Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I, too, offer my thanks for his diligent efforts on our behalf. new york botanical garden

Mr. THOMPSON. If I may echo the sentiments of my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, that the joint project at Mountain Home represents a model relationship and combined effort between a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital and a medical school. The relationship provides both access to quality medical care for our veterans who are living at Mountain Home, and it provides a tremendous level of access to patients for the students and their teachers. Both the medical school and Mountain Home believe this relationship is critical to their success, and would like to further the level of cooperation.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation designed to improve the way Congress conducts its business. This legislation, entitled the ``Budget Process and Oversight Reform Act of 1996,'' would create a 2-year budget process, and provide designated times for Congress to conduct oversight and work in their home States or districts. As anyone who has followed Congress over the years knows, the changes proposed in this legislation are not new. However, in the past, proposals to create a 2-year budget and move toward a citizen legislature have languished in Congress. Mr. President, I will do everything in my power to assure that these proposals get the most thorough consideration. In fact, I have already begun the process of reviewing them in Congress. In late July, the Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Financial Management and Accountability, which I chair, held a hearing that began creating the record for legislative action that I hope will occur early in the next Congress. Surely, after our experience with the budget process over the last year and a half, most in Congress would agree that biennial budgeting is an idea whose time has finally come. Since I came to Congress, I have spent an unusually high percentage of my time considering matters related to the budget. No sooner did we finish working on the fiscal 1996 budget, then we had to start work on the budget for fiscal year 1997. Although I believe that a biennial budget will prevent recent history from being repeated, I do not believe that it is a panacea for all of our budget problems. It cannot bring the budget into balance--Members of the Senate and House, along with the President of the United States, must still make the tough choices to bring that about. And, it will not automatically solve the serious problems posed by the increased demand on entitlement programs as the next generation begins to retire. What a biennial budget can do is to give us time for the important tasks that often get short shrift these days, such as conducting oversight and long-range planning, and spending more time at home. The legislation that I am introducing today will ensure that time for oversight and work at home is set aside. Mr. President, let me briefly summarize the specifics of that legislation. First, the bill would create a 2-year budget process, and would require Congress to complete action on the budget by September 30 of the first session. If Congress misses that legal deadline, absent a national emergency, Members would not be paid. In addition, the legislation would require Congress to perform oversight of the executive branch during the second year of the Congressional session. Finally, the bill would require Congress to adjourn by July 31 of the second session. If Congress missed that legal deadline--again, absent a national emergency--Members would not be paid. Mr. President, I would like to explain how this legislation came about. Ever since I began campaigning for the Senate, I have expressed the view that we need to cut the pay of Members of Congress and send them home. This, too, is not a new idea. It was first advocated by former majority leader Howard Baker and reproposed by Governor Lamar Alexander during his Presidential campaign. The legislation I just described is the very first step in that direction. It shortens the amount of time that Members must devote to the budget process. However, in return, Members must spend more time overseeing the activities of the Federal Government and more time at home--either working with their constituents or pursuing the work that they engaged in before they came to Congress. I believe that these steps will help us re-create the citizen legislature that existed much earlier in this country's history. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these and other ideas to make Congress more responsive and efficient.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation designed to improve the way Congress conducts its business. This legislation, entitled the ``Budget Process and Oversight Reform Act of 1996,'' would create a 2-year budget process, and provide designated times for Congress to conduct oversight and work in their home States or districts. As anyone who has followed Congress over the years knows, the changes proposed in this legislation are not new. However, in the past, proposals to create a 2-year budget and move toward a citizen legislature have languished in Congress. Mr. President, I will do everything in my power to assure that these proposals get the most thorough consideration. In fact, I have already begun the process of reviewing them in Congress. In late July, the Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Financial Management and Accountability, which I chair, held a hearing that began creating the record for legislative action that I hope will occur early in the next Congress. Surely, after our experience with the budget process over the last year and a half, most in Congress would agree that biennial budgeting is an idea whose time has finally come. Since I came to Congress, I have spent an unusually high percentage of my time considering matters related to the budget. No sooner did we finish working on the fiscal 1996 budget, then we had to start work on the budget for fiscal year 1997. Although I believe that a biennial budget will prevent recent history from being repeated, I do not believe that it is a panacea for all of our budget problems. It cannot bring the budget into balance--Members of the Senate and House, along with the President of the United States, must still make the tough choices to bring that about. And, it will not automatically solve the serious problems posed by the increased demand on entitlement programs as the next generation begins to retire. What a biennial budget can do is to give us time for the important