J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Major League Baseball Antitrust Reform Act of 1995 to repeal the antitrust exemption which shields major league baseball from the antitrust laws that apply to all other sports. I am pleased to have Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition Subcommittee which I chair, join me in introducing this bill. The Thurmond-Leahy legislation addresses baseball's antitrust exemption, but is not specially drafted in an attempt to solve the current baseball strike. Although the ongoing strike raises questions about the antitrust exemption, major league baseball's problems go far deeper than this one strike. Baseball has suffered a strike or lockout every time a contract has expired during the last quarter century. Baseball has had eight strikes or lockouts in a row, the worst work stoppage record of all professional sports. Removing the antitrust exemption will not automatically resolve baseball's problems, but I believe it will move baseball in the right direction. Despite our interest in seeing the players return to the field, we must be ever mindful of the need to limit Federal Government intervention into matters best left to private remedies. The Congress should determine how much Federal involvement, if any, serves the public interest in this area. But as long as the special antitrust exemption remains in place for baseball, the Congress is involved. The Congress has an impact on the sport by simply permitting the special exemption to remain long after the factual basis for it has disappeared. It is now well-known that baseball's antitrust exemption is essentially a historical accident. The exemption was established in 1922 by the Supreme Court--not the Congress--when the Court held that professional baseball was not interstate commerce and therefore could not be subject to the Federal antitrust laws. Since that time, the Supreme Court held that baseball is, of course, interstate commerce, but the Court refused to end the exemption. Instead, the Court held that it is up to the Congress to make any necessary changes in the exemption. In light of the Supreme Court decisions in this area, we must recognize that responsibility has shifted to the Congress to address the exemption and whatever effects it may have on major league baseball's problems. Some Members of Congress believe that we should not get involved during the current strike, while other Members have asserted that in the absence of a strike there is no need for the Congress to take action on this issue. Whether there is a strike or not, it is my belief that it is proper for the Congress to consider this antitrust issue as a matter of public policy. The Congress has considered baseball's antitrust exemption in the past, including serious attention by the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, prior to the current strike. I intend to continue working on this issue, even if the strike were to end today. As a practical matter, there is no guarantee that any legislation on this subject will be enacted promptly, despite our best efforts, given the press of other business in both the Senate and the House. Thus, this legislation ought to have little impact on baseball's negotiations. The players and owners certainly should continue to work to settle their differences without assuming that congressional intervention will occur. The Thurmond-Leahy legislation would repeal baseball's antitrust exemption, while maintaining the status quo for the minor leagues. Protecting the current relations with the minor leagues is important to avoid disruption of the more than 170 minor league teams which are thriving throughout our Nation. This is a priority which other Members and I have clearly expressed. The Thurmond-Leahy bill also makes clear that it does not override the provisions of the Sports Broadcast Act of 1961, which permits league-wide contracts with television networks. Nor does the Thurmond-Leahy legislation affect the so-called nonstatutory labor exemption. The nonstatutory labor exemption shields employers from the antitrust laws when they are involved in collective bargaining with a union. Court interpretations of the nonstatutory labor exemption are somewhat unsettled. But there is no doubt that, at a minimum, repealing baseball's special exemption would permit antitrust challenges in the absence of a collective bargaining arrangement, and would place baseball on the same footing as other professional sports and businesses. I am also concerned about the issue of franchise relocation, a subject on which I held hearings in the mid-1980's while serving as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Relocation is a significant issue to baseball, as well as other professional sports. If the antitrust laws need adjustment in this area, we should consider this matter in the context of all professional sports. Thus, the Thurmond-Leahy bill does not address franchise relocation, but separate legislation is being considered to protect objective franchise relocation rules in all professional sports. Mr. President, I join the millions of Americans who are anxious for the 1995 baseball season to begin, and encourage the owners and players to resolve their differences. But again, I believe the proper role for the Congress is to repeal the Court imposed antitrust exemption. This will restore baseball to the same level playing field as other professional sports and businesses. By removing the antitrust exemption, the players and owners will have one less distraction keeping them from developing a long-term working relationship, and the Congress will no longer be intertwined in baseball because of the special exemption.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish as U.S. policy the goal of developing and deploying as soon as practical defenses to defend the American people and our forces overseas against ballistic missile attack. This bill is identical to a provision recently passed by the House National Security Committee, which will soon be considered by the full House of Representatives. The administration has proposed a ballistic missile defense program that focuses almost exclusively on theater missile defense. While I strongly support a robust theater program, as reflected in this bill, I believe that the administration's program is not well balanced. It is my belief that the administration has failed to put together an adequate national missile defense program to defend the American people against the emerging threat posed by long-range ballistic missiles. Today, the United States faces ballistic missile threats, but has no defense. In the future, there will be more countries which will be able to pose such threats to our country. Therefore, we must begin today to plan for the creation of a highly effective national defense that initially will be able to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack. In the coming months, the Senate Armed Services Committee will be examining a wide range of options for a national missile defense system. Our decisions will become apparent in the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization bill. The purpose of the bill I am introducing today, is to establish a general policy and to require the Secretary of Defense to establish a plan for developing and deploying a national missile defense system. I would like to thank Senator Kyl for his work in this area and for being a principal cosponsor of this bill. A number of my colleagues from the Armed Services Committee are also joining me in introducing this important legislation, and I thank them all for their support and hard work on this issue.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the introduction of S. 383 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the debate on this historic opportunity to adopt House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. Over the past week we have heard many eloquent speakers on the need to pass a balanced budget amendment and bring this Nation's fiscal policy under control. It has been especially encouraging to see our freshman colleagues take to the floor and urge this body to adopt a balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, I am opposed to the motion to recommit with instructions offered by the minority leader, Senator Daschle. The language of his proposed substitute amendment would be a cumbersome addition to the U.S. Constitution. His proposed amendment to the Constitution reads more like Federal regulations or a statute rather than part of the great document which governs this Nation. Undoubtedly, it is the desire of every Member who supports the balanced budget amendment to see the Federal budget deficit eliminated that we may begin to cut away at the Federal debt which currently stands at $4.8 trillion--I repeat, $4.8 trillion. Without a balanced budget amendment, there has been little pressure on the Congress to make tough legislative choices on Federal spending and the Federal deficit has continued to grow. With a balanced budget amendment as part of the Constitution, the Congress would understand the reality that there are a finite number of tax dollars available for public spending and various proposals would compete on merit and need, not popularity. The balanced budget amendment would instill an urgent need for legislative accountability as Congress considers various proposals for