. Senator Fulbright understood that the most powerful deterrent to war is not bombs, not some mysterious shield we might try in vain to erect, but simply understanding. The cornerstone of his legacy, the Fulbright scholars program, has created more than 200,000 ambassadors for peace and for progress throughout the world. These are bright young men and women who have traveled from America to study in 130 nations as well as men and women from around the globe who have come here to our Nation to learn. Our world is safer for the work of these Fulbright scholars and for the vision of the man who made their studies possible. He was a son of Arkansas, but his influence was felt throughout the world, and it will be, I suspect, for generations to come. Today, as we remember Senator Fulbright, it is easy to feel diminished by his passing. But let us also remember how enlarged we are by his life. As we struggle to find America's place in the post-cold war world, let us remember the lesson Senator Fulbright taught us about the formidable power of understanding. Let us also remember that America has a responsibility to be not only a military leader in this world, but a moral leader as well. And we must never shrink from either role. William Fulbright, the ``Chairman,'' as he was fondly known, was a diplomat, an idealist with a strong heart, an uncommon vision, a dogged fighter for what he believed was right. He was unafraid to stand against public opinion when his conscience told him he must. daughters, his grandchildren, and to his great grandchildren, and certainly to all of his many, many friends, we offer our sympathy and our prayers. William Fulbright truly was a gentleman, a scholar, a statesman, a national leader who made a positive and indelible mark on this country. We will never forget him.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Americans rely on the national forests for a wide variety of activities, ranging from timber harvesting to recreation and to maintain those forests in the healthiest condition possible. Unfortunately, throughout the country, and particularly in the inter- mountain west, forests are in poor shape. Persistent drought, disease, and insect infestation have created stands of dead and dying trees that pose a serious risk of fire. The forest fires that last summer burned thousands of acres of forest throughout the West and claimed the lives of men and women of the Forest Service provide bleak evidence of the problem. If we are to manage national forest ecosystems in ways that provide the services that Americans have come to expect, supply them in a sustainable manner and support the diversity of habitat needed to maintain fish and wildlife, then we must confront the forest health issue squarely. Senator Craig will soon introduce the Federal Lands Act Health Amendments of 1995, which is intended to establish a more deliberate and timely process for dealing with forest health problems. I commend Senator Craig for focusing attention on forest health and look forward to continuing our collaborative effort on this issue and on the broader issue of ecosystem management. As a result of the Craig bill and the forthcoming discussions that it will generate, I expect Congress to develop a reasonable and effective response to this problem. Over the last 2 years, as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Research, Conservation, Forestry, and General Legislation, Senator Craig and I held hearings on the management of the Federal lands. The subcommittee held two hearings on ecosystem management, a third on the new appeal process, and a fourth on the issue of forest health. From those hearings, and through my experiences in working with wildlife managers, members of the timber industry and environmentalists, it has become clear that federally managed forests in some areas of the country suffer from problems related to drought, past mismanagement, and insect infestation and disease. The high incidence of tree mortality and fires in some national forests suggest that we still have much to learn about the causes of these problems and how to manage these complex systems. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management should place a higher priority on dealing with forest health problems before they become worse. To do so effectively, several important steps should be undertaken. First, forest health problems need to be better defined. We must develop a shared vocabulary so that all those interested in maintaining healthy forests can work together in common cause. Second, scientific research should be conducted to identify problems and evaluate options. Only by relying on sound scientific data can we hope to proceed in an effective and defensible manner. Third, and perhaps most importantly, we must set priorities. We must focus our attention on areas of greatest need, while ensuring that other issues are managed to prevent future problems. And fourth, solutions must be developed and implemented in a timely manner. Again, I appreciate Senator Craig's foresight and diligence in bringing to the attention of Congress the issue of forest health. This is a complicated issue that involves important objectives such as maintaining species habitat, ensuring that insect infestations and diseases are within a natural and healthy range, preventing soil erosion, and safeguarding the overall long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems. The bill to be introduced by Senator Craig provides a valuable framework for addressing these critical issues. It will force Federal agencies to identify lands at risk and take concrete steps to improve forest health on those lands. In the long-run, the public should benefit by management activities taken as a result of this bill. Senator Craig has expressed a desire to move this legislation through the necessary committees as expeditiously as possible. I support this goal, and look forward to participating in Agriculture Committee hearings on the bill. Concern has been raised that the legislation as currently written may provide overly broad discretion to the Federal agencies and that it may in some cases overburden those agencies with new responsibilities at a time when budget cuts hinder their ability to accomplish existing responsibilities. These issues merit further attention. Also, it is my hope that the Senate will examine the question of whether the bill assures sufficient opportunity for deliberation and analysis by the agencies and input by the public. I look forward to working with Senator Craig to examine these questions and to move this bill through the appropriate committees and to the floor this year, so that we can begin to address forest health in a systematic, deliberate, thorough, and effective manner. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, and Senators Campbell, Simon, Pell, and Dorgan to introduce legislation that would establish the Wounded Knee National Tribal Park in the State of South Dakota. The purpose of this effort is to acknowledge the armed struggle between the Plains Indians and the U.S. Army that culminated in the death of over 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children at Wounded Knee, SD, on December 29, 1890. There is no question about the historical significance of the Wounded Knee tragedy. Wounded Knee not only signaled an end to a chapter in American history often referred to as the ``Indian Wars'' but it also marked a change in national policy that once forced Indian tribes to locate on smaller and smaller reservations. History books show that on December 15, 1890, Federal agents, concerned about the potential ramifications of a spiritual movement among the Sioux Indians, attempted to arrest Chief Sitting Bull. When one of his followers shot at the agents, they returned gunfire, mortally wounding Sitting Bull. Sitting Bull's half-brother, Chief Big Foot, took in Sitting Bull's followers. The band fled from the Bad Lands toward the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The U.S. Army intercepted the party and accepted an unconditional surrender from Chief Big Foot. The entire band was escorted to a military camp at Wounded Knee Creek. At Wounded Knee, a single gunshot was fired. It is not known to this day whether the shot was fired by a member of the Sioux Tribe or the U.S. Army. What is known is that the gunshot led to a largely one-side volley of bullets leaving approximately 350 to 370 Sioux men, women, and children dead or wounded. The U.S. Army suffered 60 casualties, many of whom reportedly were hit by bullets fired by their comrades. These are the tragic facts of what is known as the Wounded Knee Massacre. One hundred years later, in 1990, the 101st Congress passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 153, which acknowledged the carnage at Wounded Knee and expressed ``congressional support for the establishment of a suitable and appropriate memorial to those who were tragically slain at Wounded Knee.'' The bill we are introducing today gives substance to the sentiment expressed by the resolution. Mr. President, considerable time and thought has been given to the Wounded Knee memorial project by descendants of the victims and survivors of the Wounded Knee tragedy, by the Oglala Sioux and the Cheyenne River Sioux tribal governments, and by Members of Congress, the State of South Dakota, and the Department of the Interior. The effort to establish a memorial goes back even further than 1990. Since 1950, Wounded Knee has been studied six times by the National Park Service and has been identified as a prime candidate for addition to the National Park System. Since 1987, the Lakota Tribes of South Dakota have been working with the National Park Service to plan for the preservation of Wounded Knee. In Congress, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee held hearings on proposals to establish a Wounded Knee Memorial and Historic Site on September 25, 1990 in Washington, and on April 30, 1991 at the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. In May 1991, at the request of the Lakota Sioux and with the support of the Secretary of the Interior, the National Park Service began to explore management alternatives for the Wounded Knee site. The process included strong public participation from the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Wounded Knee Survivors Association. Those hearings enabled all the parties involved to discover much common ground and strengthened our shared resolve to move forward with the establishment of the Wounded Knee National Tribal Park. The step we are taking today is not an end, but a beginning. Many issues remain to be addressed, including land acquisition for the Wounded Knee National Park, design of the memorial, and management of the National Tribal Park. I welcome debate on these and other matters, and look forward to participation in the debate. By passing this legislation, we will clear the way for resolution of those issues. More important, we will preserve for future generations an important chapter from the text of America's past. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Louisiana for his comments this morning. Like this Senator, the Senator from Louisiana was in the House of Representatives in 1981. I am sure he, like I, remembers the ease with which we passed the tax package of 1981. The President and the Republican leadership at that time convinced the Congress and the American people to cut taxes, to increase defense spending, to protect Social Security, and to balance the budget by 1984. There were no details, very few specifics, just a promise and the words ``trust us.'' The vote was overwhelming. I will never forget that morning on the floor and the overwhelming vote. Everyone applauded. We all went home. But 10 years later, the American people saw an increase in the national debt to $4 trillion, four times what it was when we had cast that vote in 1981. I also remember the difficulty we encountered in 1993, as we passed the President's economic package. That did not pass overwhelmingly. That passed by a margin of 50 to 49, amid doom and gloom predictions of recession and mass unemployment and negative market reaction. We heard it all. It was a very, very tough vote. I vividly remember that morning, as well. But the difference between 1981 and 1993 was more than the difficulty in passage. Rather than vague predictions with rosy scenarios of 1981, the 1993 proposal put details into black and white--details involving cuts, details involving revenue, details requiring major changes in the way we do business; hundreds and hundreds of pages of black and white details. It was controversial. And we fought over many of the details in this document for days. No one can forget that. But, do you know what? It was effective. And in the end, the 103d Congress passed a 5-year deficit-reduction plan that reduced the deficit by $500 billion. Instead of asking the American people to trust us, we showed them, up front, line-by-line, what our intentions were. And the results--well, the results speak for themselves. Mr. President, those are the two models from which we can choose today. The only difference is that today the issue is far more serious--more serious because the debt has now risen to $4.5 trillion; more serious because this is the first time in history that we may be adding an amendment to the Constitution affecting the fiscal policy of this Nation. The question for the American people is really very simple: After those two experiences, will the Senate roll the dice, will it roll the dice and say, ``trust us again,'' or will we do what we know we must do? Will we show in 1995, as we showed the American people in 1993, exactly what must be done? That is the issue. The Senator from New Hampshire, my good friend, this morning mentioned my willingness to support a balanced budget amendment last year and took issue with us for not arguing the right-to-know amendment then. Well, the reasons are easy for anyone to understand. First, we had just passed our own version of the right to know. It was right here. The print was hardly dry. Second, we were not faced then, as we are today, with the exact situation with which we were faced in 1981-- promises of tax cuts, promises of increases in defense, promises to protect Social Security, and promises to balance the budget in a designated period of time, but no promise to explain how it is going to be done. If the Senate is unwilling to promise the American people a blueprint, I guess I would have to ask: What is it they are trying to conceal? What is it we are trying to conceal from Social Security recipients whose pensions are affected by the decision we are going to make in the next couple of weeks? What is it we are trying to conceal from the Pentagon and our allies about the true commitment to the military strength of this Nation in the coming years? What is it we are trying to conceal from veterans and military retirees about our true intentions with respect to their future? What about States? What are we trying to conceal about the real impact this decision will have on them, on the Governors, and on their fiscal health? And, very honestly, what about us? What about us? What are we trying to conceal from ourselves, and how is it possible that we can commit ourselves to repeating the clear mistake of the past? How can we set a goal and have no idea--none--how we are going to get there? Tax cuts, defense spending increases, protection for Social Security--all these are doable in the abstract. It is only in the context of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget in 7 years that the job becomes nearly impossible. Assuming we pass the Contract With America, assuming that we protect Social Security, our job is to cut $2.2 trillion in 7 years. That is our goal--$2.2 trillion. That means