tasks that often get short shrift these days, such as conducting oversight and long-range planning, and spending more time at home. The legislation that I am introducing today will ensure that time for oversight and work at home is set aside. Mr. President, let me briefly summarize the specifics of that legislation. First, the bill would create a 2-year budget process, and would require Congress to complete action on the budget by September 30 of the first session. If Congress misses that legal deadline, absent a national emergency, Members would not be paid. In addition, the legislation would require Congress to perform oversight of the executive branch during the second year of the Congressional session. Finally, the bill would require Congress to adjourn by July 31 of the second session. If Congress missed that legal deadline--again, absent a national emergency--Members would not be paid. Mr. President, I would like to explain how this legislation came about. Ever since I began campaigning for the Senate, I have expressed the view that we need to cut the pay of Members of Congress and send them home. This, too, is not a new idea. It was first advocated by former majority leader Howard Baker and reproposed by Governor Lamar Alexander during his Presidential campaign. The legislation I just described is the very first step in that direction. It shortens the amount of time that Members must devote to the budget process. However, in return, Members must spend more time overseeing the activities of the Federal Government and more time at home--either working with their constituents or pursuing the work that they engaged in before they came to Congress. I believe that these steps will help us re-create the citizen legislature that existed much earlier in this country's history. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these and other ideas to make Congress more responsive and efficient.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I agree. SBIC Participating Security Program

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to designate the post office and courthouse in Cookeville, TN, the L. Clure Morton Post Office and Courthouse. I am also pleased that my collegue from Tennessee, Senator Bill Frist, is joining me as an original cosponsor. After graduating from the University of Tennessee's School of Law in 1936, L. Clure Morton spent 33 years in private practice and as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1970, President Richard Nixon appointed Morton a U.S. district court judge in Nashville, TN. Judge Morton was elevated to chief judge in 1977 and took senior status in 1984. Presently Judge Morton presides in the northeastern division and lives in Cookeville. Middlet Tennessee trial lawyers and judges alike comment on the absolute fairness, intellectual honesty, innovative sentencing, and no- nonsense manner in which Judge Morton conducted his courtroom over the past 26 years. A jurist of great courage, Judge Morton handled many controversial constitutional issues not addressed by his predecessors. He dealt resolutely with the issue of school integration in Nashville and reforms in Tennessee's prison, welfare, and mental health systems. The city council of Cookeville, TN, recently passed a resolution to recommend this name change of the U.S. post office and courthouse to honor Judge Morton. The resolution reads as follows: ``A resolution to (recommend to the United States Senate) rename the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building, 9 East Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee, as the L. Clure Morton Federal Building, to honor Judge L. Clure Morton on the occasion of his retirement. ``Whereas, the Honorable L. Clure Morton has announced his intention to leave active service as a United States judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, and retires to Knoxville; and ``Whereas, Judge Morton was appointed United States District Judge by President Richard Nixon in 1970, and has performed his duties with the utmost dedication and integrity for over 25 years; and ``Whereas, he has handled the entire Northeastern Division docket in Cookeville since 1970, and has presided exclusively in Cookeville, Tennessee since 1984; and ``Whereas, Judge Morton has ruled from the bench without passion or prejudice, seeking only to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States; and ``Whereas, Judge Morton is widely respected and admired by his peers and associates in the legal profession and by members of this community; and ``Whereas, this Council desires to recognize the outstanding and lasting contributions made by Judge Morton to the legal profession in middle Tennessee; and ``Whereas, Judge Morton's chambers and courtroom are located in the United States Courthouse and Post Office Building, 9 East Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee. Now, therefore, be it ``Resolved by the Cookeville City Council, That we recommend that the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building, 9 East Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee, which has housed an esteemed member of the judiciary and an outstanding public servant for over a quarter of a century, be renamed the L. Clure Morton Federal Building, in recognition for his significant contributions as a United States District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee.'' Middle Tennessee is a safer, fairer place because Judge Morton served on the bench. This legislation is an appropriate tribute to a man who so positively touched so many middle Tennesseeans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill we introduce today be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to designate the post office and courthouse in Cookeville, TN, the L. Clure Morton Post Office and Courthouse. I am also pleased that my collegue from Tennessee, Senator Bill Frist, is joining me as an original cosponsor. After graduating from the University of Tennessee's School of Law in 1936, L. Clure Morton spent 33 years in private practice and as a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1970, President Richard Nixon appointed Morton a U.S. district court judge in Nashville, TN. Judge Morton was elevated to chief judge in 1977 and took senior status in 1984. Presently Judge Morton presides in the northeastern division and lives in Cookeville. Middlet Tennessee trial lawyers and judges alike comment on the absolute fairness, intellectual honesty, innovative sentencing, and no- nonsense manner in which Judge Morton conducted his courtroom over the past 26 years. A jurist of great courage, Judge Morton