Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. No, there is nothing that would prevent that.

Mr. THOMPSON. I see two or three of my colleagues now on the floor. In light of that, I will be delighted to wrap up here in just a minute or so.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I think at the outset it is appropriate to state that what we are dealing with here is a straw man. An attempt is being made to make it appear that a Government spending program is being exempted from the balanced budget amendment. Of course, everyone understands that--with the statute that we are dealing with and with the language that they are dealing with--that is not the case. Now we are arguing among ourselves as to who gets to beat up the straw man first and who gets to put the first wound on him and the straw man that we all know is going to be defeated. That is the process that we are involving ourselves here in this historic moment when we are trying to address the real issues concerning a balanced budget amendment. It is unfortunate but true. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from Wisconsin has now offered an amendment which he wants to have defeated. I am happy to lend my assistance. I believe we have now reached an illogical extension of this debate by some of those who oppose the balanced budget amendment. In an attempt to defeat the balanced budget amendment, amendments are now being offered that even their sponsors want defeated. After failing a few days ago to exclude language from the committee report, the Senator from Wisconsin now proposes to include the language in the Constitution of the United States with yet another amendment. I find this strange even by Washington, DC standards. If as much effort had gone into balancing the budget over the last few years as has gone into this exercise, we would not need the balanced budget amendment. In the lowest courts of record of this Nation, involving the most insignificant boundary line dispute or intersection fender bender, one who submits a pleading attests that it is made in good faith and that there is reason to believe that there is merit in the matter that is being asserted. Apparently, that rule does not apply when it comes to offering an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. most important matters to ever come before this Congress, and amendments such as these trivialize this process. While there is no logic to this maneuvering, the purpose is clear--to hamstring and defeat the last clear chance we have in this country to develop some fiscal responsibility in our governing process. The purpose of such amendments is first and last to defeat the balanced budget amendment. Such amendments are not designed to ensure that spending projects are covered by the balanced budget amendment. Rather they are designed to ensure that no spending program whatsoever is restrained by a balanced budget amendment. As I understand it, what brought about this momentous issue was language in the Senate Judiciary Committee report which stated: Among the federal programs that would not be covered by S.J. Res. 1 is the Electric Power Program of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Of course, what has not been publicized very much is the following language; the next sentence in that report, as a matter of fact. It points out that since 1959 the financing of that program has been the sole responsibility of its own electric ratepayers, not the U.S. Treasury and the Nation's taxpayers. Consequently, the receipts and outlays of that program are not a part of the problem that Senate Joint Resolution 1 is directed to solving. This language, of course, states the obvious. The financing of the TVA power program is done by the electric ratepayers. There is no outlay of Federal funds with regard to this program. If the TVA power program runs short, the TVA ratepayers must make up the difference. The TVA does not operate like Amtrak or the Postal Corporation where Federal taxpayers pay the difference between receipts and outlays. The Judiciary Committee report language does not make the Federal taxpayer responsible for the TVA power program. It simply restates what has been true since 1959 when the TVA power program became exclusively responsible for its own receipts and outlays. Now as I understand it, the Feingold amendment tracks the committee report language to an extent. The Senator from Wisconsin is apparently under the impression that by offering his language and having it voted down, it will in some way negate this legislative history. Of course, it will not. In the first place, the Senator's language covers receipts and outlays of all TVA activities, including its nonpower activities. These have always been on budget and are covered by the balanced budget amendment, as they should be. Therefore, the Senator's language is much broader then the committee report language. And voting down the Senator's language which includes TVA's nonpower activities will in no way affect the legislative history that pertains only to the power program. However, even if the proposed amendment tracked the committee report language exactly, it would still be of no effect because, again, the report language simply states the fact that there are no Federal outlays with regard to the TVA power program. Thus it along with some other programs, is not covered by the constitutional amendment. If the Senator is under the impression that a decision by this body not to make such a clearly inappropriate matter a part of the Constitution of the United States of America in some way changes the facts contained in the language, then I submit that he is again sadly mistaken. By the same token, if someone proposed an amendment enshrining the law of gravity into the Constitution and it were voted down as inappropriate, objects would still fall to the floor when dropped. Therefore, since the adoption of the Feingold amendment would have the effect of taking the TVA nonpower program off budget, and since the defeat of the Feingold amendment would have none of the significance its sponsor wants to attribute to it, I join the Senator from Wisconsin in urging the defeat of his own amendment. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the vote occur in relation to amendment No. 291 on Tuesday, February 28, in the stacked sequence to begin at 2:15 p.m., and that the pending motion to table be vitiated and Senator Dorgan be recognized to move to table.