we have got to cut $300 billion for each of the next 7 years. Pass the Contract With America, protect Social Security, balance the budget by the year 2002. And we are going to ask our colleagues in the next 7 years, each and every year, to cut $300 billion. And every year we delay, the task becomes even more overwhelming the next year. But that is only part of the story, because if we actually take Social Security off the table, if we take defense off the table, and because we must exclude interest payments, we are left with a mere 48 percent of the budget with which to work. That is really what we have left--48 percent. If you take those three items off the table, that is all we have left, 48 percent of the entire Federal budget from which we now must cut $2.2 trillion in 7 years. Well, do you know what the American people are saying? The American people are saying: ``Right. Show me. Show us how you are going to cut all that and how you are going to cut funding for the States. Show us how you are going to cut my farm programs and other programs directly affecting rural America. Show us how you are going to deal with education, nutrition, health and housing, and as you do, do not even think about saying any of this is going to be easy or painless.'' Mr. President, I bet there is one thing for which there is universal agreement within this Chamber. That is, there is a lot of skepticism out there, and, frankly, I think there is skepticism for a good reason. Too many times, Washington has said one thing and done another. We cannot afford, on something this important--this important--to let that happen again. We cannot afford to add to the deep-seated skepticism about this institution or its actions. Not now. Not on an issue this important. My Republican colleagues have lodged three basic objections to the right-to-know-amendment. The House majority leader said recently, ``Once Members of Congress know exactly, chapter and verse, the pain that the Government must live with in order to get a balanced budget, their knees will buckle.'' The majority's apparent solution is to hide the truth and sidestep the pain. But the right-to-know-amendment says we have tried all that. We did it back in 1981, and $4 trillion to end business as usual. That will not work again. The second objection is that they cannot be precise about a 7-year budget process. Yet, the current law requires already that we offer 5- year estimates. What is so much more mysterious or unknowable about years 6 or 7 than years 4 and 5? All the health reform proposals last year were evaluated over a 10-year budget projection. The Congressional Budget Office already has the ability to give us 7-year budget estimates. We should use them. I have not heard one credible economist tell Members that this cannot be done, that we cannot lay out a budgetary glidepath for 7 years. The third objection is especially ironic. It asserts that the right- to-know-amendment is somehow unconstitutional because the Constitution does not specifically sanction Congress to set conditions on an amendment before it goes to the States for ratification. But neither does the Constitution specifically sanction the 7-year limit for ratification that is found in the underlying amendment. I have not heard any of my colleagues argue that their amendment is unconstitutional because it includes the customary but not constitutionally sanctioned time limit. As everyone here knows, the Constitution has just two requirements: First, that we pass the amendment by a two-thirds vote in both Houses; and second, that it be ratified by three-fourths of the States. That is all it says. Period. Mr. President, the issue is pretty simple. If we are going to build a sturdy house of real deficit reduction, do we have a blueprint? Are we going to ask this body to lay out the blueprint by which that will be done? Or do we just start pounding away, hoping we have the materials to build that house, hoping we know where the budget-cutting rooms really are, hoping we can do it all in 7 years, hoping that somehow we can build a house of real deficit reduction without the details. The American people would never build their house without a blueprint. They know we cannot, either. By a margin of 86 to 14 percent, they are saying, ``Show us. We have a right to know if you are going to affect Social Security. We have a right to know if you are going to cut defense. We have a right to know if you are going to cut veterans programs. We have a right to know how you plan to cut $2.2 trillion from 48 percent of your budget in 7 years. We have a right to know if you have learned from the mistakes of the past. We have a right to know if you are really serious.'' So today, Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity. It is an opportunity to end business as usual, an opportunity to be honest, an opportunity to affirm that when it comes to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the American people have a right to know. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, efforts have been made to portray the right-to-know amendment as constitutionally questionable. Those claims are driven by politics. The argument is not compelled by the Constitution. The Constitution sets out two requirements for the approval of an amendment. It must be approved by two-thirds of each House of the Congress, and it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. The Constitution sets no other limits. All we are proposing is that the Constitution be amended in the same way it has been amended 27 times before, with a two-thirds congressional majority in each House. Ironically, the underlying proposal itself contains a clearly extra- constitutional provision: That if it is not ratified within 7 years, its provision will not take effect, no matter how many State legislatures thereafter desire to approve it. It is a time-limited proposal. The time limitation is not a constitutional requirement. It is a customary requirement. There is no warrant in the Constitution for such a time limit or against such a time limit. It has been used in this century as a way to ensure reasonably contemporaneous consideration of proposals to change the Constitution. It is a good idea, but it is not a constitutional requirement. Indeed, if we look at the 27th amendment, having to do with congressional pay, which was revived and ratified by the States 200 years after first being proposed to them, and which is now part of the Constitution, it is quite clear that there is no constitutional impediment to ratifying an amendment outside the time constraints that have been common in our century. Opponents of the right-to-know amendment claim that, by imposing a duty on Congress before the proposal is submitted to the States, it somehow contravenes the Constitution. At the same time, those opponents claim that imposing a time limit on the States after the proposal is sent to them does not contravene the Constitution. I do not think this argument holds up very well. The right-to-know amendment falls squarely within the constitutional purview of the Congress, an article I power that permits each House to establish its rules of procedure. The right-to-know amendment is an exercise in the article I power. It in no way affects the ratification process. I think most people would concede that. It in no way affects the congressional approval process, and I think most people would concede that. Again, those are the only two constitutionally established requirements to amend the Constitution. In fact, the right-to-know amendment, by requiring that the House and Senate first adopt a budget path leading to a balanced budget, and then send the proposal to the States for their consideration, impinges less upon the Constitution's requirements than the 7-year deadline contained in the language of the proposed amendment itself. In short, this argument against the right-to-know amendment is a smokescreen. It