T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I stand in support of February, American Heart Month. February 1995 marks the 32d annual American Heart Month. To convey the importance that all Americans participate in the battle against cardiovascular diseases, including heart attack and stroke, in 1963 the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution requesting that the President proclaim each February as American Heart Month. But the battle has not been won, cardiovascular diseases remain America's No. 1 killer and a major cause of disability. During American Heart Month, the American Heart Association and its more than 3.7 million volunteers canvass neighborhoods nationwide distributing educational materials and soliciting public support for the AHA mission, the reduction of disability and death from cardiovascular diseases, including heart attack and stroke. The American Heart Month theme this year is ``Life. It's What We're Fighting For,'' highlighting the value of biomedical research and its significance in daily life for many Americans. AHA-sponsored activities and information during this American Heart Month focus on the importance of current medical research projects in the fight against cardiovascular diseases and outline some medical miracles responsible for longer and healthier lives of millions of Americans. Through these educational efforts, the AHA hopes to enhance public support and knowledge about the critical nature of biomedical research in the battle against cardiovascular diseases. Since 1949, the American Heart Association has invested about $1.3 billion in medical research and hopes to reach the $2 billion mark by the year 2000. The AHA reports that it will contribute about $94 million in support of almost 2,900 medical research projects across this country in 1995. American Heart Association-supported research has produced some significant results, such as CPR, life-extending drugs, bypass surgery, pacemakers and other surgical techniques to repair heart defects. In addition, four physicians who received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine had been supported, at one time, by the AHA, including Dr. Edwin G. Krebs of the University of Washington in Seattle. Doctor Krebs and Dr. Edmond H. Fischer, also of the University of Washington in Seattle, both were awarded the 1991 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of how proteins in the body are switched on to perform functions within cells. I can personally attest to the benefit of medical research. According to the American Heart Association, each year 1.5 million Americans suffer a heart attack--that is approximately 1 heart attack every 20 seconds. As my colleagues know, unfortunately, last November, I suffered a heart attack. But, thanks to medical research, I am living a healthy, productive life. As a recent beneficiary of medical research, I welcome this opportunity to salute the American Heart Association for their research support and public and professional education and community service programs to advance the battle against heart attack and stroke. I am particularly proud of the contribution of the American Heart Association Washington affiliate. The AHA Washington affiliate in 1994- 1995 will support about $797,332 on research being conducted at the following research facilities in Washington: University of Washington, Washington State University, Children's Hospital in Seattle, VA Medical Center, and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. However, I am still concerned about the federal commitment to the battle against cardiovascular diseases, including heart attack and stroke. The American Heart Association estimates that about 1 in 4 Americans suffers from cardiovascular diseases that will cost this Nation approximately $138 billion in medical expenses and lost productivity in 1995. But, the fiscal year 1993 National Institutes of Health budget for research on heart disease and stroke is only $855 million, representing a research investment of less than 1 percent of the expenditures for these diseases. Again, I encourage my colleagues to reaffirm our dedication to the fight against cardiovascular diseases. A significant growth in Federal resources is needed to take advantage of promising research projects in this area. I ask that this year's Presidential proclamation be printed in the Record. The proclamation follows: [Proclamation 6768 of February 10, 1995] American Heart Month, 1995 (By the President of the United States of America) a proclamation Throughout history, the heart has been a symbol of health and well-being. Yet nothing now overshadows Americans' health as much as heart disease--the leading cause of death among men and women. Diseases of the heart and blood vessels kill nearly a million Americans each year, most from the effects of atherosclerosis, the narrowing and stiffening of blood vessels fro the buildup of plaque that usually begins early in life. Today, Americans are enjoying the rewards of the progress humanity has made in understanding and treating cardiovascular disease. Advances in diagnosis make it possible to see the heart beat without the use of invasive procedures. Thousands of heart attack victims are being saved by the rapid administration of drugs to dissolve blood clots. Soon, gene therapy may be able to prevent the smooth muscle cell multiplication that contributes to the narrowing of blood vessels. Perhaps most important, we have greater understanding of how to prevent the development of heart disease. By controlling blood pressure and blood cholesterol, being physically active, and not smoking cigarettes, more Americans can have the chance to lead long, healthy lives. The Federal Government has contributed to these successes by supporting research and education through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Through its commitment to research, its programs to heighten public awareness, and its vital network of dedicated volunteers, the American Heart Association also has played a crucial role in bringing about these remarkable accomplishments. Yet the heart has not revealed all of its mysteries. No one knows why heart