Summary:

All articles in Senate section

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
(Senate - February 23, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2995-S3034] BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know that my colleague, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, has come to the floor to speak. I ask unanimous consent that, after he speaks, it then be in order to call up a motion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this debate is about amending the U.S. Constitution. If we approve the proposal as offered by the distinguished Senator from Utah and others--as the House already has-- it will be up to the States of this country to ratify or reject what would become the 28th constitutional change in 206 years. The Constitution of the United States represents the greatest democratic achievement in the history of human civilization. It--and the self-evident truths which are its bases--has guided the decisions and the heroic sacrifices of Americans for two centuries. Its precepts are the guiding light and have been a shining beacon of hope for millions across the globe who hunger for the freedoms that democracy guarantees. It has served not only us, it has served the world, as well. It is not, Mr. President, a document, therefore, to be amended lightly. Indeed, my strongest objection to this proposal is that it does not belong in our Constitution; it belongs in our law. In addition to this argument, I also intend to suggest that the political will to enact changes in law to balance our budget--which was missing from many previous Congresses--now appears to be here. In fact, I wish the time taken to debate this change in our Constitution was instead spent debating the changes needed in the statutes that dictate current and future spending. This does not mean, Mr. President, I agree with those who have complained about the length of time we have spent on this proposal. This complaint is without merit. This great document should not be amended in a rush of passion. It is evident from the Constitution itself that its authors intended the process of amendment to be slow, difficult, and laborious. So difficult that it has been attempted with success only 17 times since the Bill of Rights. This document is not meant to be tampered with in a trivial fashion. As I said, the proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution is intended to affect the behavior of America's congressional representatives. In that regard, it is unique. Except for the 25th amendment, which addresses the issue of transfer of power, other amendments affecting the behavior of all Americans by limiting the power of Government, protecting public freedoms, prohibiting the majority from encroaching on the rights of the minority or regulating the behavior of the States. This would be the only amendment aimed at regulating the behavior of 535 Americans, who the amendment assumes are incapable of making the difficult decisions without the guidance of the Constitution's hand. That theory is grounded in the assumption that Congress and the public lack the political will to balance the budget. Specifically, the proposal contains 294 words. It would raise from a simple majority to three-fifths the vote necessary in Congress for deficit spending. It would set a goal of balancing our budget by the year 2002. The amendment empowers Congress to pass legislation detailing how to enforce that goal, but does not itself specify enforcement measures. The only answer to the question of what will happen if Congress and the President fail to balance the budget is that nobody knows. The only mechanism our country has for enforcing the Constitution is the courts. So the amendment's ambiguity prevents the serious possibility of protracted court battles which give unelected judiciary unwarranted control over budget policy. The proponents of this amendment sincerely believe our Constitution needs to be changed in order to force Members of Congress to change their behavior, which supporters argue they will not do because they are afraid of offending the citizens who have sent them here in the first place. On that basis there is a long list of constitutional change they should propose, including campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and term limits, just to name a few. Mr. President, I support the goal of a balanced budget, and have fought and am fighting and will continue to fight to achieve it. However, desirability of a goal cannot become the only standard to which we hold constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments must meet a higher standard. The Constitution and its 27 amendments express broadly our values as a Nation. The Constitution does not dictate specific policies, fiscal or otherwise. We attempted to use the Constitution for that purpose once, banning alcohol in the 18th amendment, and it proved to be a colossal failure. Fundamentally, we should amend the Constitution to make broad statements of national principle. And most importantly, Mr. President, we should amend the Constitution as an act of last resort when no other means are adequate to reach our goals. We do so out of reverence for a document we have believed for two centuries should not be changed except in the most extraordinary circumstances. We have used constitutional amendments to express our preference as a Nation for the principles of free speech, the right to vote and the right of each individual to live free. The question before Members today is whether the need for a balanced budget belongs in such distinguished company. While I oppose this amendment, Mr. President, I understand the arguments for it. I have had the privilege of serving here for 6 years and I am entering my seventh budget cycle as a consequence. Every time the President of either party, since I have been here, has sent a budget to this body it has been greeted with speeches and promises and rhetoric about the need to balance the budget. And each time, those speeches and promises and rhetoric have been greeted with votes in the opposite direction. Many of those whose judgment I most respect in this body support this amendment, including the senior Senator from Nebraska, whose reputation as a budget cutter needs no expounding by me. I am sympathetic. Clearly something is wrong with a system which so consistently produces deficits so large. The question for me is not whether something is wrong, but precisely, what is wrong? Do