is meant to shift attention from the issue, the question of specifically how to cut spending, to a dry debate over constitutionality. I am not a constitutional lawyer. In fact, I'm not any kind of a lawyer at all, but I can read. The Constitution very clearly and plainly says, in language that can be understood by anyone, that there are two requirements to amend the Constitution when you choose the route of moving through the Congress: Two-thirds of the Congress must pass it, and three-fourths of the State legislatures must ratify it. The Constitution says absolutely nothing else on this particular subject. All of the sophisticated arguments in the world will not change the plain language of our Constitution. The document speaks plainly, and where it is silent, it is silent. It does not, by implication, permit a time limit on constitutional amendments and then bar a prior congressional action. It is silent on both counts. I think that is an important issue. It does not, by implication, permit a time limit on constitutional amendments and then bar a prior congressional action. The proposal before us has a time limit. I have not heard one Senator argue that this is unconstitutional because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. My amendment adds a prior requirement that doesn't interfere with either of the constitutionally sanctioned requirements or the extra-constitutional requirement of a 7-year ratification deadline. If Congress can limit the time within which a proposed constitutional amendment may be ratified, nothing prevents Congress from adopting an internal procedure before we send a proposed constitutional amendment to the States in the first place. That is all that the right-to-know amendment seeks to do. Each House of the Congress has parliamentary rules, established under article I, to expedite or retard the movement of legislation in various ways. All these rules have full force whether we are debating an annual appropriations bill or a proposed constitutional amendment. The only thing the right-to-know amendment seeks is a prior congressional action before the proposal is forwarded to the States, under Article I rules. It does not impinge on the provisions that deal with a proposed constitutional amendment. It is well within the power of the Congress to determine that a prior action be taken. The conditions in the right-to-know amendment are no less constitutional as applied against the Congress, which is how they would apply, than a time limit applied against the States, which is how a time limit is applied. The argument that the right-to-know amendment is in some way unconstitutional is not a serious argument. It is an effort to divert attention from the bottom line, and because we are talking about a balanced budget requirement, the bottom line is the only line that matters. The right-to-know amendment asks that the Congress tell us how, over the next 7 years, it will reduce spending in 48 percent of the budget by enough to balance the budget in 7 years' time. That is all. It does not tie future Congresses to a particular line of action. One Congress cannot bind another. It simply asks the responsible Congress--this one, the one that would vote on the constitutional amendment to balance the budget--to tell the citizens and the States what the spending reductions must be to comply with the mandate that is being proposed to the States. The mandate is to cut spending to reach budgetary balance in 7 years' time without cutting defense spending and without cutting Social Security. The only thing my amendment demands is that we tell the people, the States and the cities how we plan to achieve this goal. This is neither unfair nor onerous. When Congress debated the 14th amendment in the wake of the Civil War, Members of Congress were required to step up to the plate and give their views on what those proposals would mean. said, plainly enough, that they did not intend that the 14th amendment be read to require voting rights for black Americans or integrated education. A hundred years later, the Supreme Court ruled against them. What they said and meant did not stop the march of time. Neither will any words of ours. There is no need for exaggerated concern about the ability of some future Congress to steer its own course. The right-to- know amendment does not dictate to a future Congress, because that is impossible. It simply asks those who today claim we can easily and painlessly reach a balanced budget in 7 years' time to tell us how this is to be done. Some of the most fervent advocates of this approach will be long gone from here when the time comes to bite the bullet, just as the writers of the 14th amendment were not around when the Supreme Court said we had to end de jure segregation. I do not think that in 2002 voters should have a right to call up retired Senators and Members of Congress and demand to know what we were thinking in 1995. But I think it is eminently fair to ask those who are our contemporaries, who say this can be done now and that it is going to be relatively easy, to tell us how it can be done now, how it is going to be done easily. This is not an intellectual exercise in abstract economics. We are talking about issues that are going to affect the way real people live their lives--this year, next year, in the year 2002, and beyond. I want to make it plain that I am a supporter of a balanced budget amendment. I have been for a balanced budget amendment for many years, because I believe Government can and should operate within its revenue base. I think it is doable. I think it ought to be done. But as we debate that issue, let us be honest with the people; let us tell them what this means, not in abstract, general terms, but in concrete, specific terms, because those are the only terms on which we can cut spending. There is no abstract, general spending in the budget. It is all concrete. It is all specific. Past Republican budget proposals have gutted student loans, cutting them by over $12 billion. Middle-class parents planning to send their children to college or vocational school have a right to know whether we will eliminate student loans. Republican budget proposals have slashed Medicare benefits by $30 billion. Senior citizens who count on Medicare have a right to know whether we will make it even more costly to get health care. Republican budget proposals have slashed spending on public education by $3 billion. American school children and their parents have a right to know whether we will limit their opportunity to learn and succeed. The American people have a right to know--and the majority has a responsibility to tell us--specifically what will be cut, who will be hurt, who will be helped, and how and when this will be decided. That is the purpose of the right-to-know amendment. The President's budget was submitted this morning. It contains $140 billion in spending reductions. It has been under attack by some Members of Congress beginning last Friday, when details first began to leak to the media. I understand the partisan desire to attack, I do not understand how people think they can posture on a balanced budget amendment, denounce the President's plan, offer nothing themselves, and still have credibility. We have been hearing since last November that there would be a Republican spending cut plan in the public arena shortly. It is now February. News reports now tell us that we're not actually going to get this plan until perhaps April or May. We are being asked to pass unfunded mandates legislation, line-item veto legislation, a balanced budget constitutional amendment, all sorts of procedural proposals, but where's the beef? Where's the long- promised budget plan itself? We have a very modest proposal--the right- to-know amendment. It simply requires us to produce the beef, what we hear is that we are contravening the Constitution and ignoring the sacred trust handed on by the