handled many controversial constitutional issues not addressed by his predecessors. He dealt resolutely with the issue of school integration in Nashville and reforms in Tennessee's prison, welfare, and mental health systems. The city council of Cookeville, TN, recently passed a resolution to recommend this name change of the U.S. post office and courthouse to honor Judge Morton. The resolution reads as follows: ``A resolution to (recommend to the United States Senate) rename the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building, 9 East Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee, as the L. Clure Morton Federal Building, to honor Judge L. Clure Morton on the occasion of his retirement. ``Whereas, the Honorable L. Clure Morton has announced his intention to leave active service as a United States judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, and retires to Knoxville; and ``Whereas, Judge Morton was appointed United States District Judge by President Richard Nixon in 1970, and has performed his duties with the utmost dedication and integrity for over 25 years; and ``Whereas, he has handled the entire Northeastern Division docket in Cookeville since 1970, and has presided exclusively in Cookeville, Tennessee since 1984; and ``Whereas, Judge Morton has ruled from the bench without passion or prejudice, seeking only to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States; and ``Whereas, Judge Morton is widely respected and admired by his peers and associates in the legal profession and by members of this community; and ``Whereas, this Council desires to recognize the outstanding and lasting contributions made by Judge Morton to the legal profession in middle Tennessee; and ``Whereas, Judge Morton's chambers and courtroom are located in the United States Courthouse and Post Office Building, 9 East Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee. Now, therefore, be it ``Resolved by the Cookeville City Council, That we recommend that the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse Building, 9 East Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee, which has housed an esteemed member of the judiciary and an outstanding public servant for over a quarter of a century, be renamed the L. Clure Morton Federal Building, in recognition for his significant contributions as a United States District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee.'' Middle Tennessee is a safer, fairer place because Judge Morton served on the bench. This legislation is an appropriate tribute to a man who so positively touched so many middle Tennesseeans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill we introduce today be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator. I thank the majority leader for bringing this matter to the floor at this time. I thank my distinguished colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, for their leadership on this bill. I am proud to be one of the original cosponsors of this particular legislation. Mr. President, after having listened to over a day of debate on this issue, I think the question now could be simply put. Are we satisfied with our current system of financing Federal campaigns in this country? Do we think it is a good system? If we are not satisfied, are we willing to at least take the first step--perhaps not a perfect step-- toward doing something about it? I approach this from the standpoint of one who was recently a challenger and who is now an incumbent running for reelection in 2 years, having gotten the unexpired term of the Vice President for a 2- year term. I am now running as an incumbent for a full term. So I have seen it from both sides. I also approach it from the standpoint of one who made a commitment to the people of Tennessee that I will try to change the system that we have now working in Washington and that I was dissatisfied with the process by which our legislation is enacted. But I think it is fundamentally the business of the U.S. Congress to address how we elect our public officials, how long they stay, and what their motivations are when they get here. So I am delighted to be a part of this effort. The system now--let us take a look at the system that we have now. I believe I can be objective in describing it. Elections certainly cost more and more and more. We see Senate campaigns now that cost $10, $20, and $30 million. The combined expenditures in one Senate campaign were over $40 million. We have a system where more and more time is taken by Members of Congress, at a time when technology and all the demands of modern campaigning require campaigns to cost more and more. More and more, we, the Members of, supposedly, the world's greatest deliberative body, wind up having no time to deliberate anymore because of the fractured nature of our lives. For someone to run in a State such as mine, I have calculated that now it would be about $15,000 a week that I would have to raise, year in and year out, to run the kind of campaigns that would be traditionally raised in a State such as mine. Mr. President, that is not why I came to the U.S. Senate. We have a system now where more and more of the perception is that contributions are tied to legislation. Perhaps that was not a problem when the amounts were smaller. But now we see larger and larger contributions, usually soft money contributions, with regard to larger and larger issues, millions of dollars being spent, billions of dollars being decided by massive pieces of legislation in the U.S. Congress. We have a system where it is no longer ideological. The money does not flow to ideas. The money flows to power. Whoever is the incumbent party likes the system. Whoever is not the incumbent party plans on being the incumbent party. Democrats have killed this legislation for years, and now that the Republicans are in power, we are trying to return the favor. We have a system whereby, in individual cases, people are drawing closer and closer relationships with individual pieces of legislation and massive amounts of money that are being spent by the people affected by the legislation. We constantly see news stories, day in and day out. There is a strong perception among the American people that any system that costs so much money and any system that requires us to go to such great lengths to get that money cannot be on the level. We see, day in and day out, editorials across the country. Common Cause has compiled 261 editorials from 161 newspapers and publications. What they say is not a pretty picture. It is not that I necessarily agree with the analysis made of these articles, but this is the perception among