Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until 10:30 a.m. on Friday, April 7, and that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period for routine morning business until the hour of 1 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session of the Senate. The Senate will conduct routine morning business only.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a Senators permitted to speak for not to exceed 5 minutes each.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Pressler.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 58, the adjournment resolution, just received from the House; that the concurrent resolution be considered and agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Cohen, Roth, and Jeffords, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership in this area and also the Senator from Pennsylvania for his eloquent remarks and for his leadership in this area, both in the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate. He, as usual, assesses the problem very precisely. I would like to lend my remarks to my own assessment of the situation as we begin this debate because we are indeed addressing one of the most fundamental problems facing the Nation at this time. I think if one true thing can be said about the welfare system, it is that the American people have overwhelmingly concluded that we have a mess on our hands and an intractable problem that we must do something about for the preservation of our society as we know it. Too often the program has been run by the wrong level of government, by the wrong people. We have spent $5 trillion trying to address the welfare program in this Nation, and we have created more poverty, more out-of-wedlock births, a higher crime rate, more dependency than we ever thought would be possible. If the Federal Government had deliberately gone out and tried to wreak such havoc with $5 trillion, it would not have been able to do it, yet we have done by accident what could not be done by design. Mr. President, I think it would be appropriate, as we address this problem, that we do so with a certain amount of humility. We are not the first people to address this problem. This is not the first time the Senate has addressed it. This is not the first time the House of with us for many years. It has been growing and growing. Many people have come up with different ideas and different people of good faith can have different ideas about this. So I think as we proceed into this debate, we ought to be openminded. We ought to be constructive. I think there is only one thing that we should not tolerate and that is the status quo. We have a miserable system now that is in large part participating in the decline of the United States of America; a country that we have all grown up in and has been the strongest, most powerful and most respected Nation not only in the world but in the history of the world. The time has come for change. It seems to me these problems fester and are debated for years on end, but finally there comes a time when we really have to face up to them. I think we are beginning to do that in the Senate, and in the Congress of the United States with regard to many areas for the first time. We are talking about changing the way we do business in the Congress of the United States, and there is no more clear example of that than our approach to the problems in our welfare system. I think that going into it we can certainly conclude there are certain things that have been proven not to work. We know, for example, that merely throwing money into a failed system is not the answer. We could have taken all of the assets of all the Fortune 500 companies in America and given those assets to the poor and still have saved money. That alone gives us some indication of the amount of money we have poured into a system, and a rising poverty level indicates the results we have achieved from that money. I think it is also clear that large Federal programs are not the answer. We are now talking about workfare. We are talking about job training as if this was the first time these ideas have come about. Some people think if you take a little more money out of this pot and put it in here or if we reduce a program a little bit and add it to another, if we fine tune it enough, we are smart enough that we can come up with the right solution to solve this problem from Washington, DC. We have been trying this for 30 years to no avail. We are dealing with a single problem, and that is poverty. It is a problem that has many causes. We are trying with one set of overlay programs from Washington, DC, to cover situations where on the one hand we have a person who is trying to get off welfare and trying their best to get out of a temporary hardship; on the other hand we have people who have been on welfare for generations and have no interest in working until they are absolutely forced to do so. The same program from Washington, DC, cannot cover the myriad of conditions and circumstances that we face. There are certain principles we can adhere to as we begin to address this problem, and one is that we must give the States more flexibility. We must get this problem down closer to the people who can see their neighbors, who know the person down the street or across the way, and who knows who is trying and who is not trying and who legitimately needs help and who should be told it is time to go to work. All of the innovation that has taken place in this country with regard to the welfare problem in the last decade has been at the State and local level. We have to take advantage of those innovations and those remarkable Governors we see all across this Nation who are coming up with solutions and trying different things under heavy criticism and heavy barrages of acrimonious statements but are standing tall and standing strong and changing those programs and showing that certain basic programs and changes of motivation of people can really work and help the system. We should not be embarrassed to ask local churches, local communities, private organizations to step up to the plate and do more. That is the way it used to be in this country. It is not turning back the clock. It is a way of moving forward. I still believe that this country is full of well-meaning, caring, big-hearted people who, if they knew the nature of the problem, they knew someone down the way who really was having a hard time, would be willing to jump in and lend a hand. If it were brought to our attention and we had the responsibility and felt the responsibility to do something about it, there are millions of people out there who would be willing to step forward and do something about it. They cannot take care of the whole problem, and we cannot turn over the whole problem to them overnight, but they have to be brought back into the system. People have to feel a sense of responsibility for their neighbors the way they used to in this country. We have to have a system that pays more to work than it does not to work. As I travel around the State of Tennessee and go into these little restaurants and coffee shops and see these young women working hard, many hours a day, some of them with a child or maybe two children at home, never been on welfare, you talk to them, working at low-wage jobs trying their best, working hard, and they see someone down the street from them or across the road who does not work, who has never worked and are netting out more than they are in terms of take-home pay, they see that, Mr. President. People see that. It has a debilitating effect on them and our country. It has a debilitating effect on these people, young people especially, who are not into the welfare mentality, who have worked all their lives and want to work, and we are delivering a message to them that really it pays more sometimes not to work. We have to change a system like that. As the Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, there will be those against reform. There will be those who want to stay with the status quo. A lot of people have done very well on the system that we have. A lot of people in Washington, DC, elected representatives over the years by sending out more money and getting more votes have done very well for themselves under the current system. Certainly the bureaucracies that run the tremendous system that we have now, that siphon off most of the money before it ever gets to anybody that it can help, have done very well under the system. They will come up with every horror story known to man to keep from having to do without a little more money for their agency or a few less jobs as we try to move this down to the State and local level where the problem is and where people know what to do better to solve that problem. So, Mr. President, these are my observations as we go into this debate. We have a problem on which we all agree. We all know that we have been trying for years to do something about it, essentially nibbling around the edges. I think we have all concluded now that the time has come for action; that we must take bold action; we must change. We are better than this. We cannot go down the road to destruction of this Nation. The people who genuinely need help in this country deserve a better system, and the people who work hard for a living and pay for this system deserve better. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I sat in your chair on Tuesday, when the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia made an eloquent argument against this bill. I agree with him that Senators should take great care to consider the Constitution. And his arguments were very helpful to me, as I am sure they were to all our colleagues. I believe that the Abraham amendment addresses the constitutional arguments that Senator Byrd raised concerning orphan bills. The original Dole substitute prompted questions concerning the constitutional requirement of article I, section 7, that a bill that has passed the House and Senate must be presented to the President for his approval or disapproval. Under the original Dole substitute, neither House would have passed the orphan bills in that form. However, both Houses would have passed the same legislative language. Even without the Abraham amendment, S. 4 is constitutional. Congress has the power under article I, section 5 to establish its rules. We can enact a rule that deems an item of a bill to be a bill. More importantly, the Supreme Court has held that it is a political question whether both Houses have actually passed the same language if the bill that is presented to the President is authenticated by both the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate. In other words, courts afford conclusive effect to a congressional determination that both Houses have passed identical bills. But there can be no doubt that the Abraham amendment removes any question under the presentment clause. And I commend my fellow freshman for his significant contribution. There is little doubt that when this bill becomes law, a constitutional challenge will be raised. And that challenge will go all the way to the Supreme Court. And the result will be an important Supreme Court decision on separation of powers. When courts consider a constitutional challenge to a statute, a level of deference is paid to congressional resolution of the constitutional issue. This Senator's remarks are not legislative history in the sense that they illuminate statutory language. But they do demonstrate that Congress had expressly considered and resolved constitutional issues raised by the bill. Courts will therefore provide the level of respect due to a coordinate branch's considered constitutional conclusion. So I will take this opportunity to address some of the constitutional arguments that have been raised apart from the presentation clause. The charge is made that this bill would transfer power, in particular the power of the purse, unconstitutionally from the legislative branch to the President. But this is not the case. It cannot truly be said that Congress alone has the power of the purse. Like so many powers in the Federal Government, the power of the purse is not vested solely in one branch of government. Powers are shared as well as separated in our constitutional system. The branches do not operate as hermits in splendid isolation. They need each other. They were designed to function with each other, and occasionally even against each other. The authority that each branch legitimately exercises sometimes overlaps with the legitimate authority of another branch. It is this mutual dependence that makes checks and balances possible. And it is this system of checks and balances that reduces the likelihood that the Government will trample over the liberties of the people. The power of the purse is a classic example of a shared power. It is true that if Congress will not appropriate money for an expenditure, money from the Federal Treasury cannot be spent for that purpose. But it is also the case that an appropriation is not made merely because Congress votes to create it. The President shares the power of the purse. If he signs the appropriations bill, the money is appropriated-- not because the Congress voted for it, expenditure. One person's opinion in the executive branch counts as much as the vote of the Congress. And if the President vetoes the expenditures, then the President's power of the purse counts more than up to two-thirds of both Houses. If the appropriation fails, that does not mean that Congress has transferred any power to the President. S. 4 is fully consistent with the constitutional arrangement that the Founders created. Indeed, the better argument is not that the bill would transfer power to the President that the President never had, but that it restores to the President the power that Congress wrested away from him. In the early years of the Republic, appropriations bills were essentially line items. Congress simply did not pass appropriations bills that contained hundreds or thousands of items and that directed the spending of billions of dollars. Rather, Congress acted on each item on its merits. And the President signed or vetoed the item on its merits. Over the years, the level playing field the Framers anticipated has been tilted sharply in favor of the Congress. Late in the session, Congress passes enormous bills with a large number of provisions of varying merit. Not only is the bill presented to the President, but so is a Hobson's choice: Sign the bill and let it become law regardless of the merits of some of its line items, or veto the bill and shut down a department of Government upon which every American depends. Unlike Congress, Presidents have historically been responsible, and have prevented the Government from shutting down by accepting Congress' terms. By passing individual items, Congress will give the President only the power that the Framers always intended for him to exercise. Even apart from the supposed loss of power that Congress will suffer, it is also contended that under this measure the Senate will lose power at the expense of the other body. Because the other body is normally the one where appropriation bills originate, the decision whether to override the veto of an item that originated in the Senate is solely up to the other body. If they do not override vetoes of such items, the Senate cannot work its will. Of course, that can happen now as well. If an appropriations bill is vetoed, and the President successfully persuades the American people that the bill should have been vetoed because of items that the Senate insisted upon, the other body may choose not to override the bill. The Senate cannot then succeed in overriding the veto. Under the new system, that may occur as well, but the Senate will not be defenseless. The other body may choose to override vetoes of items of its choice. But if the Senate does not concur, the House's override vote will be meaningless. In practice, both bodies will cooperate to override vetoes of each other's truly important items because each House has the power of mutually assured destruction of the other's vetoed items. The language of the Constitution rarely answers the difficult questions. It is necessary to examine the court decisions. And no Supreme Court decision has ever struck down a statute based upon a generalized contention that it violates the separation of powers. Many specific constitutional provisions together create the doctrine of the separation of powers. Only if the statute violates one or more of those specific provisions is the Constitution violated. No one has made an effective argument that S. 4 violates any specific constitutional provision. Therefore, S. 4 complies in every respect with the Constitution. In fact, it restores the constitutional balance between the President and Congress that was originally contemplated. And it does not change the balance of power between the two Houses. Its enactment today will be a historic step in making Congress more accountable for its spending decisions, one which will preserve, not harm, the liberties of the American people.