disease begins. And, while it is known that heart disease develops differently in men and women, the reasons for those variations are still being studied. About 50 million Americans continue to suffer from hypertension, a major cause of stroke, and 1.25 million Americans have heart attacks every year. Conquering these diseases requires unwavering national and personal commitment. On the national level, the Federal Government will continue to support research into the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of heart disease. On the personal level, Americans can take steps to prevent heart disease from striking their families, including teaching their children heart-healthy habits. Working together, we can make the tragedy of heart disease a nightmare of the past. In recognition of the need for all Americans to become involved in the ongoing fight against cardiovascular disease, the Congress, by Joint Resolution approved December 30, 1963 (77 Stat. 843, 36 U.S.C. 169b), has requested that the President issue an annual proclamation designating February as ``American Heart Month.'' Now, Therefore, I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim February 1995 as American Heart Month. I invite the Governors of the States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, officials of other areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the American people to join me in reaffirming our commitment to combating cardiovascular disease and stroke. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of February, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and nineteenth. William J. Clinton.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Nunn amendment fills the last gap in a vitally needed balanced budget amendment. It makes clear that the responsibility for abiding by its solemn requirements rests in the Congress and the President. The prospect of judicial intervention into fiscal estimates, and taxing and spending decisions, made exclusively by the elected representatives of the people for more than 2 hundred years, is appalling. The people of the United States must retain their control over those whose decisions so affect their lives and their pocketbooks. Under the Nunn amendment, of course, Congress may grant this power of judicial review with such limitations as it deems appropriate. But the power can be withdrawn, and that makes all the difference. Such a power is highly unlikely to be misused. The balanced budget amendment, House Joint Resolution 1, is the key to our commitment to change, to a new course of action to deal with deficits that choke our economy and unjustly burden our children and grandchildren. It is a revolt against the status quo and the promise of a new way. It is a rejection of the old and discredited way of doing business, and the promise of a brighter future. With the Nunn amendment, the balanced budget amendment is the most important initiative of this Congress. It must be approved. amendment no. 291

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota who, it seems to me, has made three points or sets of reservations about the balanced budget amendment rather than two. One is the failure to exempt Social Security from all calculations under the amendment; the second is the absence of any provision in the amendment that will prevent the courts of the United States from arrogating to themselves the right to write balanced budgets; and third is the impact on attempting to balance the budgets of various proposals in the House of Representatives for reductions in taxes. I say with all the sincerity at my command with respect to those concerns of the Senator that two of the three, it seems to me, rather argue in favor of supporting this constitutional amendment than they do against it. The third is, as I believe the Senator from North Dakota knows, a concern which I share and share deeply. Let me take the first two points first. The first question that arises with respect to Social Security is, is the Social Security System protected in some way by a defeat of this constitutional amendment in a way that it is not by its passage? Well, Mr. President, the answer to that question is clearly no. In fact, I am convinced that the Social Security System of this passage of this constitutional amendment in its present form than it will be either without a constitutional amendment at all or, alternatively, with a specific exemption in the constitutional amendment itself. It is clear that the Senator from North Dakota, who is genuinely agonized by the choice in front of him, does wish that we balance our budget, does feel that the present system has failed to do so. And yet with each year that passes under the present system, the pressure on Social Security and, for that matter, on all other vital forms of spending in the United States, increases by reason of the failure of this and other administrations and the Congress to deal with problems of the deficit. No one can feel that early in the next century when this country, if we make no changes in the way in which we operate, will literally have no money left for anything other than a handful of entitlements, no person can feel that under those circumstances Social Security will not be changed. It will, and it will be changed to the detriment of the recipients of Social Security retirement income. Bringing our fiscal house in order, therefore, protects rather than threatens the Social Security System. And if, as I believe and the Senator from North Dakota believes, that we are not going to bring our house in order unless we establish some kind of external discipline, why then, Mr. President, the passage of this amendment in its present form is a protection for Social Security rather than a threat to it. An addition to this amendment of a specific exemption for Social Security, I think, perhaps threatens the system even more because it will provide, by such a huge exception to the requirement for a balanced budget, an overwhelming temptation directed at future Congresses to redefine what is in Social Security, to include in the system all kinds of benefits which will go to the same classes of people who benefit