increased Federal spending. Currently, there is no real check on runaway Federal spending, and there will never be a shortage of legislation creating new Federal programs or efforts to increase spending in existing programs. Without a balanced budget amendment, budget deficits over the long term will continue to rise and the Federal debt will continue to grow. The Congress has not shown the fortitude to address, in a meaningful way, the budget deficit and the Federal debt. There have been times when gestures were made to bring spending within our means but those efforts were short lived. Statutes to reduce Federal spending have not been enough. They are too easily cast aside and the Congress rolls along on its path of fiscal irresponsibility. I am convinced that without the mandate of a balanced budget amendment, Federal spending will continue to eclipse receipts and the American people will continue to shoulder inordinate tax burdens to sustain an indefensible congressional appetite for spending. In 1950, an average American family with two children sent $1 out of every $50 it earned to the Federal Government. Today, the average American family is sending $1 out of every $4 it earns to the Federal Government. Under current budget projections, there is no reason to believe that these statistics will improve. Mr. President, we can trace the debate on a balanced budget amendment back in our history for 200 years. A defining moment may well have been the appointment of Thomas Jefferson as Minister to France. Thomas Jefferson was abroad when the Constitution was written and he did not attend the Constitutional Convention. If Jefferson had been in attendance, it is quite possible that he would have been successful in having language placed in the Constitution to limit the spending authority of the Federal Government. Upon studying the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter of a change he so fervently believed should become part of the Constitution. He wrote the following: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our Government to the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article taking from the government the power of borrowing. Further, Jefferson stated: To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. Another former President, Andrew Jackson stated the following: Once the budget is balanced and the debts paid off, our population will be relieved from a considerable portion of its present burdens and will find * * * additional means for the display of individual enterprise. Preisdent Harrison described unnecessary public debt as ``criminal.'' Mr. President, early American Presidents and public leaders understood the dangers of excessive public debt. For almost 150 years, balanced budgets or budget surpluses were the fiscal norm followed by the Federal Government. The unwritten rule followed by Presidents and legislators until recently in our Nation's history was to achieve balanced budgets except in wartime. But the role and the size of the Federal Government has grown out of control. In the past three decades, the Federal Government has run deficits in every year except one. Further, the Federal Government has run deficits in 56 of the last 64 years.Mr. President, during the 1960's, deficits were averaging around $6 billion per year. The following decade, the 1970's, saw deficits rise and they averaged $36 billion per year. In the last decade, the 1980's, deficits continued to rise and averaged $156 billion per year. So far, in the 1990's, deficits have averaged $259 billion per year. The Federal debt has grown as deficits have continued to grow and the debt now stands at $4.8 trillion. It took this Nation over 200 years to run the first trillion-dollar debt yet we have recently been adding another trillion dollars to our debt about every 5 years. I have been deeply concerned during my time in the Senate over the growth of the Federal Government. It has been too easy for the Congress to pass legislation creating new Federal programs and spending more tax dollars whenever there is a call for Federal intervention. Of course, the Federal Government has an appropriate role to protect the citizens of this Nation, but it is not realistic to believe that Washington should respond to every perceived problem with a new Federal approach. This Nation has drifted from its original foundations as a national government of limited authority. I believe the adoption of a balanced budget amendment will do much to return us to a more decentralized Federal Government of limited authority and the mandates of such an amendment will increase legislative accountability. A balanced budget amendment is the single most important addition we can propose to the Constitution to begin reducing the size of the Federal Government. Mr. President, we have seen the national debt and deficits rise because in large part, the Federal Government has grown. The first $100 billion budget in the history of the Nation occurred in 1962. This was almost 180 years after the Nation was founded. Yet, it took only 9 years, from 1962 to 1971, for the Federal budget to reach $200 billion. billion in 1975, $500 billion in 1979, $800 billion in 1983, and the first $1 trillion budget in 1987. The budget for fiscal year 1995 was over $1.5 trillion. Federal spending has gripped Congress as a narcotic but it is time to break the habit and restore order to the fiscal policy of this Nation. It is incumbent upon this body to send the balanced budget amendment to the American people for ratification. The vote on final passage on House Joint Resolution 1 could well be the most important vote we will face as Senators as its adoption is essential for protecting our liberties as a free nation. I hope we don't fail the American people on this historic opportunity and instead present to the States our proposed amendment to mandate balanced budgets. it is time to act to secure the future for all Americans. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the more than 5,000 men and women of the U.S. Navy Supply Corps, active and reserve, who on February 23, 1995, will celebrate the 200th birthday of their distinguished service to our Nation and Navy. The naval officers who proudly wear the Supply Corps oak leaf are the business managers of the Navy and are responsible for the logistics support of operating forces in the fleet and naval shore installations worldwide. The Supply Corps has come a long way since its birth in 1795, when Teach Francis of Philadelphia took the helm as the first Purveyor of Public Supplies. The original charter of the Supply Corps was to support the six wooden frigates of a young American Navy. The Supply Corps has distinguished itself throughout its long history by ensuring that the United States has been ready to defend American freedom and interests in every conflict since the War of 1812. Its responsibilities have grown tremendously and have kept pace with the challenge of providing logistics support to a modern and highly technological Navy, which has grown in size and complexity. Today, the Navy Supply Corps employs the latest technologies and management skills to supply our Navy at the lowest possible cost and with the greatest efficiency. Having progressed from supplying wooden frigates with cannon balls to supplying AEGIS destroys with Tomahawk cruise missiles, the U.S. Navy Supply Corps continues to carry out its vital mission to keep our Navy well equipped and ready to respond at a moment's notice. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the officers of the U.S. Navy Supply Corps on its 200th birthday.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, from the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations. Those identified with a single asterisk (*) are to be placed on the Executive Calendar. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the since these names have already appeared in the Records of January 6 and 10, 1995 and to save the expense of printing again.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senate is a place of great camaraderie and congeniality, and over the past four decades, I have been fortunate to have made a number of very good friends here. Regrettably, I rise today to memorialize one of them, Mrs. Lorna Simpson. Lorna is known to all of us as the mother of our colleague, Senator Al Simpson, the dedicated and gregarious senior Senator from Wyoming. While most Members probably had the opportunity to meet this kind and warm woman, few are fortunate to have known her as well as I. I first came to know Lorna in 1962 when her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate and he moved into an office near mine. The Simpsons quickly became my close friends and I very much enjoyed spending time with Al and Lorna. While Lorna was a consummate entertainer, she was a woman who was civically active and took a strong role in supporting her husband's business enterprises. Every community in which the Simpsons lived benefited from the efforts of Lorna as she contributed her time and efforts to numerous causes including the Red Cross and programs that restored various historic sites. During World War II, Lorna contributed to the war effort by chairing Cody Wyoming's black and scrap metal committees and even served as the acting editor of the local paper. Among her many other activities in the subsequent years, she assisted her husband in negotiations