Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their words here today. We are talking about trying to save our country. Frankly, after 58 of the last 66 years of unbalanced budgets, I think it is time we do something about it. I yield 1 minute to our distinguished friend, the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. HATCH. I call on the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my friend and colleague from Alaska.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Missouri.

Mr. HATCH. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Indiana.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. I heard this language, by one of the Members of the Senate, that we are just interested in a quick and easy fix, like instant rice, like Jiffy Lube, like instant coffee. A quick and easy fix, my foot. We do not believe that the only way to solve problems is by increasing taxes every time, which is exactly what happened here when this President took over. That is not the way to do it. This stack of books is a wall standing between us and fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. The bricks in this towering wall are the unbalanced budget submissions for the last 28 years, 28 years of strapping debt on to the backs of our children, a towering wall of overspending the hard-earned money of the American people, a towering wall that demonstrates that the score for special interests is 28, the American people zero. Some people say, all we need is the will. Well, this towering wall represents 28 straight years of the failure of will and the failure of responsibility--now, 29. It is higher than I am, and that is two stacks, not one. Before we are through, if we do not do something about a balanced budget amendment, these will go all the way to this ceiling. The President's actions, evidenced by his budget submission and his allies' work in defeating the balanced budget amendment here in the Senate, suggests that we are just putting another brick on this wall. Frankly, I believe we will never get past this wall without a constitutional requirement to balance the budget.

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. His budget.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct. In the last 2 years we are going to cut 98.5 percent in order to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002. Anybody believes that, boy, do I have something to sell for you.

