Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me just say that the Senator from South Carolina, as usual, is right. The people of South Carolina did come and die at the Alamo. They were very much an important part of the independence of Texas. I want to say that there were people from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia who also played a major part. I would not be standing here today as the Senator from Texas but for the blood of those great men who migrated from the East and came over and were a very important part of the history of our Nation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the relevance of what I am going to talk about today will be brought into what has just happened. The historic opportunity that we had that was missed actually falls on the 159th anniversary of the independence of Texas. One of my predecessors in this Chamber, Sam Houston, led the Texas army to victory at San Jacinto on March 2, 1836, his birthday. Today, Texans everywhere celebrate that historic victory, and now that we have joined ranks in the United States, we invite all to join us in honoring the victory at San Jacinto. Texans also remember on this day the soldiers who did not live to see that Battle of the Alamo. One hundred eighty-four brave men held the Alamo for 13 days before falling to 6,000 Mexican troops. Following a tradition begun by my recent predecessor, John Tower, on the birthday of our more distant predecessor, Senator Sam Houston, I would like to read a letter sent by the commander of the Alamo, Col. William Barret Travis, during the siege. I think it will serve as a reminder of how many people spilled blood to make our country what it is today: To the people of Texas and all Americans in the world-- Fellow citizens and Compatriots--I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due his own honor and that of his country. Victory or death. William B. Travis, The Alamo, 2/24/1836. Today is a great day in the history of Texas. I am sorry that it is a sad day for America. It will be remembered as the day we did not declare independence from the debt accumulated over the last 34 years. We did not close the back door to become heroes of future generations, but while the Alamo is just a memory in our minds, we will be back to fight the battle of the balanced budget amendment. We will amend our Constitution, and we will do the right thing some day. So while I am not able to celebrate the vote that just happened on this floor a few minutes ago, perhaps we will remember the lesson of the Alamo and perhaps we will remember that it was those who died at the Alamo, who thought they had failed to hold that bastion that paved the way for the success of the Battle of San Jacinto. Mr. President, our Battle of San Jacinto has yet to come on the balanced budget amendment, but it will. It will come, and we will do what is right for the future generations of our country. The battle has just begun. Today was the Alamo and San Jacinto will follow. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Washington has just been saying. I have been on the floor listening to him. He is one of the people I admire most in this body. He has been the attorney general of his State. He knows the legalities and the importance of doing this as a constitutional amendment. I am very pleased he is one of the leaders in this effort. I would just like to say it is the most important vote that I will cast in my public life. That is how important the vote tomorrow is, in my opinion, for our future generations of this country. So I do think we need to focus on the basic issues. The first one is why? Why do we need this to be a constitutional amendment? The national debt is a cancer on this country and we are passing it to our children and grandchildren. It is now over $4 trillion; $17,600 for every man, woman, and child in this country. For a family of four this is over $70,000 in debt. If a family of four has a $70,000 debt, that is a big responsibility. That is a burden on the shoulders of that family. You have to pay it out over time and it is not easy. In fact, every family of four in this country has the $70,000 debt that we will only be able to erase if we pass this amendment tomorrow. It is soaking up capital that we need for investment in our businesses, and it is 26 percent of our budget that we are paying in interest. That money could be going into investment capital for investment in equipment that would create jobs, that would help our economy and would help the people of our country get back to work. But instead, that money is just going to pay interest on the national debt. It has been getting worse just in the last few years. Since 1975, 20 years ago, our per capita debt has increased more than sevenfold. So it is something that is getting worse, not better. In fact, the per capita debt has increased $900 just since we started debating this amendment earlier this month. It is $900. You have seen the charts. It just keeps going up as we talk. We must take drastic action. This is for the Constitution. Let us take some of their arguments. Their arguments are: Do it by statute. We can do it if we have the resolve to do it. But in fact we have tried for the last 30 years to do what was right and Congress found it was always easier to spend than it was to cut. They found it was even easier to tax than to curb that voracious appetite for spending. I think we have to take the very important step of getting this country back on track. We have tried to do it by statute. We tried Gramm-Rudman. We tried the 1990 budget agreement. But every time something comes up and Congress wimps out and we do not start balancing the budget. We must have a constitutional mandate if it is really going to work. We have tried everything else. If we are going to do what is right we must do it by amendment. Some of the opponents say: Tell us where you are going to cut. We will probably vote with you if we know where you are going to cut. It would be a year from now before we could get through all of these arguments and then go to the argument of how we are going to make these cuts on sort of a try it basis, not for real. No, every business and every household in America cuts their budget the same way. They determine what is the priority, what is the revenue, and then say here is what I would like to spend and I will just take care of it later. They do what every State does, they find out what the revenue is and then they prioritize their needs. I do not know why the Federal Government does not get it. I do not know why the U.S. Congress cannot figure out that we, too, can do what every