Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 3 p.m. on Thursday, June 6, in executive session, to mark up a proposed SASC amendment to S. 1718, the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 1997, and to vote to report S. 1718 to the Senate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. This argument before the Supreme Court was made by the President's Solicitor General, who I know was pushed into this position by others who apparently have enough power in the Solicitor General's Office beneath him to force him into this untenable situation. No sooner--in a little over a month--after enacting the antiterrorism bill, with clearly the most part of that bill being habeas corpus reform, the Solicitor General walks into the Supreme Court and undermines that very reform, with an argument that would create a tremendous loophole, by hoping to convince the Supreme Court that they can ignore Marbury versus Madison and grant themselves jurisdiction that the Constitution does not grant and neither does the Congress. And, frankly, I could not believe it when I heard the Solicitor General make the argument that he did. I feel badly that I did not argue for our side in Court but I just did not want to have it look like I was grandstanding, or something like that. The fact of the matter is that, if the Solicitor General's position is accepted, there will be a direct appeal to the Supreme Court mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in statutory law because we are not allowed under Marbury versus Madison to expand the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, or to detract from it. I will surprised if the Supreme Court grants that. But there was not an effective argument in my opinion against that position in the Supreme Court even though the law is pretty clear. The Constitution is clear. That Marbury versus Madison, the all-time most important, or at least one of the most important, Supreme Court cases is pretty clear. The result and the effect of that argument by the Solicitor General was that the Solicitor General sided with the convicted murderer in that case, who is now 13 years in prison after he was condemned to death but through multiple habeas corpus appeals to the Court, and there is basically no reason to believe that he is not the murderer, has avoided his sentence. Naturally, every one of these murderers claim--not every one, but a great many of them claim--they never did it. But the facts bespeak otherwise. It was really something to watch the Solicitor General in there arguing on behalf of the convicted murderer who has 13 years on death row and multiple appeals. This is precisely what the President told me he wanted to end, and I did end it while still protecting their constitutional rights and giving them a direct appeal all the way up to through the State courts, a collateral habeas corpus appeal all the way up through the States courts, both of them all the way to the Supreme Court, and then a full right to take a separate Federal habeas corpus appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, and then a protective right by a three-judge circuit court of appeals panel, if they have newly discovered evidence that could not otherwise have been recently uncovered, or there is some retroactive opinion of the court that applies. That is what bothers me. So who picks these judges and who picks these Solicitor Generals? Who picks leadership in anticrime in this next Presidential race is extremely important. I do not think you need a better example than Lee Sarokin in this country today to show the importance of that particular choice to all Americans, nor do I think you need a better prime example than the Supreme Court argument of this administration and this Solicitor General before the Supreme Court this last week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to talk about another matter very near and dear to my heart. For some time now, I have been discussing the differences in judicial philosophy between the judges selected by Republican Presidents and the Presidents from the other side of the aisle. These differences can have real and profound consequences for the safety of Americans and their neighborhoods, homes, and workplaces. These differences, I might add, have serious consequences. During these various speeches that I have given, I called attention to certain Clinton judges who have long track records of being soft-on- crime, liberal activists. One of these judges is Judge H. Lee Sarokin, a Clinton appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Sarokin has displayed an undue and excessive sympathy for criminals and is too willing to impose his own moral beliefs onto the law and onto our communities. Judge Sarokin is the judge, this body may recall, who, before he was elevated by President Clinton to the third circuit, ruled that a homeless man could not be barred from a public library because of his body odor even though it was offending everybody in the library. Judge Sarokin also issued several other activist decisions as a district judge, including some released convicted murderers from jail. I opposed his elevation to the third circuit because I believed he would continue his own special brand of judicial activism. My prediction has been proven true time and time again as Judge Sarokin voted to aggressively expand double jeopardy and to overturn several murderers' convictions. This week Judge Sarokin informed President Clinton that he will retire at the end of July after 22 months as a circuit court of appeals judge. Judge Sarokin claimed that he was retiring because of the criticism that I and others have made against his activist decisions. In his letter he wrote that he and others on the judiciary were being ``Willy Hortonized.'' He went on to write, ``I regret that there are those who are willing to sacrifice my life's work and reputation for their own political gain.'' Judge Sarokin also claimed that he ``had intended to remain on the court so long as I was fiscally and mentally able. But the constant politicization of my tenure has made that lifetime dream impossible for me.'' Give me a break. Mr. President, Judge Sarokin