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, first of all I want to thank the Senator from Arizona, along with the Senator from Indiana, who has shown such leadership in this area for so many years. I welcome the opportunity to assist in the effort. Mr. President, the debate is now joined on the line-item veto and we are hearing the arguments for and against. It has been joined before. It has been discussed many times in this body. Hopefully, this time it will pass. I think the time has come. The American people demand it and the country needs it. It has been said that the line-item veto or enhanced rescissions will not in and of itself balance the budget. And that is certainly true. It will require a President who is willing to use the tool that is given to him, and use it firmly. And, I might add, it will also require a President who will not use it simply to reprioritize his own programs over those programs of the Congress. But while we are debating the likely effectiveness of this issue, I think it is important that we remember why we are engaging in this debate at all, why the line-item veto is brought up again year after year in this body, the reason for its overwhelming popularity among people in this country it has now become a virtual battle cry. Mr. President, the short answer is that it is because we as a people are struggling mightily in this country, some might even say desperately, for ways to restrain Congress from irresponsible spending, for ways to stop Congress from continuing down the road of fiscal irresponsibility and the eventual bankruptcy of the United States of America. Congress, in times past, has shown that it cannot restrain itself. We continue to look at $200 billion deficits every year as far as the eye can see. We have debated in this body, over a period of 60 years or more, the need for a balanced budget. We have reached almost unanimous consensus, even in the debate over the balanced budget amendment, that, yes, indeed, we must move toward a balanced budget, we must exercise some fiscal restraint. Year after year over that period of time, we have passed resolutions calling for a balanced budget. We have required the President to submit budgets to Congress that were in balance. We even passed a law in 1979 making it the law of this land that the budget be balanced by 1981. And, of course, when 1981 rolled around, another substantial deficit. Even our own laws were ignored by us. In 1981, Congress was concerned, the entire Nation was concerned, as the debate turned toward the fact that we were approaching a $1 trillion debt in this country. Those were dire circumstances. Now we are approaching a $5 trillion debt. Not only have we failed legislatively, Mr. President, but we have proven that we cannot restrain ourselves by means of a constitutional amendment. The balanced budget amendment failed in this body, even though it enjoyed the overwhelming support of the American people. Appeals to self-interest and fear and shortsightedness carried the day once again in this body. Social Security, the last refuge of those in Congress who panic at the very thought of putting the lid on the pork barrel, was trotted out once again, even though we all know that the greatest threat and the only threat to Social Security is to continue down the road of deficit spending, is to do nothing and maintain the pattern that we have maintained in this Congress for so many years, because we all know within a few years, it is going into the red and we must have the farsightedness to address that now. This is part of what we are about today, Mr. President. Now, having failed legislatively, having failed to adopt a constitutional amendment, the American people are saying that we should at least give the President of the United States the opportunity to have the most egregious, the most unnecessary, and the most wasteful spending measures made a little bit more difficult--not to make them impossible--to make them a little bit more difficult by requiring Congress to come up with a two-thirds majority vote if they want to pass it. I suggest to you that this is, indeed, a modest proposal in light of the dire economic circumstances that we find ourselves in as a nation. And so for the second time in less than a month, we come together on the floor of the Senate to debate whether or not we have the courage to take the first step toward economic responsibility and recovery or whether, once again, we are going to fail ourselves, fail our constituents and fail the next generation. We simply must do better. For 33 of the last 34 years, the Federal Government has run deficits and our elected officials have not had the will to change that course. Our Federal Government has run a deficit every year for the past 25 years--an entire generation--and we have not taken steps to break this insidious, this persistent pattern. It took our Nation more than 205 years to reach a $1 trillion national debt, but it only took another 11 years to quadruple it. And still we lack the will. Now, for the next 5 years at least, the President has proposed annual budgets in excess of $200 billion a year. This means for the next 5 years, the Nation will accumulate another trillion dollars of debt, debt that is stifling investment, cutting into productivity, debt that has changed us from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. Our economic growth has been anemic and one day surely, as night follows day, if we continue this course of action, America will decline as a great power. The first warning shot of that decline perhaps has already been fired. I am sure that we have all noted with concern the precipitous drop in the dollar against the German mark and the Japanese yen since the failure of Congress to pass the balanced budget amendment. I submit to you that this is no accident. For decades, the U.S. dollar has been the standard against which the value of all other currencies in this world are measured. For many nations, it has served as a reserve currency. As such, the dollar is used as a storehouse of value in exchange for goods and services the world over. Investors buy the dollar because the U.S. economy has had a long reputation for reliability and for stability. Important commodities, such as oil, are priced in dollars. Any country that wishes to import oil must pay in dollars. We have been fortunate in this respect because of the high value placed upon the dollar in making it attractive as an investment vehicle and, thus, giving us our ability to, in large part, finance our national debt with foreign dollars. When our debt was a small percentage of the gross national product, we could afford deficit spending and the inflation that it produced, but now our mounting deficits scare away capital and the value of the dollar. My distinguished colleague from Colorado, Senator Brown, demonstrated recently in stark relief before the Senate Banking Committee the fall of the value of the dollar against the yen and the mark when the President announced the Mexican bailout. But more importantly, he showed the clear and unmistakable drop in the dollar's value when the balanced budget amendment was defeated in the Senate of the United States. That drop occurred for only one reason--one reason and one reason only --and that is that the world's investors lost faith in the political leadership of this country to act as wise stewards of America's Treasury. That loss of confidence, manifested by the recent drop in the dollar, will have an inflationary impact on our economy. Goods will become more expensive as the price of imported components rise. Americans traveling abroad will find it to be increasingly expensive. Finally, the drop in the dollar's value will likely cause interest rates to rise and further exacerbate our budget deficit. We are deluding ourselves if we think that simply because of our great wealth and natural resources that we are immune from economic loss and that our reputation for economic stability and growth will make us immune. We cannot continue to draw on this much foreign investment to finance our deficit indefinitely, and we only have to look to our neighbors to the south to give us some indication of what can happen. Mr. President, we are all aware that we have a system of checks and balances in this country, a system of separation of powers, and that there is a constant pulling and tugging between the executive and the legislative branches of Government for power and authority, and sometimes in our history, even ascendancy. This is right and proper because this was one of the most fundamental parts of the framework that our Founding Fathers put together in the operation of our Government. Some say that the line-item veto would give too much authority to the President and take that system out of balance in favor of the President. However, I think that in viewing history that we must conclude on the contrary that the current legislation before this body would bring things more into balance. In fact, the 1989 report of the National Economic Commission has suggested that ``the balance of power on budget issues has swung too far from the executive toward the legislative branch.'' Virtually all Presidents have impounded funds as a routine matter of their executive discretion to accomplish what they believe is efficiency of management and Government. In the 1950's and 1960's, disputes arose over the impoundment authority--in fact, disputes have gone back much further our history, which resulted from the refusal of several Presidents to fund certain weapons systems, for example, to the full extent authorized by Congress. President Johnson made broad use of impoundment authority during his administration by deferring billions of dollars on spending in an effort to restrain inflationary pressures on the economy during that period of time. Conflict over the use of impoundment has greatly increased, of course, during the Nixon administration. A moratorium was placed on many things that are currently on the table again and being debated and discussed. Ironically enough, subsidized housing programs, community development activities, certain farm programs--all were either suspended or eliminated altogether during that period of time by President Nixon. However, by 1974, the Congress of