Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I assume that that will not come out of my time, if that were to happen.

Mr. ENZI. I yield to the Senator from Idaho for a moment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, before I yield some time to the Senator from North Carolina, how much time remains?

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate all the words that have been said here this morning, particularly those that call for us to do a bipartisan consensus. I am a big believer in the U.S. Constitution. I carry my own copy of the U.S. Constitution. In article V it tells us how to amend this Constitution, and it says that it is going to have to be a bipartisan effort if it is going to take two-thirds when the majority party has 55. This is going to be a bipartisan effort, but it has to be an effort that winds up with a constitutional amendment that will do what the American public is demanding. They are demanding that we come up with a balanced budget. I get to stand next to these unbalanced budgets, the last 28 years of work in this body, and I know that, individually, the people in this body have said we have to balance the budget. And I am willing to do it. It is collectively that we have had a little trouble getting it done. It is in that bipartisan manner that we have had trouble getting it done. It is in that situation when we are having to tell the people back home ``no'' for any particular issue. Somebody told me it takes political will to balance a budget. I really contend it takes political ``won't'' to balance a budget. We are talking today about an amendment that will deal with capital budgeting. As the only accountant in the Senate, I am fascinated by some of the definitions of capital budgeting that I am hearing here and reading about in the paper, that the President has said. It looks to me like the Federal idea of capital budgeting is not only a risky gimmick, it is also a loophole so big that you could drive an interstate through it, or an aircraft carrier, or planes and buses, or buildings. Anything can be driven through the loophole that will be created by this nice term ``capital budgeting.'' I, too, have run into the people at home who say, ``Wait a minute, I have a mortgage on my house. How is that different from the United States?'' And I say, ``Are you paying off the mortgage, or are you just paying the interest? And can you buy two or three or five houses and only pay the interest?'' That is what we are trying to do with capital budgeting with the Federal Government. We are saying we don't have to pay the principal back; interest is the only thing that is important. You and I know if you borrow enough, pretty quick the interest equals all of your revenue. We are a little ways away from that yet in the United States, but it is a distinct possibility. We are talking about a possibility of telling our kids or our grandkids, ``You have to pay 84 percent of your wages in taxes and you will get nothing for it because you are going to be paying the interest on the houses that we bought and used up.'' At that point, we are going to have a revolution in this country. It is not going to be the same kind of gentle change we are used to. It is not going to be subject to the same slow processes. We are going to have a generation that is going to say, ``I am paying Social Security to people I don't even know, and I am never going to get any.'' And they are going to take Social Security away. If we do not begin balancing budgets, there will not be Social Security. I don't think there is a single person in this entire body who does not want to protect Social Security. But how long are we going to wait before we protect Social Security? We keep talking about capital budgeting. I have said any kind of budgeting would be really great. What we are really talking about is cash-flow budgeting, I think, rather than capital budgeting, unless we are talking about that tremendous loophole, the one that says we can designate anything we want as capital and we can shift it off budget--I hate those words; it is not a good accounting term--but we no longer have to be responsible for anything that we can call capital budgeting, which is a very good accounting term. The President's commission on setting up a capital budget will not be nearly as restrictive as was the question that I asked earlier. That commission will report on including physical capital and intangible or human capital. That is the social capital I was talking about, the social investment I was talking about before. This loophole would virtually allow anything to be deemed as a capital investment. I would like to go into a little bit of what happens in some of the other entities that we do allow the right to do capital budgeting, and really what we are talking about is loans for capital. The Federal Government has such an extensive budget that we have not been forced to do any capital budgeting, nor in the foreseeable future would we have to do capital budgeting. We should do cash-flow budgeting so we can build all these capital items we are talking about in a logical progression and within budget, and pay back some of the debt that we already owe so there is less interest, so we have more money to spend. Probably one of the toughest levels of capital budgeting or loans that we allow to be made is at the local level. I used to be the mayor of a boom town out West that more than doubled in size. We had to have sewer treatment. Yes, there was a Federal program for sewer treatment, but our community had already applied for one of those grants and gotten one and built a sewer treatment plant. Then we had all of these people move in and we exceeded the capacity and were fined for exceeding the capacity of this lifetime plant. So we had to build another sewer treatment plant, and we were last on the list for getting another grant in that area. We had to build streets. You cannot have houses without streets that let you get to the houses. We had to increase our garbage collection. We also had our own electrical service. The first day I was in office, I got a call from one of the electrical suppliers who wanted to know what I was going to do when my substation blew up. I had to ask him what a substation was. That is a great big transformer for a town. He told me it was operating at 1.2 capacity, and any warm day it would just be eliminated and my town would be out electricity for maybe 2 weeks while we got a portable substation. I pictured myself for quite awhile being tarred and feathered and ridden out of town, as people's deep freezes thawed or they couldn't read at night or iron or any of the things that we really rely on electricity for but never think about it. And water, that was really the biggest problem. That has to be one of the most basic things any of us is involved in, is water. We did not have enough water before the boom. We went on water rationing in May and we got off in October, and our water was color-coded. The cold water came out kind of red because there was iron in the water and it took on that color when it mixed with oxygen, and the hot water came out black because we have a lot of coal in the area I am from and the coal would settle out in the hot water tank and then come out when we used hot water. You have to have water. You can do, maybe, without electricity. You cannot do without water. It was not an option to do without either of them, so we had to issue bonds. We had to borrow on a long-term basis. Our water project alone was 43 miles and $23 million away. Out here, that is not a microdot in the budget. It does not mean anything out here. But that was $3,000 in debt for every man, woman, and child living in that town at the time. They don't just let municipalities print their own money. There is a process that you have to go through that has a lot of review, because you have to prove to the people who might buy the bonds that those bonds will be paid off. I want to make a distinction again on that ``paid off,'' something we don't even consider around here. In all of the discussion that I have heard on the balanced budget constitutional amendment, in all of the discussion that I have heard on balancing the budget, I have not heard anybody say, ``Where's the number here that pays down the national debt?'' That is what we do with bonding. That is what we do with States when they bond. We have an elaborate process to do everything we can to make sure that those bonds will be valid, which means they will be paid off in a reasonable amount of time. So what did I have to go through to get that $23 million? One of the things I had to do was go before Standard & Poor's and Moody's in New York and explain how a town of 8,000 people was going to pay off $24 million in debt. I know that is real small stuff compared to cities in California, but for a guy from rural Wyoming, that was a lot of money. It also happened to be at the very same time that New York City was going broke, and Standard & Poor's was having daily meetings with the city to see how they were going to pay off the debt that they already had. I didn't mention forgiving the debt. I know there was some talk about that. But what Standard & Poor's and Moody's was interested in was how it was going to be paid off. They didn't care whether it was Federal grants or how. So they had a lot of extra special questions for us on how to do that, and as a result of the discussions, there were also criteria that were placed on the bond issues. This is normal stuff that happens with bond issues. There are covenants. That means that you have to dedicate sources of revenue. I have not heard us talk about any really special dedication of revenues to paying off any of this capital budgeting. I will tell you, they come in and they take that revenue before you get to do anything else with it if you default on the bonds. If you even miss a payment, they come in and demand the money, much the same as if you own a home. Then they also put a restriction on, they call it coverage, and coverage is an additional amount beyond the normal payment that goes into a special fund to make sure that you will not default on the bonds. In the case of our bonds, it was 1.25 percent. That means we had to pay into another fund 25 percent more than our payment to assure that we would make future payments. Again, that is something we don't talk about with capital budgeting for the United States. We just talk about spending the money and how we can build loopholes to do more spending outside of the normal budgeting process. We also had a requirement of a front-end sinking fund. That means before we could even start the project, we had to put money in a fund to show that we could make the first part of the payments. And then, and here is a real divergence from what we do back here, we had to have a vote of the people to go into debt--a vote of the people. What would happen with our budgets, these 28 years of no balanced budgets? Would the people let us do that if they had to vote on what we were spending? I know from the State-level discussions on this that that would be an incredible burden and extreme expense, and we can't go to that extent. No, we can't go to that extent, and we were elected to make those kinds of decisions. But we were elected to make them within certain constraints. The people back home tell me that they expect that constraint to be paying things off. They expect us not only to balance the budget, but to get to a situation, to plan for a situation where we pay