has illustrated once again his failure to appreciate the proper role of a judge. As a sitting judge he has issued a partisan political screed. But the partisanship of Judge Sarokin's letter is also illustrated by what the judge fails to mention. As early as March 4, 1996, this year, it was reported that Judge Sarokin wished to take senior status and that he wanted to move to California so that he could be near his family. Yet this fact is not mentioned by the judge in his letter to President Clinton. According to a March 4 article in the New Jersey Law Journal ``Sarokin confirmed through a secretary that he will take senior status effective September 1st.'' This article appeared long before my March 29 floor speech which called attention to Judge Sarokin's activism on the third circuit. In fact, in my speech, I mentioned the judge's plan to step down because it had already been announced and articulated. Essentially, Judge Sarokin had hoped that he could take senior status which would have reduced his workload to 25 percent of an active judge's caseload and move his chambers to California--In other words, from the third circuit on the east coast to California on the west coast. In other words, Judge Sarokin wanted quasi-retirement in California, the State of his choice. Unfortunately for Judge Sarokin, his colleagues on the third circuit were not thrilled with his early retirement plans, and on the 22d unanimously voted to deny Sarokin's request to move his chambers to California. I take that out of the Recorder of May 6, 1996. As one unnamed colleague on the court told a reporter, ``It took a lot of chutzpah for him to leave after only 22 months on the bench.'' Boy, do I agree with that statement. Former law clerks and colleagues told the press that prior to the third circuit's decision Sarokin had already sold his home in New Jersey--in short, prior to his stirring announcement Judge Sarokin wanted to reduce his workload and was intent on moving to California. Yet, Judge Sarokin failed to make any reference to this episode or these matters in his letter to President Clinton. In fact, Judge Sarokin had the nerve to say that he ``had intended to remain on the court so long as he was physically and mentally able.'' Bear in mind his request to take senior status had been denied just 6 weeks ago. Perhaps Judge Sarokin thought he could escape scrutiny for this obvious lack of forthrightness. Judge Sarokin's letter, its assertions as well as its omissions, demonstrates how some view Federal judges as philosopher-kings whose decisions and prevarications should never be challenged. I personally do not hold this view, and I do not think anybody in this body does. I have no ill feelings for Judge Sarokin personally, and I wish him much happiness in his retirement. But it should be pointed out that he served darned little time on the third circuit Court of Appeals, and will receive higher retirement because he went from the district court to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. And we went through an awful situation as he was elevated to that court. Mr. President, but I do not wish him any harm, and I wish him happiness in his retirement. But what is far more important at this point is not Judge Sarokin's retirement but who will replace him. The American people will decide this fall who will be our President, and along with that choice comes the choice of the President's judges. The choice this fall will be between judges who will be tough on crime and judges who are softer on crime, judges who will apply the law and not legislate from the bench, or judges like Lee Sarokin who have been activists from the day they got on the bench. Mr. President, I just want to mention one other thing. This week there was the very important argument in the Supreme Court by the President's Solicitor---- I ask that we have order. This is very important.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we knew this was a foregone conclusion. I just have to say that today the liberal politicians have won again, and the American people have lost. We knew that was going to happen. We had no illusions about it. But it is simply amazing to me that, yesterday, some on the other side spent time attacking Senator Dole, who sincerely has brought this amendment to the floor on a number of occasions. The only time it has ever been brought to the floor with a real chance of passing is when Republicans were in the majority of the U.S. Senate. But what happened here is that some have tried to use this critical, historical debate, which will affect the future of our very children and grandchildren, for political ends and personal gain. I feel badly about that. Some have used the phony excuse of protecting Social Security. Those protectors have now left Social Security and all of our security open to the mercy of the big spenders. Look at the current problems we face with Medicare. We said, a few years back, that we had to do something to fix it. Really, there has been little or no effort by this administration to do it. We told them Medicare was going broke. They laughed. Now their people have confirmed that we were right and they were wrong. So when is the charade going to stop? When are the American people going to realize that the balanced budget amendment was defeated today because there are taxers and spenders here who do not want to be fiscally responsible? They won the day, and the American people, our children, and our grandchildren have lost. Mr. President, I feel badly that we have lost this today. Knowing that we were going to, it has been somewhat philosophically accepted. But the fact is, it is not going to go away. We are going to have to put fiscal discipline into the Constitution if we ever want to get the spending practices under control. All Republicans but one voted for the amendment, and we had 12 Democrats vote for the amendment. I am personally grateful for those 12 Democrats who stood up and voted for this amendment. It means a lot to me personally, but I think it means more to the country. I hope that in the future we will get more on that side. This is the last chance to really keep America on sound fiscal footing.