from Social Security today that are not now defined as Social Security or, alternatively, in order to balance the budget, a reduction in the Social Security payroll tax and, therefore, in present surpluses in that system and a transfer of that taxing authority to the general fund in order to balance the budget. So an exemption of Social Security written into the Constitution will not protect the system. A rejection of the constitutional amendment will not protect the system. The system will, I am convinced, be protected best by treating the budget deficit for what it is: A terrible threat to the country, a threat which Congress and Presidents have been unable or unwilling to meet in the past, and dealing with it through a constitutional amendment which requires all parties, everyone in the country, but most particularly future Presidents and future Members of Congress to be a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem. The difficulty, of course, is that Social Security receipts and disbursements are receipts and disbursements of the United States. The payroll tax is a tax. Disbursements are disbursements. Markets, the economy of the United States, are not fooled by saying that money goes into and comes out of one pocket rather than another. If we are to balance the budget, we must balance it with all receipts and all expenditures, and those who are recipients of Social Security will be best off if we recognize that fact because if we fail to do so, they will be threatened along with everyone else. On a second subject, Mr. President, I had not previously heard that one of the arguments against this constitutional amendment is a set of proposals in the House of Representatives with respect to tax cuts. The President of the United States himself in his budget submission has proposed tax reductions somewhat more modest than those in the so- called Contract With America, probably less effective in rebuilding our economy and opportunity for economic growth in the United States. But again, with respect to a more liberal Member on the other side of the aisle who opposes the tax reductions contained in the Contract With America, it would seem to me that the existence of those promises would be rather an argument in favor of this constitutional amendment than an argument against it, since it is obvious that a requirement that the budget be balanced by the year 2002, as a matter of constitutional law, will require all Members of Congress--those who favor tax reductions and those who do not--to look much more carefully at the budget implications of each and every action, whether that action refers to spending or to taxing policies. The third point made by the Senator from North Dakota, on the other hand, is one with which this Senator agrees. This Senator was one of several on this side of the aisle who voted in favor of an amendment proposed by the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana a week or so ago to make clear that the responsibility for budget decisions, after the passage of this amendment, rests exactly where it does now: With the President and with the Congress of the United States, subject to the heavy discipline this amendment requires. I do not wish courts substituting their judgment for the judgment of those who are elected by the people of the United States to make these vital and important decisions for the people of the country by any stretch of the imagination. And I hope--I think it is perhaps possible--that that kind of change may be made in this constitutional amendment. I am delighted with the thoughtful attitude toward it by the Senator from North Dakota. That is a proposal which, in my mind, would strengthen this constitutional amendment. The other proposal would weaken it and would weaken the Social Security System at the same time. Now, having listened to the last hour or so of debate on this floor, I am reminded of the set of categories with which I was impressed on the very first day of the debate on this constitutional amendment; and that is that Members of this body are divided into three groups with respect to the budget of the United States. There is clearly a group of liberal Members, that does not include the Senator from North Dakota, that simply does not believe in a balanced budget at all, who like the status quo, who favor the present system, who believe that deficits are not harmful to economic growth or to the prosperity of the people of the United States of America. Those Members are and should be opposed to a constitutional amendment which makes an unbalanced budget a much more difficult task to undertake than it is at the present time. There is, in addition, Mr. President, a second group, a group represented at least in the original instance by the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio about 1 hour ago, who tell us that they believe deeply and passionately in a balanced budget but that we ought to do it ourselves; that we should not engage in a change in the Constitution; that it is simply a matter of discipline. Then there is the third and largest group--whether it includes 67 Members or not will be determined about 24 hours from right now--a third and larger group which believes that the present system is broken, that a balanced budget is desirable--in fact it is imperative if we are to do our duty to generations yet to come--which in many cases has tried varying formulae for bringing the budget into balance without a change in the fundamental system itself and observe simply as a result of our history that it has not worked; that the system is broken; that we need a radical change, a new direction; and that that new direction is represented by the amendment to the Constitution which is before us right now. The difficulty with opposition to this amendment, in my view, Mr. President, is just this. The first and second categories tend to have a fuzzy distinction between them, tend to meld into one another. The distinguished Senator from Ohio began his speech by demanding a discipline on the part of Members of the Congress: do the job ourselves, do what we were sent here to do, do not ask for constitutional changes in order to do it. Then