the United States found not only a weakened President Nixon because of Watergate but, because of that same scandal, a weakened Presidency, and employing a vacuum, Congress moved in and asserted itself and responded by passing the 1974 Budget Control and Impoundment Act, which greatly diminished the President's authority to impound funds. So while this may be only one of many reasons--and it certainly is--I think it not inappropriate to point out that since that time, we have not had a balanced budget in this country. Since the President's rescission now does not go through unless Congress actually votes within 45 days to support him, few rescissions actually occur anymore. According to the General Accounting Office, in the past 20 years since this Budget Act was passed, there have been 1,084 Presidential rescissions reflecting a total of $72.8 billion. Congress has agreed with only 399, or about 23 billion dollars' worth. That is why we are here today to consider this legislation, to finally put some teeth into the rescission process. After 20 years in which we have managed to cut only about $1 billion a year, time for amending the 1974 act, I submit, is long overdue. We must finally provide some recourse for the Nation's Chief Executive to reduce spending that is actually sinking America $200 billion more in debt. This legislation obviously is not a cure-all or a panacea, not for everything that ails us. In reality, it is perhaps little more than a few sandbags in the dike. But it is a beginning. It is a movement by Congress in the right direction for a change. It is a step forward. Mr. President, the current legislation is a result of many years of hard work by many people. I have already recognized Senator McCain, Senator Coats, Senator Domenici, and others who have worked on this so hard--Senator Stevens on our side and several from the other side of the aisle. I think what we now have is a true bipartisan piece of legislation. It represents already much compromise and much accommodation to the legitimate concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the aisle. Now I think it represents a real opportunity to finally inject some discipline into the budgetary process. It has been needed for a long time. It does some things, from my understanding and review of the history, which have not been done before, which have not been submitted at this stage of the process before. For instance, it covers any increase in any budget item. There has been criticism in times past that proposals have only covered discretionary spending. And as we all know, discretionary spending is becoming a smaller part of the overall budget--I think now down to around 16 percent. This proposal would also cover mandatory spending. As far as the future is concerned, it also reaches targeted tax benefits that have the practical effect of giving tax breaks to limited groups of taxpayers. Now, this is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. Following on the heels of the agonizing and divisive defeat of the balanced budget amendment, the 104th Congress needs to recover and go on down the road, Mr. President. There is much that this Congress can accomplish if it does not dissolve into shortsightedness and partisan bickering. This is a time and a place and a legislative proposal where we can come together and put that to an end. If it is true that every journey starts with one step, then let this measure before us serve as that first step toward real budgetary reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, there is nothing more basic to human nature than looking out for the interests of those we bring into this world. Yet we are not doing that in this country. On the contrary, we are creating an economic disaster for the next generation, a debt that they will never be able to dig out of and the prospects of living in a second-rate country. We are doing this not because of some great depression. We are doing this not because of some great war. We are doing this not because of some natural disaster. We are doing this simply because we have lacked the will to make the tough decisions. Mr. President, through the history of the course of this country, in times of crisis, leaders of both parties have banded together to face that crisis and overcome it. We must do so again this very day because, indeed, it is a crisis we face. We must do so by passing this balanced budget amendment. The people's voice could not be more clear on this matter. They have spoken in the polls. They have spoken through their legal, elected representatives in the House. They stand ready to speak again in State legislatures throughout this Nation once we have done our duty. Let it not be said that it was the Senate of the United States of America that stifled the strong, clear voice of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator from Arkansas accept the premise that we are in a dire situation here as far as the next generation or, prior to that, the next century, that the Social Security trust fund is going into the red in a few years and the interest on the debt escalating? I think the Senator from Massachusetts acknowledges that. I assume we all basically agree we have a real tough situation on our hands.

Mr. THOMPSON. Certainly, that is not directly analogous, but I think it is significant. And looking at the history of the Court and their reluctance to get into the detailed workings of the other branches of Government, I personally do not think it is very likely the Supreme Court of the United States would want to be establishing a budget for the U.S. Congress. Is it possible? It might be. But I submit, Mr. President, that as we get down into the details of these things, it must be argued and thrashed out to make sure we are not overlooking something obvious that we keep in mind what we are about here. Are we willing to risk maybe a court doing something that we would rather it not do, which we could rectify again and come back and address again if that was ever the case, in light of the fact that we are facing the impending bankruptcy of the next generation? Should we be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Should we be fiddling while Rome and the rest of the Nation is burning simply because the flames are not high enough for us to fully see yet? I do not think so. So, yes, let us debate what the courts might do with this amendment sometime down in the future, but let us not get caught up and that to be determinative when we are facing an economic disaster somewhere down the road not very long if we do not change our way of doing business in this particular town and in this country. The Senator from West Virginia the other day was talking about section 5 of the constitutional amendment. He was concerned that in times of a declaration of war the amendment requires a constitutional majority of 51 Senators. He thought that hurdle was too high because normally without the amendment on most votes around here it is a majority of those present with called upon. As I listened to that debate, it is very interesting, the possibilities are intriguing from an intellectual standpoint. Sitting and listening to Senator Byrd of West Virginia is like sitting in a good class of constitutional law. I enjoy it. If we did not have a Senator Byrd, we would need to invent one because he brings issues to the floor and to the table that need to be discussed. But again, does this not assume that 50 Senators plus the Vice President would do the right thing? He is concerned that we might not get that vote. Here we are, we need to declare war and we might not get the 51 votes. So he assumes, I suppose, that 50 Senators plus the Vice President would do the right thing and we would get the 51 votes that way but under this amendment that 51 Senators would not do the right thing. Now, is that not slicing it a little thin in light of what we are dealing with here? Is that not belaboring the point? It needs to be discussed. But is that what this is going to turn on, whether or not we have 50 Senators plus a Vice President on the one hand or 51 Senators on the other? I must say, Mr. President, it is my opinion that there are enough good people in this Chamber that if we have the kind of situation that requires a declaration of war, we would do the right thing, that we would do the right thing when the circumstances arose. I have listened to arguments, very eloquent arguments by the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan]. And again it is like sitting in a very good classroom to listen to him and his sense of history and the various parts of history that he has had a part of. He makes some very good points. He points out that the balanced budget amendment deprives the Government of some flexibility. Well, indeed, it does. That is what it is about. It deprives the U.S. Congress of some flexibility. It deprives the President of the United States of some flexibility. It says in effect no longer business as usual. We are going to do things a little bit differently, and it is going to be kind of painful and maybe we are going to have put a straitjacket on you, but it is