Mr. HATCH. I withdraw it. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have never had a balanced budget amendment up where 80 percent of the Senators voted for this type of amendment. At the last minute to have an amendment like that literally creates a complete dislocation in the whole budget process. It would be highly unusual and we believe improper. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. I ask for 30 seconds from the leader's time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before we vote once again on the balanced budget amendment, let me pay tribute to some of my colleagues who have tirelessly and courageously fought for the passage of this crucial measure. First, let me mention the senator from Illinois, Paul Simon, the primary Democrat sponsor of this bipartisan amendment. His leadership on this issue will be missed in the years ahead. Senator Thurmond and Senator Heflin have been long-time leaders on this issue. Senator Craig and Senator Coverdell have also fought long and hard for this measure. I would also especially like to thank the 11 freshman Republican Senators who joined us at the beginning of the Congress, all of whom leapt immediately into the fray in support of the amendment when it came up in the very first month of this 104th Congress. Mr. President, there are many, many others who have worked to send the balanced budget amendment to the States. But one Senator stands above them all in his tenacity, dedication, and commitment to providing a better future for our children and grandchildren--an America like the one he grew up in, fought for, and has served all of his life. I am of course referring to our leader in this effort, Senator Robert Dole. His effort on this amendment is consistent with his decades of service on behalf of Americans of this and future generations. The contrast of his record with President Clinton's is clear. President Clinton has fought the balanced budget amendment every step of the way. Last year, President Clinton won and the American people lost. The American people will lose again if President Clinton has his way this year, and it looks like he will. Mr. President, I would ask, why are President Clinton and his allies opposed to the balanced budget amendment? I would suggest that the opponents of the balanced budget amendment are simply not ready to impose the kind of fiscal discipline on themselves that a constitutional amendment would require. It's tough to stop spending other peoples' money. And they do spend. When we last debated the balanced budget amendment, the Federal debt was $4.8 trillion. As of Monday of this week, it stood at more than $5.1 trillion. Mr. President, that is an increase of $320 billion. Translated into more understandable terms, that means that the cost of the delay in passing this important amendment has been more than $1,200 for every man, woman, and child in America. Put another way, over the 15 months that have elapsed since President Clinton helped defeat the balanced budget amendment, the debt has increased, on average, over $650 million a day. The enormous size of the national debt, over $5.1 trillion, and the unacceptable rate at which it is growing threatens the economic stability of this great Nation. We all know this, Mr. President. And we know that the American people overwhelmingly want a balanced budget amendment. Even so, there are those who oppose the balanced budget amendment and keep spending, and so they need to find a way to justify voting against it. President Clinton's chief advisor, Leon Panetta, said as much in 1994 when he explained the need to provide cover to opponents of this amendment so that President Clinton could defeat it with their votes. He conceded that ``If you allow people to say, `Are you for or against a balanced budget,' you'll lose it.'' So, we have a parade of excuses of why we do not need the balanced budget amendment or why we need a different, meaning more lax, balanced budget amendment. Capital budgets, automatic stabilizers--the list goes on and on. The most popular of these false protests is ``protecting social security'' from the balanced budget amendment--as if balancing the budget would harm a system that depends on the government's creditworthiness. This argument has been called by one commentator in the Washington Post ``the single most fraudulent argument'' he has heard in 17 years in Washington, and by Time magazine as ``mendacious nonsense.'' Mr. President, in less than an hour, the American people will see who is on their side and who is on President Clinton's side. I would say to my colleagues, if you really support a balanced budget and not just talk, then cast your vote for the balanced budget amendment. The very future of our country is at stake. I say to my colleagues, if not for yourselves, then support the balanced budget amendment for your children and your grandchildren who are almost $20,000 in debt the very moment they are born. Do not condemn them to live in a nation of economic stagnation, suffocating taxes, and hopeless debt. This is what is riding on this vote. I urge my colleagues to support a balanced budget requirement today, so that we and our children will have a prosperous tomorrow. the rise in the debt this year Mr. President, the eyes of the Nation are upon us. Today the U.S. Senate has the opportunity to keep us on a path to balancing the Federal budget. Last year this body narrowly missed another historic opportunity by failing to pass the balanced budget amendment. During that debate every Member of this