with the Israeli Government concerning gas and oil exploration in that country, and later she served as the representative of the women of the United States to the Organization of American States. Mr. President, I know everyone will agree with me that Lorna Simpson was a unique woman and a lady in every respect. She possessed high ideals, a lovely character, a friendly personality and all the good qualities that signify the perfect lady. She was a woman who was devoted to her husband and family and she added much to the lives of those whom she touched. Senator Al Simpson and his lovely wife Ann have my deepest sympathies and they, along with Al's brother Peter and the entire Simpson family, are in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, we begin consideration of a proposed constitutional amendment to require the Federal Government to achieve and maintain a balanced budget. We are pleased that the House acted with wide bipartisan support as it adopted the balanced budget amendment by a vote of 300 to 132. Also, before we have extended debate on this proposed amendment in the Senate, I want to commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. He is to be congratulated on the manner in which he handled this matter in the Judiciary Committee and bringing it to the floor for consideration. I have worked over the years with Senator Hatch on the balanced budget amendment and due in large part to his tireless efforts we are close to sending this proposal to the American people for ratification. I also wish to commend Senator Larry Craig of Idaho for his fine leadership on this matter. He has been a stalwart in this fight. Also, I wish to commend Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, who has been a leader in this cause for a number of years. Mandating balanced Federal budgets is not a new idea. The first constitutional amendment to balance the budget was proposed in 1936 by Minnesota Representative Harold Knutson. Then came World War II and attention was distracted from efforts to secure annual balanced budgets, although Senator Tydings and Representative Disney introduced several balanced budget amendments during that period. Following World War II, a Senate joint resolution on balanced budgets was introduced by Senators Tydings of Maryland and Bridges and reported out by the Committee on Appropriations in 1947 but received no further action. During the 1950's, an increasing number of constitutional initiatives for balanced budgets came to be introduced regularly in Congress. It was during that time that I supported legislation such as that offered by Senators Bridges, Curtis, and Harry Byrd to require the submission by the President of an annual balanced budget and to prevent Congress from adjourning without having enacted such a budget. No action was taken on these measures. Yet, since the beginning of the 84th Congress in 1955, an average of four constitutional amendments to require a balanced Federal budget have been proposed during each Congress. There was little substantive action in the 1960's and 1970's on our proposals. But finally, in 1982 while I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment which I authored. Our victory was short-lived, however, because the Speaker and the majority leader at that time led the movement to kill it in the House of Representatives. That was our high water mark as we fell one vote short in 1986 and four votes short last year. With the recent action in the House of Representatives and wide bipartisan support in the Senate, I am ever optimistic that this is the year the Congress will deliver to the American people a balanced budget amendment. Simply stated, this legislation calls for a constitutional amendment requiring that outlays not exceed receipts during any fiscal year. Also, the Congress would be allowed by a three-fifths vote to adopt a specific level of deficit spending. Further, there is language to allow the Congress to waive the amendment during time of war or imminent military threat. Finally, the amendment requires that any bill to increase taxes be approved by a majority of the whole number of both Houses. This legislation would provide an important step to reduce and ultimately eliminate the Federal deficit. The American people have expressed their strong opinion that we focus our efforts on reducing the deficit. Making a balanced budget amendment part of the Constitution is appropriate action for addressing our Nation's runaway fiscal policy. Over the past half-century, the Federal Government has become jeopardized by an irrational and irresponsible pattern of spending. As a result, this firmly entrenched fiscal policy is a threat to the liberties and opportunities of our present and future citizens. trillion. The Federal deficit in fiscal year 1993 was $225 billion. Mr. President, in 1957, my third year in the Senate, the entire national debt was less than $275 billion and there was not a deficit, but rather a $3 billion surplus. Today, the payment of interest on the debt is the second largest item in the budget. That accounts for the estimate that this year it will take over 40 percent of all personal income tax receipts to pay the interest on the debt. The tax dollars that go to pay interest on the debt are purely to service a voracious congressional appetite for spending. Payment of interest on the debt does not build roads, it does not fund medical research, it does not provide educational opportunities, it does not provide job opportunities, and it does not speak well for the Federal Government. Payment of interest on the debt merely allows the Federal Government to carry a debt which has been growing at an alarming rate. It is deficit spending which has brought us to these crossroads. Congress has balanced the Federal budget only once in the last 32 years and only 8 times in the last 64 years. A balanced budget amendment as part of the Constitution will mandate the Congress to adhere to a responsible fiscal policy. The American businessmen and businesswomen have become incredulous as they witness year in and year out the spending habits of the Congress. Anyone who runs a business clearly understands that they cannot survive by continuing to spend more money than they take in. It is time the Congress understands this simple yet compelling principle. For many years, I have believed, as have many Members of Congress, that the way to reverse this misguided direction of the Federal Government's fiscal policy is by amending the Constitution to mandate, except in extraordinary circumstances, balanced Federal budgets. The Congress should adopt this proposal and send it to the American people for ratification. The balanced budget amendment is a much needed addition to the Constitution and it would establish balanced budgets as a fiscal norm, rather than a fiscal abnormality. The tax burdens which today's deficits will place on future generations of American workers is staggering. Future American workers are our children and our children's children. We are mortgaging the future for generations yet unborn. This is a terrible injustice we are imposing on America's future and it has been appropriately referred to as fiscal child abuse. Our third President, Thomas Jefferson, stated: 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. It is time we show the fiscal discipline advocated by Thomas Jefferson and adopt a balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I was pleased to cosponsor S. 1, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, a bill to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments. This is an important piece of legislation, and I am delighted it has passed. I wish to commend our majority leader, Senator Dole, and all the others who joined on this bill as cosponsors. I especially wish to commend Senator Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican manager of the bill, and Senator John Glenn, the Democrat manager. Senator Kempthorne is a new Senator, yet he managed this bill as if he were a veteran of 20 years. He artfully handled it with great skill and much grace. We are very proud of his efforts. I predict this bill is going to bring great results to this Government, and I look forward to those results in the years ahead. Mr. President, over 1 year ago, in October 1993, thousands of mayors, county commissioners, and Governors met in front of their town halls, court houses, and State houses and gathered here in Washington to speak out against, what is popularly described as, the unfunded mandates issue. Unfunded Federal mandates arise when the Federal Government, through legislative or executive action, directs State and local governments to establish a particular policy or program, without providing the financial resources to implement that policy or program. Mr. President, this situation emanates from our unique system of government. By design of our Founding Fathers, governmental power in our Nation is divided between the National Government and State and local governments. The National Government, with delegated and implied powers, coupled with the supremacy clause of article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, has taken upon itself to direct the States in many areas of law and public policy. On the other hand, the 10th amendment to the Constitution specifically reserves to the States or to the people, powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Thus, a