editorial writers across the country--liberal papers and conservative papers. The most conservative paper in my home State, in Tennessee, the Chattanooga Free Press, a Republican paper, has one of the editorials contained in this compilation. What they say, I think, is what is perceived by the American people. They say that neither party wants to end the abuses. One of the editorials says, ``In Congress, Money Still Talks.'' Another says, ``New Year's Sale on Votes.'' Another says, ``Money Brings Votes.'' Another says, ``Congressmen Admit Being Bought by Contributions.'' Another says, ``Republican Reform; GOP Already Bought Off.'' Mr. President, that hurts. The Chattanooga Free Press in Tennessee says in its article--it entitles it, ``The Campaign Money Evil.'' Another article says, ``Getting What it Paid For,'' talking about American industry. Another says, ``Feeding Frenzy on the Hill,'' talking about us and our fundraising activities. Another says, ``Buying the Presidency.'' While we are not dealing with a Presidential campaign, if I heard it correctly on the Brinkley show, now, apparently, for $50,000 you can sleep in the Lincoln bed at the White House. Another says, ``NRA Buys Recent House Votes.'' You can say that----

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, that certainly seems more reasonable. Another says, ``Big Money Talks.'' Another says, ``Taste of Money Corrupts Politics.'' This is from Texas. Another says, ``The Great `Unsecret' of Politics.'' That is the relationship between contributions and votes. Another says, ``Legal Bribery Still Controls Congress.'' I do not believe that, but a lot of people believe that, and we have to ask ourselves why. Another says, ``Campaigns up for Sale.'' Mr. President, how much more of this can we stand as an institution? How can we go before the American people with the tough choices that we are going to have to be leading on, convincing the people, with no credibility? Ten percent of the people in this country have a great deal of confidence in Congress. Twelve percent have a great deal of confidence in the executive branch. Eighty percent of the people, at least, favor major change here. We always want to be responsive to the American people, until it comes to something that affects us and our livelihoods--whether it is term limits, campaign finance reform, or some other issue that affects us directly as politicians. Then we come up with all kinds of excuses why it will not work. We have a system where soft money, of course, has completely made a sham of the reforms that were put in place in earlier years. We all know that. It is a bipartisan problem. Soft money now is up 100 percent--a 100-percent increase--with hundreds of thousands in contributions, in many cases that we see. So there has been a 100- percent increase since the last election cycle. Now, that is the system, Mr. President. I do not think it is a very good one. I submit that it is not a good system. Some opponents of reform say there is not enough money in politics. It is not a question of too much; it is not enough; that $700 million spent in 1994 is not enough. They say that more money is spent on soap detergent advertisement, or whatever kinds of advertisement, than on political campaigning. I hope that that analogy will fall on its face without serious analysis, but a lot of people use that. No. 1, we are not in the soap-selling business. No. 2, if Procter & Gamble were advertising in a way that undermined the credibility of the company, they would not be doing it. No. 3, these businesses have only one goal, and that is profit. I would like to think that we have an additional goal in the U.S. Congress. Other opponents say that it restricts freedom and the ability to participate. This is, of course, a voluntary system, No. 1. And No. 2, we are not talking about mom and pop sitting around the kitchen table deciding how to distribute their $100 or $250 to a Presidential campaign or a senatorial campaign. They can still do that any way they want to do it. With regard to the PAC issue, which I will discuss in a moment, it simply means that if this legislation were passed, instead of sending it to a political action committee, they would have to make a decision themselves as to which candidate they wanted to send it to. There is no restriction of freedom here on anyone except those in Washington who receive all those minicontributions from various people and make the political decision as to how to use that money. Their freedom will be restricted somewhat. There is no limit whatsoever in this legislation on anybody's ability to participate in the process. People need to understand that. The current limitation we have is $1,000 on individual contributions. That is a limitation. That is the same limitation that we have here; no new limitation. Many people say that certainly we want reform. Everybody knows we need reform. ``It is a lousy system but not this reform. I would support it, if this particular feature was in, or out,'' or whatnot. I think that it is tempting to want to have it both ways; to be for reform but never be for a reform measure. Some people say it is an incumbent protection business, like my friend Senator Bennett. I take a different view from that. I think that under the system now he is certainly correct. Incumbents have substantial advantage. What this legislation would do is, let us say, at least place some limitation on the major incumbent advantage; and that is the ability to raise unlimited amounts of money. The incumbents are still going to have the advantages that they always had. But at least you are saying to that incumbent if he voluntarily chooses to participate that there will be some cap on the amount of money that you spend. You are an incumbent now. The money is going to come to you not because people believe in you in many, many cases any more but simply because you are an incumbent, and you have the power and authority at that point. They say, ``Well, it restricts people from coming in and spending enough money to overcome the incumbent.'' How often does that happen in the real world? When it happens, it is somebody who is an extremely wealthy individual. And it happens then sometimes. So you wind up with professional politicians on the one hand who are able to raise large sums of money because they are incumbents, and wealthy individuals on the other. That is what our system is becoming-- those two classes of people and nobody else. This legislation would level the playing field and let more people of average means participate. This bill is voluntary. Under it campaigns will cost less. I think that is the crucial