he launched into a criticism of all of the possible ways of reducing spending so that the budget might be balanced. He seemed to move, in other words, from category 2 into category 1. We should discipline ourselves; we should balance the budget on our own hook; but it would be a terrible threat to deal with any of the in our having a budget that is unbalanced. It is in that second category, it seems to me now, that the President of the United States falls. We have heard a great deal about the fiscal discipline and the political courage that was involved in passing the budget here just 2 years ago which significantly increased taxes without significantly reducing spending and resulted in, or was coincident with at the time of rising economic growth, a relatively modest decline in the budget deficit. However, that budget year is over, and we now have a proposal from the President that never, even under very rosy economic growth projections, results in a budget deficit of significantly less than $200 billion a year as far as the eye can see--5 years, 10 years, beyond that period of time--which suggests some modest tax reductions and even more modest spending reductions. It overwhelmingly lacks courage, a status quo budget, and it is perhaps the best single illustration of why we must pass this constitutional amendment. When a President, who made deficit reduction the heart of his message during his first year as President, abandons that goal totally, lock, stock, and barrel, by the third year of his Presidency, it is clear we need to change the system under which we operate. Of course, it is exactly that change which is proposed in this constitutional amendment. The dynamics of its passage and its ratification by the people of the United States will clearly be dramatic. If this proposal were a part of the Constitution of the United States today, the President of the United States could not validly have submitted the budget to us which he has before us right now. He would be required by his oath of office, by the Constitution of the United States itself, to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Political cowardice would instead be political folly, an abandonment of a constitutional duty. Many of us here might not like the proposals of this President with respect to balancing the budget, but he would have been required to propose such a course of action. And for those of us who dislike it, we would have been required to come up with an alternative. Now, anyone can speak of the desirability of balancing the budget in the abstract and the lack of desirability of cutting any spending programs in reality, and there is no penalty for taking such a course of action. As and when this proposal becomes a part of the Constitution of the United States, there will be a huge penalty for such a course of action. Presidents and Members of Congress will be required to come up with budgets that either reduce spending or increase taxes or both. And if at some time there is a return to the majority of those who believe in higher taxes--a group clearly not in the majority today--they will be able to do so. There is nothing in this constitutional amendment that prevents balancing the budget on the backs of taxpayers of the United States. There is a clear majority in this body right now who will not do so. But if an election campaign is run successfully on the proposition that we need higher taxes, a Congress which wins on that platform will be able to do so. By the same token, those who believe that spending needs to be cut will be under the gun; they will be required to produce; and the President will be required to come up with some kind of proposal or another, better and more responsible than the proposal that we received from this President this year. The dynamics of this constitutional amendment, Mr. President, are simply this: Everyone in elected office will have to be a part of the solution. Everyone will have to be a part of the game rather than allowing the challenge simply to be kicked down the road, left to the next administration, to the next Congress, to the next group of people who come here. How much better off we would be had a proposal such as this been passed some years ago, but if we have learned anything in the course of the last decade or decade and a half, it is that the most sincere statutory solutions, like Gramm-Rudman, do not work because they get abandoned as soon as the shoe begins to pinch. There is, in my view, no solution to the fiscal problems facing this country--no solution that will free our economy, no solution that will create more and more opportunities for the present generations and generations yet to come except to make the kind of changes proposed in this constitutional amendment. It is clear that tomorrow's vote is going to be absolutely vital for the future of this country. It is clear that a majority of the people of the country want this constitutional amendment. It is clear that a majority of the Members of this body want that constitutional amendment. What remains unclear is whether the necessary two-thirds in this body will follow logic, reason, and the will of their constituents and refer this constitutional amendment to the States of the United States for ratification.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I have to say to the Senator from Michigan, the Constitution of the United States, as it is presently formulated, or formulated here, makes no statements with respect to the jurisdiction of State courts. In a very real sense, State courts interpret the Constitution, but State courts cannot order the Congress of the United States to do anything. They have no such jurisdiction. So, just as is in the rest of the Constitution, the balanced budget amendment and the debt limit legislation are silent as to the jurisdiction of State courts, which is exactly what they are ought to be.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Since what the Senator from Louisiana has read is in the handwriting of the Senator from Washington, the answer of the Senator from Washington to the Senator from Michigan is yes.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?