body, whether they were for or against the balanced budget amendment, came to this floor to swear their support for balancing the budget. Well, the time has come to see who really meant it and who was just defending the status quo of runaway Government. I urge my colleagues to hold true to their promises, to vote for a balanced budget, and to not waste another historic opportunity. When we last debated the balanced budget amendment, I gave a daily update on the debt increase as we debated. By the end of the debate, my debt tracker was becoming unwieldy, so I have brought down a sort of summary debt tracker to bring us up to date on the debt since we began debate on this amendment in January of last year. As my chart here shows, when we last began debate on the balanced budget amendment the Federal debt was $4.8 trillion. As of Monday of this week, it stands at more than $5.1 trillion. Mr. President, that is an increase of $320 billion. Translated into more understandable terms, that means that the cost of the delay in passing this important amendment has been more than $1,200 for every man, woman, and child in America. Put another way, over the 15 months that have elapsed since President Clinton helped defeat the balanced budget amendment, the debt has increased, on average, over $650 million a day, over $27 million an hour, over $450,000 a minute, and over $7,500 every second. This is the price of the delay caused by President Clinton and his allies. I urge my colleagues to put an end to this wasteful, out of control spending by supporting the balanced budget. the deficit and increased taxes Mr. President, out-of-control Federal spending hurts us all in many ways. Not the least of which is through increased tax burdens on all Americans. Every year hard-working Americans pay the price for our profligacy. The Tax Foundation has calculated that in 1994, the average American worked from January 1 to May 5 just to pay his or her taxes. They did not get to keep one cent of the money they earned until May 6. Put another way, in an 8 hour work day, the average American works the first 2 hours and 45 minutes just to pay taxes. This is simply intolerable, but it is not the end of the story. The National Taxpayer's Union, NTU, has also determined that for every year we endure another $200 billion deficit it costs the average child over $5,000 in extra taxes over his or her lifetime. How many more years will the Government levy another $5,000 fine on our young people? The bad news about the debt does not end there, either. The Competitiveness Policy Council has shown that the rising budget deficits have led to a 15-percent decline in real wages in the last 15 years. And NTU has further calculated that in the 45 years, unless we get our spending under control, after-tax incomes will rise by a mere $125 for the entire 45-year period. Talk about a middle class squeeze. How can people be expected to bear the burden of stagnating wages and higher tax rates? We simply cannot continue blindly down this road to economic oblivion. Mr. President, we now have the opportunity to make an historic change. We can pass a balanced budget and preserve a future for our children, our grandchildren, and this country. I urge my colleagues to support a balanced budget requirement today, so that we will have a prosperous tomorrow. economic benefits of the balanced budget amendment Mr. President, apparently some of my colleagues have forgotten not only how dramatically the deficit is hurting our economy, but also how much a balanced budget will help our economy. I would like to touch upon some of those economic benefits which will accrue to working Americans across the country. Last year, DRI/McGraw-Hill analyzed the economic impact of balancing the budget and has concluded that it will result in a significant improvement for the nation's citizens. Here are the results of their study: As government spending is reduced, resources will be freed up for private investment and interest rates will drop. Both of these factors will make it easier for businesses to expand, resulting in the creation of 2.5 million new jobs by 2002. Further, fueled by the drop in interest rates, private investment will rise and real nonresidential investment could grow by 4-5 percent by 2002. Lastly, by the end of the 10-year forecast, real GDP was projected to be up $170 billion from what it would be without a balanced budget. That translates to approximately $1,000 per household in the United States. So when we talk about who is really trying to help American citizens of all walks of life, lets remember just how important it is to balance the budget. benefits of a constitutional amendment The sad history of legislative attempts to balance the budget show the need for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Despite our best statutory efforts and the most recent deficit reduction plan, a constitutional amendment is required for the following reasons: Statutes do not purport to correct the structural bias in favor of deficit spending that would be offset by a constitutional amendment. Statutes are only intended to deal with a temporary crisis, whereas a constitutional amendment corrects a bias that has caused deficits in 55 of the past 63 budget cycles. The deficit spending bias is not a problem that has lasted, nor will last, only 5 years. It demands a permanent constitutional solution. Ultimately, no Congress can bind a succeeding Congress by simple statute. Any balanced budget statute can be repealed, in whole or in part, by the simple expedient