feature. A lot of us who support this legislation have different ideas about that. To me the PAC situation is not a crucial feature. Opponents are certainly correct when they point out that the PAC's were a reform measure in and of themselves in 1974 in the aftermath of Watergate. We thought that would substantially reform the process, and now PAC's are an anathema to a lot of people. The fact of the matter is--and both sides should understand and know this--that people, whether they be businesses or labor unions or whoever, individuals can still send money in. They can still contribute. They can still get together and decide that they want to individually send contributions in. In my campaign I ran against an individual that did not accept PAC money. He got all of the same kind of money that he wanted. It is a little more cumbersome. But we are not eliminating special interest money if we eliminate PAC's. So to me that is more of a symbolic measure than it is anything else. The real crucial measure is limiting the overall amounts of money--that $500 million that was spent in congressional races in the last election time. It will take less time. It will allow my colleagues to spend the time on the things that they were elected to do. I believe it would level the playing field; 90 percent of all incumbents--in this revolution that was supposedly having all this turnover of all of those who want to be reelected--90 percent are reelected. For those of my friends who always look and see who supports a piece of legislation before they decide whether they are for it or against it, and all of them who decry the trial lawyers and the AFL-CIO and the, well you finally found something that you all agree on because they are all in agreement with the opponents of this legislation that this is a bad piece of legislation. So maybe they will lay off those groups for a little while in the future. Mr. President, this is not a division any longer of business versus labor or of Democrats versus Republicans. It is a division of people who want to change the system and those who genuinely do not believe that we ought to have it. I would like to think that this is reform time. I would think that this would do more to assist in our attempt to balance the budget than anything else because much of the pressure that this process has within, in it is pressure to spend money. It would be a genuine reform measure. The lobbying and gift reform measures were something long overdue. We needed to do it. But we are in a situation now where you cannot buy me a $50 meal or a $51 meal but you can go out and get together a few hundred thousand dollars for me for my campaign. So that does not make a whole lot of sense. I do not think that we ought to get in a situation where we are for reform until it affects us individually and our livelihood when we are affecting everybody else's livelihood on a daily basis. I think it should not be viewed with suspicion among my Republican colleagues. I think too often that we are trying to figure out how this is going to benefit them, or us. The fact of the matter is we do not know. There is no way to figure it. There is no way to tell. It depends on swings. Sometimes we are going to be in. Sometimes we are going to be out. Sometimes a new scheme might hurt us. Sometimes it might help us. But the bottom line is that we should not be afraid of fundamental reform that the American people want, that we all know that we need, and we should get back to winning not on the basis of who can raise the most money but on the basis of the competition of ideas. That is what we pride ourselves in. That is why we think we were successful last time. That is why we think we will be successful again. Let us get back to that concept. It is for those reasons that I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do so. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we continue down the road toward bankrupting our country. The fact that I keep repeating this, and that others keep repeating this and perhaps we get used to hearing this, does not make it any less true. It cannot be repeated often enough. And behind closed doors Democrats, Republicans, people in the Congress, people in the White House, all admit what has to be done to keep from turning this country into one that is second rate when we leave it to our kids. The most frustrating part of the last year and a half that I have spent in the U.S. Senate is witnessing close up the fact that we do not have the ability or the willpower to do what we all know is necessary and what we all know is the right thing to do. That is why I believe that our last clear chance to do so is undoubtedly a constitutional amendment to require us to balance the budget. We all know that Medicare is on its way to insolvency. We all know that Social Security is on its way to insolvency. We claim to have reached a consensus in this country that we need a balanced budget--not only that but that we need to balance it with real numbers and not phony numbers; and, not only that, that we need to do it in 7 years. But with all of this knowledge and all of this consensus and agreement behind closed doors and all of this coming together in terms of what needs to be done, we cannot take the first step. We have spent the last year to year and a half proving to the American people that we cannot really take the first step toward doing what we know has to be done. And yet there are those among us who continue to say we do not need a balanced budget amendment. Of course, we need to balance the budget, but we do not need a balanced budget amendment to require us to do so. All we have to do is to do the right thing. I challenge anyone to give any evidence over the last year, year and a half that we have shown any ability or will to do the right thing. It does not exist. We talk about a 7-year balanced budget. The President has a proposal. We have a proposal. Under the best of circumstances, even if either of these proposals were adopted, it is doubtful that it would be carried out; the proposals are back-end loaded. The President has some 60 something billion of cuts in the last 2 years of that 7-year time period. It is extremely doubtful, to say the least, that those cuts would actually be made when the time came. It is a matter of rolling our sins forward for yet a few more years when most of us are out of office and do not have to face the consequences and under the assumption that future Congresses will have the courage that we do not have except we are making their job tougher than the one we have today. Even if it does happen, even if we get everything we want, for