State, every business and every household in America does and that is determine what the revenue is and then decide what the spending priorities are. That is the responsible way to approach the budget. There have been legitimate arguments on the issue of exempting Social Security. I think a lot of people have thought why do you not set Social Security aside? Of course we believe Social Security is inviolate. But we are talking about amending our Constitution. We have seen what Congress has already done to Social Security without one vote by any Republican in the Congress, on the House side or the Senate side. Taxes were increased on Social Security. I do not think we can assume Congress is going to do the responsible thing. Let us see what would happen if we exempted Social Security. All of a sudden more things would be moved into Social Security. We would have Social Security take up welfare; perhaps Medicaid. Everything that Congress wanted to stuff outside of the quota that will be established with a balanced budget amendment would just be locked into Social Security and there is nothing to prevent it. If you are going to exempt anything you cannot have a balanced budget amendment. It will not be effective if anything is exempted out because whatever it is will then get everything that Congress wants to put in that will not count against the restraints that we will put on ourselves through a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. I am going to support Social Security and the veracity of our Social Security system as long as I am in public life. But if we take that outside of this constitutional amendment we will not protect Social Security. It will be the opposite. We will make Social Security more precarious than it is now because we will not have the ability to say: This is the budget. Here is the revenue. And we are going to live within our means like every family and every business and every State in this country strives to do. Senator Paul Simon, the Senator from Illinois, has been one of the prime movers in the balanced budget amendment. I admire and respect him greatly. Last year, when he cosponsored this amendment, he got all wound up and he said the reason that there were so many heroes at the Alamo is because there was no back door. I love Senator Simon but I had to come down on the floor and say to my distinguished colleague that his facts were wrong but his point was right. The fact is, there was a back door at the Alamo. It was a line drawn in the sand and every man at the Alamo was given the choice of crossing the line to fight for the independence of Texas, or to leave at that time. And every man at the Alamo voluntarily walked across that line, and Jim Bowie was carried in his stretcher across that line, to say we are going to commit ourselves to fight for the independence of Texas and we are going to voluntarily close that door. So they were heroes. They were real American heroes. But Senator Simon was making a point, and the point was right. That is the same thing that we can do right here tomorrow; that is, close the back door, become a hero. The vote tomorrow is what is right for the long-term future of this country. That is what will close the door, and we will do it in a responsible manner because it is the right thing to do for our children to stop this $18,000 debt that they have over their heads right now. Yes. This is the most important vote that we will ever cast. Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, must have feared that, in all of the thinking about what might come in the future, perhaps there would be a tendency to spend more money because he probably sensed that it is human nature to want to spend the money to do the good things that all of us would like to do. Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson said: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves. Thomas Jefferson went on to say: There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring us more ruin at home than all of the enemies from abroad. He realized that this is not something that should be done just by statute. If it is really going to have teeth, he questioned whether it should not go into the framework of our Government, the policy statements that will last through the generations. And I think his instincts were right, and they have been proven so as our country has gone headlong into over a $4 trillion debt. While Thomas Jefferson was very farsighted, I do not think even he could have foreseen a $4 trillion debt. But he knew that there was the possibility that weak Congresses would spend now and pay later. We have the ability to do what I think Thomas Jefferson thought we should have done in the first place; that is, put in our framework of Government, if we think something is so important, that we will put it on our priority list and we will pay for it now, and if it is not that important, it does not meet the test of responsible governing. So I hope that we will take this monumental opportunity that we have tomorrow. It is probably the best chance we are going to have in my lifetime to do what is right to get this country back on track and to pass a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution so that our State legislatures, while they are meeting now, will have the opportunity to ratify or not ratify, but will have the opportunity to vote on this very important framework of Government issue. And I hope we do the right thing. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it is about time to lay to rest the fears of duck hunters across America about the effects of S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995, on this year's duck hunting season. This bill, which would impose a moratorium on all new Federal regulations, is an integral part of our regulatory reform agenda. It is designed to protect the public from regulatory overzealousness, but certainly not at the expense of one of our country's most enjoyable pastimes. The legislation introduced by Senator Don Nickles, Senator Bond, and myself, cosponsored by 36 Members of the Senate, clearly exempts regulatory activity if the President finds the action is a routine administrative action or principally related to public property benefits or contracts. No activity of the Federal Government can be considered more routine than setting limits on duck bags. But, fueled by faulty information and media hype, millions of our country's sportsmen are crying foul. We call these tactics the close- the-Washington-Monument syndrome. The bureaucrats say if you are going to do something we do not like we will make the most ridiculous decision