of adopting a new statute. Statutory limitations remain effective only as long as no majority coalition forms to overcome such statutory constraints. The virtue of a constitutional amendment is that it can invoke a stronger rule to overcome the spending bias. Our recent history suggest how much we need the strong rule of a constitutional amendment. Gramm-Rudman was to balance the budget by 1990. It was undone by a series of statutory amendments. Recently, we have fought tooth and nail to get on track towards a balanced budget. Without the balanced budget amendment to keep the Government in line, the budget we fought so hard for can be undone by a simple majority vote. Mr. President, the past year's budget battle is not example of what Congress can do, it is an example of how hard it is for Congress to do what it should always do. automatic stabilizers Some have argued that the reason we should not have a balanced budget rule is to keep intact the so-called automatic stabilizers. Their contention is that these so-called stabilizers help minimize the effects of the business cycle. Thus, those who support this theory want to cycle deficits and surpluses to counteract the business cycle. This claim confuses me for three reasons. First, we have had numerous business cycles since 1969 but have only balanced the budget once. If this theory is right, we should have had a cycle of deficits and surpluses. Second, far from cycling, the debt is on a steady increase. The debt is growing at a fantastic rate, and is now over $5.1 billion and is projected to exceed $6 trillion in only 4 years. Third, the balanced budget amendment in no way prevents us from running a small surplus, which could be used to offset the effects of an economic downturn. I just do not believe that the facts support this argument. protecting social security Mr. President, I have listened to the same arguments raised time and again from opponents of the balanced budget amendment that we should exempt Social Security from the balanced budget amendment. Some opponents have been searching for reasons to vote against the balanced budget amendment or reasons to justify their ``no'' votes. In their efforts, they came up with a number of accounts and interests they think we should exempt. Social Security is just the most popular of these favored exemptions from opponents of the balanced budget amendment. This objection is not merely a red-herring, but a dangerous one at that. The balanced budget amendment helps protect social security by ensuring that when the IOU's in the social security trust fund come due, the Federal Government will be able to make the payments to the retirees counting on them. The exemptions proposed would endanger Social Security, and so does failing to balance the budget. As I argued in the first round of debate on this matter, if we exempted Social Security from the balanced budget requirement, Social Security would be the only part of the budget which could run a deficit. This would create the dangerous incentive to run deficits in the social security account to ease pressure on balancing the rest of the budget, and might even lead to the chicanery of redesignating various programs as Social Security and thereby allowing deficit financing for them. This would endanger the solvency of the Social Security trust fund, leaving it with neither funds nor trust for retirees. Now let me be clear about what is at issue. Those who were critical of the balanced budget amendment have said that Congress will raid the trust fund to balance the budget. This is confusing, rather than enlightening. In essence these critics object that there are not separate accounts set up under the balanced budget amendment for social security and other accounts. What is at stake is merely a question of accounting. Proponents of the balanced budget amendment say that accounting formalities are not as important as substantive economic reality. When the Government takes money from people or gives it to people, it has the same overall economic effect no matter which pocket it puts it in or takes it out of. The real numbers, the ones to be concerned about are total Federal receipts and outlays. This is the consensus of almost everyone who analyzes budget issues, including President Clinton, most of Congress, and most private financial analysts. Let me summarize the way the Social Security system works now: Money collected for Social Security comes into the Federal treasury. The treasury issues IOU's for that amount in the form of Government securities to the Social Security trust fund account and spends the money on other programs. Then as the IOU's come due, the treasury collects the IOU's from the trust fund and pays out money taken from the Federal treasury. This is the way it works now. And nothing in the balanced budget amendment would change that. And let me just say that as of now these IOU's are the most secure in the world: they are U.S. Government-backed bonds. The primary risk to the Social Security trust fund always has been and continues to be the risk that the Government might get so far into debt that it could not pay back these IOU's. Since the balanced budget amendment would return fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government, it would help protect Social Security by helping the Government always be able to meet its obligations to retirees. Let me repeat: The real threat to Social Security is a Government that cannot pay its bills because it keeps piling up debt, not the accounting method used to count how high the debt