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

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

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur in relation to the amendment No. 274 on Tuesday, February 28, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. If the Senator will withhold, I will address a question to the Senator from Washington. It has to do with the purpose of this language which I have heard and have not had a chance to read. As I understand it, this would deprive the courts of jurisdiction except with regard to section 2.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I share the concern of both the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Washington concerning judicial activism. As the Senator from Washington puts it, on one hand, he is concerned about it, and, on the other, he is concerned about the notion that the courts should indeed be involved. I think there is probably a middle ground here that many people are struggling with. I think a very good case can be made for the proposition that, indeed, it is unlikely--I am talking about under the original amendment--that it is unlikely that the court would involve itself in the detailed budgeting process of the Congress of the United States. Now, can anybody say that will not happen with certainty? Absolutely not. We all know that it can happen. It is a possibility. The question is: What is the likelihood? It has never been done before. You look at what has happened on the State level. You look at what has happened on the Federal level. I remember the lawsuit against President Nixon back in 1974. The court dealt with a little different situation there, but they were dealing with the powers of the executive branch. If you read that case, you will see how reluctant the Supreme Court is to get into the operations of and put limitations on the power of the other branches of Government. That case came down requiring the President to give up his tapes, but in doing so really they raised the threshold very substantially as far as any future similar actions against a President. You had to have eyewitnesses in that case, eyewitnesses, in effect, saying the President was involved in criminal activity or very possibly could have been. So they decided against the President in that case. But by their language, they were struggling mightily with it and it had to be very fact specific and it had to be an egregious case by that language for them to step into the affairs of the President of the United States. I think in all probability that is the way it will be with Congress. My own guess is--and I assume that is all we can acknowledge, that is basically all we are doing here--my own guess is that, absent some egregious case that the Senator from Washington says he does not think will ever happen, and I agree, but absent some very egregious case where the Congress of the United States just blatantly and openly disregards the Constitution, I do not think the Supreme Court would involve itself, even the Supreme Court as we know it today, which too often gets into too many things, as we all know. I think many of us simply share the concern that if there is no enforcing mechanism at all, if there is no possibility, if we foreclose any possibility under any circumstances that the court cannot decide this, that a future Congress would use that and circumvent the intent of the balanced budget amendment. So it gets back to how badly do you think our fiscal crisis is; how badly do we need this balanced budget amendment? And I think pretty badly. We have heard the debate here for many, many days. We are headed down the wrong road at breakneck speed. We are bankrupting the next generation by any objective standard. By any bipartisan analysis that has been made of it, we are in serious, serious circumstances here and we are kind of fiddling around here while Rome is burning and missing the central point that we better keep in mind, and that is we better get our fiscal house in order. The balanced budget amendment, without being cluttered with a lot of controversial amendments designed amendment so that they could support it, instead of doing that, we ought to refocus and pass the balanced budget amendment. I intend at this stage of the game to say, let us pass it without this amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, and that is section 2. Does the Senator consider that if such amended language was agreed to, that might obviate the argument that the courts did not have jurisdiction with regard to section 2? In other words, as I heard the debate here a short time ago, I think very strong arguments were made with regard to the amendment itself, the totality of the amendment, that there were serious questions with regard to the justiciable issue regarding political questions and all of that, with regard to the amendment in totality, including section 2. I wonder whether or not, if such language were agreed to, this would be an open invitation to the courts that in fact we are inviting you to take on anything that could be a part of section 2 and might in fact go against the intent of the proponents of the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana?