we run a massive deficit because something in the Constitution is broken? Were the Founding Fathers mistaken in assigning the elected representatives of the people the task of setting fiscal and budget policy? And is a constitutional amendment, as opposed to a statute requiring a balanced budget, the only workable solution? If the answers to these questions were yes, then a constitutional amendment in my judgment would be appropriate. But my answer in all three of these questions, is a resounding no. If, on the other hand, the problem lies in the behavior of the 535 individuals whose actions produce the deficit, as opposed to the document that governs it, then a constitutional amendment is both an inappropriate and ineffective means for balancing the budget. If a simple statute rather than an [[Page S2996]] amendment will work, we should leave the Constitution alone. Supporters of the amendment note we tried statute in 1985 in the form of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law and that law failed miserably. Therefore, the argument goes, a more powerful tool than ordinary statute--in other words, constitutional amendment--is necessary. The assumption, apparently is that a constitutional amendment mandate would provide the legal and the political cover needed to cast the tough votes in a climate in which the political will for doing so does not exist. But the fact is, Mr. President, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings failed not because it was a statute as opposed to an amendment, but because the political will to balance the budget did not exist in 1985. Gramm- Rudman-Hollings set deficit targets to set up on a glidepath, a term we are hearing again today, to achieve zero deficits by 1991. The deficit target for 1986 was $172 billion. We end up $222 billion in the hole. President Reagan's budgets did not even meet the Gramm- Rudman-Hollings targets in that year, much less a balanced budget. And even though Gramm-Rudman-Hollings provided the legal and political cover for deficit reduction, neither Congress nor the President has the stomach for it. Now we are attempting to find in the Constitution what we could not find in ourselves. I believe, Mr. President, that 1995 and 1985 are two very different times. I have heard the American people say loud and clear in this last November election that not only does the will to balance the budget exist, it thrives. We all know that the political will to balance the budget exists today to a much larger degree than it did in 1985. In fact, there is much more enthusiasm than existed even in 1994. The political dynamic has changed in this Congress. I believe the political will now exists to make the tough choices. To illustrate this change, consider our attitude toward spending cuts today. A year ago when a bipartisan coalition of Senators offered and fought for an amendment which would have cut $94 billion in spending over 5 years, the administration argued against it, saying our economy would enter a recession. But since the election, Mr. President, the same administration opponents are scrambling to propose cuts that are larger than the ones that they opposed just a little over a year ago. There are far more Senators and Representatives today who are prepared to vote for spending cuts than there were last year. And there is evidence of a willingness to form bipartisan coalitions in the beginning to tackle the problem, including our most politically charged problem, Federal entitlements. So I say that after the rhetoric for and against this amendment is over, let Senators get to work to show Americans we have the courage this amendment presumes that we lack. While it is true that the President's recently submitted budget does little to reduce the deficit, the stomach for the tough choices does exist in this body. If the appeal of a balanced budget amendment is simply the legal or political cover it provides for the tough choice, a statutory change would provide the same cover. If the presumption behind the amendment is that the political will to balance the budget does not exist, then make no mistake, those who lack that political will can find a way to circumvent this amendment. An amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a powerful weapon, not one to be taken lightly. This weapon can be disarmed with 60 votes in the Senate, only 9 more than it takes for deficit spending today. And beyond all the legal maneuvers, there is no cover for tough decisions but the courage to make them. So I simply am not convinced a balanced budget amendment is necessary. It assumes a structural flaw in our Constitution that prevents the 535 Members of Congress from balancing the budget. In fact, there is no such flaw in the Constitution. To the extent such a flaw exists, it is in the 535 Members of Congress themselves, not the document that governs us. The fact is, we can balance the budget this year if we wanted to, and we can by statute direct the Congress to balance the budget by 2002, 2003, or any other date that we choose. Furthermore, I believe this debate is misdirected. The balanced budget amendment tells us what to do over the next 7 years but ignores the following 20, the years which ought to command our attention. A balanced budget by the year 2002 still ignores the most important fiscal challenge we face: The rapid growth in entitlement spending over the next 30 years. The year on which we ought to be focused is not 2002, but 2012 when the baby boomer generation begins to retire and places a severe strain on the Federal budget. Our biggest fiscal challenge is demographic, not constitutional, and the amendment before us does not and cannot address it. Unfortunately and conveniently, this demographic challenge is kept from our view, not by an incomplete Constitution, but by a budgeting process that discourages long-term planning. The budget the President sent us tells us what to do for the next 5 years--5 years, Mr. President. The balanced budget amendment tells us what happens over 7 years. Five- and seven-year spans are completely inadequate when the most difficult budget decisions we need to make deal with problems we will face 20, 25 and 30 years down the road, when the aging of our population propels entitlement spending out of control. The most important recommendation of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform is that we began to look at the impact of the budget over 30 years, rather than just 5 or 7. The