the right thing. That is what it is about. But he makes the further point that it deprives us of the ability to, as I would interpret, fine tune the economy; that, in slow economic times, under good Keynesian theory we need to stimulate the economy and stimulate spending and offset that and thereby bring us back into recovery. It occurs to me that proposition and that concern is based upon certain assumptions. No, 1, it assumes that the U.S. Congress or the President has the ability to foresee far enough in advance what the economic situation is going to be and that they have the ability to adopt measures far enough in advance to take effect and to meet those emerging conditions somewhere down the road so that they would have the proper effect. In fact, that is the second assumption--that these policies, this foresight, would result in not only policies but policies that would have the desired effect. In other words, we are able to pretty much fine tune the economy. We can see what is going to happen and we can basically spend the money necessary--that is what we are talking about--in order to offset it. It further assumes that this all has to do with fiscal policy and not monetary policy. We all know that the Federal Reserve has the ability to raise and lower interest rates, and we all know, certainly, that has its effects on the economy. But as I understand the argument, we put that aside, really, and concentrate on the fiscal side, on how much the Government can spend. Lastly, it assumes that even if we are able to foresee these impending economic conditions, and even if we are able to adopt policies that will address those conditions and that we can have the ability to, in effect, turn things around and that it would turn things around because it had to do with how much the Government spent and not what the interest rates were, even though all those situations were present, you could not get the three-fifths vote required by this constitutional amendment that would be necessary to waive the provisions of this amendment. I think it is obvious from my comments I do not adopt those assumptions. I am certainly not an economist. I respect those who raise these questions and make these points. But in reading my history and in listening to other economists on the other side of the issue--and we have no one-handed economists, you know; it is on the one hand this and on the other hand that--in reading the other side, many of them point out we have not been very successful in times past in fine tuning the economy. In fact, James Bennett, an economist at George Mason University, stated recently, ``If anything, I think the Government has made economic cycles worse.'' Bennett and 253 other economists recently signed a letter supporting a balanced budget amendment. So, again, are these valid points to be made? Are we restricting the flexibility of the Government somewhat? Yes, we are. Do we know exactly what the effect of that is going to be? No, we do not. But, on the other hand, do we know exactly how to fine tune the economy, if we had all the flexibility in the world, to make sure we do not have recessions or any downturns in the economy? There is nothing that I can see to indicate that we have that kind of ability. Others raise the issue of Social Security and say, let us take this off the table, let us take that off the table--let us take Social Security off the table. That is the one that gets a lot of people's attention because we are all interested in and committed to protecting Social Security. What we are really talking about is what protects Social Security and what does not and what really exposes it. The amendment, as I understand it, that would take Social Security out of the mix does not protect Social Security. I think we need to understand that. If that amendment were adopted, you could still raise taxes. If that amendment were adopted, you could still cut benefits of Social Security. It could simply, then, be off budget, and the present Social Security surplus would not be included to make the deficit situation look a little bit better. That would be the effect of it. But, again, I think it is an indication and evidence of short-term thinking. While that would be the short-term result from a bookkeeping standpoint, it would be a bad longer term result even from a bookkeeping standpoint because the Social Security trust fund is going into the red in a few years, and the greatest danger that Social Security faces is not passing a balanced budget amendment. If we continue on the same trend we are on, if we continue to pile debt upon debt, interest upon interest, where interest is now going to be the second largest expenditure that we have and gaining on the first, at a time when the demographics are going to catch up on us-- again, we are living in a good year situation now. The baby boomers are working. In a few years the baby boomers are going to start retiring and we are going to have a shrinking working population supporting a growing elderly population. As we know, those Social Security payments come from the workers, current workers' pockets. If we have a deficit, debt, slow economy/high interest rate situation that is surely facing us in addition to the burden of fewer supporting a greater number, that is the true danger to Social Security. Because these young folks, these young working folks, these young kids, they do not want to pay 70 or 80 percent of their income in taxes. They do not feel like that is right. That debt was run up, in many cases, before they were even born. The balanced budget amendment, I think, is the only sure way to protect Social Security. Consider a few of these numbers. Interest payments on the debt are currently $235 billion. They are expected to rise to about $5 trillion by the year 2030. We will start to go into the general trust fund to meet current Social Security liabilities by the year 2010. We will need an additional $850 billion, in the year 2030 alone, over anticipated Social Security receipts to meet current liabilities. So, by the year 2030, we will have Social Security needing about an additional $850 billion at the same time that the of the general revenues. The sum of interest payments and Social Security equals just under $6 trillion; general revenues are expected to be just over $6 trillion. Clearly, there is a problem on what we are able to fund as that situation plays out. And what are the options under that scenario, if we continue down the current path? Certainly cutting Social Security dramatically would be an option that these young people at that point might choose. Another would be raising taxes, including Social Security taxes. Another would be keep raising the deficit. Another would be not to fund anything else, such as national defense, infrastructure, Medicare, schools, or anything else. We do not have to go down that road. We do not have to go down that road. I respectfully submit that a way to avoid that road is the balanced budget amendment. I have heard it said during this debate, time and time again, that people do not realize what we are asking of them here, people do not realize the effects of a balanced budget amendment. Once people understand what is happening, they will be against a balanced budget amendment. We see charts and details that it will cost this State some money and it will cost that State some money and we might have to take money out of this program and another program and all of that. I submit the people out in the country have a pretty good idea what is going on. I submit maybe the folks of this body sometimes are the last to find out. I do not think the large majority of people in this country feel that we can pass a balanced budget amendment or even have a balanced budget without making some incremental differences in some of the things that they have been used to. I do not think that at all. I have never in my life met a person I had a conversation with remotely concerning this subject who would not be willing to make some incremental adjustments in some program they might benefit from. Not drastic, because it does not have to be drastic now. It will have to be drastic if this scenario plays out. If we continue on the same road, it will be slash and burn and cut and rip apart. But not now. It does not have to be that way. I have never met anyone who would not be willing to make some incremental adjustment to their life if they thought it benefited their kids or if they thought it benefited their grandkids. They do not think that now. People stand up and get defensive, and they do not want anything done, not because they are not willing to do that. It is because they think it is not going to benefit their kids. First of all, they do not trust the messenger who is delivering that message to them. That is us. The U.S. Congress continues to get comeuppance a little bit now and then. About the change in the election, I am not going to claim credit for that because the Republican Party took over. It will be back down again, regardless. This is a temporary situation, probably unfortunately. Public opinion traditionally keeps the U.S. Congress down to the