Mr. THOMPSON. So while there is an exemption under the Senator's amendment with regard to enabling legislation, this exemption would apply to part of the language of the constitutional amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. That we need to do some fundamental things to change the direction of this country. There are those of us who are concerned about the investment rate, which is now one of the lowest in the industrial world; there are some of us concerned about the savings rate, which is the lowest in the industrialized world. We are concerned about the growth. That is what we are supposed to be discussing here with regard to the balanced budget amendment, not singling out some self-financing program by folks who would basically love to defeat the balanced budget amendment in its entirety. So I would urge that we keep that in mind, and we do defeat this amendment. I thank the Chair. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank you, Mr. President. I agree that it may not be an attack on the TVA. It is an attack on the balanced budget amendment. I think the language of the committee speaks for itself. The financing of the TVA power program has been the sole responsibility of its electric ratepayers, not the U.S. Treasury and the Nation's taxpayers. That says it all, Mr. President. It is not an annual expenditure. It is not a would-be pork barrel project. It is not the nonpower program which is on the table along with everything else. It has to do with a power program that is self-financing. And of course, all this is another attempt by those who would defeat the balanced budget amendment to raise a red herring. We have seen time and time again those who would offer amendments, amendment after amendment after amendment, while at the same time stating that if their amendments, or all of their amendments in their totality were adopted they would still oppose the balanced budget amendment. So I suggest that we analyze this for what it is. It is another attempt to encumber and somehow obfuscate the issue as far as the balanced budget amendment is concerned. The committee considered this situation. It analyzed the power program of the Tennessee Valley Authority and stated the clear fact. It is not whether or not we want it on budget or we want it off budget or whether it ought to be on or whether it ought to be off. We can debate that at the proper time. But it simply stated the fact that since 1959, the financing of that program has been the sole responsibility of its own electric ratepayers. So I would urge that we defeat this amendment and not go against the language that was well considered before the committee and we move on with what we are supposed to be here about, and that is bankrupting the next generation. I think we get too balled up in some of these collateral issues sometimes. We forget sometimes what we are about. Mr. President, with the enactment of the 1959 Self-Financing Act, the TVA Board was given the authority to make power system decisions. In turn, the power system became the sole financial responsibility of TVA ratepayers, not the Treasury or U.S. taxpayers. Since 1959, the power system has not received appropriations and has been funded exclusively with power revenues and proceeds from the sale of bonds which, by law, are not obligations of or guaranteed by the United States. All taxpayer funds originally invested in the power system, designated as the appropriation investment, are treated on the power system's balance sheet as the Government's equity. Since 1959, TVA has made annual payments to the Treasury--currently $20 million per year-- to reduce that investment's balance. TVA also makes calculated at the Treasury's current interest rate. This covers the Treasury's cost of money and keeps the taxpayers whole. Since the receipts and outlays of the power system are its alone, it is incorrect and misleading to regard them as receipts and outlays of the United States. This view was shared by Senator Howard Baker while a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, TVA's jurisdictional committee. In reporting legislation in both 1975 and 1979 which increased the TVA bond ceiling, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee expressly agreed that ``the obligations represented by bond issues under the increased ceiling will not result in any outlay involving `Government funds''' and that TVA power funds ``are not, however, generated through the general treasury and do not affect Federal fiscal policy.'' In both the 1975 and 1979 reports, the committee also found that there would be ``no cost'' to the Government ``in implementing this legislation.'' Mr. President, there are those of us who think we are bankrupting the next generation, that we need to do some things fundamentally----

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the Senator yield another minute? Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we have been debating the balanced budget amendment now over a 15-day period--or about 11 days of debate. I think it is very important that we step back and reconsider the fundamental question that we are dealing with here, and that is whether or not we are going to take the steps necessary to put ourselves in a position of dealing with the problems facing the next generation, or whether or not we are going to go down the same old road and proceed to bankrupt that generation. There is nothing more fundamental in human nature than looking out for world. I am not sure we have done a very good job of that so far. We have an opportunity to do that with the balanced budget amendment. We have heard several amendments discussed over this 15-day period. Many of those amendments would defeat the balanced budget amendment if adopted. I respectfully submit that the Reid amendment under present consideration would fit that category and would defeat the amendment if adopted. Many good arguments have been made against this amendment. One is that it