possible and try to blame you for it. The proponents of this legislation have no intention of shooting themselves in the foot by losing the support of duck hunters for new regulatory common sense in our Federal Government. I have cosponsored the Federal regulatory moratorium and am a lead sponsor of the moratorium on the Endangered Species Act because they are important tools in our fight to protect private property rights and to safeguard small businesses and communities throughout the country from excessive Government regulation. Ill-conceived regulation curbs economic growth and curtails productivity at a significant cost to our taxpayers and it costs jobs in America. While the moratorium would achieve the desired effect of slowing down this businesses, it certainly is not intended to prevent routine Government procedures, or to deprive our citizens of their favorite leisure sports. And we have gone out of our way to take care of these concerns. While the opponents of these bills are likely to continue to try to ruffle the feathers by trying to scare the public, the public's interest would be far better served by imposing moratoriums. It will prevent further regulatory burdens from being added before this Congress can revise current laws, and add common sense to overzealous regulations. That is our goal, common sense. I think the close-the-Washington-Monument tactics show how little common sense there has been in the regulatory climate. The public understands one point all too clearly: Regulatory reform is an issue we cannot afford to duck.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to the exemplary life of Mr. Elland Archer of Mesquite, TX. Mr. Archer was born on December 17, 1932 to Frank and Jimmie Archer of Van Zandt County. His early years were spent in Terell and Van Zandt Counties during the Depression. In order to assist his family, he quit school in the eighth grade and later received his GED in the U.S. Army. He served our Nation honorably in the U.S. Army from 1953 until 1955 and completed his Army Reserve obligation in 1961 in the rank of private first class. He graduated from Baylor University Law School in 1963. Following his work for the Dallas County attorney and district attorney, he served as city attorney for the city of Mesquite from 1970-87. From 1989-93, he was the city manager and attorney for the city of Balch Springs. He was married for 35 years to the late Virginia Lois Archer. Elland Archer passed away on September 1, 1994 and is survived by five children and two grandchildren in addition to his mother and six brothers and sisters. Mr. Archer will be remembered by his family and friends for his dedication to our Nation, our State, and to the many citizens he served during his career. In setting high standards during his public service, his life was a model for others to follow.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to talk as we end this third week of debate on the balanced budget amendment about the importance of this vote and what it really means to America. I have listened for the last 3 weeks to the debate, and I want to say that I think we are in a filibuster. I think there can be no doubt of it. Our leader has been patient. Senator Dole wanted everyone to have an opportunity to have his or her say to talk about the issue, because it is a major issue. It is probably the most important vote I will ever make in my career. I think the leader has given ample time for every person to talk about views, to differ on views, and to put in amendments. I think Senator Hatch and Senator Craig, who are the distinguished managers of this joint resolution, have been very patient. But this is a filibuster, and there is a fundamental difference about whether we should move forward with the mandate that we have to change the things we have been doing in Washington, or whether we are in fact doing what we have been doing year after year after year in this Congress--that is, spending beyond our means. That is what has been happening. We are at the end of the third week of debate. All of us who support the balanced budget amendment thought we would be finished, thought we would leave town for a 3-day recess knowing that we had done the most important thing we could do for the future of our children and grandchildren. But we are not there yet. We are not there because there is a fundamental difference and because many who disagree with the balanced budget amendment have decided to delay it through filibuster. I support the right of everyone to delay. That is part of the Senate rules. But I think it is time to call it what it is. I think it is time that people realize this is a delaying tactic, that we are no longer into substantive differences--and reasonable people can differ--we are into trying to delay what clearly the majority of this body wants to do, and that is to say that we are going to amend this Constitution and say to future generations: You are not going to have to pay our bills. Every baby that is born into this country has an $18,000 debt to pay. That is what we have racked up with our over $4 trillion of debt. Some people say, ``Let us do it by statutes. We can pass laws, we can act responsibly.'' And, of course, we point out that over the last 30-plus years we, in fact, have not been able to do that. So if you put the practical experience in the mix, it is clear that we are not going to do it by statute. But let us talk about what is the role of the Constitution of our country. The Constitution of our country should not be something that we can do by statute. It should be the framework of our Government. It should be what we think the parameters of our Government should be, not for the 104th Congress, but for all the Congresses in the future-- something that is so well settled in our policies that it should not be subject to change. That is what we are debating, whether we will amend our Constitution with a fundamental policy decision that should not be changed by future generations. Mr. President, that is what a balanced budget amendment is, and it does meet the test. It should be a fundamental policy of this country that we will not spend money we do not have, unless we are in a crisis, in a war, and that is the exception--the one exception--that all of us would agree to. Other than that, we are not going to spend money we do not have for programs that we would like, for programs that are good programs, but programs we do not have the money to pay for. It comes down to the fundamentals that every State, every city, every business, and every household in America understands, and that is: I would like to take