is growing. The trust fund is not going to be depleted because of the balanced budget amendment. Indeed only a real balanced budget amendment will protect the financial solvency of the general treasury and of Social Security. There is, however, one other threat to Social Security: a balanced budget amendment with an open-ended exemption for Social Security. Under alternative amendments offered by the other side on this issue, the Government would have to balance all its accounts except one-- Social Security. So, all the pressure of balancing would have been placed on that account. The budget would be like a pressure cooker. And if steam can only escape through one valve, all the steam and all the pressure will go through that one outlet--and in balancing the budget there will be a lot of pressure. Social Security was to be that valve, and that would have been dangerous to the viability of the trust fund. This would cause the risk of either destroying the trust fund's solvency or creating a loophole in the balanced budget rule which could allow the same risk to the solvency of the Federal Treasury, either of which would betray the trust of those counting on the trust funds. Let me summarize: Rather than protecting Social Security, these Social Security exemption alternatives would have endangered it--to effect nothing more than an accounting preference. It is my hope that the balanced budget amendment can be sent on to the States so the country can have a debate about the fiscal future of our Nation and our Government. The people can then decide whether they want to ensure themselves of a Government that must act responsibly-- with a constitutional safeguard for their children's future. constitutional accountability Mr. President, I am always loathe to attempt to amend the Constitution. It is an undertaking that I approach with the most serious reservations and concerns. But it has become clear that a balanced budget amendment is necessary to save this country from economic catastrophe. The Constitution speaks in terms of broad principles and general instructions of how democracy should operate in America. Some amendments to the Constitution provide people with rights that limit Government's authority while others provide for people to take part in our great democracy. The balanced budget amendment is a little of both. While it is true that much of the enormous growth in Federal Government spending over the past two decades may be a response to evolving notions of the role of the public sector on the part of the American citizenry--that is, a genuine shift in the will and desire of the people--it is my contention that a substantial part of this growth stems from far less benign factors. In short, the American political process is skewed toward artificially high levels of spending, that is, levels of spending that do not result from a genuine will and desire on the part of the people. It is skewed in this direction because of the characteristics of the fiscal order that have developed in this country in recent decades. It is a fiscal order in which Members of Congress have every political incentive to spend money and almost no incentive to forego such spending. It is a fiscal order in which spending decisions have become increasingly divorced from the availability of revenues. The reason for this skew is simple--the future generations who will have to pay the bills for our extravagance have no political voice. Those who will join the work force in 20, 30, or 40 years may not even be born yet. But here we are, spending the money that they will need to live on. Mr. President, one of the oldest and most basic appeals to fairness in the history of this great Nation is no taxation without representation. We teach it to all our children. It is this basic fairness that the balanced budget amendment is designed to uphold. Forecasts are that at current rates of spending our children may be crushed with tax rates of 85 percent. All to pay for what we spend now, without their consent or even their knowledge. Surely every generation of Americans has the right to manage the country how it sees fit. But this generation is stealing from the next. In seeking to reduce the spending bias in our present system--fueled largely by the unlimited availability of deficit spending--the major purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to ensure that, under normal circumstances, votes by Congress for increased spending will be accompanied by votes either to reduce other spending programs or to increase taxes to pay for such programs. For the first time since the abandonment of our historical norm of balanced budgets, Congress will be required to cast a politically difficult vote as a precondition to a politically attractive vote to increase spending. The balanced budget amendment seeks to restore Government accountability for spending and taxing decisions by forcing Congress to prioritize spending projects within the available resources and by requiring tax increases to be done on the record. In this way, Congress will be accountable to the people who pay for the programs and the American people--including the future generations who must pay for our debts--will be represented in a way they are not now. Congress will be forced to justify its spending and taxing decisions as the Framers intended, but as Congress no longer does. This protection of the rights of future generations of Americans is surely the kind of great principle for which our Constitution stands, and without it, the Constitution is incomplete.