down the national debt. That is good budgeting; that is good accounting. There was a happy side to this story. We did do capital budgeting. We did cash flow budgeting. We built the things that I talked about, and I want to tell you that today, not because of my efforts, but because of the people who followed me, who followed the cash flow budgeting, that those projects are not only in place, but they are paid for. Gillette, WY, is one of the few places in the United States that is debt free. That is how you run a city. That is how you should run a State, and most States do. Most States are required to, because they have a balanced budget constitutional amendment that forces them to live within their means. And that is how the United States ought to work. Capital budgeting could be a great idea, but not if the purpose of capital budgeting is to build loopholes so that we can spend whatever we want to by merely designating it as capital budget. We also ought to have performance budgets. There are a whole bunch of things that the private sector is doing that would be very adaptable to the Federal Government, and some States have already done them and some States have found them to be very successful. How do you balance a budget? You do it by strategic planning. You have every single person in the Government, down to the very smallest agency, talk about what their mission is, who their customer is, what they are trying to achieve, and how they will get it done. You get them to focus on the real problem of what they are trying to achieve and how they can most efficiently do it. Focus saves money. In Wyoming, we talked a long time about strategic planning for the State. We have a thing we call management audits. I am not familiar enough to know if we do that here, but we had a special committee that looked at State agencies. And the purpose of that look was to see if State agencies were doing what the State legislature and the Governor said they were supposed to be doing, if they were following the statutes. I am pleased to say, in most instances, they were doing exactly what we had told them. However, it was in pretty broad terms. It wasn't good enough to be a mission statement. It wasn't good enough to give them the finite direction they needed to have the best performance possible. So we instituted strategic planning. We forced all of the agencies to come up with a strategic plan, and most of them did. The ones that were most reluctant today are the biggest supporters of strategic planning. Once they tried it, they couldn't believe how it worked. The way that it works is the agencies for the budget process, actually the individuals in the agencies actually wind up saying, ``These are the things that we shouldn't be doing in our agency.'' I can tell you that the general public said, ``Wow, I didn't even know they were doing that stuff.'' If we had decisions to make here that were based on the employees of the Federal Government saying these are things we shouldn't be doing and the American public telling us, ``Why were you doing those things,'' we would cut them and nobody would complain. That is not how it works, though, in Government. If you allow it to happen, what gets cut in Government are the things that are the most visible. Call it the ``athletic team syndrome.'' If you want to really make an impact, you threaten to cut the athletic team in a small school, and that will get a furor bigger than anything you ever imagined, and it will be reinstituted. Not only will it be reinstituted, but I have this principle of government that if it is worth reacting to, it is worth overreacting to. So you not only reinstitute into the budget what happened, you put a little bit more money into that. We had that example in Yellowstone Park where they were $80,000 short on a $19 million budget, and they asked for extra money and threatened to close down our park early. Now, that is a major economic, as well as recreation, benefit to the entire United States, and particularly to those of us in Montana and Wyoming. If we had a manager who was short a few dollars who said they needed more money or had to close down early, we would probably fire the manager. We need strategic planning so that we can make the decisions and be sure that the things that should not be done are not being done. We talk about capital budgeting. We have to be sure that capital budgeting is not just building another loophole into the system, that it is good accounting. We need to have good accounting. We need to have good accounting to protect Social Security. Social Security right now is being called a trust fund. But it is not the fund with money stuck out there being invested on behalf of the person who paid it in so that when they retire there will be a guarantee of that money being there. It is money that is flowing through the system. It is money that is being paid out as it comes in with some small amounts being left over. Now, $80 billion this year sounds like a lot of money to me. And it is a lot of money. But it is a tittle in the budget for what needs to be put in if we are going to have an actuarially sound Social Security System. Not only should we be capital budgeting, not only should we be paying off the national debt, we should be making our trust funds into true trust funds. That is good Government. That is what I am interested in. If we are going to save Social Security, we are going to have to do adequate budgeting to build it up to some point in time where it is actuarially sound. Mr. President, the Feinstein amendment creates a loophole to the balanced budget constitutional amendment. As I mentioned when I started this speech, you can drive an interstate through it. The Feinstein amendment actually harms the balanced budget amendment because it ultimately will increase debt. It is a license to increase debt. Congress has been borrowing dollars to no end in order to deficit spend. And that is the problem. The Feinstein amendment does not tell us how we will pay back the bonds for capital spending. It puts no limitation on the bonds for Federal spending. It has no oversight for the bonds for capital spending. It is more and more debt. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. So the Senator is suggesting, then, that there would have to be a much greater detail on the enabling legislation?

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, does the amendment of the Senator from California create kind of a loophole, though, by not defining what ``capital expenditure'' is even in the slightest way?

Mr. ENZI. In the President's budget I notice that he listed social investment as a capital expenditure. That is why I was asking the question about education. I am concerned that the capital budget procedure is just an attempt to be able to move everything outside of the normal budgeting procedure so, in fact, we do not have to balance the budget. That is why I want more definition on what is meant by ``capital budget.''

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have a question on some of the things the Senator has been talking about on capital budgeting. Could the Senator give me a little better definition of what she is talking about with capital budgeting? Is the Senator talking about all capital projects being off budget? Are we talking about that? What kind of limitations do we have on what can be a capital budget item?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Torricelli, who will be making his initial floor speech, and Senator Bennett.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning, the Senate will begin debate on the Feinstein amendment to the balanced budget resolution, with a vote on or in relation to the Feinstein amendment occurring at 11 a.m. Then Senator Torricelli will be recognized to offer an amendment relating to capital budgeting. There is a limitation of 3 hours for debate on that amendment. I want to remind Senators that under a previous order, Members have until 5 p.m. on Wednesday to offer their amendments to the balanced budget amendment. We appreciate the cooperation of the Democratic leader in working with us for this unanimous-consent agreement outlining the remaining adjustments that will be in order to the constitutional amendment. It is our hope that when we continue to make progress and complete consideration of this important legislation. Also, I want to remind Senators that on Thursday, February 27, His Excellency Eduardo Frei, President of Chile, will address a joint meeting at 10 a.m. All Senators are asked to meet in the Senate Chamber at 9:40 a.m. to proceed as a group to the joint meeting.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. on Wednesday, February 26. I further ask that immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for granting me this time. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that is sponsored by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. The amendment would strike the language from section 6 of the balanced budget constitutional amendment that permits Congress to rely on budget estimates when drafting the implementing language pursuant to the ratification of the amendment. As the only accountant in the U.S. Senate, I know that no budget can be predicted to the penny more than a year in advance. I would like to see that extended out to 2 years in advance. If we demand better estimates, we will get better estimates. If more is riding on the estimates, the estimates will be better. The estimators' performance and ours will be judged. The very heart of budgeting means making estimates before the money is spent. There is no way to do it after the money is spent. You have to do it in advance. Advance means estimates. Without the use of the estimates of future outlays and receipts, we will be unable to draft implementing legislation that keeps us within the boundaries of the balanced budget amendment. As an accountant, I am fascinated with the budget discussion because we are talking about numbers. We are talking about balancing budgets. We are talking about formats that will provide us with the most information possible. And we are doing it in the context of a real budget, dealing with real people. We are doing it in the context of a history where we have only had one balanced budget in 40 years. We have not balanced the budget in 28 years. Some very valid accounting concerns have been raised here in the debate by opponents of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. I have heard reference to the need for capital budgets. I have heard reference to a need for Social Security to be off budget. I have heard reference to the need to take care of accounting problems that happen during recessions. As an accountant, I applaud this insight into the need for new accounting methods. We need to have cash flow budgets so that as cash arrives the purchases can be made without extensive deficits. It is just good business. A balanced budget amendment will force us to have a better accounting system and to even have better estimates. I have heard debate about the concern with the Judiciary Committee's definitions for estimates. The committee stated that estimates, for example, ``means good faith, responsible and reasonable estimates made with an honest intent to implement section 1.'' I would add that generally accepted principles would also ask that they be conservative estimates. We all know that there is no way to be absolutely accurate about estimates. We have to do the best we can to estimate outlays