Mr. GORTON. Clearly, any controversy arising under section 2 would in fact be justiciable under the modification of the draft working with the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Louisiana. But the point is that it is true with the original balanced budget amendment, we are not changing that by proposing this. This modification, just as Senator Johnston's original amendment limits the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, modifies it in this fashion. It does not do it quite as much because it does not limit it with respect to section 2. It just limits with respect to the other section, but nothing, in my view, given the Supreme Court, by this modification that is not there in the present form of the balanced budget amendment that we have been debating for 3 weeks.

Mr. GORTON. It seems to me the argument of my distinguished colleague from Utah comes down to a very simple set of inconsistent propositions. Proposition No. 1, courts are not going to get involved in enforcing this amendment. Proposition No. 2, we ought to have the courts involved in enforcing this amendment. I just simply do not believe that Members can have it both ways. If, in fact, courts are going to stay out by reason of standing or other various doctrines which are not themselves contained in the Constitution, then it certainly does no harm to see to it that that is the result. If, in fact, it is the proposition of the proponents of this constitutional amendment, some of the proponents because I am one of them, that courts should be involved, then it seems to me they are doing something in this field that almost without exception they deprecate in other fields. Judicial activism should not be invited into the process of writing budgets of the United States. That is a legislative and executive function. The reason for the amendment is that the Senator from Louisiana, together with this Senator, wants to make certain that this remains solely a function of Congress and of the executive branch of Government. And all Members who feel that the courts may very well be too active today in many social and political issues should vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. That is certainly the thrust of what the Senator from Colorado was himself concerned with. Again, it is very important, as the Senator from Michigan said, when we deal with the Constitution that we be as clear as we possibly can in what we say. And it is certainly possible, in the absence of any statute on this subject, that a case or controversy could arise under other provisions in section 2. But, as I said, the first thing we will do will be to make the slight definitional changes that are necessary to use the phrase in this Constitution and the debt limit legislation which we have at the present time. So, as a practical matter, I think the only time the question would ever come up is the way the Senator from Louisiana states it.

Mr. GORTON. The answer to the question of the Senator from Tennessee is that he is absolutely right. It settles that first argument with respect to section 2 and makes it invalid.