Founding Fathers. Perhaps some are protesting too much. We are engaged in a serious enterprise. We are trying to remake a system inherited and modified over 200 years. We cannot guarantee that the next Congress will follow in our footsteps. But we can't be immobilized by that, either. Americans vote every 2 years. They expect each new Congress to deal with the problems that arise within each 2- year cycle. If we come up with a good plan, the next Congress is very likely to follow it. All we ask is that we come up with a plan. If the next Congress improves it, all the better. We cannot control the future. We can control what we are willing to do now. The right-to-know amendment is targeted to now. The balanced budget amendment asks some future Congress, some years down the road, to do something. That is fine. This amendment asks this Congress to do something now. That is the difference. Frankly, I do not understand the reluctance to act. I especially do not understand the reluctance based on the criticism of the President's budget. Clearly, all the critics have better plans, less costly, more effective, less painful, easier. That is great. Let us see these plans. Let us lay them out. Let us hear how the easy alternatives really are. I want to hear what, in detail, these painless cuts are. If we can learn this, we can go ahead with the right-to-know amendment because it will be painless. I understand the effort to drag the Constitution into this. It is an effort to change the subject. The subject is still on the table, and it is very straightforward. Americans have the right to know what we propose to do because it will affect their lives. It will affect their State and local tax burdens. It will affect the environments of their cities and the kind of country their children will inherit. It will affect all of us--our futures. Given that, we cannot let this opportunity pass. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Would that be acceptable to the Senator from Maryland?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader and I both have amendments that we would like to lay down. It will take but a matter of a couple minutes and we could then proceed with the Senator's address.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the past several days, Republican and Democratic Senators alike have said they support the goal of a balanced Federal budget. Indeed, so do I. The idea of a balanced budget, in the abstract, has universal support. But if one thing is clear, it is that no budget is balanced in the abstract. Budgets are balanced in the context of existing circumstances. Today, the political circumstances are very clear. The elements of the Republican Contract With America are the priority for action. There is a lot of fine print in the contract. But there is no doubt about the central selling points: A tax cut, a defense increase, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is what our Republican colleagues campaigned on: Cutting taxes, increasing defense, and balancing the budget while protecting Social Security. It is a bold program. It is also the echo of an earlier program. Republicans campaigned in 1980 on a program of cutting taxes, raising defense spending, and balancing the budget. In 1980, Republican candidates won a majority in the Senate, in part by campaigning on that program. President Reagan won the White House. The bottom line on the chart beside me illustrates the campaign promise. A budget gradually coming into balance by 1983. It is based on the Reagan economic plan announced in 1980 in Chicago. What happened? That is illustrated by the top line on the chart beside me. Instead of balancing the budget by 1983, or even by 1984, the campaign promises led to the highest Federal deficits in history. Within 12 years, those campaign promises helped quadruple the national debt. From $69 billion in the last Carter budget, deficits rose until they almost quadrupled in the mid-1980's. By the end of the Reagan years, our debt had tripled. Subsequently, the 4 Bush years added another $1\1/2\ trillion to the debt. The chart beside me tells the story. From a $69 billion deficit in 1980, the last year of President Carter's term, the deficits kept rising. From 1993, deficits have begun to fall. For the first time in half a century, deficits will come down 3 years in a row. How did we change course? Democrats changed the course. We made the unpopular choices that have to be made if you are going to reduce the deficit. We did not try to duck the bullet. We bit the bullet, twice. In 1990, Democrats worked with President Bush and crafted a deficit reduction package that capped all discretionary spending. In the face of adamant opposition for practically the whole year, we produced $500 billion in deficit reduction--real cuts in a deficit that was then spiraling out of control. In 1993, we did it again. In the face of adamant Republican opposition, we passed a program that achieved another $500 billion in deficit reduction over 5 years. We passed the 1993 budget without the help of a single Republican vote, in the face of fierce denunciations and wild predictions of economic ruin. Action by Democrats resulted in real deficit reduction. Opposition from Republicans: but no deficit reduction. To paraphrase former President Reagan, ``Here they go again.'' They want to cut taxes, increase defense spending, and balance the budget. In 1980, someone asked Representative John Anderson of Illinois how you could cut taxes, increase defense spending, and balance the budget. He gave the only coherent answer possible. ``With mirrors,'' he said. He was right. All the indignant talk to the contrary does not alter the facts. And the facts are as I have stated them. Democrats have taken the lead twice in the last 5 years, in the face of intense partisan denunciations, to do what has to be done to bring the deficit down. We have done it twice, not with mirrors, but with realistic and difficult choices among competing demands from States, cities, businesses, and individuals, who all want their programs protected, who all claim tax relief, who all have good arguments on their side. It is that history of the last 14 years that makes us so adamant about the Right To Know Act. The Right To Know Act is essential. Americans have the right to know whether we are about to take another riverboat gamble with their Nation's economy. That is what the Republican Senate leader called it back in 1981. He was right. It was a riverboat gamble. And we lost. Our State Governors have the right to know how much of the dollar responsibility they will be left holding when the dust settles. Our city mayors have the right to know how much their budgets will shrink. Americans have the right to know about program changes that will directly affect them. Families with elderly parents have the right to know if Medicaid or Medicare will be slightly modified or deeply slashed. People planning college for their children have the right to know whether or not they can count on student loans. Realtors have the right to know if VA home loan conditions are likely to be changed or if FHA-backed loans will shrink. General contractors have the right to know if Federal construction projects will shrink dramatically. Communities across the South have the right to know if NASA's space program will be cut, and how their job base will be affected. People in Washington State and South Carolina have the right to know if the nuclear plant cleanups will stop. People who live in the Tennessee River Valley have the right to know if TVA is going to disappear. I have been part of the Democratic majority which has twice already stepped up to the plate and reduced the deficit by $500 billion each time. I know it is not easy to cut spending. But a majority of Democratic Senators has done it. We are prepared to do it again. But we want to know what we are doing. And balancing the budget in the context