natural tension arises between levels of government, particularly when it involves unfunded mandates. Federal laws and regulations place a heavy burden on State and local governments, as well as businesses and consumers. Cities and counties are hit particularly hard by Federal environmental rules which require expensive capital expenditures and operational Numerous surveys and studies have been conducted to determine the extent of the burden of unfunded mandates. These surveys consistently report findings that unfunded mandates consume significant portions of State and local budgets, totaling billions of dollars. Mr. President, the message of State and local government officials is being heard in Washington, and their concerns are being addressed. Last year, in addition to an Executive order issued by President Clinton, unfunded mandates legislation was considered by Congress, although final action on the measure could not be completed in the closing days of the last Congress. I am pleased that the Senate has acted on this reform legislation addressing unfunded Federal mandates. No one could have handled this bill with more talent and skill than Senator Kempthorne has done, and I congratulate him on the leadership he has shown on this issue. Also, I commend the majority leader and relevant committees for quickly bringing this bill to the floor. This measure is widely supported, as indicated by the bipartisan majority of Senators who cosponsored the bill, and who ultimately voted for final passage. Mr. President, S. 1 establishes a legislative framework based on three fundamental concepts--information, consultation, and accountability. First, this bill provides that Congress must consider information on the cost of mandates to State, local, and tribal governments, as well as to the private sector. This information will identify whether or not proposed legislation includes a mandate and, if so, the cost of the mandate. Second, the bill requires consultation with State, local, and tribal officials when Federal agencies develop regulations that contain significant Federal mandates. This provision is consistent with President Clinton's Executive order which seeks to establish a closer partnership between the Federal Government and the States. Third, the bill establishes a method of enforcement and accountability. It provides for a point of order against committee- reported bills and resolutions which contain a mandate but fail to provide information on the cost of the mandate. Another point of order lies against legislation which contain unfunded mandates exceeding the $50 million threshold. These provisions put an end to the practice of passing hidden costs to the States. Congress must now openly address these costs and make a deliberate decision to impose a mandate and pass on the costs of that mandate. Mr. President, the issue of the proper role of the Federal Government is one which the Nation has faced from its beginning. Since our colonial days, Americans have been suspicious of centralized executive power. Recognizing a legitimate role for government, the Founding Fathers nevertheless sought to limit the power of the National Government. This bill is another step toward restoring the Federal- State partnership as it was designed and intended by the Founders of the Constitution. The word ``Federal'' evolves from the Latin word foederatus, meaning covenant or compact. The Constitution establishes that compact or contract between the governed and the government, and between the National and State governments. It gives specified powers to the central Government, and reserves all other powers and rights to the people and to the States. Today, however, the Federal Government continues to expand its influence in commercial regulation, environmental protection, welfare reform, and health care. Any one of these areas contains the potential for continued pressure on both the Federal treasury as well as State and local budgets. Mr. President, while the issue of Federal mandates will not likely disappear in the foreseeable future, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 will help to diminish the threat to State, local, and tribal governments and will bring timely information, accountability, and consultation to the process. I was proud to support this legislation which prohibits the Federal Government from mandating State or local government action, unless Federal funds are provided. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I am very pleased to say a few words on behalf of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I have been in the Senate 40 years now and for 36 of those years I have favored a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I worked with Senator Harry Byrd, Sr., Senator Styles Bridges, Harry Byrd, Jr., and many others in the past, in an effort to get this amendment adopted. ago when President Reagan was the President, I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and was the author of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We got that amendment through the committee and we got it through the Senate. We sent it to the House and the House killed it. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader led the movement to kill that amendment. Evidently, they did not want to stop spending. And the spending has gone on year after year after year. We have not balanced this budget but one time in 32 years. We have not balanced this budget but eight times in 64 years. That is a disgrace to this Nation. We should not spend more than we take in in any year. And if we do spend more, it should be made up immediately. Under the South Carolina law and constitution, we have to balance the budget every year, and we do it. If we can do it in South Carolina, we can do it in the United States. It is nothing but reasonableness and fairness and exercising foresight that will balance the budget. I am very anxious to see us pass this amendment. I think it would be the greatest step we could take. There are two threats to this Nation that we must realize. One is that we must keep strong armed services. We have threats now throughout the world. We have hot spots in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and other places. We must keep a strong defense if we are going to remain free. President Clinton has taken steps to reduce our strength in defense. I am hoping we can rebuild that strength. We need to make the 1996 budget for defense equal to the 1995 budget. We must take steps to rebuild defense so that this Nation can remain free and strong and preserve all that this country has stood for. The other threat is the fiscal threat, and that is a serious threat. When we have not balanced this budget but one time in 32 years, that means it is a threat. How are we ever going to balance it if we do not take steps? I remember a statute was passed years ago to balance the budget. Before the end of the session, we had passed appropriations to overcome that statute. The statute did not amount to anything. It will not amount to anything now. The only way, in my judgment, to stop spending more than we take in and to balance this budget is to pass a constitutional amendment to mandate, to make, the Congress do it. The Congress has not shown the attitude to do it. They have not shown the will to do it. How are we going to handle it? I do not know of any other way under the Sun to do it except to pass this constitutional amendment. I urge my colleagues to go forth and show the courage and take the steps necessary to balance this budget. The best way I know to do it is to pass this constitutional amendment. First, I want to commend the able Senator from Idaho for the great interest and leadership he has shown on this important question. He is a very fine representative. He represents his State and Nation well. On this particular question he has shown unusual leadership and is to be commended.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, over the past 10 years, the one individual who has been perhaps more closely associated with the new majority leader, Senator Bob Dole, than any other person is his former chief of staff, Sheila Burke. A graduate of the University of San Francisco with a bachelor of science in nursing, Sheila worked in the medical field in California and New York before joining Senator Dole's staff in 1977 as a legislative assistant. Known for his ability to recognize individuals with talent and ability, Senator Dole soon moved Sheila on to a number of position of greater importance and responsibility. In the following 18 years, Sheila has worked as a professional staff member and deputy stafff director on the Finance Committee, as the deputy chief of staff to the majority leader, and as chief of staff to the majority leader and the Republican leader. While in every instance she has distinguished herself as an individual of great intelligence and dedication, she truly proved her mettle during her tenure as the leader's chief of staff. Sheila knew every piece of legislation at least as well as the person who wrote it. She was always able to provide valuable advice to Bob and to any Republican Senator. Her dedication and sense of purpose not only served us well, but it earned her the respect of Members on both sides of the aisle. As we all know, the life of a top-level aide to a U.S. Senator is demanding, especially if the Member is in a leadership position as Senator Dole. It can often be difficult for a staffer to balance the responsibilities of his or her professional and personal lives, though this appeared to pose little trouble for Sheila. Not only is she the proud mother of three children, Sheila was able to find the time to earn a master's degree in public administration from Harvard University's prestigious and challenging John F. Kennedy School of Government. I doubt that I would be exaggerating if I said that the faculty at Harvard probably learned more about government from Sheila than she did from them. After many years of service to Senator Dole, Sheila is moving on to yet another new job, the Secretary of the Senate. In her new position, she will take on many new responsibilities, but none that will be too difficult for her to master or manage. I commend Senator Dole for nominating Sheila to be Secretary of the Senate, and applaud my colleagues for confirming her nomination.