Mr. HATCH. I yield to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina and then the balance of the time to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. If I had time, I would yield. Ordinarily, I would. Conrad-Dorgan's Social Security argument, writes Time magazine, is, to put it politely, ``mendacious nonsense.'' Now, that is Charles Krauthammer, who generally writes it the way he sees it. I have to say I see it that way, too. I really believe that those who claim they are arguing to protect Social Security are not protecting it at all. This is the only balanced budget amendment that could pass. Being the only one that can pass, the fact of the matter is there is going to be no protection when it is voted down today, and this President is going to continue to put up budgets that literally do not protect it, either. To use the term of my distinguished friends from North Dakota, ``will continue to loot Social Security.'' Yet, they voted for those budgets. To me, there is something inconsistent here. The only chance in the world, the only chance in the history of this country to have an amendment that will put some fiscal discipline into the Constitution, and they are voting against it under the guise they are protecting Social Security, when, in fact, they make Social Security worse because they put off further doing anything about it. To me, that is absolutely amazing. Mr. President, I yield a minute and a half to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is the only balanced budget amendment that has ever passed the House of Representatives. It is the only one that has a chance of passing both Houses. All of the unanimous consent requests in the world are not going to bring up an amendment that will be acceptable to both Houses, except this amendment. Everybody knows that. For these people to bring up another amendment at this late date is just a subterfuge. There have been six Democrats who before have always voted for the balanced budget amendment but have been using the Social Security pretext as a charade to cover their backs. Last year, every one voted for Clinton's 1997 budget that does not protect Social Security in the way they want it protected. I do not think they argued with the President to get that in there. The fact is, it is a charade. I hope everybody knows it. Not only did the Clinton budget of 1997 not balance in the year 2002, under CBO's more cautious economic and technical assumptions. Without Social Security receipts and assets and deficit calculations, it would have been $184.5 billion out of balance in the year 2002. It is just phony. Without Social Security's receipts and assets in deficit calculations, the Clinton budgets would never balance. The fact is the Republican budget would be balanced by the year 2005 without Social Security. These people argue that they want to protect Social Security, yet they make the situation worse for Social Security by not voting for the balanced budget amendment that would protect it. We keep the status quo of setting up budgets that do not protect Social Security like they want to protect. How phony can you get? As a matter of fact, let me quote Washington columnist Charles Krauthammer, who has exposed twice the Clinton position, the administration's unconscionable human-shield strategy that they are protecting Social Security. In a column entitled, ``Social Security Trust Fund Whopper,'' he writes: In my 17 years in Washington, this is the single most fraudulent argument I have heard. I don't mean politically fraudulent, which is routine in Washington and a judgment call anyway. I mean logically, demonstrably, mathematically fraudulent, a condition rare even in Washington, and a judgment call not at all. Now, when the two Senators from North Dakota replied in print to his chart, Krauthammer went further and said this: Their response is even more fraudulent than their original argument. Conrad-Dorgan profess indignation with this 'pundit' who 'condones the use of the Social Security surpluses' for 'masking the size of the budget deficit.' Well, well. Where is their indignation with a President who does not just condone this practice but has carried it out three years in row? By their own logic, the President, who is of their own party, has looted the Social Security trust fund by $47 billion in 1993, another $56 billion in 1994, and plans to loot another $60 billion in 1995. Makes you wonder about the sincerity of their charge.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me use the remaining time to say I have never heard a more phony argument in my life than the argument that they, the Democrats, are trying to protect Social Security, and yet every time President Clinton's budget comes up here not protecting Social Security the way they say they want to protect it, they vote for it. I am not willing to say people are hypocritical on this matter, but I am willing to say that it is a lousy argument. It is clearly an argument designed to give those who use it an excuse for them to vote against the balanced budget amendment. I have never heard a more disappointing display than yesterday, as Senator after Senator came on this floor and jumped all over Bob Dole, who has done his best to get a balanced budget amendment through. I think some of the most sordid politics I have seen in years occurred in some of the arguments yesterday. And the arguments are phony arguments. This is a very, very important opportunity for us to try and get the Congress to be required to do what is right. This is the only chance to get them to do that. I hope people will vote for this amendment--if not today, count on it, it will be back next year. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. How much time do we have left?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. HATCH. Let me just say, I believe my friend makes a very good case for the balanced budget amendment. Because even though he criticizes some things that others have done, and compliments some things that he has done, the fact is that the system is running the same as usual. One thing that I would just like to point out and I ask the question, is it not true that the six Democrats who always voted for the balanced budget amendment before--and, perhaps, all Democrats on that side--who now refuse to support the balanced budget amendment under the guise that they are preserving or protecting Social Security by refusing to support a balanced budget amendment that does not exclude Social Security from the balanced budget calculation, that all six of those Democrats, and I believe every Democrat who will use the Social Security argument as an excuse for voting against the balanced budget amendment, I would ask my friend, did not every one of them vote for President Clinton's fiscal year 1997 budget which did not exclude Social Security receipts from deficit calculations? And, even though my colleague claims the deficit is going down, the debt since we first debated and voted down the balanced budget amendment has gone up $320 billion in 15 months. While we fiddle around here the Nation is burning. We fiddle around on trivialities when, in fact, passing the balanced budget amendment is the only way we are going to get things under control. Will my colleague agree the Democrats voted for the Clinton 1997 budget, which itself did not exclude Social Security, and used those Social Security surpluses in their budgetary deficit calculations?