of the Contract With America will be extraordinarily difficult. How difficult is revealed by the chart here. The bottom line on this chart shows the cuts that must be made in spending as we begin to move toward a balanced budget this year. The center line shows the CBO baseline budget. That is what will happen to spending because of demographic changes and estimated inflation rates over the next 7 years. The distance between the bottom line and the center line represents $1.2 trillion. That is how much must be cut from the budget over the next 7 years. The top line shows how much spending will be affected if the Contract With America, with its tax cut, is passed. It does not include defense spending increases. If the contract's promised tax cut is passed, we will have to cut $1\1/2\ trillion from the budget over the next 7 years. Some are claiming that modest across-the-board cuts in everything can achieve a balanced budget without any serious dislocation to anyone. Before we accept that claim, let us look at it. A simple across-the-board cut that would produce a balanced budget by 2002 would be a 13-percent cut. But that includes everything, including Social Security. If, as the Contract With America says, you take Social Security benefits off the table, then everything else would have to be cut by 18 percent. That includes everything, including defense, which the contract says should be increased. But if you remove defense along with Social Security, then everything else has to be cut by 29 percent. That would mean cutting a fifth out of Medicare, for example. and you do not want to cut defense or Social Security, then everything else has to be cut a full 30 percent. That would mean 30 percent out of Medicare, 30 percent out of the space program, and 30 percent out of veterans benefits. If you wanted to exempt veterans' benefits, because they go to the 27 million men and women who fought our wars and to the dependents of those who died in our wars, everything else would have to be cut by 31 percent. That would mean a 31-percent cut in pensions that people have earned, like the men and women of our armed services and those employed by the Federal Government. But if you wanted to exempt retirement benefits, because people have earned them, everything left would have to be cut by more than one- third, by a 34-percent reduction. That would include Medicare, Medicaid, the FBI, the Immigration Service, school lunch programs, college aid, medical research, the Coast Guard--everything. If you took Medicare off the table, because it is an integral part of the Social Security system, then everything else would have to be cut in half. In other words, if the contract's tax cut is passed, if defense is protected, and the retirement benefits of veterans, servicemen, and civil service workers are protected along with Social Security and Medicare, every other function of Government must be halved to achieve a balanced budget in 2002. It is that calculation by the Congressional Budget Office that makes it clear that the claim of modest, very minor pain from across-the- board cuts grossly mistakes the reality. The reality is that we cannot magically not count inflation for Federal spending purposes and still end up being able to hire the same number of border guards, the same number of VA doctors, the same number of FBI agents, and so on in 7 years' time. Nor can we pave the same miles of highways, rebuild the same numbers of bridges, build the same space station, provide the same research grants or do anything else if we have half as much money in real terms with which to do it. I want everyone to think back to what they earned in 1987. And I want them to consider how they would like to live on that amount today. That is what it means not to adjust for inflation. That is why the right-to-know amendment is critical. We all know that we will not bring the budget into balance by simply not allowing for inflation. The numbers demonstrate it. In the most modest example, if Social Security is off the table, if the contract's tax cut is passed, if defense is protected, everything else will be cut by 30 percent That is neither moderate nor modest--and it will not be done that way. The way it will be done is by cutting programs. The question is, which programs? That is what we have a right to know. In 1981, when the deficit spiral first started up, President Reagan called for a second round of cuts in September of that year. He came up very short. He asked for $16 billion in cuts. He got $3 billion. There was just as much indignant denunciation of waste, fraud and abuse in 1981 as there is today. There were just as many Senators willing to speak in the abstract about the importance of cutting spending. There was just as much resistance to a tax increase. Human nature has not changed in 14 years. All the same claims were made: That easy across-the-board cuts could be made that would be pretty painless; That we would be able to protect the social safety net; that no one would be hurt. This city recently played host to two groups of persons who came here to tell us that it did not work that way. The State Governors were here this week. The mayors of our cities were here last week. Both groups were unanimous in opposing any more cuts in the funds that support State and local services. We passed the unfunded mandates bill recently, by a very wide margin. Why? It is not because Congress decided in the last couple of years to force the States and cities to do useless things. It is because past cuts made in State and local programs are forcing the States and cities to absorb more of the program costs which used to be offset with Federal dollars. It is no wonder the Governors and mayors are insisting that any balanced budget amendment be accompanied by strict language to keep Congress from passing responsibilities on to the States and cities. The trouble is that this is a guarantee that cannot be made. We cannot assure States and cities that a balanced budget will not pass the costs on to them. To see why, look at the figures. This pie chart shows how the Federal tax dollar is spent. Mr. President, 14 percent is spent on net interest. That cannot be cut. It is a legally enforceable obligation to the holders of Government bonds. Then 21 percent is spent on Social Security. Even Republicans say they will not cut Social Security. So 14 percent plus 21 percent equals 35 percent. Defense spending accounts for another 17 percent of the Federal tax dollar; 35 plus 17 equals 52. In other words, 52 percent of all spending will not be cut. That leaves 48 percent of spending to absorb all the cuts. The 48 percent includes, unfortunately, all the grants to States and localities. All the cutting will come from 48 percent of the spending. The next chart shows us what that 48 percent of cuttable spending consists of. Right away, we see that 19 percent of our cuttable dollars is spent for functions that cannot easily be cut: Veterans programs, military retirement, civilian retirement, the Immigration Service, the FBI, federal prisons, the federal court system, and so on. The Speaker of the House has said he wants to see the number of immigration agents doubled. Our Republican colleagues intend to toughen a crime bill that will presumably increase our prison population. We cannot cut the Federal court system significantly. I have not heard any of my Republican colleagues say we should seriously cut the VA hospital system. So it is reasonable to say that this 19 percent reflects activities that are not going to be slashed by 30 percent or more. But if I am wrong and there is a plan to cut military retirement by a third, I think we ought to know that. If there is the view that we should cut back VA pensions or hospitals by 30 percent, I think we have the right to know that. In any event, that 19 percent of our 48 percent of on-the-table-for- cutting is the smallest piece. The next biggest