lowest part of the totem pole in terms of institutions in this country. So we come to them now, and under the present circumstances tell them some of these things. They do not trust us. They do not believe us. They do not believe we will do what we say we will do with the money. They know that for every dollar raised in taxes, we increase spending that much more; things of that nature. But I think that, if we did some things to help restore our faith-- and I think the Congressional Accountability Act was a good start on that--we are going to have an opportunity to do a few more things. We will have an opportunity to vote on a term limits resolution that the Presiding Officer is so vitally involved with, and a few other things. I think this balanced budget amendment falls in that same category. If we begin to do some of those things to show we are serious, maybe we will develop credibility so we will have people believe us, and so that they will say yes. Yes, I will be willing to make some incremental adjustment. I am not stupid. I do not think we can have our cake forever and eat it forever, as some Members of this body apparently think people believe out in the country. So, I believe, if we are honest with the American people, if we begin to clean up our own act and we begin to take some of the tough measures and we are willing to put a little bit of restraint on ourselves so that we cannot continue this taxing and spending our way into oblivion--it might help in our reelection campaigns, but it is driving the country to a disaster--then I think the people will respond to this. It is not the message that they are concerned with, I think, as much as it is or has been the messenger. So what if we do not? So many of these points that have been be made in this debate over the last several days are not only interesting, but some of the points are valid. There are questions that are not totally answerable as we sit here and have this debate. We must acknowledge that. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This is our last clear chance because we always have to go back to the other side of the ledger. No, we do not know exactly what a court would do. Theoretically, a court might make us do what we said we were going to do anyway under a constitutional amendment, and that is balance the budget. That is the worst-case scenario, I guess. Yes, we might have an irresponsible Congress which, even though our country was in imminent danger, would refuse to give 51 votes to declare war. I guess that is theoretically possible. On and on. Mr. President, I submit we have to keep our eye on what we are about--the other side of the ledger. What if the balanced budget amendment does not pass? What if we do not start exercising some spending restraint and begin to get our fiscal house in order? Can there be any doubt that this interest on the debt is going to eat us alive? Can there be any doubt? Is there anyone who says that it is not a disaster waiting to happen? It is going to drive out all the other revenues that would go for savings; it is going to have an effect on our savings rate, which now I think is the lowest in the industrialized world; it is going to have an effect on our investment rate, which is becoming one of the lowest investment rates in the industrialized world. That will have an effect on our growth rate. That goes up and down. So if you look long term and compare us with some of the other developing countries around the world, our long-term growth rate projections are not a pretty picture. We are coming along pretty good right now. But historically, if you look at growth rates coming out of a recession, it has been about twice what ours is now. There are some indicators on the horizon that do not look good--housing starts, of course; the balance of payments, and things of that nature. But leave that aside. Those things change. But the long-term picture remains the same: The increasing reliance on Federal financing for our debt; the increasing ownership of United States assets in foreign hands, a reliance on foreign individuals for our debt. In 1993, it was $41 billion, or more than twice of all of our other foreign aid payments that we have in this country. There is more and more reliance upon that. We have seen what happened to our friends south of the border recently, when those who were putting the money into the country decided to take the money out of the country. If that happens, the dollar falls and interest rates go up. We are not guaranteed that financing, that foreign financing, is going to continue to be there. We have seen it over the last 20 years. Real family income in this country has stagnated. People talk about that a lot. There is no real growth there. What people do not talk about so much, getting back to the young people again, is that for younger families, real income has dropped since 1973. So what are the alternatives? I think we have an insight as to some of the things that we could look for if we continue down the current road. Last October, according to a memorandum by the OMB Director, Alice Rivlin, dated October 3, 1994, in order to pay for the administration's priorities, Rivlin suggested certain tax-related options, including the following options: Limiting mortgage deductions for second homes; include capital gains on the last income tax returns of the deceased; 2.5 State and local taxes. These are the options the administration is talking about or was talking about forcing upon the American people while adamantly fighting a balanced budget amendment. On Social Security, the administration confirmed what we have been saying about Social Security, in reality. According to the memo, the Social Security trust fund surplus will be exhausted in 2029. Social Security will face a cash deficit in 2013, unless taxes are raised or benefits reduced. Possible solutions to save Social Security as presented by the Rivlin memo: Increase normal retirement age to 70 by 2023; tax 85 percent of income and benefits of $25,000 for individuals and $32,000 for couples; include children's Social Security benefits in parents' taxable income; increase payroll taxes by 0.32 percent starting in 5 years. These are some of the options that were being considered by the administration--this one individual, anyway, who holds a responsible position was considering--if we are going down the same old path and continuing the same old economic policies that we have. These are not the directions the American people want to go in. This is the road that we are going on. Can we do it otherwise? The Senator from Arkansas suggested a statutory solution. I respectfully suggest that that has been tried and failed. It is not exactly like we are running in here at the last minute and coming up with a solution that has not been well thought out.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, first of all I want to say, before the Senator from Arkansas leaves, that I always thought the U.S. Senate ought to be about great Senators debating the great issues of the day. I think that is exactly what we have here today. It is an education and a privilege to be a part of such a debate with such distinguished Senators, the Senator from Utah, and the Senator from my neighboring State of Arkansas who I have admired for so long. He is not only, probably, the most eloquent Member of the Senate but one of the most eloquent people in the country. I think it probably has something to do with the Senator having been a country lawyer at one time. I appreciate him and his observations. I respectfully disagree with his conclusions. I, like the Senator from Utah, believe that if we were amenable to solving this problem with legislation it would have been done some time ago. Some Members do have concerns about the way we approach these matters. Most Members do not tread easily into these constitutional waters. This is a very serious matter. The Framers set the Congress up in a situation where we could, from time to time, revisit our basic document. Thomas Jefferson, who is quoted a lot in these proceedings himself, said that he thought every 20 years or so we ought to perhaps get together and reinvent ourselves. We are not trying to do that, but we are about serious business. And we are doing it by means of a constitutional amendment because we have tried everything else and failed. We are struggling for a solution. We are struggling for a solution to an impending economic crisis in this country. That is what it is about. After all of the statements have been made and all the concerns and objections have been raised, that is what it gets down to. Surely, although we disagree on the solutions, we can all agree on what we are faced with. The assumption, the moral commitment to the next generation, was in force in this country for a couple of centuries. That is changed now. That is changed. The situation is apparent. The need for firm action is clear. I believe a constitutional amendment is the only thing, and perhaps the last clear chance we have, in this generation of doing something to avert the pending economic catastrophe that all people of good faith must conclude