my family to dinner tonight, but maybe I do not have the money to do it and I have to make that decision based on whether I have the discretionary money to do it. I would like to send my child to college. Do I have the funds to do it? I would like to have many things that, perhaps, I cannot afford and therefore I do not acquire. That is a fundamental decision that every American makes every day. The only American institution that really does not is the United States Government. That is a fundamental policy that we must put in place that should not change with the wind or the times--that is, that my priorities are more important than the priorities of future Congresses. I think it is very important, as we leave today for this recess, that the people of America understand that this is a filibuster. The people who are doing it have the perfect right to do it, but they are delaying this vote; they are delaying what I think the people of America want, what they have said repeatedly they want, and that is for us over the next 7 years, so that by the year 2002, if we start right now, we will be able to then begin the adventure of being able to pay back the $4 trillion debt, so that we will not be in that continuing deficit position. In fact, I think that if we do not act on this in the next week when we get back, it is not that it will pass in time and we will not pass it ever again. I disagree with people that say this is our only chance. I think if we do not pass it this time, we will have a bigger mandate in 1996 and we will pass it. The difference will be, Mr. President, that we will have two more years of accumulating debt, and we have seen the charts for the last week showing every day that we have been debating and talking and talking in the Senate debating society, the debt has gone up because we have not begun to turn that ship on a different course. So if we do not do it this year, we will do it 2 years from now, 3 years from now, because we will have the mandate. But we will have missed 2 years of opportunity to begin this process of responsibility for our future generations. That is what we will miss if we fail to do so. So as we leave these hallowed halls, I hope all of us will think carefully about the monumental decision that we will make next week to stop this filibuster, to stop the delays, to stop the nuance differences and say that we are going to take this first step of amending the greatest Constitution that has ever been written in any society in all of civilization; that we are going to amend it with a fundamental policy decision of responsible spending, to protect our future generations from our decisions, which may not be theirs. So it is a great opportunity for us, and I hope all of us will go home and come back next week ready to make the decision that is ours to make, to change the course of this country and begin the process of responsible governing. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have introduced a bill today called the STOP Act. The purpose of the STOP Act is to keep our Federal courts from taking over State prisons. Many States today are operating at over 100 percent capacity. In my State of Texas, however, the Federal courts have ruled in the Ruiz case that on any given day 6,100 beds, 14 percent of total space available in Texas, are vacant. This Ruiz settlement has forced many of our State prisons to maintain a permanent vacancy rate of 11 percent. What has happened, Mr. President, is that there has been release of violent criminals early. They are serving an average of 2 months for every year of their sentence in my State to comply with a ruling that is patently unreasonable. This is actually a compromise. This bill will curb the ability of Federal courts to take over the policy decisions of State prisons, particularly when they do not have any responsibility to pay for these added costs. A massive construction program in Texas that will be completed within the next year will give the State of Texas an official prison capacity of 146,000. But if we could eliminate the effect of this case, we could add 6,000 more people who would serve their sentences and would not be going out on the streets of Texas murdering, raping, and injuring the people of my State. In fact, Mr. President, I have to say that one of my friends from college, a wonderful person, was murdered by one of these early-release prisoners. It was a stunning thing to happen. Unfortunately, that was not the only time it has happened in my State. Our present system today is operating and constructing prisons with a budget of $3.75 billion and is expected to grow to $4.4 billion for the next 2-year period beginning September 1 of this year. What we are going to try to do with this bill is pare back the ability of Federal judges to substitute their judgment for that of State governments who are required to keep the people safe and also, of course, to keep the prisoners in prison. It is their job to pay for it; it is their job to implement criminal law in their States. The bill will set out the right for prisoners to live as comfortably as possible. But that will not be more important than the right of the victims, the right of the people to live safely in their neighborhoods. It is a matter of prioritizing what the rights are. I think it is very important that we speak to this issue, and I am very proud that the House of Representatives has already done so. Congressman Bill Archer sponsored this bill in the House and has put it on as an amendment to a bill that will be coming to the Senate shortly. I think it is important that I have introduced the bill today, because what has happened in my State is so stark and we are spending billions on prisons because of this onerous decision which was not appealed. I had urged that it be appealed but it was not. So we are building these extra prisons because of a ruling that I think could have been appealed and would have been overturned at the appellate level. It will give standing to local officials and State government officials to step in on a case when they think that the Federal courts have gotten out of line. We need relief and many other States in this country need relief. After all, the Federal prisons are operating at approximately 160 percent of capacity. Yet, in my State, it is lower than 90 percent capacity. We certainly need those extra beds. What has happened is, of course, our counties are burgeoning with prisoners that they cannot send up to the State prison system because there is no space under this onerous ruling. So I have introduced this bill today. I hope we can get swift enactment and, most especially, I hope if the bill comes over from the House, that we will be able to make sure that is also in the Senate bill.