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, there is no arguing that life on Capitol Hill is an interesting experience that provides a wealth of colorful stories. Each one of us knows about staffers who, after working together for years, end up getting married; or of young college graduates who move to Washington, take some lowly job and work their way to positions of importance and responsibility. One of Washington's true ``power couples,'' Howard and Elizabeth Greene, who each now have top level support jobs in the Senate, can lay claim to having enjoyed both the above mentioned experiences. Howard and Elizabeth got their respective starts on the Hill in the same manner that many of our staffers do, as a doorkeeper and a page. While neither job is particularly glamorous or financially rewarding, they proved to be magic stepping stones for the Greenes. In subsequent years, both Howard and Elizabeth held a number of jobs that eventually led them to positions of key importance, that of Senate Republican Secretary for Howard and the legislative scheduler's office for Elizabeth. Throughout their careers here in the Senate, both have earned well deserved reputations for their ability and dedication as well as the respect and praise of members from both sides of the aisle. In this new Congress, the Greenes are each moving on to new and important positions: Howard to be the Senate's new Sergeant at Arms, and Elizabeth to be the secretary for the majority. Both of these jobs are critical to the successful operation of the Senate and we will be served well by the Greenes as they work hard, are dedicated, and always have the best interests of the United States Senate at heart in the performance of their duties.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, people often talk about the good old days, when things were cheaper, life was simpler, and doctors made house calls. Up until this past December 30, there was at least one pediatrician in Northern Virginia, Dr. Harold Yates, who still believed in providing his patients with a lot of old-fashioned service and care. Over the past almost 5 decades, Dr. Yates has earned a well deserved reputation as one of this area's most committed medical practitioners. A graduate of the University of Virginia Medical School, Dr. Yates is a product of an era when doctors were more than professionals, they were an integral part of a community and a family. As a matter of fact, some of Dr. Yates' first patients have brought their children and grandchildren to the doctor's office for his kind and concerned care. That Dr. Yates has treated literally thousands of children during his career speaks not only to his abilities as a doctor, but to the great trust and genuine affection his patients have for him. This past December, Dr. Yates hung his white coat and stethoscope up for the final time, ending a practice and era. He will certainly be missed, as he was a man dedicated to providing compassionate and humanitarian care.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, South Carolina is probably the most idyllic place anyone might consider living. The pace of life there is relaxed, the people are friendly, and the weather is temperate. Unfortunately, even a State as peaceful as mine is not free from the evils and dangers of crime. Leading the fight against illegal activity in the Palmetto State is an organization created by me when I served as Governor of South Carolina, the State Law Enforcement Division, commonly referred to as ``SLED.'' At the helm of SLED is a man whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for many years, Chief Robert M. Stewart, and whom I am pleased to call a friend. The chief has literally dedicated his life to police work and has gained national recognition as an aggressive officer and a true professional. Chief Stewart, a native of Cheraw, began his career as a teenager when he signed on as a cadet with his hometown police department and worked his way up the leadership ladder, earning the position of director of public safety before he had even turned 30. In 1975, he stepped down as director and joined SLED as a special agent. In the following 20 years, his career advanced rapidly while he worked on cases ranging from those that were routine and mundane to ones that were international in scope. A veteran of the SWAT team, Robert specialized in white collar and public corruption cases, and worked closely with Federal agencies investigating such crimes in South Carolina. In 1988, Gov. Carroll Campbell appointed Robert as the chief of SLED, where he has done an unparalleled job of administering the agency. When he took over SLED, Chief Stewart's goal was to make it an organization that was recognized as being one of the most professional, progressive, and modern law enforcement agencies in the United States. Over the past 7 years he has done just that. By regionalizing the agency, and streamlining its rank structure, Chief Stewart has ensured that his agents are better able to monitor and address crime trends throughout the State. Additionally, Chief Stewart secured a brand-new lab, that is not only used by SLED, but is available to any other police department in the State of South Carolina. Thanks to the chief's commitment and vision, last year SLED became only the second State investigative agency in the Nation to receive professional accreditation by the Committee on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. Mr. President, Chief Stewart celebrates his 50th birthday today, and I want to take this opportunity to recognize and commend him for dedicating more than half his life to protecting the people and property of South Carolina. Chief Stewart is a man of great ability, integrity, and courage, and I am proud of his many accomplishments. I wish him good health and happiness in the years ahead, and look forward to continuing to hear great things about him.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we all know, the 104th Congress convened Wednesday and before we become too immersed in the legislative process, I want to take a moment to recognize the two leaders who will guide us through the next 2 years. It has been my experience that some of the key qualities of a good leader are decisiveness, ability, commitment, integrity, and moral and physical courage. The new majority leader, Senator Robert Dole, posses those attributes and many more, and I am proud to call him my friend. Bob's commitment to public service began in 1943 when he raised his right hand and enlisted in the U.S. Army as World War II raged at its height. A natural leader, young G.I. Dole soon earned a commission and found himself commanding a platoon in the famed 10th Mountain Division, which remains one of the Army's premiere combat units. During bloody and vicious fighting against the Germans in the rugged terrain of Italy, Bob was severely wounded twice and very nearly lost his life. Though decorated for his valorous acts in battle, Senator Dole carries with him to this day a very noticeable reminder of the cost of liberty and of warfare. I am sure that each of use recognizes the disability that Bob has overcome as a reminder that war, or the employment of military force, is not a matter to be considered lightly, and that whenever young Americans are placed in harm's way, they run the risk of being killed, wounded, or maimed. In 1951 Bob was elected to the Kansas State legislature, beginning a career that ultimately brought him to this Chamber. His time in the statehouse was quickly followed by a term as county attorney and then four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1968, Bob came to the U.S. Senate and it was immediately apparent to me that he was a man destined to go places. In the ensuring 27 years, I have been pleased and proud to watch Bob's career progress, as he served as the chairman of the Republican National Committee; as he was overwhelmingly reelected to the Senate four times; to watch him climb the Senate leadership ladder to the position he now holds; and, to see him nominated for the Vice Presidency of the United States in 1976. I have no doubt that the unbeatable combination of Senator Dole's drive and experience, along with what just might be a strong streak of destiny, may lead him to the White House before his career in public service comes to an end. Senator Dole has been leader of the Senate Republicans when we have been both the majority and minority