that we are headed toward in this country. What is the problem? The Federal Government has run deficits in 33 of the last 34 years. It has run a deficit every single year for the past 25 years--for an entire generation, Mr. President. It took our Nation over 205 years, from 1776 to 1981, to reach a $1 trillion national debt. It took only 11 years to reach $4 trillion, and on the last day of 1994, the total Federal debt stood at $4.8 trillion. Deficit financing is clearly harmful and unfair to future generations. Each year that we endure another $200 billion deficit, it will cost the average child just over $5,000 in extra taxes over his working lifetime just to pay the interest costs. The fiscal year 1995 interest payments on the national debt are expected to be in excess of $300 billion--$310.9 billion. These interest payments are the second largest item in the budget, 20 percent of all Federal spending; they represent 92 percent of Social Security payments, 52 percent of all individual income tax revenues--interest on the debt. The national debt has now topped $4.7 trillion. The Federal Government has run deficits in 56 of the last 64 years, and 33, as I said, of the last 34. During the 1960's, deficits averaged $6 billion per year. During the 1990's, deficits averaged $248 billion per year. The President just submitted another budget. It looks like a $200 billion deficit--as they used to say, as far as the eye can see. Everyone who has taken an objective look at the situation that is facing us and the situation that is facing children yet unborn in this country, basically all reach the same conclusion. We can argue over the extent or the exact year when the catastrophe is going to hit. But I do not reasonably see how we can disagree over the basic conclusion. The Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform submitted a report last August. As you know, Mr. President, this was headed up by two distinguished Senators, one Republican and one Democrat. Senator Danforth is no longer serving, but Senator Kerrey still is. These are two very well-respected, thoughtful men in this area. Their report conclusion was very simple, very startling. They have certain recommendations, and we can agree or disagree with various items in their recommendations, as I am sure we will, but they state the following: America is at a fiscal crossroads. They state: If we fail to act, we threaten the financial future of our children and of our Nation. If this country does not respond, Americans 10, 15, and 20 years from now will ask why we had so little foresight. They go on to point out that in the year 2012, unless appropriate policy changes are made in the interim, projected outlays for entitlements and interest on the national debt will consume all tax revenues collected by the Federal Government. Projected outlays for entitlements and interest alone--those two items alone--will consume all the tax revenues that we have in this country. That is in 2012. We talk about the next generation; that is not even the next generation. That is practically upon us. The Concord Coalition. Many people in this body are familiar with the work of the Concord Coalition. It is headed up by two former distinguished Senators, Senator Rudman of New Hampshire, and Senator Tsongas of Massachusetts; another Democrat, another Republican, bipartisan. And again, they have a way to balance the budget that will result in a zero deficit by the year 2000. There has been a lot of talk in this body about what are the details of your plan; let us see your budget, let us see the details. There are enough plans and details and suggestions as to how to balance the budget to fill this room. We are not lacking for plans and details; we are lacking for the willpower. Here is what they say will happen if we do nothing: If we ignore our mounting debt, if we just wish it would go away and do nothing about it, it will grow and grow like a cancer that will eventually overwhelm our economy and our society. The interest we owe on the debt will skyrocket. We will continue our vicious cycle of having to raise taxes and cut spending and borrow more and more to pay interest upon interest. Our productivity growth will remain stagnant, more of our workers will have to settle for low-paying jobs, and our economy will continue its anemic growth. America will decline as a world power. Mr. President, how much more stark can the picture be made? How much clearer can the impending crisis that we face in this country be made? This is the reason many, I believe, in this body ran for the U.S. Senate and wanted to become a Member of this body. I am among 11 new Members of this body, and I think to a person that we will say that this is one of the reasons we wanted to be here, because as we were coming in, we heard, like Senator Danforth, who I mentioned awhile ago--I read something very startling in the middle of the campaign when he was talking about his leaving. He said he left with a certain amount of sadness because he thought there was really an underlying feeling that the entire body, that the Senate as a body and that the Congress as an institution, was really doing something shameful to the next generation. He regretted the fact, despite all his efforts, he could not do more to alleviate that. That is a feeling many of us have had over the years, those who have not been involved in elected office before. But as we watch this, as our grandchildren start coming along, as we see these statistics, as we see these bipartisan commissions and these committees and all of the objective economists book, ``Facing Up,'' a former distinguished Secretary of Commerce, some years ago. He has his own plan, his own proposal. But the most important part was the analysis of the problem and the impending disaster; that if we did not change our way of doing business in this country, if we did not face up to what was happening, if we did not get away from momentary political considerations about how this is going to play back home, or is some favorite constituent going to get trimmed a little bit if we have to cut his program back, and how is that going to work in the next election cycle, if we do not get away from that kind of thinking that has dominated this town and this body for so long, we are never going to solve the problem. There have been many distinguished Members of the U.S. Congress, on both sides of the aisles, in both bodies, who have worked hard to try to do something about this. But it has not been enough. Everyone I hear speak on the subject talks about how they have stood tall, how they have fought against the other party. It is always the other party's fault. The President of one party, Congress of another party, each side wants to say it is the other one's fault. The President does not appropriate the money, but he is the leader, and Congress is not the President, but they spend the money. Regardless of all that, regardless of whose fault it is, everyone says that they stood tall, they did the right thing. I do not know where the problem lies, because there obviously have not been enough people over a period of time who have been willing to do the right thing and do the obvious thing. This is not just a matter of balancing a budget. We could balance the budget next year and we would still have a tremendous problem, because the underlying factors which cause us to continually want to have our cake and eat it, too, would be there, and without a constitutional amendment, it would still get us in the end. We are going to have to do so much for so long in this country to get back on the straight and narrow. We cannot do it overnight; we cannot do it with one Congress; we cannot do it with one Senate. Before we solve this problem, probably most of the people in this body will not be here any longer. We are going to have to do it with some structural changes that will take care of the changes that we have in terms of faces and personalities that walk these Halls around here, because we are going to have to do a lot of good over a fairly long period of time and we have a structural situation that will force us to do the right thing as we go on out. This is not a one-time problem. We talk in terms of balancing the budget, and we could balance it right quick, but if those motivations were wrong and the short-term political considerations took over once again, we would be right back into the problem in short order. We have debated this amendment for many days. It has been debated before. I have not had the benefit as a Member of that debate. Some of the Members who oppose the constitutional amendment say that we are going too fast; this is supposed to be a deliberative body and that we are going too fast. I for one think we ought to take our time when we are dealing with issues like this. Frankly, I do not understand why it takes so long to pass a bill dealing with congressional accountability. I do not understand why it takes so long to pass a bill dealing with lifting unfunded mandates and things of that nature, things, once we get down to a vote, that pass in overwhelming numbers. I do not understand why it needs to