and receipts and do it routinely at the same day each year. If we really want to talk about problems with definitions, ``off budget'' is a fascinating accounting term. In fact, in my accounting references I couldn't even find that term. I have to say from listening to discussions that there doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus on what that really means. It looks like we found another catchword that scares senior citizens and scares people and gives us a hook not to vote on this. As one who daily approaches being a senior I want to see us get that rhetoric out of that term. We give the impression that Social Security has enough money at the moment. We talk about the surpluses going into Social Security and being used in the budget. Without estimates of outlays and receipts, it would be impossible to gauge the problems that currently affect the very existence of the Social Security system. Let's talk a little bit more about definitions. I think that accountants frown on the Federal term ``surplus'' revenue. Surplus implies more than what is needed. That is definitely not the case with Social Security. Social Security is a trust fund. But we give the impression that that money is being set aside in a special account for seniors so that when they retire there will be money to be drawn out in their name. That is not even close to what actually happens. We don't have a crystal ball, only reasonable estimates from which to work. The President and Congress currently use estimates and budget planning. The Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget already give budget estimates each year. It has been pointed out how accurate they are. One is more conservative than the other. They correct the estimate twice during the year to ensure their accuracy. Congress ultimately decides how to balance the difference between the estimates. We need to have a system where we can see how far in debt we are. And we need to do that not just for Social Security but for every single trust fund that we have, and the budget. We either have to change the accounting system, account for funds honestly and show how much deficit there is, or rename them so that they are not called trust funds. Perhaps we should do both. We are not snake oil salesmen here. Meeting the requirements of the balanced budget constitutional amendment will require Congress to go about their business with a great level of accountability. Spending and borrowing decisions must be deliberate because every decision will impact the requirement of this balanced budget constitutional amendment. I think those people who are opposing the balanced budget constitutional amendment know in their hearts that this one will pass and will also have more swift ratification by the States than most of the other amendments to the Constitution. Why will that happen? First, most of the States already have a balanced budget constitutional amendment. They work under them, and they know that they work. And, incidentally, those work with estimates. They know their limitation and the type of problems that develop from it. The States understand that problems are not a detriment to the United States having a balanced budget constitutional amendment. The concern of the inaccuracy of the estimates is overblown. The data that are often used are generated months to over a year in advance to the end of the fiscal year. In fact, the Federal Reserve uses its own estimates to help set its own policy. It also makes mistakes. For example, in the July 1996 Humphrey-Hawkins banking deregulation hearing, Chairman Alan Greenspan predicted the GDP would grow at about 2.5 to 2.75 percent. Instead, it grew by about 3.4 percent. Quite a difference; billions in difference. Is that to say that the Fed should not use estimates because they do no more than identify the economic trends and provide decisionmakers with useful information? Yes, an estimate is an educated guess. Where else would we start? Where else would the Fed start in determining its policy? I think that most people in this body realize that a constitutional amendment will pass and get ratified by the States. If we didn't believe that it would be ratified by the States, this would be a real easy debate. But we know that the people of the States want it and the States will respond. If just those States with one or more Senators opposing the balanced budget constitutional amendment did not ratify the constitutional amendment, it would never become a constitutional amendment. So if those Senators' States did not ratify it where one or more Senators were opposing it, we wouldn't have the constitutional amendment. If we did not have appropriate legislation, those people in those States would not have to raise the confusion that we are having raised right here today; that is, to get a hook so that they can explain a vote that is very difficult to explain back home. The people understand from their own experience that you can't spend more than you take in. Almost every school kid above third grade is able to explain that to me--that, if you spend more money than you take in, you go broke. By third grade they have already had enough experience to realize this fact of life. It has been said that we can learn much from children. Children focus on problems in more simple terms. There is a difference between being simplistic and being simple. If you went to your banker and said, ``I want to borrow money to buy a house, and I don't want to have to pay anything but the interest for the rest of my life,'' do you think you would get that loan? No, you wouldn't. But that is what we are doing right now with the national debt. By not balancing the budget, the Federal Government has not been good about limiting or disciplining itself in any way. How does this relate to the constitutional amendment? I am suggesting that, if we limit ourselves by a balanced budget constitutional amendment, we will concentrate more on what we really do well. We will have more people participating and less people expecting Government to do things for them, more caring concern for our elders, and more concentration on our children's and grandchildren's welfare, if we have a balanced budget amendment. Thank you.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I believe we have special order time scheduled from 11 to 12 noon. I would designate the time allocated to Senator Thomas to me.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we will have several more of my colleagues here to discuss how the balanced budget amendment benefits children. I will begin by saying that as a new Senator, I am in awe of these surroundings. Every day I reflect on the history that has taken place in this Chamber. I think of the people who have been here before me and hear them referred to in speeches on a daily basis. Much of the history of this great Nation has been shaped in this Chamber. Every day we are in session history is being made. Right now we are debating the balanced budget constitutional amendment. That may be the most important piece of legislation to be debated during my lifetime because of the implications it has for the future of our country. A new revolution may be taking place in this country. A few years ago, I was given a book by my pastor to read. It was a scholarly review of social cycles in the history of the United States. The baby boomers were one of those cycles. I am part of that. They were concerned primarily for themselves but also for others as long as there was something in it for them. It revealed how in the history of the United States there have been three recurring cycles. But following each period when we tried to be sure we took care of ourselves and instituted programs to make sure others were taken care of, provided we were included, that generation was followed by a reactionary generation, and the reactionary generation took away the ``gifts'' of the previous generation. In last week's balanced budget debate, we heard a lot of comments about Social Security. I am mentioning this reactionary generation because I want to make sure we protect Social Security not just today but for the time to come. All of us here are concerned about Social Security, and to say otherwise is just political hogwash. But the only way to protect Social Security is to include it in the balanced budget constitutional amendment. That is why the President's budget proposal and every budget prior to that included Social Security in the budget. We cannot continue to ignore the interests of our children and grandchildren--members of that reactionary agenda. What does the incredible debt that we have built up have to do with future generations? The Federal debt is $5.3 trillion. None of us understand how much $5.3 trillion is. But the reactionary generation that follows will learn, and they will learn all too soon. As they become saddled with tremendous debt, they will realize what the magnitude of how much $5.3 trillion really is. Already this reactionary generation says that they have a better chance of seeing an unidentified flying object than they have of seeing $1 of their Social Security money when they retire. They see no hope for the future, and they look forward to a lifetime of putting in 7.45 percent or more of their paycheck and having that matched by their employer with another 7.45 percent. That is 15 percent that could have been their earnings, that could have been money in their pockets or in their own retirement accounts. When they realize that they will not receive a dollar of that money, what do you suppose their reaction will be? Will they protect Social Security for those already in the program? Will they care? Will there be a legislative revolution? As an accountant, I am fascinated with the budget discussion because we are talking about numbers, and that is exciting. We are talking about balancing budgets. We are talking about formats that will provide us with the most information possible, and we are doing it in the context of a real budget dealing with real people. We are doing it in the context of a history where we have only balanced the budget once in 40 years--and that was 28 years ago. Some very valid accounting concerns have been raised here in debate by opponents of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. I have heard reference to the need for capital budgeting. I have heard reference to a need for Social Security to be off budget. I have heard reference to the need to take care of accounting problems that happen during recessions. As an accountant, I applaud this insight into the need for new accounting methods. Not only am I an accountant but I used to be the mayor of Gillette, WY, as it went through a boom and increased in population about two and a half times. I know from having been through both kinds of economic cycles that growth presents many of the same problems that recession causes. Under both situations a capital budget is required. We really do need Federal capital budgets and cash-flow management budgets. We need to list all of the capital purchases, vehicles, buildings, etc., that this Government needs to buy for the next 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years. I have found out that many agencies or departments have no idea how much capital they have. We need to have cash-flow budgets so that as the cash arrives the purchases can be made without extensive deficits. That is good business. When I heard the Democratic leader speaking about capital budgets last week, I got excited. That is