example, on this side of the aisle, we are looking at the end of that road at a $6 trillion debt. We are looking at the end of that road at the imminent retirement of the baby boomers. And the people who keep up with the demographics point out to us what that is going to mean. By the year 2030, there will be twice as many people over the age of 65 as there were in 1990 and only 20 percent more workers, so those people paying in those FICA taxes for those retirement programs are going to be dwindling in number while the retirees are expanding. We all know what the results of that are going to be. We all know we cannot continue down this road, and yet it is another election year and so the President vetoes our attempt to balance the budget. He opposes our attempt to pass a constitutional amendment, and our friends on the other side of the aisle fall in in lockstep. Mr. President, this is not an esoteric economic issue. It is about the future of this country and the kind of America we are going to leave and what it is going to look like to our kids. What it is going to look like is astronomical tax rates they are going to be paying if we continue the spending pattern that we have had. It is going to mean astronomical interest rates that they are going to be paying. It is going to mean more and more reliance on foreign money and foreign investment coming into this country to help us pay the interest on the debt. It is going to mean diminished savings. We already have the lowest savings rate in the industrialized world, the United States of America does, one of the lowest investment rates in the industrialized world in the United States of America. That is why we are looking at such low growth rates. You add to that the taxes that are going to be necessary to finance this astronomical debt as it goes out here, the interest rates that are going to come from that, and you are talking about economic disaster that is facing us. There is really not any serious debate about that. And all those people who complain about any kind of effort to balance the budget because they are looking out for the kids, they are looking out for the elderly, they are looking out for the young folks, what are you going to say to those young folks then when they cannot even go out and buy their first home when they start their families? What are you going to say when they cannot even buy a car because of the interest rates? And the tax rates they are going to pay. It will not make sense to work any more under those circumstances. Yet we heard in the last couple days now the latest bid in the tax cut game from the President is to finance 2 years of college for people. I can only say we can debate that issue later, but we better be financing maybe 10 or 15 years of college for people because they better stay in college. There are not going to be any jobs out there for them at the rate we are going. Everybody cannot go to college and stay forever. There has to be a work force out there, and they have to have reasonable interest rates to pay when they go to buy the items to build their family. They will have no need to buy a home. We are making it so they will not be able to do that. We are the first generation in our history that even considered borrowing against our kids and those yet unborn to finance our own consumption. That is shameful. That is what we are doing. And yet we continue to say we do not need a constitutional amendment; we just need to do the right thing, when today, even today, every man, woman, and child is paying $1,000 a year just to finance the interest on the debt. Some say, well, we are making progress. We passed the largest tax increase in the history of the world, and we temporarily reduced the deficit, knowing that when the baby boomers start retiring in the next few years, it looks as if a rate that is slowing down is going to go off the charts in an upward direction. We say, well, look at what we did last year: We cut $23 billion from the budget from the year before. A drop in the bucket, Mr. President. We did not touch any of those areas that are increasing, some at the rate of 10 percent a year, that are going to have to be reformed if there is any hope of saving them. Yet now we hear all of the same old arguments against the balanced budget amendment--we should not be tinkering with the Constitution. And I certainly think we should not be tinkering with the Constitution. But the Founding Fathers assumed that changed circumstances required us to seriously address our Constitution from time to time. I would say the circumstances have changed. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington never thought about the possibility of bankrupting the next generation before they were even born. Those are the changed circumstances we are looking at today. I would also say, Mr. President, if we have an economic meltdown in this country, there are going to be changes in regulations, there are going to be changes in statutory law, and, yes, there are going to be changes in the Constitution that are worse than our worst nightmares right now about what those changes might be. So the answer to that is to make some reasonable changes to get us on a flight path that shows some possibility of saving ourselves from ourselves. Is that a pitiful situation or not? Of course it is. It should not be that way. But we have given ourselves now ample opportunity under all kinds of circumstances to so-called do the right thing, and yet here we are a year, a year and a half later. Every time somebody makes a proposal, the other side goes on television with 30-second attack ads to make sure we do not do anything responsible, because this is an election year. And yet they say we do not need a constitutional amendment. I say we need to do whatever is necessary to keep from handing this country over to our kids in a way that we would certainly not want our parents to have handed it over to us, and they, in fact, did not. The other argument we hear, of course, is one that the opponents of the balanced budget amendment want to protect Social Security. Mr. President, in my brief time here I have learned that if you want to stop something, if you want to throw a roadblock in the way of something being accomplished, you run out the old Social Security red herring and try your best to scare the elderly, because if you can scare the elderly, you can create enough temporary political confusion that you can prevent any kind of reform. This is, of course, what has happened again. Six of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in 1994, when there was no chance of a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget passing, voted for the amendment. Last year, when we had a real good shot at getting it passed, we fell one vote short. One Senator switched back and voted against the constitutional amendment. And the reason for that is they discovered that it might have endangered Social Security in some way. The argument goes that because we include the receipts that go into Social Security and the expenditures that go out of Social Security in the entire budget, in some way that is endangering that program, and if we somehow pulled it out and set it over here to the side, that in some way would protect it. Of course, it is an appeal to fear. It is an appeal to ignorance. It has no relationship to reality. It has been pointed out on this floor by my Republican and Democratic colleagues alike. Senator Simon of Illinois just the other day, of course, pointed it out as a fig leaf that some will try to hide behind because they do not want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Time magazine called that argument ``mendacious nonsense,'' the idea that the constitutional amendment to balance the budget would somehow endanger Social Security. The fact of the matter is, only if we get the reforms necessary to keep from bankrupting this country can we protect and preserve Social Security. So the contrary of that argument is the case. Not to mention the fact that all we are doing is treating it the way that we have been treating it for three decades in this country, Democrat and Republican administrations alike. President Clinton's last budget kept it all together, just the way we have always done. We did not hear any cries from our friends on the other side of the aisle when that happened. They voted for it. They voted for that budget, to keep all Government revenues and all Government expenditures together. You are not looking at a realistic situation if you do not consider them together. We all agreed on that. So the Johnny-come-lately argument. Not to mention the fact that if, in some way, Social Security was sequestered from the entire budgetary process, that would make, of course, balancing the budget impossible because it would require $360 billion more cuts than what we have to make now. We have shown we cannot do what is necessary now, but if the income and the outflow of Social Security were taken out of it, we would have to cut programs another $360 billion. The opponents of the balanced budget amendment know this. They know it would make it absolutely impossible to be workable under those circumstances. We strained and fought for a year and a half. We got $23 billion in cuts--not $360 billion, but $23 billion. But the point they make is that Social Security is now in surplus, so if you put it all together in the general budget, the general budget is getting the benefit of Social Security because it is in surplus and it makes the deficit look smaller. And it is true. It is true. That is the way the books are kept, and that is true, when you talk about for the next 15 years, for the general budget. You know, those are Americans, too, getting the benefit of the general budget. Many of the same people who get the benefit of Social Security get the benefit of the programs in the general budget. But for the next 15 years, the numbers on the Social Security side will assist on the general budget side. And that is true. But typical of the way that we think in Washington, DC--which is, if we are lucky, a couple of inches past our nose--we are not looking down the road. We are not caring about anybody but ourselves. We are not even caring about our own children. Because look at 16 years out. Social Security is in surplus now, but along about 2011, Social Security goes into the red, and we will be paying out more in Social Security, at a steeper and steeper rate, than we are taking in. So, by being a part of the general budget, under those circumstances Social Security gets the benefit of that, because where is the money going to come from to make the Social Security payments if not from the general budget? Nobody, no opponent of this measure, is coming here and saying we need more Social Security taxes. Nobody wants to advocate this. So where is the money going to come from? The point is, approximately $850 billion annually will be needed by the year 2030 to fund Social Security, to pay current the liability over and above payroll tax receipts. So, by the year 2030, Social Security is going to need $850 billion from somewhere. We are in surplus now, but here is what it is going to look like starting about 2011. But by 2030, we have dug a real big deep ditch for ourselves. Nobody wants to talk about that. Mr. President, just to repeat, the so-called saving Social Security by not going along with the bookkeeping entry that we have done for three decades, Democrats and Republicans, is a total red herring, a figleaf to hide behind by those who do not want to stop the culture of spend, spend, spend, and hopefully elect, elect, elect in a campaign year. Mr. President, in conclusion, I urge we take what I referred to earlier as this last clear chance that I believe we have this year to take that first step--it is not a solution; goodness knows we are a long, long way from a solution--but to take this first step toward doing something responsible so we can hand this country over to our kids and to our grandkids in halfway decent shape, the way our parents and forefathers did for us. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment reserves the Presidential election campaign fund checkoff system as it is today. The budget resolution instructions direct the Finance Committee to terminate the current checkoff system which funds the Presidential campaign fund. In its place, the Finance Committee is directed to allow taxpayers to make a voluntary contribution to the fund out of their tax refund, should they have one. This provision in the budget resolution will effectively terminate this post-Watergate reform. It is a system that has worked better than any of the rest of our campaign finance system, which is of great concern to many people. I do not think it is wise to single out the system and the part of it that is working the best and do away with it. It has been scandal free. It has made for a more level playing field. Three out of the last four challengers to incumbent Presidents have won. The next question is, what do we replace it with if, in fact, this is the demise of the current system? Do we go back to pre-Watergate?

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. I will accept a voice vote.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment 3981.