would be a loophole through which anything could be driven and will obviate the purpose of the balanced budget amendment. Senator Hatch from Utah this morning pointed out that the adoption of this amendment would put into the Constitution very complex language which would create a field day for lawyers, and it does not belong in a constitutional amendment. I believe the most important part is to understand the protection issue. This amendment is being set forth as protection for Social Security. Social Security, and the protection of it, is something we are all committed to. We have made that commitment by vote and we have made that commitment by voice in this body. We will continue to make that commitment. But the fact of the matter is that the safety of Social Security depends upon the commitments of this and future Congresses as we proceed, and not upon the language of this amendment. If this amendment is adopted, it will do nothing to prevent future taxes of Social Security. If this amendment is adopted, it will do nothing to prevent cuts in Social Security in the future. It is essentially a bookkeeping measure. The proponents of this amendment rightfully point out that at the present time the surplus in the Social Security trust fund does assist in making our deficit picture look a little better, as bleak as that is. That is a short-term consideration, Mr. President. The fact of the matter is that within a relatively few years, depending on how you calculate the Federal Government employer part of it, in 2010 or 2013 the Social Security trust fund is going to be in the red and the real protection for Social Security again is not in this amendment, which I think really in many respects would endanger it more than it already is. The real protection is in balancing the budget. I think it is important to keep in mind two factors that are driving this debate. One is the fact that the Social Security trust fund will be going into the red in the not-too-distant future. It is right around the corner. The second is the phenomenon of the interest on the debt. As you know, Mr. President, the interest on the debt right now constitutes--or will in a couple of years--the second highest expenditure of our Federal budget and will continue in that direction as far as the eye can see. Those two factors go on together. I submit, Mr. President, they constitute the real danger to Social Security. All programs are going to be squeezed if this scenario continues to play out in the current direction if we do nothing about it. All programs are going to be squeezed and those programs applying high expenditures, such as Social Security, will be high on the list and under close observation, Mr. President, if we come to that point. Let us consider separately those two factors I just mentioned. Interest on the debt. Interest payments on the debt are currently $235 billion. They are expected to rise to about $5 trillion by the year 2030 under current circumstances. This is according to the Commission on Entitlements. Interest payments on the debt currently accounts for approximately 22 percent of the general non-Social Security revenue. By the year 2030, Mr. President, interest payments on the debt will account for approximately 75 percent of general revenues. Let us consider the Social Security trust fund for a minute, the second part of that equation. We will start to go into the general fund to meet current Social Security liabilities by the year 2010, which is right around the corner. We will need an additional $850 billion in the year 2030 alone over anticipated Social Security receipts to meet current liabilities. That is an additional $850 billion if we proceed under current circumstances. So by the year 2030, we will have Social Security needing about an additional $850 billion, at the same time that interest payments on the debt are exceeding 75 percent of general revenue. You can see where that takes us. The sum of interest payments and Social Security equals just under $6 trillion. General revenues are expected to be just over $6 trillion. Clearly, this is a catastrophe waiting to happen, Mr. President. We cannot sustain that trend. What else will be going on if this scenario plays out? These are just numbers. What is going to be going on in the real world? Our savings rate is going to decline even further. That, in turn, will cause our interest rates, now hurting, to decline even further. That, in fact, will hamper our growth rate; it will hamper the standard of living for every young couple starting out and trying to start a family. It is already going down. We hear a lot of talk that the real income of working Americans today has stagnated for some time now in this country. The other part of this story is that for younger Americans, since 1973, the real income for them has actually gone down. This economy is slowing down. We talk about what happened last quarter or the quarter before last, but if you take the long-term trend, this economy is slowing down. Our investment rate is slowing down. Our savings rate, which produces that investment, is slowing down. As interest takes a bigger and bigger chunk of the savings dollar, there is less there for private investment. Interest rates will go up and taxes will go up astronomically. We all know the demographics, and before long we are going to have a smaller and smaller working force, taking care of a larger and larger retired population. Some people even talk in terms of a generational war--a generational war, Mr. President. Surely we can do better than that. That is the real danger to Social Security. If that happens, if we get to that point, if we get to a 70-percent tax rate, if we get to an economy slowing down, if young working people see this is happening to them and these figures go out of sight, nothing is going to be safe, including Social Security. We must avoid that, and the only way to do that is by a constitutional amendment. We have already turned ourselves from a