piece of that 48 percent of cuttable spending is Medicare. A couple of days ago the Speaker talked about rethinking Medicare from the ground up. He said he wanted to provide more choices to retirees. I did not understand what he meant. The Medicare program today lets every participant choose his or her own physician, choose his or her own specialist. If what the Speaker really meant was that we should rethink Medicare to limit the choices of Medicare recipients and force them into managed-care programs to save money, I would be willing to debate that. But I definitely think it is something we have the right to know. There are working families in this country who depend on Medicare and Social Security to provide the fundamental security for their parents, so they can focus their funds on helping their children through college. If Medicare is going to change dramatically in the next few years, these people have the right to know that, so they can plan for the possibility that their parents will need financial help. The next category of programs in our 48 percent of cuttable dollars finances things like unemployment insurance, nutrition aid, such as food stamps and school lunches, all our health research, environmental cleanup, energy, scientific research, space programs, aid to elementary and secondary schools, college tuition aid, our embassies, wildlife conservation, the parks, all our farm programs, all our transportation programs. Mr. President, 29 percent of our cuttable on-the-table 48 percent is spent for those things. Clearly, they are going to be cut. Some might claim that things like States and cities. I think Governors and mayors know better. Unemployment insurance affects every community that loses a plant or is in a transitional phase. Smaller communities would go under without the stabilizing effects of unemployment insurance to laid-off workers. I do not think it is easy to cut this by 30 or more percent. If we cut the space program by 30 percent, people now employed in its operations will lose their jobs. This is Federal spending, all right. But it is not spent in Washington. It is spent in the cities and communities where the aerospace industry is concentrated. The Food Stamp Program provides a 100-percent federally funded floor for low-income workers and welfare families alike. That lets poorer States, like Mississippi, keep their welfare benefits low without having to risk outright malnutrition. Food stamps give minimum wage workers added buying power. Small businesses in lower income areas know their workers' minimum wages will be augmented by food stamp income. Farm State Governors should be attentive to the fact that this sector of spending includes all farm spending. It would be cut by a minimum of 30 percent. Of course, if the two sectors I mentioned earlier are not cut by 30 percent, the cuts here would have to be heavier. In other words, if we do not cut 30 percent from veterans, military retirees, prisons, courts, border control, and Medicare, these other programs will have to be cut more to compensate. And so we come to the final share of our 48 percent of cuttable spending: The 30 percent that comprises State and local grants. This is the largest category in the cuttable spending programs that would be on the table. In each one of these categories, whether it is Medicare, whether it is the Federal functions ``unlikely to be cut,'' whether it is ``all other'' Federal programs--in the green--or State and local government grants, the point is that no mayor, no Governor ought to think that in some way we can protect this orange part and take all the other cuts in Federal funding out of the blue, the red and the green. It just cannot happen. That is what we are really asking our Republican colleagues to share with us. If indeed that is the case, if indeed we can give assurances to mayors and Governors that this 30 percent can be protected, how do we get down to that $1.5 trillion deficit reduction target we are going to have to get down to by the year 2002? I realize that earnest assurances have been given to mayors and to Governors that the Congress will not cut State and local grant aid. But I can only refer to what I know has been done before, when similar choices were faced in the Congress. And based on that experience, I have to say that this is a guarantee that cannot be made. As a matter of fact, it is a guarantee being made by those who have no power to make it. One Congress cannot bind the next, no matter how fervently one Congress feels about something. The 105th Congress will have new Members. Economic circumstances undoubtedly will have changed. Even before the 105th Congress is sworn in, a Presidential election campaign and Senators' own reelection efforts will influence the shape of the debate, as elections always do. So any Governor or mayor within reach of the sound of my voice should take this warning to heart. No one can guarantee that aid to States and localities will not be cut. In fact, I can just about guarantee the exact opposite. Direct aid, such as payments for highway paving, and indirect aid that is spent by residents of States and cities will be cut. The only way to have a guarantee against cuts for State and local governments is to write it into the Constitution as part of this balanced budget amendment. But our Republican colleagues have said that the measure before us cannot be amended. So they have asked the Governors to take it on trust. I say that is exactly what the Governors cannot afford to do. And that is why the right-to-know language is crucial. It would let us know, before we begin to cut, how State and local budgets will be protected. It would let us know, before we begin to cut, how State and local budgets will be affected. It is the only responsible and fair way to explain to our Governors and mayors and the people who live in our States and cities what this proposal will ask of them. It will not be painless. It can be made rational. But it can only be done rationally if everyone affected knows what is at stake. The chart here indicates the average makeup of State budgets. It is an average, not a mirror image of one particular State, and there are variables from one State to another. But it provides the broad picture. State general revenue sources in 1992 were made up, on average of: 17 percent, general sales taxes; 17 percent, charges and fees; 17 percent, personal income taxes; 22 percent, other taxes; 2 percent, payments by local governments. But all those taxes and fees and payments total 75, not 100 percent. That is because, on average, 25 percent of State budgets consists of Federal grants. This chart shows a breakdown of those Federal grants to State and local governments. Forty percent are for the Federal share of Medicaid costs. The single largest cost the Medicaid Program pays is the nursing home care of elderly Americans. Here, 24 percent of Federal aid to the States consists of income security programs: the Federal share of welfare, low-income housing programs, school lunch and breakfast programs, nutrition for women and infants. Fully 64 percent of Federal aid to State and local governments goes for income support and Medicaid. Sixteen percent of Federal aid to the States is in the form of money for elementary and secondary schools, training and employment programs, special education programs, foster care and adoption. Eleven percent of the Federal grant dollar helps finance highway construction, improvement and maintenance, airport construction and transit assistance that helps reduce congestion in our cities. Nine percent of Federal aid covers all other programs: community development block grants, safe drinking water and wastewater treatment, justice assistance programs, aid to other health programs like public clinics and mental health clinics--all the other grant programs. Each and every category of this aid stands to be cut. It is all part of the 48 percent of