Mr. HATCH. Will my friend be kind enough to yield on that point?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator----

Mr. HATCH. What really bothers me is this argument that we have to preserve and protect Social Security by defeating the balanced budget amendment, which is the only way to preserve and protect Social Security, or at least the current Social Security system. I think if we pass this amendment, we will not only have to preserve and protect it as it is now, we are going to have to find a way of reforming it so that it will last well into the next century and take care of our children and our grandchildren as well, not just those who are living today. The only way we are going to do that is if we really get serious about it and force the Congress to do it. And the only way you are going to do that is by passing a constitutional amendment. I do not think anybody who looks at it sincerely can doubt the wisdom of what I just said. The fact is that this amendment has been around for a lot of years. It is a consensus amendment. It is the one amendment that has a chance of passing, the first amendment that has ever passed the House of Representatives, the first one and maybe the only one that will ever pass the House of Representatives, and yet we in the Senate are going to stand and block it. What really hurts me to a great degree is that at least six Senators who have always voted for it are voting against it under the guise that they are protecting Social Security, when in fact the only way you can protect Social Security is to get our spending habits under control, and the only way to do it is to give us the fiscal discipline to do it in the constitution. I thank my colleague for allowing me to make these comments, but I felt I had to make them in light of what my friend has said.

Mr. HATCH. One last thing. And that is that I have heard these arguments before. I heard President Clinton on the news the other day say as he was walking outside the White House, ``Let's just balance it.'' I have heard that for the whole 20 years I have been here: ``Let's just balance it.'' Both sides have said that over the years. I think both sides have flaws here. I think both sides have spent too much, both sides have taxed too much, both sides have not done what should be done. That is why we need a balanced budget amendment, because then the game is over. The Federal Government is going to have to live within its means or vote with a high consensus to not live within them, but at least that vote will be done on the record, in front of the American people, rather than the phony way things are done today when people just stand up here and say, ``Let's just balance it.'' I have to laugh. That is the biggest joke in our history. We have 60 years of not balancing it very often, and 27 years in a row of not balancing it at all. That is what bothers me. That is why Senator Simon and I and others have fought so hard to try to get this amendment passed, so that the game will be over for both sides. I would also use a Yiddish expression, and that is chutzpah. It takes chutzpah to continue to just spend and tax the American people and to sell out the future of our children. And frankly, that is what is going on here. I am willing to blame both sides. I will be happy to say the Republicans are to blame here, too. I will be as bipartisan as I can be, just like Senator Simon has been, but both of us know that if we do not do something about it, it is only a matter of time until we are going to have to monetize the debt and we will pay it off with devalued dollars that roll off the printing press not really worth anything-- barrels of dollars that will not be worth anything printed up so the Government can escape its debt liability. But at that point, the United States will no longer be the great power it has always been. And that is what it is coming down to, because we cannot continue to go the way we are. What really bothers me, and I will end----

Mr. HATCH. It seems to me that is one reason why we need a balanced budget amendment. If there are Senators that will not do that now, then under the balanced budget amendment we are going to have to. We are going to have to raise taxes and reduce spending or have a supermajority vote to spend more. But if I could just ask one last thing, and I do not mean to interrupt my colleague.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.