take that long. However, we are dealing with maybe the most important issue that will face some of us in our career here in this body and here in this town, and I for one would join my colleagues on the other side who say we ought to take our time on this. I think we have taken our time and we have debated the issue. But it is not just this time. It is not just these last 20-some-odd days we have been considering this amendment. The records indicate that the Senate Committees on the Judiciary have conducted hearings on the balanced budget amendment on at least 22 days extending back to the 84th Congress as well as reporting seven different joint resolutions between the 97th and the 103d Congresses. So it is not like we just took this up and we are dealing with it lightly. This has been debated fully, fully, this session of Congress, and it has been debated in committee and in the Chamber on many occasions before. So, no, I do not think we are moving too fast. Others raise the point that they do not want the courts overly involved in this process. They are concerned that the courts might wind up requiring us to balance the budget if we ignore the Constitution. There has been a lot of debate as to what the courts will likely do or not do and is there a possibility what the courts might do. Mr. President, nobody in this body has any idea what the Court is going to do. I do not think anybody can predict. And I think that everybody would have to acknowledge a very wide range of possibilities as to what the Court could do. I think you can talk in terms of what the Court is likely to do, when you look at the dicta of Court decisions that have come down regarding State laws, when you look at the history involving the branches of Government and the reluctance of the Supreme Court to overly involve itself in the details of Congress, or overly involve itself in the details of the Presidency for that matter. I remember as a young staff member on the Watergate Committee, as minority counsel in the Watergate Committee back in the 1970's when we had United States versus Nixon and the President had to finally turn over his tapes, something that probably all of us remember. People remember that the Court required him to turn over the tapes, but people do not often remember the high degree of proof that was taken, or the very unusual circumstances that were present in that situation before the Court would reach that conclusion. The Court was very reluctant to tell the President of the United States that he had to turn over his tapes, and it only did so because some direct witnesses had come forward with direct testimony concerning alleged criminal activity. The Court went out of its way, strained to point out that the bar was very high for anyone who wanted to come in and require the Supreme Court to go into the Oval Office of the President and require the President to turn over documents in his office, or in that case tapes. (Mr. THOMAS assumed the chair.)

Mr. THOMPSON. Spending cuts promised in the future that have not come to fruition.

Mr. THOMPSON. May I make a couple of points? With all due respect, I was not here during that vote, but I am very much aware of it. I am also very much aware that there were two different bodies of thought during that vote. One has been expressed eloquently by the Senator. The other was that the way we take care of our fiscal problems in this country is to cut spending and not to raise taxes. And a lot of people looked at the President's approach at that time, the one you voted for, as basically a major cut in defense spending and the largest tax increase in the history of the country. So the thought on this side of the aisle, as I read my newspapers during all of that, was that that was not the way to go about it and that it would stifle growth in this country in the long run. My personal opinion is I think it has yet to be played out. Just so we have both theories on the record. I am very much aware of the Senator's point. I guess, however, my main question would be, in light of the Senator's good efforts and tireless efforts along these fruition, regardless of whatever reason--and it is all fun to talk about Democrats and Republicans and the President versus Congress and this administration and that--the fact of the matter is we are continuing down the same road through both Democrats and Republicans. So my question is: why is it now, in light, for whatever reason, of the continued failure to balance the budget that now causes my friend from Arkansas to think that we can do it without the constraint of a constitutional amendment?

Mr. THOMPSON. I agree with my friend's analogy about the horse being out of the barn. My concern is that the horse is not going to have a barn to come back to before very long.

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe when I used that term, I was referring to individuals. I may not have. I think my main point--the main basis was that expenditures that represent cuts in the rates of growth as opposed to actually cutting into the substance of the program. I call that basically incremental; in other words, not draconian cuts, but the beginning of some reductions in the rate of increase in some programs. With regard to what the Senator is talking about there, in the first place, with all due respect, I cannot accept the figures from the Department of the Treasury, who I think would be a little less than objective in this debate we are having and would be very much opposed to the balanced budget amendment. But, be that as it may, I do not have any idea. I think that Tennessee would lose some revenues. That is my own opinion. How much, I do not know. I doubt if the Department of the Treasury knows, because you are assuming the same rates of growth. You are assuming that the State would not make some other choices and things of that nature. I do not think we can assume that. But I get back to this: We are not talking about a good-news versus a bad-news situation. We are not talking about a good choice over a bad choice. We are talking about choosing between two tough choices. I would like to see everybody have everything they want in Tennessee and in Arkansas. My concern is what is the effect on Tennesseans, the effect on my grandkids living in Tennessee when they get to be working age if we do not do something about this runaway fiscal situation that we have in this country.

Mr. THOMPSON. I assume the Senator from Arkansas does not believe those are incremental.

Mr. THOMPSON. I also add, however, that I think the prospects of that happening are very small. In the first place, when you get down to the details of working out a solution--as the Senator knows, in times past, it has not been an easy situation. The devil indeed is in the details. It is a complex document. There has been no constraint and no requirement that they come to a balanced budget. Under the Senator's scenario, there would still be no requirement, no constraint requiring them to ultimately balance the budget. They have given it a good try, but walking away from the table has happened before. The Senator's scenario is one that I would prefer. My concern is that I have been watching this process from Tennessee for a few years, and the Senator has been here for a few years and has seen it closer than I have. But I have not observed anything that would cause me to believe that that scenario could play out. The Budget Act of 1921 required the President to recommend a balanced budget. The Revenue Act of 1964 basically said it is the sense of the Congress that we must balance the budget and balance it soon. The Revenue Act of 1978 said it is a matter of national policy that we balance the budget. The Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978 prioritized a balanced Federal budget. The Byrd amendment in 1978 made it law and said that by fiscal year 1981 receipts must balance with outlays. But in that very year there was a $79 billion deficit. As the Members here know much better than I, the Budget Act of 1974 was passed, laying the foundation for the process that we have today. I believe the thinking was that it required an annual budget resolution and people would be afraid to vote for large deficits. That did not work. The very next year, the deficit started skyrocketing. Then there was Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and you know the history there; the 1990 budget deal, the deficit increased; the 1993 budget deal where the debt increased by $3 trillion. The President submitted another budget that projects $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye can see. I know a lot of Members have been trying mighty hard over a large number of years. I do not presume to challenge that proposition. But as an institution, for whatever reason, there is no indication that we have any possibility of really getting a handle on this thing absent a balanced budget amendment. With that, unless the Senator has something else for me, I will yield the floor. Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. Theoretically, they could do that; you are absolutely right--or we could do that, I might add.