creditor nation into a debtor nation. We already have the lowest savings rate among all of the industrialized countries. We have now one of the lowest investment rates of any of the industrialized countries. We must be able to see the handwriting on the wall. The only other options would be to cut Social Security dramatically, raise taxes dramatically, keep raising the deficit, or not fund anything else, such as defense, infrastructure, Medicaid, or any of those things that we know we must fund. Had we balanced the budget in 1981, based on the law passed at that point--as the President recalls, the history is replete with instances of failed attempts to balance the budget. We have declared it to be a national priority. We have put it into law in 1979. But even the year we put it into law, there was a $79 billion deficit. Failed attempt after failed attempt, Mr. President. If we, in effect, had balanced the budget, as the law required in 1981, our interest payments today would be only $45 billion, compared to the $234 billion. And it is almost $200 billion less than we are paying today. Indeed had we balanced the budget beginning in 1981, interest payments would be so much lower that by this year we could have a balanced budget and still spend virtually the same amount as actually is being spent on noninterest spending. Therefore, I urge that we not lose sight of what we are about here. This amendment does not protect Social Security; in fact, it endangers it. The only true protection for Social Security is the passing of the balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor. the reid amendment

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, first of all I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his remarks and for his inspirational leadership in this area. Those of us who have been following these matters know the Senator from New Mexico is not only the strongest advocate for fiscal responsibility but he has been a leader and an inspiration to all those who are concerned in this area. If we had the leadership and the knowledge and the courage of Senator Domenici more prevalent in this body we would not be here today, debating a constitutional amendment. But we are. Because we have not had that kind of leadership. I would like to address, for a moment, the discussion that was had earlier concerning an amendment, the so-called right-to-know amendment. I was not here for most of the discussion that was led by the distinguished minority leader. But basically as I understand it, his position is that they think the American people have a right to know the details of this plan which they know as a practical impossibility and would be an irrelevance anyway. One Senator could not bind another and there are all kinds of plans floating around. All that is known but the point is yet made--the people's right to know. I would like to make a couple of points about that. First of all, it occurs to me this approach assumes a great deal more ignorance on the part of the American people than is present. It assumes the American people, who overwhelmingly support a balanced budget amendment, think it can be done without any sacrifice whatsoever. This amendment and this approach presupposes that the American people want a balanced budget amendment but they think we can go right along the same old way we have been going without anybody making any incremental adjustment in any program and still achieve a balanced budget. I just came off the campaign trail. I can tell you that the people in my State know better than that. I can also tell you that I have never run across a grandparent or I have never run across a recipient of any of these programs, Medicare, Medicaid and so forth, I have never run across a person who is concerned enough to even be present around where there is a political discussion taking place who would not be willing to make some incremental modest adjustment if they thought it went to benefit their child or their grandchild. We assume apparently in this body that the American people not only are ignorant but they are greedy, and that it does not matter that we are spending our grandchildren's birthright; it does not matter that we are bankrupting them; it does not matter that they have no representation and we are spending their money; that we are so greedy all we can concern ourselves with is the current list of goodies or the current list of programs or the current benefits that are now being received; and we cannot see past that and we will let the next generation take care of itself. Madam President, I am not willing to concede that. How in the world can we come to the conclusion that is the kind of America that we have in this country? The American people are better than that. It is time that the Congress of the United States caught up to the American people. But let us talk a little bit more about the right to know. The distinguished minority leader believes in the right to know. I believe in the right to know. It is kind of like the balanced budget. Everybody in this body believes in the right to know. Everybody in this body believes in a balanced budget. I think the American people have a right to know. Let us talk about the young people for a minute because there may be some young people out there--maybe just teenagers--who are just beginning to familiarize themselves with the process, who are just beginning to understand what is going on in this country, and are just beginning to realize that this is for them, this is for them and for their children. But they may not really fully understand some things yet. They have the right to know that, if we do not make any more progress than we have made in the past, we are headed for economic disaster in this country. It is not even a matter of debate. You talk to any economist. You talk to anybody who has written on the subject. You talk to any congressional committee. We have all seen the charts. We look at what is right in front of us and