cuttable Federal spending if we protect Social Security and defense. No part of any of these programs has any assurance of being held harmless. And if other programs, not shown here, but which directly affect State and local economies, are not cut at all--veterans benefits, military pensions, civil service pensions--then the cuts to these grants will have to be heavier than 30 percent. My next chart is a map of the United States. It shows, in the estimation of State budget officers, the percentage of each State's budget the State budget officers calculate is made up of Federal dollars. The percentages vary quite a great deal. Mississippi, for instance, is shown as depending on Federal dollars for 41 percent of its budget. Texas is shown as depending on Federal dollars for 27 percent of its budget. Some States, like Oregon, show a relatively light 16 percent in Federal dollar share. Others like New Hampshire show a 34 percent reliance on Federal dollars. In fact, the only State which shows less than 15 percent of its budget from Federal dollars is Hawaii. The next map shows the Treasury Department's estimate of the budget shortfall each State would face under a balanced budget amendment, assuming a 30-percent cut in grants to State and local governments. Again, some States would be harder hit than others. My State of South Dakota would be hit by about 25 percent; Montana, almost 20 percent; Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, California, around 10 percent; Louisiana, almost 30 percent. Many of the Southern States, many of the smaller States, of course, are hit harder than some of the larger States. Texas' budget would fall 14 percent short. Mississippi would face a shortfall of almost 21 percent. Tennessee fall short over 10 percent, Michigan just over 13. But clearly, stated another way, to maintain current levels of services, these figures depicted here, showing the loss of revenue from the Federal Government could also be the kinds of tax hikes that would be needed to offset those cuts, were they to occur in the coming several years. Those budgetary shortfalls are the ones that States would face directly from a balanced budget. They don't include the additional spending cuts that would be triggered by the Contract With America to pay for its tax cut and keep defense off the table. Let me emphasize that. The figures that we have here do not include what would happen if we kept defense off the table and passed the tax cut that is currently envisioned in the Contract With America. So for South Dakota that figure would go up proportionately with the additional cuts required to pay for those additional expenses. Instead of a 14-percent shortfall, Texas would face a 19-percent shortfall. Instead of 13 percent in Michigan, it would be 18 percent. Instead of 12 percent in New Jersey, it would be 17\1/2\, and so on. With a balanced budget based on the Contract With America plan, State budget shortfalls are going to go up dramatically. With the Contract With America, with South Dakota, we are no longer at 25 percent; we are at virtually 34. In Iowa, we are not at the figures we were before; we are up at 15. In Illinois, we are up to almost 16 percent. In Louisiana, we are almost up to 40 percent of the overall budget. So I urge my colleagues to appreciate the consequences of what we are talking about as we debate the balanced Federal budget and the ramifications of that budget over the next 7 years. Many of us have supported a balanced budget amendment. Many of us would like to do so again. But if we are going to do it, it has to be a rational approach. It has to recognize that there are very complicated circumstances that we all must confront if we are going to do it right, if we are going to explain to the American people the ramifications of the Contract With America, the ramifications of bringing a $1.2 trillion deficit down to size by the year 2002, the ramifications of maintaining current projected levels of defense spending over the course of the next 7 years, the ramifications of trying to include, in some way, protections for veterans and military retirees. All of those issues are directly confronting each and every Member of the Congress today as we consider what must be done over the course of the next 7 years to accomplish what we all say we want. I urge my colleagues to make themselves familiar with these numbers, because these are the real world effects of the Contract With America style balanced budget. These are the cuts in State budgets that would be required, or, alternatively, the increases in State taxes. Those who have made verbal assurances to Governors that the balanced budget amendment combined with the Contract With America will not affect State budgets are, in essence, saying that it is possible to cut taxes, increase defense spending, reduce overall Federal spending by one and a half trillion dollars in 7 years without having any substantial effects. I do not see how we can do that. I do not know how we can expect the American people to believe that we can do that. I do not think we can expect the Governors and the mayors, who themselves have to deal with budgets on a yearly basis, to understand the difficult choices that have to be made if we do what we all want to do, what we say we must do, and then say to them: Believe it. There are no painful choices here. We can simply do it with a modest cut across the board. That is what the right-to-know amendment addresses, Mr. President. It simply says let us clearly set out a budgetary path that will lead us to that balance by the year 2002 in a way that all affected people-- Governors, mayors, business people, working families, everybody--can understand. That is why the States and the American people need to know what this will mean. And that is what the right-to-know amendment would achieve. It would require us to clearly set out the budgetary path that will lead to balance by 2002. That way, all affected persons will be able to see what it will mean to them. I have here in my last graphic of the day--and it is my last--a typical blood-drive thermometer. As you will note up here is the $1.5 trillion that is required if we accomplish what we want to accomplish in the year 2002. When the spending cuts reach this level--one and a half trillion dollars--we will be close to our target and well on the way to balancing the budget. Twice in the past 5 years, Democrats have shown that we can cut the deficit. We have passed $500 billion deficit reduction packages twice. In any decade except this one, we would have finished the task, today we have a quadrupled national debt. So it's going to take more than that. For the efforts we have already made, Democrats have been denounced and our work has been misrepresented to the American people. Predictions of economic gloom worthy of the Great Depression were heard on this floor less than 18 months ago when we passed the President's budget, the second installment of our deficit reduction effort. Throughout last year Americans were falsely told their taxes had been raised. The only people whose taxes rose were the top-earning 1.2 percent of the entire population. No family earning less than $100,000 a year saw their Federal income taxes rise. Let me repeat that: No family who earned less than $100,000 a year saw their Federal income taxes rise as a result of our deficit reduction package. But misrepresentations of fact were also common the first time that we faced the miracle of the mirror: The budget that would be balanced while taxes were cut and defense spending increased. That miracle of the mirror turned into the miraculous exploding national debt. But the right-to-know amendment is not a magic mirror. It's the mirror of reality that must be held up to these promises before we change our Constitution and ask our States to take another riverboat gamble with their futures. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.