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. If we did just what we are doing now, the Senator is right, we would be a lot better off than the President's next 5-year budget. He is saying that is a balanced budget. I do not believe we will get all the way to a balanced budget and stay there without a constitutional requirement. I think this stack of books proves it. Every time somebody says, ``Let's just do it''--I have heard that for 21 straight years now, ever since I came to the Senate. I will tell you something; we are not just doing it. To all those who say we can balance the budget without the constitutional requirement, I say to Democrats and the President that this towering wall of irresponsibility is limiting our young people's future. I am convinced we cannot do it without putting a fiscal mechanism in to cause us to stand up and vote to do what is right. It is a wall of irresponsibility that is limiting our young people's future. We must do something about it now. Mr. President, you fought against the balanced budget amendment. I have to say, this big wall here is going to cause us pain through the rest of our lives unless we pass a balanced budget amendment. I am saying to the President right now, and to our colleagues on the other side, let us tear down this wall of unbalanced budgets and let us do what is right. If we will, everybody will benefit from it.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the majority leader for his leadership on this particular issue. He has been a leader on this issue ever since I have been working on it, I have to say, both in the House and in the Senate. I am proud of him. Look, we have heard from the minority and the minority leader that the perfect balanced budget amendment would exempt all capital expenses, however defined; Social Security, however defined; military responses or buildup, however understood, crime control; times of economic downturn; national disaster or emergency; education; nutrition programs, and so forth and so on. Gee, what is left under this proposal, under the minority leader's proposal? It is pretty apparent they don't want a balanced budget amendment. They do not want a fiscal mechanism that will make it more difficult for them to increase taxes, to pay for more expensive programs or to increase the debt to pay for more expensive programs. What's left? Just interest expenses? Well, that's a perfect balanced budget amendment if you want to keep spending. It was admitted today that if we had a ``capital budget exemption,'' we would have a ``balanced budget'' today. I guess that's so. That's perfect. If you want to keep spending and borrowing, that's perfect. In other words, if you want to keep the status quo, that is the way to do it: Just hide everything in a loophole, and then you can say you ``balanced'' the budget. No, we don't need this kind of perfection. What we need is a real-world solution, one that will make a difference. I have to say, I am doggone tired of the demagoguery on Social Security. You would think these people here on the other side against this amendment are the only ones who care about Social Security. Let me tell you something, I care about it. I watched what it did for my folks. I know exactly what it does, and I don't want to ever see it hurt, and neither does anybody else who is voting for this amendment, and that is the vast majority of people in this body. You are doggone right we like Social Security, and we are tired of the demagoguery. Every time they are losing, they try to bring up a Social Security amendment to hide behind, because they don't want to cast the right vote, and they know it, we know it, and, ladies and gentleman out there in the country, you know it, too. I am tired of it. It is not right for them to continually hide behind these phony issues. Can you imagine having Social Security cast aside outside of the balanced budget amendment and its protections, standing there all alone so that anything could be called Social Security? Once that game starts, forget Social Security. These people who are arguing that are the foes of Social Security. If they really cared for Social Security, by gosh, they would be passing this balanced budget amendment and getting spending under control. It is about time to get rid of the demagoguery, and I am tired of it. Let me also say, I was quite upset today to hear in the closing remarks the minority leader come out here again and start using a distortion of the Congressional Research Service. I was asked outside, ``Have you lost confidence in the Congressional Research Service?'' by one of the leaders in the media. Of course we have not, because they made it clear that the interpretation was not as the minority leader has been saying. As a matter of fact, we made that clear on the floor. There should not even have been a question about it. The CRS memorandum dated February 5 that my colleague was alluding to did not conclude in any way whatever that the balanced budget amendment would harm Social Security. All the CRS memorandum concluded was that assuming the Social Security surplus survived to the year 2019, the year Social Security would start running annual deficits, this previous accumulated surplus could be used to help pay for future deficits, but only if it is offset by revenues or budget cuts. Of course, we could also vote to suspend the balanced budget rule for a year if that was truly necessary. That is a considerably different position from what has been demagoged throughout this debate. Despite what my friend asserted, under the balanced budget amendment, assets of the Federal Treasury could be drawn upon to ensure payments to beneficiaries when the system starts running annual deficits. Senators Domenici, Mack, and I also received a letter from the CRS supporting my provision. The nonpartisan Concord Coalition, founded by the late Paul Tsongas, a Democrat, and Warren Rudman, a Republican, has also addressed this issue. In a memorandum dated February 18, 1997, the coalition concluded that the Senators' position that if the balanced budget amendment does not exempt Social Security it will somehow nullify the trust fund surpluses and prevent payment of benefits to retired baby boomers is nonsense. Let me quote further. This is what the Concord Coalition says: What the BBA would do is to raise national savings and thus make Social Security, along with a myriad other claims on tomorrow's economy, more affordable. It would be ironic, indeed, if concern about funding Social Security, whether real or pretended, turns out to be an issue that sinks the balanced budget amendment. Let's be clear, the balanced budget amendment would in no way honor the status of the Social Security trust funds. The real issue here is, how are we going to fund the Social Security trust funds when the system becomes insolvent around the year 2019, 2029 for sure? The answer depends on the national debt. It is the size of the national debt that threatens the Social Security program, and, I might add, we are adding to that national debt one more unbalanced budget, and that is the one for fiscal year 1998. That is it. This is the President's budget on top of these 28 other unbalanced budgets that we have been pointing out throughout this debate. Only if we pass the balanced budget amendment will we preserve Social Security, and that is the truth in this debate, and I am tired of the demagoguery. Just think about this national debt. Forty-six days ago, when the Judiciary Committee began the debate on the balanced budget amendment in the 105th Congress, I used a debt clock ticking off thousands of dollars each second to illustrate the magnitude of our country's growing debt. As we have debated Senate Joint Resolution 1 for the past 46 days, that clock has continued to run, and our national debt has increased in that period of time, that 46 days, $25 billion, while these folks are talking about ``we just have to have the will to do it.'' Tell me where the will is in the last 29 years, including next year's budget. That is the President's budget. It is unbalanced, by the way. Madam President, I don't know about other States, but in Utah, 25 billion bucks is a lot of money. In fact, with that money, we could send every man, woman, and child in Utah to the University of Utah, pay their tuition, room, board, and books. To give you the magnitude of that debt, let me give you an idea of how much money we are talking about. With $5.3 trillion, which is our national debt today, you could paper Washington, DC, with 100 dollar bills corner to corner with enough left over to give a block grant to every State of about $6.3 billion. You could also purchase every new automobile ever sold in the United States and still have enough left over to purchase every airline ticket ever sold for travel in the United States. The U.S. Bureau of Printing and Engraving and U.S. Mint would need 37\1/2\ years at its current rate of printing to print and coin enough money to equal $5 trillion. Madam President, $5 trillion stacked in pennies would reach all the way to the planet Jupiter. Give me a break, will you? All disposable personal income in the United States does not approach $5 trillion--all disposable income. If all the home equity in the United States was applied to the national debt, there would still be a half trillion dollars of debt left over. That is what a mess this is, and we have these people saying, ``Let's just do it and the President will sign it.'' Give me a break. Here is the President's budget right there, on top of the other 28 other unbalanced budgets. Madam President, $5 trillion would consume all the wages and salaries earned by every American for 18 months. Unfortunately, without the constitutional discipline offered by Senate Joint Resolution 1, the downward deficit spiral is likely to continue. The point is underscored by CBO's most recent projection that in the year 2002, total Federal debt will exceed $6.8 trillion. Come on, it's time to wake up. I wonder what some people are thinking, I really do. Well, I don't mean to demean the Senator from Vermont who has had to make almost every argument against it today by himself. He did have two or three others come over.

Mr. HATCH. He said we won 14 or so votes, it is time for him to win one.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague and yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Texas, who has played a significant role in this and who is one of the brightest people to ever sit in Congress with regard to budgetary matters.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 5, 1997 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 1997, beginning at 10:30 a.m. in room SD-215.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on March 4, 1997, at 10 a.m. on product liability reform.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 4, 1997, at 10 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on the defense authorization request for fiscal year 1998 and the future years defense program.

Mr HATCH

Mr HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 4, 1997 at 9 a.m. in SDG-50 to receive testimony on the school breakfast and school lunch programs.