say, ``Well, by George, we really were courageous. We passed the largest tax increase in the history of America a couple of years ago. So that is the kind of courage we show. We are going to spend the taxpayers' money again, and we do not have any problem.'' When everybody knows, even the administration's own estimate that in 1998--after the next Presidential election, coincidentally--it is going to go off the charts. These young people have a right to know that. They also have a right to know, if they are listening to the eloquent remarks on the other side of the aisle about all we have to do is do what we did in 1993, it is ironic, I think, and somewhat indicative of the position that we are in in this country where a piece of legislation that adds over $1 trillion to the debt is used as a success story. But be that as it may, there have been several efforts in times past that have been alluded to earlier. But it is really significant. It cannot be alternative is if we do not pass a balanced budget amendment. Can we do what the opponents of the balanced budget amendment say? We have to pull up our socks and do the right thing. I wish it were that simple. I wish it were that easy. Some of us probably would not have even run for office, if it had been that simple and that easy. But we have been talking about this, passing resolutions, making promises, trying to bind the President for 70 years. Everybody was for a balanced budget back in 1921 to force the President to recommend one. In 1964, Congress got up on its feet and said we must do it soon. It is the sense of the Congress that we have to balance this budget in 1964. They actually balanced the budget after that. But even before the last balanced budget they were talking about it. In 1978, it became a matter of national policy. Are we to take that lightly? Is that something that just trips off the lips of folks around here? We state it is a matter of national policy, and they go on record in 1978. The deficit kept growing. The debt kept growing. In 1978, Humphrey-Hawkins came back, and say it is a prioritization. We prioritize a balanced Federal budget. That was a good year. Apparently everybody had balanced budgets on their mind because it was obvious even then that things were getting out of hand. And if we did not put aside some of our short-term political considerations where every special interest group in America would descend on this town periodically and demand theirs, and the devil with the future generation, if we did not stop that way of doing business, we would be in big trouble. In 1978 they passed a law that required a balanced budget for the year 1981. So what happened in fiscal year 1981? They had a $79 billion deficit for the very year they passed the law saying this cannot happen. The Budget Act of 1974, they said we have the solution now. We have the answer to it now because Congress will have to come up with an annual budget resolution, and people will be afraid to vote for these large debts, these large deficits in a budget resolution. That was 1974. What happened? In 1975, the deficit skyrocketed again and continued on. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in 1985--we know what happened to that. It worked fine until the gravy train stopped, and a little bit of a lid was put on the pork barrel. So we had to make some adjustments, and effectively rendered it irrelevant. The 1990 budget deal, the deal to end all deals, did nothing to reduce the deficit. In 1993, we talked about it. That is the only answer that I hear. From 1921 on, we have been trying our best, with everybody agreeing, that we had to balance the budget. And not only have we not balanced the budget, the problem continues to get worse as we sit here today, and as we discuss this. This is the good news. This is the good news. There are more people in the work force, more two-earner families. Before too long it is going to reverse itself. It is going to be the bad news. It is going to be the bad news with fewer and fewer people in the workplace supporting more and more people. That is why we have to take responsible measures to protect Social Security. The balanced budget amendment protects Social Security. The most irresponsible thing you could do to elders on Social Security, including my mother, would be to let the status quo continue. There is not going to be anything for anybody a little bit further down the road. The Democratic Senator from Nebraska and the Republican Senator from Missouri issued a report recently that said in the year 2020, I believe, we are going to run out of money. I am paraphrasing it a little bit. They were more eloquent than that. But they said a handful of programs and the interest on the national debt is going to take everything. Yet we continue down the same road. The right to know? The young people have a right to know what is happening to them. There is a lot of talk about the stagnation of income over the last 20 years. Real income is not going up. What people do not talk about is for the younger folks, the younger working people starting out with their families. Since 1973, their income level has been going down and actually losing ground for these young people because of the tremendous debt which is sopping up the savings. And we cannot have investment without savings, and we cannot have growth without investment. The economy is slowing down and people are feeling the loss of the American dream, the basic optimistic assumption that every young person growing up has had since this country began, and that was that if they worked hard, they would do at least as well or better than their parents. You talk to young people now and they do not feel that way. Young people have a right to know what is happening to them. What about their right to know? The other side says they want the right to know what State is going to be cut. I think we ought to tell the young people what is going to happen to them. I think we ought to tell them how long