the kind of accounting that we should have already had. But, this kind of accounting has nothing to do with passing the balanced budget constitutional amendment. It is just good business. Whether we have a capital budget or not, we need a balanced budget amendment. Last week I heard a lot of debate about the need to take Social Security off budget. Off budget is a fascinating accounting term. In fact in my accounting references I could not even find that term. And I have to say from listening to the discussions that there does not seem to be a lot of consensus as to what off budget really means. It looks like we found a catch word that scares senior citizens and makes everyone think this will save Social Security. As one who daily approaches being a senior, I want to see us get the rhetoric out of that term. We give the impression that Social Security has enough money at the moment. We talk about the surpluses going into Social Security and being used in the budget. Accountants frown at the word ``surplus'' revenue. Surplus implies more than what is needed. That is not the case with the Social Security trust fund. We give the impression that money is being put aside in a special account for our seniors so that when they retire there will be money to be drawn out in their names. That is not even close to what actually happens. In order for the money that people are paying into Social Security today to be available for them when they retire, the system must be actuarially sound. That means that the money going in now at the rate of investment allowed on that fund has to generate enough revenue so there will be a payout for the period of time promised. We have promised to pay out money for the remainder of a person's life at not only the rate that he or she is entitled to at the time they retire, but also with cost-of-living allowances. We have already passed laws in this country that force businesses doing pension funds to make their funds actuarially sound. They have to build a fund that at the time of retirement will have enough money in it that can pay the benefits for that person for the promised amount of time which is usually the balance of his lifetime. That is the law. Businesses are in the process of meeting that at an extreme cost to themselves. If we force businesses to keep their promises, then why do we not fulfill our promise to the same people and keep our accounts sound? At the present time Social Security is at least $9.3 trillion away from being actuarially sound. Do we have a way to generate that money? No. We have to perpetuate the current system. That is why we cannot privatize the system. We would bankrupt the system immediately if we allowed younger generations to take their money and put it in their own fund instead of putting it in to be paid out to our seniors immediately. We need to have a system where we can see how far in debt we are. And we need to do that not just for Social Security but for every single trust fund that we have. We either have to change the accounting system to account for the funds honestly and show how much of a deficit there is, or rename them so that they are not trust funds. Perhaps we should do both. OK, we agreed to do a system of pay in and pay out trying to build up some surpluses to take care of the coming influx of people going into retirement. But, when the baby boomers reach full retirement, the Social Security surplus will decline at a dramatic rate, eventually going broke by the year 2012. Yes, we need a new accounting system for Social Security. Yes, we need that system now. No, it is not a part of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. It is a part of a good government proposition and we need to grapple with it and get it under control. The issue of what accounting system to use should not determine if we vote for or against a balanced budget amendment. A new accounting system is needed, but the balanced budget amendment is essential. The only hope for Social Security is a balanced budget, then switch to an accounting system that will realistically deal with the actuarial needs of Social Security so that we can protect it for future generations. Otherwise we will have a revolution that will take away seniors' Social Security. Last week I also saw many copies of the pocket Constitution of the United States being held up and explained. I too, carry my own copy of the Constitution of the United States. It was given to me some years ago by a district judge when I was in the State legislature. When I was mayor, on Constitution Day, I used to give all members of the city council a copy of the Constitution and encourage them to read it. Sometimes we read it as a part of the proceedings of the city council meeting. This document is an astonishing document. The insight by our forefathers was incredible. But this debate has also raised some constitutional issues. I have heard discussion that some people in this body consider this to be a draft. It fascinates me, that, with the exception of one single provision, the Founders of this Constitution considered it to be a draft. In article 5, instructions are given on how a change in the Constitution can be made. They made it difficult, but possible to change. The balanced budget constitutional amendment has to pass by a two-thirds vote in each House and then it must be ratified by three- fourths of the States. I think those people who are opposing a balanced budget constitutional amendment know in their hearts that this time it will pass and will also have swift ratification by the States. If we did not believe it would be ratified by the States, this would be an easy debate. But we know the people of the States want it and the States will respond. If just those States with one or more Senators opposing the balanced budget constitutional amendment did not ratify the constitutional amendment, it would never become a constitutional amendment. Why will there be swift ratification? First, most of the States already have a balanced budget requirement in their Constitution. They work under the requirement and know the requirement works. They know their limitations and the types of challenges that develop from it. They understand that the challenges are not a detriment to the United States having a balanced budget constitutional amendment. People understand from their own experience that you cannot spend more than you take in. Almost every school child above the third grade is able to explain to me that if you spend more money than you take in you go broke. It has been said that we can learn much from children. Children focus on problems in more simple terms. Congress has not yet learned what the children know. The voters want us to stop spending their money they have not even earned yet. Our children and grandchildren plead with us to balance the budget and quit cosigning on their behalf for this mountain of debt. Another argument that I have heard in this debate is the need to adjust changes or, using a new term, glitches in the economy. $5.3 trillion worth of debt has turned people into unbelievers about the paternal role of Government in our lives. We have already wrestled with the $5.3 trillion worth of experiments that wound up with these glitches in the economy. Where has it taken us? What do we have to show for it? The people know the Government has little control over the economy. I have heard the argument that families do not balance their budgets because they borrow for future such situations, and they do not pay the debt off each year. I agree, they do not. But I do hasten to point out that they at least pay off a little bit of the debt every year. Right now we should not only balance the budget, we should include in that balanced budget an enabling legislation provision to pay off the national debt. If you went to your banker and said, ``I want to borrow money to buy a house, but I don't want to have to pay anything but the interest for the rest of my life,'' would you get the loan? No, you would not. But that is what Government is doing. The Government is saying, we want you, the American people, to be our bankers, but all we want to do is pay the interest. I can foresee a time when the interest may amount to more than all of the other spending programs, so it will be tough to even pay the interest, and we still will not be paying a nickel on the national debt. Will the next generation be reactionary if they pay exorbitant taxes and cannot buy anything but interest? This does not begin to mention who finances our debts. We are fiscally controlled to a limited degree by foreign interests because of the large increase in their securities holdings. This weakens our economy and independence because the money is taken out of the United States. The interest on the Federal debt increased from 9 percent of total outlays in fiscal year 1980 to 15 percent in fiscal year 1995. The Federal Government has not been good about limiting or disciplining itself in any way. We understand how happy constituents get when we throw money at them and their wants. We also understand how disappointed and a little bit angry they sometimes get when they are not given things. I was in the Wyoming Legislature for 10 years. Halfway through that time, I moved from the house to the senate. At that time the State senate imposed a new rule on itself. We have a very limited time for meeting in Wyoming. We meet for 20 days in a budget session, which is every other year, and 40 days in a regular session. Now we save 2 of those days each time in case the Governor were to veto something, we could call ourselves back into session and override it. So we spend 18 days one year and 38 days the next, and we avoid all special sessions. In recent years one thing has happened that has helped, and that is a rule that we imposed on ourselves to limit the number of bills that any one Senator can introduce in a session. We said that in a budget year, a Senator could only introduce three bills, and in a regular session a Senator could only introduce seven bills. We spent a lot of hours talking about limiting our own right to submit bills. Those who spoke most vehemently against it were the ones who turned in the most bills. It was not unusual for anybody to turn in 30 bills in a regular session. We passed a rule in spite of the opposition. Today the biggest supporters of that rule are the ones who before the rule turned in the most bills. Why the change? The ones who turned in the most bills discovered two things. First, their constituents were more pleased with the bill that passed than one that was merely introduced. Introducing and working a few bills resulted in a higher percentage of bills that passed. Second, maybe most importantly, it was much easier to say no to a constituent for a new bill if there was a prohibition against the number of bills allowed to be introduced. How does that relate to a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget? I am suggesting that, if we limit ourselves by a balanced budget constitutional amendment, we will concentrate more on what we really do well, and the things that we choose to do we will do well. We can have the America of our dreams. We will have more people participating, we will have less people expecting Government to do things for them, we will have more care and concern for our elders, and we will have more concentration on our children's and our grandchildren's welfare. We have an opportunity now to show that we can care for our parents and our grandparents and will provide for our children and our grandchildren. We can move to an honest system of accounting so we can end the deficits and pay down the debt to show that we really believe that the future of America is upon us now. We can preserve this as a land of opportunity for future generations. The challenge is now. Do we have the courage or do we need a revolt from the reactionary generation? Please help me to pass the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I will urge all Americans to write and call your Representatives and Senators and tell them to pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Passing it 5 years from now will not suffice. We need action now. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of passage of the balanced budget constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1. When we vote on Senator Durbin's amendment later today, I will urge my colleagues to oppose that measure. The amendment of the Senator from Illinois seeks to skirt the three- fifths majority vote required by Senate Joint Resolution 1 to approve the deficit. This gaping hole would give Congress the ability to knock the teeth out of the constitutional amendment with a simple majority vote. The three-fifths requirement was placed in the balanced budget amendment so that Congress could not run deficits except during times of war or serious threat. The Durbin amendment adds two additional situations and neglects to define them. In addition, it overrides the desire of a balanced budget by three-fourths of the States which would be necessary for the amendment's ratification. Senator Durbin's amendment gives Congress excuses for not balancing the budget. The American people are tired of excuses coming from Washington. I would also like to take this opportunity to comment on the attacks that have been continued and have increased in intensity against this commonsense amendment. Our opponents are conjuring up fatalistic and doomsday predictions about the future with their crystal balls. They are right to be concerned about a possible economic recession and the insolvency of our Social Security system. But they are wrong about the cause and the solution. If we fail to control our future, it will control us. We need to fear the future only if we fail to pass this amendment. If there were only one social injustice in America today, it would be the mountain of debt we are leaving to our kids, grandkids, and those not yet old enough to vote today. An inheritance of debt is a cruel legacy. They will be left to wonder if we failed to remember the Revolutionary battle cry, ``No taxation without representation.'' Congressman J.C. Watts stated in his recent speech: If things continue as they are, by the time [those people] are 25, the tax they could pay will be about 84 cents on the dollar. That's more than a shame. It's a scandal. I concur. Let us quit cosigning on our kids' behalf without their consent. The opponents of the balanced budget constitutional amendment say that some of us consider the Constitution to be a draft. I need to remind those opponents that the Constitution is being amended on a very regular basis without a majority vote each time it is amended by the judicial courts. Opponents of the amendment also use the argument that it would be unconstitutional. I have never heard anyone declare a provision in the Constitution as unconstitutional. How could that be possible? Think about it. Senate Joint Resolution 1 has wide bipartisan support. That is the only way we could get 62 original cosponsors to the amendment. The present administration has stated working together is the key to action. I wholeheartedly agree. We should not care who gets the credit for balancing the budget, Republicans or Democrats, Congress or the President, as long as it gets done. This is something that the administration pays lip service to, but then proclaimed an all-out war on the balanced budget amendment even though they submitted a proposal just a few days ago stuffed and overstuffed with new Government programs that we cannot afford. The President's budget purportedly brings the budget into balance by the year 2002. He has front-loaded his budget proposals with catchy, pretty little initiatives tied up in illusory little bows. Mr. President, you cannot fill a leaking bucket from a dry well. Americans must know that long after this President has left office, Congress will no longer be able to avoid the mess. Tax hikes loom large on the horizon for many Americans in 2002 under President Clinton's plan--the exact year that the budget amendment might take effect. The administration has declared war on the will of the American people as well. Let us take a look at some recent numbers from a CBS poll released February 4, 1997. When the American people were asked the question, ``Do you favor a balanced budget amendment?'' 76 percent of those polled said ``yes.'' But when they were asked if the Federal budget would be balanced by 2002, 84 percent said no. This tells me the American people do not believe that the political leaders of today have the will to pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment. This lack of will is what creates cynicism and apathy in the American people. Why don't we just give the individual States the opportunity to ratify the balanced budget amendment? Three-fourths of the States have to pass it before it becomes part of the Constitution. That is a tough test. We need to give the States this opportunity to force the Federal Government to come to grips with its finances just as the State governments are required to do. I found the best decisions are made closest to the people. The American people know best how a decision made here in Washington will affect them and their daily lives. Giving the States the opportunity to ratify the amendment would bring the budget closer to the people. The administration likes playing the underdog, hoping to get sympathy votes against the amendment. They are insisting this could do severe damage to some important Government programs and the economy. This is shown by the proposed budget for fiscal years 1998 through fiscal year 2002. The President's plan sets up Congress and future administrations to do the heavy lifting. If we are to balance the budget by 2002, drastic cuts in programs will have to be made in the 2 years after the President leaves office. The President's proposed budget acknowledges that the deficit will increase, from about $107 billion in 1996 to $121 billion in 1998. That is not responsible and courageous leadership for next year, let alone the next 50 years. Responsible leadership requires the tough decisions to be made now, instead of continuing to ignore the problem and forcing future leaders to balance the budget when a slower economy may make it more difficult to get it done. As the late Senator Paul Tsongas said, ``There are a lot of votes in deficit spending. There are no votes in fiscal discipline.'' Former Senator Paul Simon also said, ``People in public office like to do popular things, and there is no popular way to balance the budget.'' To these two highly esteemed former Democrat Senators, a balanced budget constitutional amendment is the only guarantee to fiscal discipline. It would require Congress and the President to make some unpopular, but desperately needed actions to control Federal spending. If we have the best economy in the post-World-War II era, why can't we balance the budget in fiscal year 1999, and make the necessary cuts now, instead of later when uncertainty of the future economic condition is greater. I challenge the Members of this body and the President of this great Nation to balance the budget now, while the economy is growing. This would cause the economy to flourish even more, reducing interest rates and guaranteeing investors that a balanced budget will occur. It is also Social Security's only hope. The Federal Government should be in the business of doing a few things well, instead of many things poorly. Our Federal budget is pockmarked with programs that do not work as intended, whose missions are obsolete, and have grown out of control. The balanced budget amendment would force the Government to prioritize programs, and then perform with better results. The American people have always been fearful of an overly intrusive and powerful Federal Government. There is still a certain amount of anti-federalism in each of us. The natural response to the constraints put on Government by this amendment would be a limited government. This leads me to point out the advantages of a biennial budget. A biennial budget would complement the balanced budget constitutional amendment by allowing Congress to spend more time ironing out the details of a budget. A biennial budget would also allow Congress more time for oversight, making sure the various agencies and departments are effectively, accurately, and honestly performing their mission. It would also allow longer range planning by the Federal agencies, and State and local governments. The current annual budget and budget reconciliation process causes shortsighted planning. A biennial budget would allow more time for Congress to prioritize the agencies' and departments' functions. American essayist, Artemus Ward said, ``It ain't the things we don't know that hurt us--It's the things we do know that ain't so.'' I am talking about capital budgeting. A few opponents of the amendment have called for capital budgeting. As the U.S. Senate's only accountant, I can tell you that you are not being told the whole story. It is misleading to speak about the need for a capital budget at the Federal level, as though it is an idea which has been championed for some time in this Chamber. It is being used solely as a means to confuse the issue on the appropriateness of the balanced budget amendment. The comparison has been made to the practice in State budgeting of separating capital and operating expenses, and paying for capital improvements through the method of issuing debt. The Federal budget has even been compared to the family budget and a home mortgage. There are some distinctions which need to be made with the practice of sound capital budgeting in our States and homes and what has occurred here. First, a plan must be in place to replace or expand facilities and equipment based on its reasonable economic life. I would question whether or not the Federal Government even has an inventory of our existing facilities and equipment, let alone a plan for its replacement or expansion. Second, both the States and our families borrow with a purpose, and with the full intent and capability of repayment of both the interest and the principal over a fixed period. The annual cost of this debt repayment is included within the annual budget. We not only lack a capital budget, we incur debt for day-to-day expenses. No State or family, if it hopes to remain solvent, incurs debt for the cost of operations or day-to-day living with the intent of only paying the interest. This is exactly what we have been doing since 1969. Given the affinity of the Federal Government to borrow for normal day-to-day living, I can only guess at the problems we could generate if we were to create additional debt to finance capital improvements. It is a reasonable premise of borrowing that you don't loan money to a person who has shown that they cannot be trusted to repay what they already owe. I will conclude with the famous words of Benjamin Franklin: ``Work while it is called today, for you know not how much you may be hindered tomorrow. One today is worth two tomorrows; never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today.'' Now is the time for hard work and seriousness. We must pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment. I urge all Americans to write or call your Representatives and Senators and tell them to pass the balanced budget amendment now. No more excuses--the future of our children and grandchildren and parents and grandparents is at stake. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Without that amendment, our children and grandchildren will be saddled with a mountain of debt. They will be left with no hope of fulfilling their hopes and dreams. I feel that it is time to correct the misleading reports that have been put forth by many of the opponents of Senate Joint Resolution 1 over the past few weeks. Their arguments are not new. They have been the same arguments for the past 20 years--actually, for almost three decades Congress has failed to balance the budget. I am standing almost in the shadow of the mountain of budgets that don't balance. That failure has led to the current fiscal mess that holds us hostage. But what has really kept us from a balanced budget amendment? The same old excuses and fear-mongering still prevail, scaring everyone from the children to the senior citizens of this country. The excuses take a little different form each year, but the same basic fears are still being played upon. The easy position to take is to continue spending the taxpayers money on feel-good programs instead of grappling with the tough issues. The debt we are incurring for our kids amounts to taxation without representation. We are forcing people who haven't even been born yet to cosign on a note. A balanced budget constitutional amendment would tie the hands of the spenders in DC. It doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water. In fact, it is the life cord that connects the budget to the baby. It would protect generations yet to come. A balanced budget will do away with the hidden taxes Americans pay in the form of higher interest rates. If we pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment now, a middle-class family could easily save $1,500 a year. That is a nice raise. This is assuming a drop in mortgage rates from 7.7 to 5.7 percent, a drop in interest rates on a car loan from 9.2 to 7.2 percent, and decline in student loan rates from 8.5 to 6.5 percent. Interest rates should be 2 percent lower with a balanced budget. How would the financial markets view the balanced budget amendment? According to many financial market experts, such as David Malpass, the more restraint on Government spending, the better the markets will respond. Part of the reason for the bullish market is merely the suggestion of a balanced budget. Laws enforcing a balanced budget would perpetuate a bullish financial market. Currently, interest rates are low and the economy is healthy, due again in part by Congress and the President getting serious about balancing the budget. All of these positive trends are occurring as a result of just the possibility of balancing the budget. What about the claim that a balanced budget amendment would hobble our economy in a recession? First of all, there is a clause in the amendment that would allow Congress, by a three-fifths vote, to spend more than it takes. In an emergency situation of three-fifths vote would not be difficult to attain. Financial experts agree that recessions have occurred at times due to Federal mismanagement of monetary, tax, or regulatory policies. Mistakes are usually made when the Government intervenes too much in the private sector. The amendment has a built in method that allows the Federal Government to quickly react to these types of glitches. The economist John Keynes knew that Government should attempt to create a surplus in the good times and that Government must borrow during bad times. The problem with our situation is that Congress is borrowing during the bad and good, wartime and peacetime, national emergency or no emergency. Look at where we are now. We are supposed to be having the best economy in years--with a focus on reinventing and downsizing government, a huge reduction in military expenses, and a Congress and President that want to balance the budget. We lack the will and discipline, however, to ultimately balance the budget before the end of the 20th century. We have had commission after commission study this issue to sheer boredom. We all know that revenue is up right now for Social Security. We are also well aware that the program will start running a deficit in 2013. Let's not make political hay out of Social Security. Let's start dealing with reality. Opponents of the amendment want Social Security exempted or taken off budget. It is catchy wording that some senior citizens have bought hook, line and sinker. It has absolutely no consistent meaning to anyone and it provides a false sense of security. There is a vague feeling that ``off budget'' means that we don't want to cheat on Social Security and damage the ability to support our seniors. I say right now that nobody wants to damage Social Security. Nobody wants that to happen. Everyone, including me, wants to protect senior citizens. It is absurd to say otherwise. Right now Social Security is a partial pay-as-you-go system. The people paying Social Security taxes are paying for the people who are retired today. It is not a fully funded system. It doesn't build up a trust fund. It's a bunch of IOU's. There is no secret vault stacked full of Social Security funds. The revenue from Social Security is invested into Government-backed securities like Treasury bills. To disregard Social Security plays games with the budget. It would require an additional $80 billion match up front. Later, when baby boomers reach retirement, the fund will go broke without an enormous infusion of funds from our children and grandchildren. An amendment is not just for the next 8 years. It is for that time when there is an extra burden on Social Security. As the only accountant in the U.S. Senate, I believe that in order to ensure stability and longevity of Social Security, we need to go to a modified accrual system of accounting for each of the trust funds. We need to talk also about Medicare and the other trust funds, not just Social Security. It happens to be the only one that fits with the argument of the opponents. This accrued system would assure that the moneys coming in match up-- at some point in the critical near future--to the time that the money has to go out. A modified accrual method would show that any surplus revenue for this year's budget is already committed further down the line. I believe we should pass a balanced budget amendment even though the growth rate of the deficit is falling without the amendment. The budget deficit is expected to rise from $107 billion in fiscal year 1996, to $124 billion in fiscal year 1997. This is not a reduction in the size of the deficit. Some are praising the progress in reducing the deficit. We aren't reducing the deficit or the national debt. I don't know where their numbers are coming from. They sure aren't coming from the Congressional Budget Office. But if we move toward a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002, a fiscal dividend of about $34 billion is in sight. The Clinton administration and a number of Members of this body have already begun a reign of terror on the American people regarding the balanced budget amendment. Members of the administration have criticized the amendment by claiming it is unenforceable. These attacks are not only unfounded, they represent a sad critique on the administration's view of fulfilling its constitutional obligations. On January 7, I swore a solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. All of my colleagues in the Senate and the House have taken this same pledge. President Clinton took the same oath on January 20. This is one of the most serious pledges a person can take in his or her lifetime. It binds all Members of the Congress and the President to follow all the provisions in the Constitution. If the balanced budget amendment was added to the Constitution, we would be bound by our most solemn oath to pass a balanced budget in each and every fiscal year. For the administration to criticize this amendment as unenforceable is a very serious charge indeed. Does the President intend not to fulfill his constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by delivering a balanced budget proposal to Congress before each fiscal year? Is the administration insinuating that Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are willing to blatantly violate the clear language of our Constitution which they took an oath to uphold and defend? I do not share the Clinton administration's cynical view that our constitutional officers will openly and flagrantly flout their solemn duties. If we pass the balanced budget constitutional amendment, I have every confidence that Members of this noble Chamber as well as our friends in the House will take their oath to defend the Constitution very seriously. We will balance the budget because we have sworn to uphold the Constitution. We will balance the budget because we desire to leave our children and grandchildren a legacy of hope and prosperity instead of the horror of a $5.3 trillion debt. I want to stress that the enforcement of the balanced budget amendment will rest first and foremost with this Congress. Under section 6 of the balanced budget constitutional amendment, Congress must pass implementing legislation to enforce this amendment. This provision indicates that it will be primarily Congress--neither the President nor the Federal courts--which will provide the means of enforcement. Claims that this amendment will result in new powers of Presidential impoundment or judicial involvement in the budgetary process are unfounded. These are nothing more than further attempts by the amendment's detractors to sidestep the serious obligation we all have of safeguarding the financial future of our Nation, and our kids and grandkids. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in voting for Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget constitutional amendment. This will be a giant step in restoring responsibility to our Government, and it will demonstrate to future generations that we were willing to act responsibly in the most serious of our tasks. And if we do not balance the budget, we become the longest running game show with the lowest ratings in history. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed changes to air quality standards. The EPA kicked off the last Thanksgiving weekend by announcing its intention to move their air quality goalposts yet again. It seems they change the rules more frequently than the NFL and the NBA put together. I doubt there were many State or local governments that spent Thanksgiving giving thanks for that announcement. I was the mayor of Gillette, a coal producing town on the plains of Wyoming. I know firsthand how hard many of our Nation's cities and States have been working. They have been expending a huge amount of effort and dollars just to get into compliance with the standards established in 1990. And let there be no mistake. Compliance, for better or worse, has been costly. It has been costly to small businesses, businesses that operate on thin profit margins in the best of circumstances. It has been costly to major industries that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars retooling their plants and factories to comply with that law. It has been costly to State and local governments that have had to divert scarce dollars to mandated planning and enforcement duties. And most of all, it has been expensive for the citizens who lose jobs when industries relocate overseas or to other areas of the country that are already in compliance. This costly compliance has resulted in the higher taxes levied to compensate for a smaller tax base. And citizens notice higher costs for goods and services. I do recognize that the EPA excludes economic concerns from the formulation of their air quality standards. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act require that oversight. The air quality standards established in 1990 have been beneficial to our Nation's environment and, by extension, our public health. Of course, the more radical environmentalists point to the absence of an economic apocalypse over the past 7 years as proof that no environmental standard is too strict and nothing is impossible. You and I know that nothing is impossible. But arm in arm with successes has come a dangerous corollary. It is also easy to believe that nothing is too outrageous. In the name of species protection, logging in the Pacific Northwest has all but disappeared. Years of careful forest management had rendered these the most productive forest lands in the world. They are so productive that for every 100,000 acres of Pacific Northwest forest land taken out of production, we force a half-million acres of Siberian wilderness to be cut down to fill the void. Environmentalists may have saved a few spotted owls, but in the process they have probably signed the death warrant of the Siberian tiger. It is ridiculous to trade jobs for dubious environmental gain. It is ridiculous to think that we are saving the world by importing our natural resources. This is what Senator Hatfield used to refer to as ``environmental imperialism''-- imperialism inflicted on nations too desperate to ignore our resource markets yet too poor to enforce their own environmental standards. Can the word ``ridiculous'' apply to the proposed standards themselves? The current standard for particulate matter limits particles to 10 microns or larger. The proposed standard would change that to particles larger than 2.5 microns. For comparison, a human hair is about 28 microns in width. For ozone, the current standard of .12 parts per million averaged over 1 hour would be replaced by a new standard of .08 parts per million averaged over 8 hours. In light of the fact that there are many cities across the Nation that have yet to satisfy the current standard and the fact that no one yet has justified these new standards, I think it is safe to say that the proposed standards fail the credibility test. The Congressional Research Service has stated that ``The new standards would substantially increase the number of areas not attaining the Clean Air Act's air quality standards and magnify the difficulties faced by present nonattainment areas in reaching attainment.'' And the hardship to be imposed is without reasonable evidence of any additional benefit. Billions--billions--of dollars were sent by cities and industry 10 years ago to comply with the current standards. Yet, now the EPA intends to require billions more to comply with the new standards. The capital invested in current compliance has yet to be paid off, in many instances. Areas that are not yet in compliance with the current standards will have to strengthen their restrictions by several orders of magnitude. The possibility of mandatory car pooling and bans on backyard barbecues and lawn mowing are ridiculous, but probably will be the result. I can assure you they will not go over well in my State. Wyoming is populated with people gifted with a basic common sense. They are aggressively independent and free thinking. I can only imagine the head scratching that will ensue when they see county tanker trucks watering the dirt roads around there. After all, Wyoming has miles and miles of miles and miles, and many of those roads are gravel. Anyone familiar with the average Wyoming winter understands the axiom that sand is safety, yet sand applied to ice-bound roads results in a dust level, and that dust level already violates the proposed standards in many communities. The current clean air standards are already causing wrecks and injury to people. From an economic perspective, these standards will visit tremendous hardships upon my State and upon every State that depends on land-use industries. Wyoming is the largest coal producer in the Nation. Clean, low-sulfur coal, I might add. But mining does create some dust. Not really dust, it is smaller than that. That is why we are talking about the size of these particulates. I wish each of you would have an opportunity to visit a mine in Wyoming. Many of you would see a very clean industry. But now the particulates have to be even finer. And oil refining creates gases. The Nation simply cannot have job-producing factories or heat in their homes without those byproducts. We are led to believe these standards would eliminate billowing clouds of pollution, but the current laws already do that. These proposed standards would place enormous burdens on our mining and refining industries and would simply spell the end of many western refineries. The Environmental Protection Agency and its handmaiden, the environmental movement, are engaging in a form of execution attributed to the ancient Chinese. It is known as death by 10,000 slices, and its current victim is the American economy. Each swipe of the knife results in wounds that are individually minor but cumulatively disastrous. With every burdensome standard, the blade flashes and another small business goes under. With every new expensive regulation, a new slice drips red and another plant or factory moves overseas. With every additional surtax, the knife whistles by, and the American family has less money to place back into the economy. Mr. President, we must restore a semblance of balance and reason to our environmental laws. We must introduce cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment into the environmental equation. We must evaluate science above politics. We must honor the work of the last Congress in restricting unfunded Federal mandates. We must stop moving the goalposts on cities, towns, States, and businesses that are already working hard to comply. We must give business and industry incentives to work toward our spiraling environmental goals. It is a small planet. It is where you and I live. We can't keep shifting environmental problems to poorer countries who can't afford the level of clean air we enjoy. We must recognize that the worst thing in the world for the environment is not responsible logging or ranching or mining, but poverty. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this important measure. By amending the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, this act would provide employees with flexible work schedules, and increase their choices and options for their time at work and quality time with their families. Ensuring that such opportunities are provided to our workers, better known as mothers and fathers, can only serve to strengthening our American families. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 63 percent of mother and father households now see both parents working outside of the home. Moreover, 76 percent of mothers with school-age children now work. That is why we must take action now to help employees balance the demands of work and family lives. I believe the Family Friendly Workplace Act is an important first step in helping our Nation's working parents do just that. In 1993, the President signed the Family and Medical Leave Act into law. While well intended, the Federal Government took a 13-page law and transformed it into 300 pages of regulations. It then became a true administrative nightmare. Instead of targeting employees with choices and options for their work schedules, the President decided instead to target employers with a mandated mound of paperwork. To make matters worse, the President announced during the 1996 campaign his intention to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act by forcing employers to provide school activity and community leave for their employees. Such misguided mandates resurrect the words of Abraham Lincoln who said, ``You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.'' As lawmakers, we have the ability to prevent this Nation from traveling further down the road of federally mandated workplace conditions. By passing the Family Friendly Workplace Act, we will avoid the creation of an environment littered with friction and litigation and embrace mutual cooperation and respect. Wage payers are not heartless and cruel reincarnations of Ebenezer Scrooge. Having played the wage payer role for over 26 years, I take great offense when employers are characterized as being the bad guys. The majority of employers cherish their most valuable assets--their employees. It is truly misleading and deceptive for anyone to say otherwise. For without the employee, management will ultimately have no staff, no profits--and no business. Watching out for employees is just good business. As an alternative to employer mandates, this legislation would provide compensatory time off that would allow employers to offer and employees to choose to use compensatory time for school and family activities and a whole range of other personal reasons--without getting the Government involved in certifying and documenting these events. The President's expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act would require employees to get certification for taking time off to attend a child's soccer match, piano recital, or even a meeting with a school-teacher. Under this bill, employees have the right to choose compensatory time instead of cash wages at a rate not less than 1\1/2\ hours of each hour of overtime worked. Employees would be able to accrue up to 240 hours annually and have the opportunity to cash-out their accrued hours at least once a year. That's a lot of time we should be spending with our children--an investment in our future. Federal employees have enjoyed flexible work schedules, chock full of choices and options, since 1978. Legislation that amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is long overdue. We appear to have no confidence in private sector employees' ability to make rational decisions on how to spend their time. I have been blessed with a wife and three wonderful children. Like many who place value in time shared with family, I believe that such moments are a priceless commodity that can never be replaced--or regained--once lost. At a time when our society clings to every fiber of family life, I can see no better way for Congress and the President to express our support for the American family than by passing and then urging the President to sign into law, S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving employees the opportunity to balance their work and family obligations. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 180 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, join my new colleagues in cosponsoring this legislation. It is important that we act on this legislation before April 15 to correct a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service regarding the alternative minimum tax. It is a ruling that could dramatically and unfairly increase the tax burden on our farmers who use the cash method of accounting and who utilize installment sales on crops and livestock. It is interesting to me that this tax problem is one of the first issues needing legislative correction to present itself to the 105th Congress. It is interesting because the problem arises in the areas of small business and accounting, two areas in which I feel I have some particularly relevant insight. I am a small businessman and an accountant--the only accountant in the Senate, in fact. I have wondered for a long time why United States tax policymakers continue to subject small business owners to the onerous burden of calculating both corporate and alternative minimum tax liabilities. The fact is that fewer than 2 percent of the companies filing Federal income tax returns end up paying the alternative minimum tax. Still, all of these companies, many of them small businesses, have to maintain separate sets of records for tax purposes, and that is at a considerable cost. In 1993, a Joint Tax Committee analysis confirmed what I as a small business owner and corporate accountant already knew, that compliance with the alternative minimum tax requirements can add 15 to 20 percent to a company's accounting bills at tax time. The effect is that we bury 100 percent of our small businesses in paperwork in order to increase tax revenue for about 2 percent of corporate tax filers. If that is not an unnecessary burden, I do not know what is. The legislation that is introduced today will amend the 1986 Tax Reform Act to clarify confusion that was unintentionally created by the revenue act of 1987. I do not blame the IRS for the position it takes in the technical advice memorandum filed in 1995, which states that installment sales of farm property are not exempt from the alternative minimum tax liability in the year that it is expensed. It is the job of the IRS to maximize tax revenue within the confines of the congressionally approved statutes. The question then is, did Congress intend to subject cash receipts on forward commodity sales to a farmer's prior year alternative minimum tax? I do not believe that the 99th Congress intended to do that. For 10 years the IRS has not applied this rule in this way. To do so now is a retroactive tax increase on farmers. We, the 105th Congress, should make the necessary clarifications and pass this bill. I believe the bill will pass because reasonable people can recognize simple facts and should agree to correct the problem. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation, but I also hope that it will renew interest in reviewing the issue of alternative minimum tax reform in general. One of the issues I promised my constituents I would pursue if elected to the Senate is simplification of the U.S. Tax Code, and I believe that the phaseout of the alternative minimum tax is a necessary part of that promise. The alternative minimum tax inhibits capital investment, ties up resources and credits, and piles unnecessary compliance costs particularly on small business. It actually produces relatively small amounts of Federal revenue, not all of which would be foregone using regular tax computation. The problem this bill would correct typifies the difficulties small business owners in our country have complying with this onerous AMT law. I was pleased that the last Congress was able to achieve consensus on a very good AMT reform bill, a bill that unfortunately became entangled in the highly emotional web of election year politics and subsequently suffered a swift death at the hands of the President. I do believe we can and should move toward a more sensible corporate tax system, and I hope the administration is willing to work with us on that.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of Madeleine Albright's nomination to take the helm of the U.S. Department of State. I believe she is well qualified and has displayed a unique steadiness and pragmatism during her tenure as our Ambassador to the United Nations. From her difficult beginnings and throughout her life, she has proudly embraced this country. She has served America with dignity and patriotism. In her new position, I hope she will continue to sensibly promote our Nation's best interests. All of these qualities are attested to by a very dear friend of mine, Edward Gnehm, our former Ambassador to Kuwait. He now serves as Deputy Assistant Ambassador under Madeleine Albright at the United Nations. I met Skip Gnehm in 1962, when we began 4 good years together at the George Washington University. I have always valued Skip's friendship and his insight--particularly in matters of foreign affairs. Skip and I have recently discussed the changing role of the United States in global politics. We agree that, as a nation, we live in a rapidly changing part of the 20th century. World politics is no longer dominated by the tense United States-Soviet detente that defined United States foreign policy for so many years. Gone is our old familiar enemy, the Russian bear, growling on the horizon. But we have also lost the political stability Soviet hegemony provided in the region. No one here would argue for the return of a Communist-controlled Soviet empire, but in the wake of glasnost, we are left with a political minefield that demands careful attention. Our foreign relations are more fragile than ever and demand increasing precision. The State Department, our eyes and ears abroad, is our country's first line of defense. Without an effective and supported foreign service, we will have little capability in combating today's imminent threats to American lives. Dangers such as international terrorism and nuclear proliferation among rogue nations truly pose a greater threat to our national security than Russia ever did. In light of these facts, I am discouraged by the increasing trend toward isolationism. We cannot turn our eyes inward and ignore the problems of our neighbors. Like it or not, our world is interconnected, interdependent, and international. Today, we send e-mail on the internet across the globe with the push of a button. A phone call can bridge thousands of miles between family and friends. Businesses move money electronically across borders in the blink of an eye. A drought in Kansas can raise the price of bread in Moscow. It is true that domestic peace and prosperity in America are important, but you can't sustain peace and prosperity on an island in a global sea of discord. So, I am using this opportunity to speak in support of Madeleine Albright's nomination, but also to voice my concern about the lack of direction and coordination in our foreign policy. We need to identify our goals and be very clear in our message. As the world's only superpower, we cannot stand around watching--simply reacting to random global events. I believe Ambassador Albright has demonstrated her exceptional abilities as a diplomat and in offering thoughtful counsel to our President. I would now encourage her to utilize her proven diplomatic skills and her new high-profile job to bring some change in the President's Cabinet room. We need to introduce strategic planning into our foreign policy and she is the person to do it. With well-defined goals, a properly managed administration and a little enthusiasm, our State Department and Foreign Service could again receive the respect they deserve--both at home and abroad.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, join my new colleagues in cosponsoring this legislation. It is important that we act on this legislation before April 15 to correct a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service regarding the alternative minimum tax. It is a ruling that could dramatically and unfairly increase the tax burden on our farmers who use the cash method of accounting and who utilize installment sales on crops and livestock. It is interesting to me that this tax problem is one of the first issues needing legislative correction to present itself to the 105th Congress. It is interesting because the problem arises in the areas of small business and accounting, two areas in which I feel I have some particularly relevant insight. I am a small businessman and an accountant--the only accountant in the Senate, in fact. I have wondered for a long time why United States tax policymakers continue to subject small business owners to the onerous burden of calculating both corporate and alternative minimum tax liabilities. The fact is that fewer than 2 percent of the companies filing Federal income tax returns end up paying the alternative minimum tax. Still, all of these companies, many of them small businesses, have to maintain separate sets of records for tax purposes, and that is at a considerable cost. In 1993, a Joint Tax Committee analysis confirmed what I as a small business owner and corporate accountant already knew, that compliance with the alternative minimum tax requirements can add 15 to 20 percent to a company's accounting bills at tax time. The effect is that we bury 100 percent of our small businesses in paperwork in order to increase tax revenue for about 2 percent of corporate tax filers. If that is not an unnecessary burden, I do not know what is. The legislation that is introduced today will amend the 1986 Tax Reform Act to clarify confusion that was unintentionally created by the revenue act of 1987. I do not blame the IRS for the position it takes in the technical advice memorandum filed in 1995, which states that installment sales of farm property are not exempt from the alternative minimum tax liability in the year that it is expensed. It is the job of the IRS to maximize tax revenue within the confines of the congressionally approved statutes. The question then is, did Congress intend to subject cash receipts on forward commodity sales to a farmer's prior year alternative minimum tax? I do not believe that the 99th Congress intended to do that. For 10 years the IRS has not applied this rule in this way. To do so now is a retroactive tax increase on farmers. We, the 105th Congress, should make the necessary clarifications and pass this bill. I believe the bill will pass because reasonable people can recognize simple facts and should agree to correct the problem. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation, but I also hope that it will renew interest in reviewing the issue of alternative minimum tax reform in general. One of the issues I promised my constituents I would pursue if elected to the Senate is simplification of the U.S. Tax Code, and I believe that the phaseout of the alternative minimum tax is a necessary part of that promise. The alternative minimum tax inhibits capital investment, ties up resources and credits, and piles unnecessary compliance costs particularly on small business. It actually produces relatively small amounts of Federal revenue, not all of which would be foregone using regular tax computation. The problem this bill would correct typifies the difficulties small business owners in our country have complying with this onerous AMT law. I was pleased that the last Congress was able to achieve consensus on a very good AMT reform bill, a bill that unfortunately became entangled in the highly emotional web of election year politics and subsequently suffered a swift death at the hands of the President. I do believe we can and should move toward a more sensible corporate tax system, and I hope the administration is willing to work with us on that.