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would just like to follow my distinguished colleague from Illinois in talking just for a minute about the League of Women Voters. I think all of us agree that the League of Women Voters has made a great contribution to this country. Today, Valentine's Day, marks the 75 anniversary of the league's founding. The league's first and most widely recognized success was its role in the 19th amendment's ratification. In the wake of this historic victory, however, the League realized that an even more formidable challenge remained ahead--the task of actually bringing the millions of newly enfranchised American women into the realm of politics. Over the course of 75 years, the league launched ambitious programs to increase voter participation and to enhance public understanding of major policy issues. At the same time, the league continued its campaign to improve the legal status of women. In my home State of Texas, the league worked to secure secret balloting and won the battle to allow women to serve on juries in Texas. As time has progressed, the success of league endeavors has become increasingly apparent; in government and politics today, the presence and influence of women are stronger than ever. And though the league was founded out of the struggles for women's suffrage, its vision and legislative agenda have broadened over the years to encompass much more than voting rights and women's issues. State and local leagues have pursued public policy matters ranging form the environment to international cooperation. Most importantly, Mr. President, the league has never wavered from its commitment to nonpartisanship nor its grassroots origins. In its town hall meetings and candidate forums in thousands of local communities across the country, the league has endeavored to ensure that voters are presented with balanced information that reflects the diverse viewpoints of its membership. It is with much admiration and gratitude, Mr. President, that I recognize this uniquely American organization and the pioneering women who founded it and strengthened it through the years. We have all benefitted tremendously from their first 75 years of service to our country. I look forward to another 75 years of great league achievements. I think it is very important that all of us realize the great contributions that the League of Women Voters has made to our country and to the awareness of our opportunity and responsibility to vote. I think the League of Women Voters should be commended today on the 75th anniversary of their founding, and I am very proud to be part of the group that is recognizing that important date. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 400 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I think it is about time for us to start voting on this amendment. After a week of talking about the balanced budget, I believe that just about every argument against it is pointless, except maybe one. The opponents' arguments are just many different ways of saying, ``I don't want a balanced budget amendment, because I don't want a balanced budget.'' amendment is nothing more than a gimmick. After the fourth or fifth time I heard this, I stopped assuming that I knew what a gimmick is and decided to look it up. One dictionary says a gimmick is ``A trivial or unnecessary innovation added to enhance appeal.'' The opponents of this constitutional amendment say we are supposed to pass responsible budgets without constitutional requirements. Now, how would you explain that, when we have run deficits in this country for 34 of the last 35 years? When were they planning to start being responsible? Mr. President, when were they planning to say we are going to be serious without a balanced budget amendment that says we are going to be serious and there is no wiggle room? The opponents also say this amendment is a gimmick and we should not mess with the Constitution. The Framers expressly provided for constitutional amendments. We have been debating this proposal for over 12 years. The entire Constitutional Convention took about 4 months in 1789. We are not proceeding recklessly. We are acting after careful deliberation. We passed a balanced budget amendment here in the Senate in 1982. We failed in 1986, 1992, and 1994 by a handful of votes. The House tried in 1990 and 1992. A few days ago, with its new Members elected by a public demanding a real change in Washington, the House passed the amendment for the first time. With so many years of debate and preparation, Mr. President, we cannot throw away this opportunity to put America on a new course. I believe this is the most important vote that we will take in our terms in the Senate. Now, the opponents say, ``We should not legislate on the Constitution.'' Well, I agree, we should not legislate on the Constitution. It is a framework for Government and it should not spell out particular policy choices. But the same opponents that make this claim also propose amendments to this resolution which legislate exemptions into the Constitution for high-priority items. Such exemptions would, themselves, create gimmicks. Every possible program would get squeezed into the off-budget constitutional exception. Such exceptions, Mr. President, would require future Congresses and future generations to follow our priorities. They would have to use our programs instead of setting their own priorities and using their own plans, public or private, to address them. Even the minority leader's motion to recommit with instructions provides for a balanced budget amendment that says, ``The directives required by subsection A-3 shall be deemed to be directives within the meaning of section 310(A) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Upon receiving all legislative submissions''--now, does that sound like James Madison? It sounds an awful lot like legislation to me. It sounds like the Budget Act, something no Member really wants to see enshrined for all time in our Constitution. If we start amending the Constitution with sentences like that, people will not be able to carry our Constitution in their vest pockets anymore. Now, my dictionary has another definition for gimmicks. It says it is ``a significant feature that is obscured, ordinarily misrepresented; a catch.'' Now, the opponents of this amendment keep trying to say there is a catch. They are trying to scare the public into thinking that all of the services that the Federal Government provides will be eliminated. Of course that