the fight has been and the struggle has been and how fruitless it has been and how the Congress of the United States has ignored its own protestations, ignored its own laws, because it is so, so difficult, apparently, to do the right thing because of the political considerations and the political careerism that drives people to shortsightedly look toward the next election instead of the next generation. People have a right to know what is going to happen. The real purpose of the right-to-know amendment, of course, is a scare tactic. It is designed to be able to point to some program that some group is going to be hurt by and have them descend on this town and pressure them and raise money against Members and try to scare everybody off, because there are certain groups who apparently are shortsighted enough to say if it means any reduction in my State, for example, that I will do anything rather than take any kind of reduction in my State. Never mind that it might work to benefit my State in the long run. Never mind that it might work to lower interest rates because we get a handle on this deficit, and that it will help my State or my municipality in its borrowings and the activities of my State. Never mind all that. If there is any scare tactic that might work, let us use it. No, the real problem is that there are a lot of people who, for the first time in their lives, see a realistic possibility for the lid to get put on the pork barrel and the gravy train to stop on the tracks. That is what most of this is all about. Finally, as long as we are talking about the right to know, I think if this body does not do the overwhelming will of the American people, they ought to have the right to know next election the people who were not willing to take the first step toward putting us in a position to avoid bankrupting our grandchildren. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank my colleague.

Mr. THOMPSON. I think we are narrowing the debate. I think we both pretty much agree that we have a very serious problem. I think where we finally perhaps disagree is the prospects of doing anything about that on the current course. We have been talking about balancing the budget for years and years and we have been talking about fiscal responsibility. Every Member who gets on this floor to speak says they are for a balanced budget and every Member says they fought for fiscal responsibility. As the Senator from Illinois pointed out awhile ago, the last time we debated the balanced budget amendment the same things were said. ``We made some progress. We are going to make more.'' We are going in the wrong direction. My concern is that we will take no action. My concern is that we will continue to do the wrong action that we have been doing for the last 70 years.

Mr. THOMPSON. And I could show you a chart far worse than that one if we take it out into the future.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. But the basic question to me, fundamentally, is whether or not we have a very, very serious problem that is going to turn into a catastrophic problem down the road or whether or not this is overblown; whether or not the entitlements commission, for example, the bipartisan commission headed by two very distinguished Senators, one from each party, whether or not they are wrong when they say in the year 2020 that a handful of programs and the interest on the debt is going to run us out of money and we are not going to have enough money for national defense, infrastructure, research and development, and all these other things. Whether or not the President, as I understand it, is wrong when his own projections show that around about 1998, even though we have made some progress in recent years with a massive tax increase--we cannot have one of those every time we want to make a little progress, in my estimation; anyway I will not argue you that point now--but the President's own figures show that the deficits skyrocket. One of my colleagues used this chart. If we do not balance the budget, deficits will grow to more than 18 percent of GDP by 2030. I mean we have all seen these charts. And everybody--all the economists I have heard, the Concord Coalition, headed by two distinguished former Senators, one from either party; the distinguished Pete Peterson, a former Secretary of Commerce, in the recent book he has out--everybody that I have heard pretty much agrees that we have a very, very serious problem on our hands and that we are kind of fiddling while the country is burning around here. Does the Senator disagree with that assessment?

Mr. THOMPSON. I think the Senator's concern is well placed. I, for one, have been concerned that in this country for a long period of time we have refused to make any sacrifices, as far as consumption is concerned, and that the first things usually on the chopping block are things that benefit the next generation and that we ought to be spending more on what would probably be decided as capital items, infrastructure, things that will make our country stronger and more competitive and greater in future years and consume less. I happen to not think the Senator's concern would best be the approach to take to resolve that. But I appreciate the concern. But getting back to, I think, the most fundamental concern, we can talk about a capital budget, we can talk about this would somehow restrict the Government from fine-tuning the economy, we can debate over whether or not the Government has had that much success in times past.

Mr. THOMPSON. My understanding is that it would represent only about 4 percent of our expenditures anyway. I am not sure it would make that much difference one way or another, frankly. My other concern with the capital budget, of course, is the definition of a capital budget and how you defined it and whether or not everything all of a sudden would start to go into that budget.

Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator disagree with the CBO analysis?