Mr. GORTON. I say to the Senator from Tennessee that he is a shrewd reader of legislative constitutional language, because I think in this case he is precisely correct. The paradox, in my opinion, this year, last year, and in 1982, when we debated this subject, is that those who have opposed adding this kind of judicial review section to a balanced budget amendment have made two totally inconsistent, opposite arguments against including such a section. One is that the courts would never take cases or controversies under this. They do not have any such jurisdiction, and they would not exercise any such jurisdiction. The other argument is that we certainly want the courts to enforce it if Congress violates these constitutional provisions. I did not understand those arguments in 1982; I did not understand them in 1986; I did not understand them last year; and I do not understand them now. I think those who oppose adding something like the Johnston amendment at least ought to pick one side of that argument or the other. If their sole reason for not wishing to add something like the Johnston amendment is that it is unnecessary because the courts will never, under any circumstances, deal with a case or controversy arising under the balanced have actually created a cause of action by this particular modification with respect to section 2. I think that is the utter logical conclusion. My own view on the subject is that the fundamental argument is flawed. I am convinced that the courts would in fact exercise jurisdiction under cases or controversies arising under this entire amendment. There is no way in the world we can guarantee that the Supreme Court next year, much less 100 years from now, is not going to decide it wants to write a budget and override our estimate. My deep concern is not a case or controversy that is going to arise under section 2 as to whether we have invalidly increased the debt limit, or many other sections here; I believe that the history of the Federal courts of the United States clearly indicates that we will be faced very soon--maybe in the first budget that passes after this constitutional amendment becomes a part of the Constitution--with a Congress and a President who have passed what they consider to be a balanced budget, using Congressional Budget Office estimates of revenues, for example, and Joint Tax Committee estimates of receipts, and that some individual withstanding will sue and say the Congressional Budget Office estimates are off, they are phony, this is Congress' own creation, they have fixed the figures, and we think there is a much better estimate of expenditures and those expenditures are a lot higher than the Congressional Budget Office has said and we, therefore, order the Congress either to use our estimates, the estimates of the court, to rewrite the budget, or we will impose a 5- percent surcharge on the income tax this year to bring it into balance. It is that kind of judicial activism, in my opinion, which has plagued the United States in many respects for the last 50 years, with courts running prisons and school systems and shelters for the homeless and the like, and acting in a legislative fashion. And for anybody, particularly somebody conservative, to state with assurance that the courts will not involve themselves in this field I just think is a faulty argument. If the argument, on the other hand, is the courts ought to be in this field, I can see someone arguing that they like judicial activism and want courts involved in this field. I just disagree with them. If I thought the courts were going to be in this field, I would not want anything to do with the balanced budget amendment, of which I am a cosponsor and a very, very strong supporter. Under those cases, they would probably rather have it in section 2 than not to have it at all. Personally, I would prefer we not have it at all. Personally, I also want to get something accomplished here, and I do not think this exception for section 2, in my view, is ever going to come up at all.

Mr. GORTON. Yes, plus enabling legislation.

Mr. GORTON. The amendment that is before the body now, the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court has no jurisdiction at the present time on a constitutional amendment. It says, in essence, that the court will not have jurisdiction over cases arising out of the balanced budget amendment, except with respect to its enabling legislation. That is the proposal of the Senator from Louisiana. While this modification has some slight language differences from his original point, its only substantive change in the proposal before the body right now is to allow the court to deal with cases and controversies arising under section 2. The purpose of it, I may say-- since while I was the draftsman, I am not the person who thought it up--the purpose of it was to deal with the sincere concerns of the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Brown, that Congress, without such jurisdiction, literally could define the plain language of section 2 and pass a debt limit increase by less than a 60-percent supermajority vote. As I have said, I cannot conceive of Members of Congress so blatantly violating their oaths of office under such circumstances. As a consequence, I was perfectly willing to go along with the Senator from Colorado because I do not think any such case or controversy will ever arise. But the purpose is to carve out from the general exemption-- which is Senator Johnston's amendment--section 2.

Mr. GORTON. Technically the Senator from Louisiana has the floor.

Mr. GORTON. The answer the Senator from Louisiana has given to the Senator from Michigan is accurate insofar as it goes. But I think the more fundamental answer to the Senator from Michigan is that this particular part of the proposed revision does not change the basic balanced budget amendment with respect to section 2 at all. Right now the thrust of the argument of the question raised by the Senator from Michigan is just as valid in the present unamended form to the balanced budget amendment as it would be if this modification were passed. This Senator, as each of the Senators knows, was greatly disturbed by this particular question of judicial review 13 years ago, in 1982, and proposed an amendment to essentially cause these questions to be political questions at that time. This Senator is very sympathetic with the direction of the amendment Senator Johnston has put forward and would prefer that it be phrased slightly differently, but, nonetheless, I feel that I do not wish to expand the judicial power of the United States to writing budget for the United States. When I proposed that, without the exception for section 2, the Senator from Colorado and others expressed to me a deep concern about a form of violation of the Constitution that I think will never take place. Their comments were directed at our comments, which would simply defy the plain requirements of section 2 and pass a debt limit increase with 55 percent of the votes in the Senate or 55 percent of the votes in the House and just simply flat out ignore the Constitution. They wished to see to it that the courts would have jurisdiction to prevent that blatant violation of the Constitution. I do not believe that it is even remotely conceivable that would ever happen. The reason I sympathize with the general direction of what the Senator from Louisiana wants to do, what I fear is going to happen under this constitutional amendment is that Congress is going to pass a budget and the President is going to sign a budget, under the same circumstances which happens today, that is invalid according to the estimates by the CBO and the like and that someone or some group will have standing to go into court and say, ``No; the CBO estimates some court which desires to get into this business is going to say, ``Yes, you are right. Your estimates are better than Congress,'' and order the rewriting of a budget. I do not believe anyone, I say to the Senator from Michigan, who was asked this question, believes we are going to get cases under section 2. But, in any event, we are not going to get any more cases under section 2 with this revised amendment than we will get without any amendment at all.