is not true. To balance the budget by 2002 we only have to slow down future increases in total spending, not cut spending below its current level. We can cut the bureaucracy and the redundancy of the Federal Government while preserving our most important programs. That is prioritizing. We must provide the programs that help those who cannot help themselves. We have always done that in this country. What is to change? We will feed the hungry. We will care for children and disabled people who cannot help themselves. And we can do it while continuing to cut waste, and do it more efficiently. Like all bureaucrats whose kingdoms are threatened, the opponents of this amendment claim that any cut would destroy the most popular program, while they hide the waste, fraud, and abuse in the back. Now, I have heard this argument before. It is called the ``We are going to have to close the Washington Monument argument.'' They show us the most popular program and they say, ``This is what is going to be cut.'' They are acting like we do not have the sense or the commitment or the ability to prioritize what are the most important uses of taxpayers' dollars. They are like the boy who cried wolf one too many times. We do not believe them anymore. We do not believe that the Government cannot really operate with a few cents less on the dollar. That is what balancing the budget comes down to. Pennies on the dollar. We can reach a balanced budget by the year 2002 without cutting Social Security or Medicare. (Mr. THOMPSON assumed the chair.)

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator from Maine is making an important point. We are starting to talk about prioritizing--what can we cut in order to put more in the programs that we need, the ones that are really essential. In the President's budget he says he is going to look at reinventing Government by paring down HUD and the Department of Transportation, and I applaud the President and I wish to give him credit for taking that step. However, I think what we have to do is to start looking at how we can do things in a different way. Maybe it is not just cutting down departments. Maybe it is cutting down the infrastructure. Why do we necessarily have to keep the entire infrastructure of the Department of Transportation and the infrastructure of the Department of Housing and Urban Development? Perhaps we could take away some of the bureaucracy by having fewer departments, by streamlining Government, by terminiating some programs, such as the ICC, which the President has proposed again to eliminate and which I am going to support, and by handing power back to the States. Handing power back to the states is very important in the overall effort to make the Federal Government smaller. When we do that, let us not keep all of these massive bureaucracies in place. Let us consolidate some departments--maybe the Department of Education. I think the Senator from Maine would probably agree with me that if we are going to get this country going in a different direction, the one most important thing we can do is to pass a balanced budget amendment and force ourselves to stop deficit spending. Let us start working toward the balanced budget and then eventually we will be able to start working on paying down the $4.7 trillion debt.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. You say you were not surprised. Well, after seeing the State of the Union Message where he challenged Republicans to come up with spending cuts and yet did not offer spending cuts for us to consider, it is really not a big surprise.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Since the Senator brought up the President's budget and the inability of Congress to deal with this issue in the past, I should say that the budget did come out today from the President, who promised to cut the deficit in half, and it actually spends $200 billion more than we have in revenue this year. After the Clinton administration is over, he will have added $800 billion to the national debt. The debt today is about $4.7 trillion. That is $18,500 for every man, woman and child in this country. So every baby that is born can be welcomed into our country knowing that that poor baby has an $18,500 debt hanging over his or her head the minute he or she comes into the world. They talk about not putting it in the Constitution and yet as recently as today, a budget is submitted that is again not in balance. I think it is time for us to say enough is enough. They talk about the sky is falling if this is passed, but do they realize what we are going to have to do to get to a balanced budget by the year 2002? According to the Joint Economic Committee, we can balance the budget without cutting Social Security or Medicare and permitting Medicaid to grow by 5 percent if we just limit the growth of all other programs to 2 percent a year--that's the growth, not current spending. If we exempt only Social Security, we can balance the budget in 6 years by cutting projected spending by 4 cents on the dollar. We are talking about limiting the amount of growth. We are talking about prioritizing within our budget to limit the growth. If you set aside Social Security and Medicare, you can still grow 5 percent in Medicaid and 2 percent in all other programs and balance the budget.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator from Maine is making an important point. When you are doing something that is as important as this, we do need to do it right because it is going to be an amendment to our Constitution that will last. Our Constitution has prevailed over the centuries because we have been very careful not to bind future generations. With the Constitution, less is more. There is one thing that we have to do, and that is make a bottom line. We have to say, like every business in America, like every household in America, like every State government and every local government in America, there is an end. We must set our parameters and then work within those parameters to set our priorities. That is what every other entity in America does. As the Senator from Maine has said, this is the time. It is a very short window that we have to make a difference in the direction this country is going, and we have the mandate. For the first time, the House of Representatives has passed a balanced budget amendment, and if we miss this opportunity, it may be that the window will not return. I wonder what all of these people who are convinced we should not have an amendment, I wonder what they are going to say to the American people about how they will balance the budget if they do not want it in the Constitution and they say, show me first. Show me what you are going to do if we do not have it. What is going to be different today than 34 out of the last 35 years? Isn't that really the question?