party in this body and he has distinguished himself well in both roles. While not everyone may agree with Senator Dole's politics, they do respect the manner in which he conducts himself and the business of the Senate. Now that our party has once again regained control of this body, I know that Senator Dole will work closely with Members on the other side of the aisle to ensure that they are treated fairly, and that the 104th Congress will be marked as a period of progress, accomplishment, and bipartisanship. Bob Dole is a man I hold in high esteem and whose find friendship I value greatly. As anyone of us who stood on this side of the aisle for the last 8 years can tell you, being in the minority can be a frustrating experience. With an effective leader, though, the minority party can play an important role in the legislative process, not only contributing to the debate, but strengthening bills passed by Congress. The man whom the Democrats have elected as their leader, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, is a person who I believe will be an effective voice for Senate Democrats. Tom is no stranger to public service, as he spent time as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Air Force, as a valued aide to a South Dakota State senator, and four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he held several leadership positions. Although Tom was just recently elected to the position of Democratic leader, he has been a distinguished member of this body for the past 9 years. During his tenure, Senator Daschle has demonstrated himself to be an able and effective legislator, working hard for his constituency in South Dakota. I have had the pleasure of serving with Tom on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and have found him to be a serious minded man and one of purpose. It was of little surprise to me that Tom rose to the important post he now holds. I have every confidence that he will be an effective leader for our Democratic well with the Republican majority. While many may believe that politics in the United States is based on an adversarial relationship between parties, each of us knows that it is a system which encourages and fosters compromise--that to actually legislate, we must seek common ground. Senators Dole and Daschle are two men who are committed to ensuring that this body functions efficiently and effectively by seeking that point where Members can vote to pass a bill. I congratulate Bob and Tom on winning their leadership elections, and I look forward to working with both of them throughout the duration of the 104th Congress.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I introduce S. 136 today and ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a bill which would prohibit any person who is being compensated for lobbying the Federal Government from being paid on a contingency fee basis. This bill is virtually identical to a bill I introduced in the 103d Congress. This legislation takes an important step towards ensuring integrity in the administration of the Federal Government. integrity in the administration of the Federal Government in all its departments. This has become even more important now that we have entered the era of the $1 trillion Federal budget. Vast sums of money are appropriated by Congress for various projects and studies. Contracts worth millions of dollars are regularly entered into by Federal agencies. The competition for these funds and contracts is intense. It is not realistic to assume that Congress can legislate integrity. However, we can, through legislation, make efforts to remove certain incentives to use undue influence to enter into contracts which are contrary to the fiscal and ethical interests of our Nation. Accordingly, I introduce this legislation which will prohibit payment for lobbying on a contingency fee basis. Mr. President, I have heard reports of certain lobbying activities which greatly disturb me. Specifically, I was informed that one lobbyist approached an institution and inquired as to how much Federal money was needed to fund a particular project. When the response was $12 million, the lobbyist responded that he would ask Congress for $14 million. If successful, he would be paid $2 million. If he was unsuccessful, only a base fee would be charged. When our Nation is bridled with such a huge debt, we certainly cannot afford to borrow more money to provide such suspect incentive payments which work to further increase the deficit. Many lobbying firms do not operate on a contingency fee basis. Yet, other firms follow this practice. Hearings on these issues would be very helpful as this legislation moves through Congress. However, even if it is determined that such arrangements are rare--I take the view that even one is too much. Such arrangements are clearly wrong, and should not be tolerated. I firmly believe that lobbying on a contingency fee basis is wrong and should not be allowed. Congress should follow the lead of most States by enacting this legislation which would prohibit such arrangements. Mr. President, the question of the propriety of contingency fees in lobbying activities is not a new one. Common law has held such contracts unenforceable for decades. in fact, in 1916, the Supreme Court ruled on the character of such financial arrangements in the case of Crocker versus United States. The Court, quoting from a prior case, stated: All contracts . . . should be made with those . . . who will execute them most faithfully, and at the least expense to the Government. [Contingency fee arrangements] . . . tend to introduce personal solicitation, and personal influence, as elements in the procurement of contracts; and thus directly lead to inefficiency in the public service, and to unnecessary expenditures of the public funds. Mr. President, recognizing the improper incentives contingency fees for lobbyists have injected into Government, 35 States have laws on the books which prohibit payment for lobbying on a contingent fee basis. My home State of South Carolina has prohibited this type of lobbying since 1935. At the Federal level, contingency fee arrangements are addressed to some extent in the executive branch. Two laws covering contracts awarded by the Executive Departments--41 U.S.C. 254 (a) and 10 U.S.C. 2306 (b)--restrict the use of ``commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee'' arrangements to secure these contracts. However, the scope of these statutes is deficient in two respects. First, the violation of these provisions carries little penalty. the Government can only annul the contract secured by a contingency fee arrangement, or deduct from the contract the full amount of the contingency fee. They carry no criminal penalties. Second, these statutes only apply to the executive branch and not to activities involving Congress. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing would make contingency fee arrangements to influence Government action a crime under Federal law. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be fined up to $100,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. Moreover, the Attorney General is empowered to bring a civil action to recover twice the proceeds obtained by that person due to such conduct. This act is prospective in nature and would only apply to contracts entered into after enactment. Lobbyists often provide expertise and helpful information not otherwise available. I want to be clear on this point. This is an important role for lobbyists, but I am opposed to contractual arrangements which impugn the integrity and efficiency of our system. Clearly, a person should be entitled to reasonable fees for legitimate services in presenting officials of the Government with information as may apprise them of the character and value of the project or service offered, and thus enable those officers to act for the best interest of the Nation. However, the law has long recognized that contingency fees are not appropriate in some areas while appropriate in others. For instance, contingency fees in tort actions provide the poor with access to the courts and are viewed favorably. In other areas, such as criminal and domestic law, such fees are inappropriate because they introduce improper incentives into the system. Similar principles should apply to contingency fees for lobbying. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I look forward to hearings on this important issue. The public deserves action on the part of Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing, along with Senators Faircloth, Lott and Shelby, the voluntary school prayer constitutional amendment. This bill is identical to S.J. Res. 73 which I introduced in the 98th Congress at the request of the President and reintroduced in the 99th, 100th, 101st, 102d, and 103d Congress. This proposal has received strong support from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and is of vital importance to our Nation. It would restore the right to pray voluntarily in public schools--a right which was freely exercised under our Constitution until the 1960's, when the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary. Also, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled an Alabama statute unconstitutional which authorized teachers in public schools to provide a period of silence, for meditation or voluntary prayer at the beginning of each school day. As I stated when that opinion was issued and repeat again--the Supreme Court has too broadly interpreted the establishment clause of the first amendment and, in doing so, has incorrectly infringed on the rights of those children--and their parents--who wish to observe a moment of silence for religious or other purposes. Until the Supreme Court ruled in the Engel and Abington School District decisions, the establishment clause of the first amendment was generally understood to prohibit the Federal Government from officially approving, or holding in special favor, any particular religious faith or denomination. In crafting that clause, our Founding Fathers sought to prevent what has originally caused many colonial Americans to emigrate to this country--an official, State religion. At the same time, they sought, through the free exercise clause, to guarantee to all Americans the freedom to worship God without government interference or restraint. In their wisdom, they recognized that true religious liberty precludes the Government from both forcing and preventing worship. As Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once stated: ``We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'' Nearly every President since George Washington has proclaimed a day of public prayer. Moreover, we, as a Nation, continue to recognize the Deity in our Pledge of Allegiance by affirming that we are a Nation ``under God.'' Our currency is inscribed with the motto, ``In God We Trust''. In this body, we open the Senate and begin our workday with the comfort and stimulus of voluntary group prayers--such a practice has been recently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is unreasonable that the opportunity for the same beneficial experience is denied to the boys and girls who attend public schools. This situation simply does not comport with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution and is, in fact, antithetical to the rights of our youngest citizens to freely exercise their respective religions. It should be changed, without further delay. The Congress should swiftly pass this resolution and send it to the States for ratification. This amendment to the Constitution would clarify that it does not prohibit vocal, voluntary prayer in the public school and other public institutions. It emphatically states that no person may be required to participate in any prayer. The Government would be precluded from drafting school prayers. This well-crafted amendment enjoys the support of an overwhelming number of Americans. During the 98th Congress, we were only 11 votes short of the 67 necessary for approval in the Senate. I strongly urge my colleagues to support prompt consideration and approval of this joint resolution during this Congress and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would require Federal judges and certain other officers of the United States to forfeit their offices upon conviction of a felony. I believe that the citizens of the United States will agree that those who have been convicted of felonies should not be allowed to continue to occupy positions of trust and responsibility in our Government. Nevertheless, under current constitutional law it is possible for certain officers of the United States to continue to receive a salary even after being convicted of a felony. If they are unwilling to resign, the only method which may be used to remove them from the Federal payroll is impeachment, a process which can occupy a great deal of valuable time and resources of the Congress. Currently, the Congress has the power to impeach officers of the Government who have committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. However, when a court has found an official guilty of a serious crime, it should not be necessary for Congress to then essentially re-try the official before he or she can be removed from the Federal payroll. The constitutional amendment which I am introducing will provide that any officer of the United States who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, upon conviction of a felony and exhaustion of all direct appeals, shall be removed from office and shall lose all salary and benefits arising from service in such office. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this proposal and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today with the distinguished Majority Leader, Senator Dole, to introduce a proposed constitutional amendment which would give authority to the President to disapprove specific items of appropriation on any Act or joint resolution submitted to him. This authority is commonly referred to as line item veto. The Congress must address runaway spending if we are truly going to establish a sound fiscal policy for this Nation. As of November 16, 1994, the Federal debt stood at $4.6 trillion and payment of interest on the debt is the second largest item in the budget. The budget deficit for fiscal year 1993 was over $250 billion. Recently, Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich met with President Clinton concerning legislative priorities in the 104th Congress. I am pleased to note that granting Presidential authority for line item was favorably discussed. Also, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, who once opposed a constitutional amendment on line item veto authority, now has come to appreciate the merit of this worthy proposal. I believe the Judiciary Committee should quickly act on this important measure and send it to the Senate. In April, 1990, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported my proposed constitutional amendment on line item veto authority which was the same legislation that I am introducing today. Before that vote in 1990, the Judiciary Committee last approved a proposed constitutional amendment to grant the President line item veto authority in 1884. The Congress regularly enacts appropriations measures, totaling billions and billions of dollars. Too often there are items tucked away in these bills that represent millions of dollars that would have very little chance of passing on their own merit. Yet, the President has no discretion to weed out these unnecessary expenditures and must approve or disapprove the bill in its entirety. Presidential authority for line item veto is a badly needed fiscal tool which would provide valuable means to reduce and restrain excessive appropriations. It should be emphasized that my proposal grants the President power to approve or disapprove individual items of appropriation and does not grant power to simply reduce the dollar amount legislated by the Congress. Forty-three governors currently have, in one form or another, the power to reduce or eliminate items or provisions in appropriation measures. Surely, the President should have a form of discretionary authority that 43 governors now have to check unbridled spending. It is my hope that this Congress will swiftly approve line item veto and send a clear message to the American people that we are making a serious effort to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal and our efforts to make it part of our Constitution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this proposal be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the U.S. Constitution to require the Federal Government to achieve and maintain a balanced budget. This legislation is essentially the same as Senate Joint Resolution 8 which I introduced in the 103d Congress and is similar to an earlier bill in March of 1986 which received 66 of 67 votes needed for Senate approval. Also, the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment in 1982 but was defeated in the House of Representatives. Simply stated, this legislation calls for a constitutional amendment requiring that outlays not exceed receipts during any fiscal year. Also, Congress would be allowed by three-fifths vote to adopt a specific level of deficit spending. Further, the Congress could waive the amendment during time of war. Finally, the amendment would also require that any bill to increase taxes be approved by a majority of the whole number of both Houses. It is clear that the budget deficit is a top priority with the American people. Additionally, this legislation would be a key step to reduce and ultimately eliminate the Federal deficit. The interest and attention which this problem has attracted speaks volumes as to the need for solutions to our Nation's runaway fiscal policy. Our Constitution has been amended only 27 times in over 200 years. Amendment to the supreme law of our land is a serious endeavor which should only be reserved to protect the fundamental rights of our citizens or to ensure the survival of our system of government. Mr. President, I believe that the very survival of our system of government is presently being jeopardized by an irrational and irresponsible pattern of spending which has become firmly entrenched in Federal fiscal policy over the last half-century. As a result, this fiscal policy has gone a long way toward seriously threatening the liberties and opportunities of our present and future citizens. As of November 16, 1994, the Federal debt is over $4.6 trillion. Per capita, the Federal debt is over $16,000. This means that it would cost every man, woman and child in America $16,000 each to pay off the public debt. The Federal deficit for fiscal year 1993 was $255 billion. In order to solve the deficit problem, congressional spending must be addressed. I have believed for many years that the way to reverse the misguided direction of the fiscal government is by amending the Constitution to mandate, except in extraordinary circumstances, balanced Federal budgets. I know many other Members of Congress join me in wanting to establish balanced budgets as a fiscal norm, rather than a fiscal anomaly. Those who oppose a balanced budget constitutional amendment and opt instead for self-imposed congressional restraint must face the fact that this restraint has not been forthcoming. Importantly, the Congress has only balanced the Federal budget one time in the last 32 years. Meanwhile, the level of annual budget deficits has grown enormously over this period of time. Continued deficit spending by the Federal Government will undoubtedly lead the Nation into more periods of economic stagnation and decline. The tax burdens which today's deficits will place on future generations of American workers is staggering. We must reverse the fiscal course of the Federal Government and a constitutional amendment is the only effective way to accomplish it. It is time for Congress to understand the simple fact that a government cannot survive by continuing to spend more money than it takes in. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment proposal has the support of many of our colleagues in the Congress, a Congress which holds diverse views on many issues. Supporters of a balanced budget amendment share an unyielding commitment to restoring sanity to a spending process which is out of control and hurling our Nation headlong toward economic disaster. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal so we may submit this important constitutional amendment to the States for ratification.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit Federal Judges from ordering new taxes or ordering increases in existing tax rates as a judicial remedy. In 1990, the Supreme Court decided in Missouri! v. Jenkins to allow Federal judges to order new taxes or tax increases as a judicial remedy. It is my firm belief that this narrow 5-4 decision permits Federal judges to exceed their proper boundaries of jurisdiction and authority under the Constitution. Mr. President, this ruling and Congressional response raises two constitutional issues which warrant discussion. One is whether Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to inject themselves into the legislative of taxation. The second constitutional issue arises in light of the Judicial Taxation Prohibition Act which I am now introducing to restrict the remedial jurisdiction of the Federal courts. This narrowly drafted legislation would prohibit Federal judges from ordering new taxes or ordering increases in existing tax rates. I believe it is clear under Article III that the Congress has the authority to restrict the remedial jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this fashion. First, I want to speak on the issue of judicial taxation. Not since Great Britiain's ministry of George Grenville in 1765, have the American people faced the assault of taxation without representation as now authorized in the Jenkins decision. As part of his imperial reforms to tighten British control in the colonies, Grenville pushed the Stamp Act through the Parliament in 1765. This act required excise duties to be paid by the colonists in the form of revenue stamps affixed to a variety of legal documents. This action came at a time when the colonies were in an uproar over the Sugar Act of 1764 which levied duties on certain imports such as sugar, indigo, coffee, linens, and other items. The ensuing firestorm of debate in America centered on the power of Britain to tax the colonies. James Otis, a young Boston attorney, echoed the opinion of most colonists stating that the Parliament did not have power to tax the colonies because Americans had no representation in that body. Mr. Otis had been attributed in 1761 with the statement that ``taxation without representation is tyranny.'' In October, 1765, delegates from nine States were sent to New York as part of the Stamp Act Congress to protest the new law. It was during this time that John Adams wrote in opposition to the Stamp Act: We have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle * * * that no freeman shall be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent, in person or by proxy. A number of resolutions were adopted by the Stamp Act Congress protesting the acts of Parliament. One resolution stated: It is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people * * * that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives. The resolutions concluded that the Stamp Act had a ``manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.'' Opposition to the Stamp Act was vehemently continued through the colonies in pamphlet form. These pamphlets asserted that the basic premise of a free government included taxation of the people by themselves or through their representatives. Other Americans reacted to the Stamp Act by rioting, intimidating collectors, and boycotts directed against England. While Grenville's successor was determined to repeal the law, the social, economic and political climate in the colonies brought on the American Revolution. The principles expressed during the earlier crisis against taxation without representation became firmly imbedded in our Federal Constitution or 1787. Yet, the Supreme Court has overlooked this fundamental lesson in American history. The Jenkins decision extends the power of the judiciary into an area which has traditionally been reserved as a legislative function within the Federal, State, and local governments. In the ``Federalist No. 48,'' James Madison explained that in our democratic system, ``the legislative branch alone has access to the pockets of the people.'' This idea has remained steadfast in America for over 200 years. Elected officials with authority to tax are directly accountable to the people who give their consent to taxation through the ballot box. The shield of accountability against unwarranted taxes has been removed now that the Supreme Court has sanctioned judicially imposed taxes. The American citizenry lacks adequate protection when they are subject to taxation by unelected, life tenured Federal judges. There are many programs and projects competing for a finite number of tax dollars. The public debate surrounding taxation is always intense. Sensitive discussions are held by elected officials and their constituents concerning increases and expenditures of scarce tax dollars. To allow Federal judges to impose taxes is to discount valuable public debate concerning priorities for expenditures of a limited public resource. Mr. President, the dispositive issue presented by the Jenkins decision is whether the American people want, as a matter of national policy, to be exposed to taxation without their consent by an independent and insulated judiciary. I most assuredly believe they do not. This brings us to the second constitutional issue which we must address in light of the Jenkins decision. That issue is congressional authority under the Constitution to limit the remedial jurisdiction of lower Federal courts established by the Congress. Article III, section 1, of the Constitution provides jurisdiction to the lower Federal courts as the ``Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' There is no mandate in the Constitution to confer equity jurisdiction to the inferior Federal courts. Congress has the flexibility under article III to ``ordain and establish'' the lower Federal courts as it deems appropriate. This basic premise has been upheld by the Supreme Court in a number of cases including Lockerty v. Phillips, Lauf v. E.G. Skinner and Co., Kline v. Burke Construction Co., and Sheldon v. Sill. This legislation would preclude the lower Federal courts from issuing any order or decree requiring imposition of ``any new tax or to increase any existing tax or tax rate.'' I firmly believe that this language is wholly consistent with congressional authority under article III, section 1 of the Constitution. There is nothing in this legislation which would restrict the power of the Federal courts from hearing constitutional claims. It accords due respect to all provisions of the Constitution and remedy which has traditionally been a legislative function. The objective of this legislation is straightforward, to prohibit Federal courts from increasing taxes. The language in this bill applies to the lower Federal courts and does not deny claimants judicial access to seek redress of any Federal constitutional right. Mr. President, how long will it be before a Federal judge orders tax increases to build new highways or prisons? I do not believe the Founding Fathers had this type of activism in mind when they established the judicial branch of Government. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law. The power to tax is an exclusive legislative right belonging to the Congress and governments at the State level. We are accountable to the citizens and must justify any new taxes. The American people deserve a timely response to the Jenkins decision and we must provide protection against the imposition of taxes by an independent judiciary. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this proposal be printed in the Record.