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GORTON. First, Mr. President, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Minnesota for giving me the courtesy and referring me this time. It is, of course, appropriate for the maker of the motion to speak first. It is very nice of him to allow this. It does, however, seem to me that this motion is very closely related to the debate that we have had earlier on the proposition that there should be a condition which takes place before or during the time that the constitutional amendment is submitted to the States relating to the methods by which we are to meet the requirement of a balanced budget. In this case, I gather, most of the motion refers to tax expenditures. The bottom line, however, Mr. President, is that these motions and the amendments which have been proposed heretofore have almost, without exception, come from those who oppose amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget, and they are designed to inhibit or to slow down either its passage by this body or its ratification by the States. Most of those Members, I am certain, including the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, do speak of their devotion to fiscal responsibility and to a balanced budget. It seems to me that under those circumstances, the thrust, the duty to explain what they will do to deal with the terrible $200 billion-a-year budget deficits from now to eternity rests on them, those who feel that the status quo is perfectly all right; that we should not change the rules relating to budget deficits; that the way we have dealt with them in the past is the way we should deal with them in the future. It is they, Mr. President, who ought to explain to us precisely how it is that they would change either our spending processes or our taxing programs to bring the deficit of the United States into balance. Those of us who favor the passage of this constitutional amendment unadorned are those who feel that the system is broken, that the system is not working, that 25 consecutive years of mounting budget deficits and a $4 to $5 trillion debt require a drastic and a fundamental change in the way in which it would work and are doing so because we observe the history of those 25 years. We have observed all of the unsuccessful attempts to reach a degree of fiscal sanity and fiscal responsibility, and we have observed that those alternate methods have not worked and that it is unlikely that they will work in the future. We propose a constitutional amendment because a constitutional amendment will bring everyone into the fold. Presidents, liberal Members, conservative Members, Democrats and Republicans will be forced by the constraints of the Constitution to deal with budget deficits in the future in a way in which they have refused to deal with them in the past. The latest example of this failure, of course, is the President's budget itself, a budget which simply gives up on dealing with the deficit, which calls for no significant reductions in the deficit, not just for the 5 years that it covers but for 10-year projections out from today. It is a confession of failure. But more than a confession of failure, it is a confession of failure coupled with the proposition that there will be no attempt to cure that failure, to do better at any time in the future. So, Mr. President, I believe that the best thing, the desirable thing, for us to do in the Senate is to recognize that the system is broken, that the system needs fixing, that the only fix that is likely to be successful is a constitutional amendment, that we should pass it and begin the process by which the States can consider its ratification as quickly as possible. But in the alternative, it seems to me that it is up to those who oppose this constitutional amendment to tell us how they are going to cure the problem operating under exactly the system which has created the problem in the first place. I thank my colleague from Minnesota very, very much for yielding to me. I yield the floor. Minnesota. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. GORTON. The Senator does not have time.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

Mr. GORTON. The phrase in the Constitution, of course, is the judicial power of the United States. That is the Federal Government.

Mr. GORTON. Yes. As I understand, that was in the letter from the Attorney General. I must say it sounds like chopped logic to me. We have a statute under the deficit now which uses words slightly different from those of section 2 in House Joint Resolution 1.