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maine has made the most important point. Gramm-Rudman was a wonderful idea that should have worked. But what happened? Congress came along and bypassed it, and bypassed it again, and bypassed it again. So it meant nothing. That is exactly the point that I was making about having an exception to the amendment. Any exception. What will happen? Congress will start putting more things into what we except, and it will bind future generations to say, ``That is the area that you must except out.'' It could be that in 20 years Social Security or whatever exception they are going to put forward may be taken care of. It may not even be an issue at all. Why would we put that in the Constitution and take away the ability of future generations to just act within a framework? It is clear that we have to have a framework in the Constitution. Saying that there would be this exception or that exception does not take into account the changes in our society that might happen in the next 50 or 100 years.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maine has hit the nail on the head. Those of us who were in the election, an election that I think was to change the course of this country, do get the message. We got the message from the American people that they want a balanced budget amendment. Probably of all the issues they were voting on, this was among the very top. I saw a poll in the Washington Post that showed 4 out of 5 Americans want a balanced budget amendment. Of course, the people will have another say in this. They do have the right through their legislatures to act on this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It does not just automatically go into the Constitution if we do pass this amendment by our two-thirds vote here. It will go to the States and three-fourths of those State legislatures must ratify the amendment. So the people are going to have their say. They will be able to have the final word. I think it is very important for us, because of the message the people sent so loud and clear, that we are required to send it to the States to let better if they have the opportunity to act in this way on a very important part of the election of 1994; the election in which they said we want a more accountable Government, we want a more accountable Congress, and we want responsibility to be shown by our leaders. That is exactly what we are trying to do. As the Senator from Maine pointed out, I think the people are going to send another very clear message in 1996, if they do not see that things are being done differently in the Halls of Congress. I think particularly because the House has acted on this already, it is very important the Senate, hearing the people's voices, give them a chance to let their legislatures ratify this amendment, or not ratify it, as they see fit. That is their voice. But I think it is incumbent on us to let the people speak, through their legislatures, exactly what their feelings are on this issue. We have the opportunity of a lifetime. For the first time in years, this Congress has the opportunity to change the course of this country by letting people have their say. I think we must do it. We really must do it. If we do not, if we did not get the message, I think that the people in the U.S. Senate who are now representing the people of our Nation will hear a lot more from the people. I got the message. I think the Senator from Maine got the message. But I am not sure that everybody that I have heard debating for the last week has gotten the message. I certainly hope for everyone's sake that we do the right thing. Last year, when we were debating this amendment, Senator Simon from Illinois, who was the sponsor of the balanced budget amendment and who did a wonderful job, was talking about the importance of this balanced budget amendment. He said the reason there were so many heroes in the Alamo is because there was no back door. Well, of course, no Texan could let that pass because I had to defend the honor of the heroes at the Alamo. I had to set history straight and say to the good Senator from Illinois there was a back door at the Alamo. The back door was when the line was drawn in the sand and every man at the Alamo was given a choice to cross the line and stay and fight or not to cross the line. Any man that did not cross would have been able to leave the Alamo before the siege began and go to the rear. Of course, everyone knows that every man crossed the line, including Jim Bowie, who had to be carried across the line in a stretcher. In effect, the Senator from Illinois was correct. The back door was a line in the sand. The line in the sand gave them the escape but the great heroes at the Alamo chose to close that door. What the Senator was saying was we have a balanced budget amendment that is closing the door. We are not going to have heroes because we are going to close the back door, and we are going to do what is right. It is not heroic. It is just good common sense. Every person in America should know that it does not take a hero to do what everybody else in America is already doing, and that is living with a balanced budget; setting the parameters of what they think is best, and, saying, OK, this is what I have and I am going to prioritize with the resources that I have. That is what we are asking the Congress of the United States to do, not just for today, but for our future generations. It is right that we amend the Constitution because this is a very important policy. It is part of our structure of government that we say we will live with a balanced budget. Just about every State in this country has a balanced budget amendment in its constitution. It is the framework of government, whether you live with a debt or not. It is right to put it in the Constitution. What is not right is to legislate on the amendment by saying we are going to balance the budget but we will have these exceptions. That is not a document that will live through the centuries as our Constitution has. Our Founding Fathers created a living document because they put the framework in place. It is a giant step to amend this wonderful document. That is why it has not been done very often. But it has been done when there was a need to continue to make it a living document, and that is why our Founding Fathers gave us a chance to amend it. They knew things would change in the course of our country's history. They