Mr. THOMPSON. With the provision I could ask for a rollcall vote subsequently.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Probably 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMPSON. I am happy to.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator. I would be delighted.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to delete the mandatory assumption in the pending resolution which directs the Finance Committee to repeal the current system of financing the Presidential election campaign fund. The budget resolution directs the Finance Committee to change the checkoff to a direct contribution to be taken from tax refunds. Mr. President, as you know, we have a system now whereby our Presidential election campaigns are funded by a checkoff system where taxpayers can check off up to $3 to finance the Presidential campaign. What the budget resolution would do is to change that to a situation where a person would have to take money out of their own pocket from tax refunds in order to voluntarily contribute toward this fund. There is no question but what the result of that would be. It would be to eventually destroy the fund and the system we have now, at a time when everybody is concerned about the way their Government is operated, the way their Government is perceived, and the cynicism that so many people have toward their Government, toward the role of money in their Government, and toward the role of money and the amount of money-- tremendous sums--that is necessary to finance Presidential campaigns, Senate campaigns, and congressional campaigns. At this particular time, the budget resolution takes exactly the wrong move toward all of this. We ought to be going in the opposite direction. There is a reason that we have the system that we have today. Along about 1973, we had an affair called Watergate. We heard testimony during that period of time about large suitcases full of money going around and cash being collected from around the country from very substantial individuals and groups of individuals, and about those suitcases of cash being brought back here. In that particular Presidential race--it was a bipartisan problem--I remember one of the treasurers for one of the Democratic candidates in the primary wound up going to jail because of some of the things that we investigated. But very substantial with regard to the President's reelection campaign, this was a major problem that resulted in them spending that year about twice as much in real dollars--in current dollars--as was spent in the last Presidential campaign. So we were awash with money, we were awash with cash, and we were awash with concern in this country that the wrong people were having too much influence on the outcome of our Presidential races. So this did not just appear out of the blue. It was because of a very real concern. I hope that we do not have such a short attention span in this country that we do not even remember things like that entire affair called Watergate back in 1973. The result of the reform that came from that--there were several reforms, some were good, some were not so good--was PAC contributions or the political action system itself which was built up during that particular time. But one of the results--on the Presidential level anyway--was that we really got more participation and have had more participation by American citizens in the Presidential campaign process than we have in other elections in this country. Taxpayers somewhere in the range of 15 to 20 percent participate in this program. Taxpayers participate to other elections in the range of about 7 percent. Another result that has been derived from the system that we have now is that it has been virtually scandal free. We certainly cannot say that about any other part of our system. It has also leveled the playing field. I think that many of us are undoubtedly concerned about the extraordinary advantages that money brings. And we have this debate with regard to Senate campaigns; congressional campaigns. That is another debate that we certainly are going to have in this body before long, and something that is of concern to me. But because of the Presidential system that we have now we really have developed a pretty level playing field where there has been an incumbent involved. In three out of four of the last Presidential elections challengers have had one. So by almost any measure at a time when very few things seem to work properly, and at a time when people certainly are not satisfied with the role of money and the amount of money in our entire political system, it would seem that on this Presidential level anyway the system has worked better than any other. The question that you have to ask yourself is, If we do away with the system that we have now, what are we going to replace it with? If we go to a system that is going to generate fewer and fewer dollars, as without any question this would, we are eventually going to have to have a situation where people opt out of it. Only about three people have I think ever opted out of it since we have had it. But you will have more and more people who will opt out of it and go back under the old system. And if you think raising $1 million or $4 million for a Senate campaign in increments of $1,000 or less is a lot of fun, somebody ought to try raising $90 million under that system. So it will be a total impossible mess where candidates will be spending absolutely all of their time years in advance in trying to raise these relatively small amounts of money, and the people who can raise those moneys for them, of course, become more and more influential in policy. So we are not leaving ourselves any fallback here, and we do not have anything to replace the current system with. There is no doubt that the current Presidential checkoff system and the current Presidential financing system could be improved somewhat. It seems that my party has front-end loaded the primaries and pushed the convention further back which places great difficulties on candidates who have contested primaries. We may have outsmarted ourselves there. The President this year does not have a contested primary. So you must look to see whether or not there are those allotments where you can raise so much money and individual States by so much and by such and such increments, and all of that. I would not care to put all of that on the table. I think we can look at absolutely all of that and adjust that in a way that would improve our overall system. But the basic proposition that we need a system at the Presidential level--I think otherwise, too, but again another debate--we need a system at the Presidential level where at least the fellow or the person that we elect as President of the United States does not have the additional baggage of being perceived to be elected by special interests at a time when cynicism is the biggest problem probably facing our Government because it permeates everything else. As I said, this is exactly the wrong direction to go in. Therefore, I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMPSON. That is fine with me.

Mr. THOMPSON. While we are on that subject, if it is agreeable to everybody else, I will defer to my friend, if he wishes. Would the Senator prefer that, or would he prefer me to go ahead?

Mr. THOMPSON. May I inquire of the Senator from Illinois how much time he needs? Since we are on that subject, it might be best if he goes first.