knew that they would have to provide some way for us to be able to add to it so that it would continue to live, so that our people would not be oppressed with the document that did not protect them from the changes that they could not even envision. I think a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is very proper because it says this is going to be part of the framework of our Government, that we will live within our means and that we will not put a debt on the heads of our children for the spending that we do today. It is pretty simple, and I think the American people understand that. I think the American people are a lot smarter than the politicians give them credit for. I think the American people are going to understand in this vote exactly whether the Senate of the United States got the message from November 8, 1994. They are going to be able to determine from this vote whether they need to send another message in 1996, or whether we are going to get this country back on track. Whether we are going to do responsible budgeting for our future and for the future of our children and grandchildren. We must pass this amendment if we are going to take that first step toward bringing our country back to what our Founding Fathers thought it should be; that is, a very strong Federal Government that is limited in its powers and very strong States that can make the decisions for their people because they are closer to the people. So I hope the Senate of the United States does the right thing for the people who have voted for us and who sent a clear message on November 8, 1994. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maine has come to the bottom line. The amendments that are being offered are being offered to kill the amendment. I hope the American people will see this debate for what it is. I have so much faith in the American people, in the good common sense of the people of this country. They can see the people who are being sincere about wanting to change the course of America, and those who are throwing up the roadblocks in the name of--whatever. Whatever exception they would like to have. It is a smokescreen. It is an effort to keep us from doing what really will get this country back on track. We will have to make very tough choices. There is no question about that. Everyone knows that. But as I go out in my State and in the other States I am able to visit, I think people are ready. I think people more than ever are ready to say, ``You know, I would really like to have that expenditure, or some other program, but if it takes not having that particular program in order to balance our budget, we are willing to say in the scheme of things this may not be as important as the big things that only the Federal Government can do and do well.'' I am sensing that. Does the Senator sense that in the State of Maine as she goes home and talks to the good, commonsense folks of Maine?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would only say to the Senator from Maine that I think it would be more fair if the minority leader would put forth in his right to know to the American people what they are going to do to balance the budget if we do not pass the constitutional amendment to require it. I think that is what the American people would like to know. What are you going to do differently today than you did 34 out of the last 35 years? That is a right I think the American people have, to know before someone votes to kill this opportunity to have a balanced budget amendment for this country for the future, to know what they would do if it is defeated. We must make sure that our future generations do not carry the debt of overspending and the excesses of the present day. We should not have the right to bind future generations from any present point by not living within our means. That is the bottom line. It is not fair to say you are going to kill this amendment with a right-to-know provision if you are not going to say to the American people what they have a right to know, and that is what are you going to do to balance this budget if you do not have the amendment? That would be the responsible approach. Does my colleague not agree with me?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator from Maine would agree that for us to be able to put our best creative efforts forward, to decide how we can go forward into the 21st century by doing things a different way, doing things more efficiently, and giving the States back the power that they had when our Founding Fathers made the Constitution, we have to say there is a limit. The Government, like everyone else in America, will have to live within a budget. We are not going to cut everything. The sky is not falling, as you have heard on this floor day after day after day. We are going to make responsible expenditures. The Federal Government needs to do what it does well. It needs to have a strong national defense. We need to have big science projects to create the new technologies that create the new jobs for the future and improve the quality of life. We need to deliver our mail; that is one of the things that everybody assumed the Federal Government would do. We are not doing it very well. We could do it a lot better. We need to have foreign representation. We need to have foreign policy. There are many things that the Federal Government should do and do well, and we need to appropriate the money to do that. We need to appropriate the money for closing our borders to illegal immigrants. There are many things that we will need to fund. But the difference is, from the debate we have heard between the two parties disagreeing on this issue, with some exceptions, of course, are we going to live within the budget and are we going to make those tough decisions? It is not a cart before the horse--you tell me what the decisions are going to be and then I will decide if I am going to do the responsible thing by saying you have to live within your budget. There can be no question that we must live within our budget. And it is irrefutable that for 34 of the last 35 years we have not lived within a budget. We are going to have to take the necessary precaution of making parameters, and in this case the parameter is a balanced budget amendment which says Congress, you are going to live with a budget, and you can decide the priorities. I think we should give Congress the freedom through the generations of the future to decide its priorities. But for heaven's sake, let us not miss this opportunity to promise to the American people that we are going to stop putting an $18,000 debt on every child born in this country.