reason that our country looks very different and our current budgets look very different viewed over that span is, as I said, not one of our Constitution, not, indeed, even one of our statute, but one of demographics. We can see the trend in the short-term. The big four entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal retirement-- will consume 44 percent of the budget this year. Mandatory spending will consume 65 percent. By 2000, it will be 70 percent. By 2005, the number is 78 percent. Those numbers, Mr. President, are straight from CBO. If we project further, we see that by 2012, mandatory spending plus interest on the national debt will consume every dollar we collect in taxes. By 2013, we will be forced to begin dipping into the surplus of the Social Security trust funds to cover benefit payments, a practice that will go on for no more than 16 years before the trust fund goes bankrupt in the year 2029. These trends have nothing to do with the Constitution, political will or pork barrel politics. They have to do with the simple fact that our population is getting older while the work force gets smaller. My generation did not have as many children as our parents expected and, as a consequence, the system under which each generation of workers supports the preceding generation of retirees simply will not hold up much longer. Indeed, long-term entitlement reform, coupled with a reasonable reduction in discretionary spending, including defense, would reduce interest rates dramatically and achieve the goal of this amendment without tampering with the Constitution. In this context, I need to address the role of Social Security in this debate. I have heard speaker after speaker come to the floor on both sides of the issue and announce their support for this program. I agree with them all. Social Security is one of the most, if not the most, important and successful Government programs we operate. Social Security should not and, indeed, does not need to be used to balance the budget. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Social Security will start running a deficit in 2013, due, as I mentioned earlier, to the retirement of the baby boomer generation and the fact that more retirees will be drawing from the trust funds while fewer workers contribute to it. The general fund currently borrows against the surplus, and when Social Security begins running a deficit, the decisionmaking capacity of future Congresses will be limited, because large amounts of the general fund will have to be used to repay the money we are borrowing from the trust fund today. That situation will tempt future Congresses to run Social Security in deficit if it is exempted from deficit calculations. That development would, of [[Page S2997]] course, only further jeopardize the program. Even today, our decisionmaking capacity is already limited by the growth of entitlement spending. In 1963, a little more than 30 years ago, spending on entitlements and interest on the national debt consumed 30 percent of our Federal budget. This year, entitlements and net interest will devour 65 percent. The present budget assumes 66 percent for next year and by 2000, the number will be 70 percent. Mr. President, that is the problem that we face. That is why we are forced year after year after year to come and cut domestic discretionary programs, whether it is defense or nondefense. The pressure is coming from entitlement programs that are consuming a larger and larger percent of our budget inexorably by the year 2013, it will be 100 percent, converting the Federal Government into an ATM machine. The result is a question of fairness between generations. Today there are roughly five workers paying taxes to support the taxes of each retiree. When my generation retires, there will be fewer than three workers per retiree. Unless we take action now, the choice forced upon our children will be excruciating. Continue to fund benefits at current levels by radically raising taxes on the working population or slash benefits dramatically. Finally, Mr. President, as we debate this amendment, I hope we keep our eyes on a larger prize in blind reference to the idea of a balanced budget. Our goals should, in my view, be economic prosperity. I support deficit reduction as a means to that end. Deficit reduction is important not as an abstract ideal but as an economic comparative. I believe in balancing the budget because it is the surest and most powerful way to increase national savings. And increased national savings will lead to increased national productivity which in turn will lead to higher standards of living for the American family. There is no short cut to savings and no substitute that will get results. Increased national savings mean lower long-term interest rates and increased job growth in the private sector. The balanced budget amendment assumes that a balanced budget is always the best economic policy. A balanced budget, Mr. President, is usually the best economic strategy, but it is by no means always the best strategy for this country. Downward turns in the economy complicate the picture. Downward turns will result in lower revenues and higher spending so there will be times, although very few of them, when a strict requirement for balancing the budget harms the economy by requiring the collection of more and more taxes to cover more and more spending in an economic environment which makes revenue collection more difficult in the first place. As I say, I believe those times are few and far between. But the Constitution is too blunt an instrument to distinguish between good times and bad. The American people hired us to do that job, not to cede it to a legal document that cannot assess the evolving needs of our economy. The bottom line for me as we debate this amendment is whether it moves us toward achieving the correct goals and whether, if it does, we need to amend the Constitution to get there. My answer to the first question is mixed. I believe a balanced budget is an important goal, but only as a component of an overall economic strategy which recognizes that skyrocketing entitlement spending is the most serious fiscal challenge we face. My answer to the second question is more certain. I believe that once we set those goals, we can achieve them by statute or, more importantly, by changing our own behavior rather than changing the Constitution. My respect for this document precludes me from voting to tamper with it when I am not convinced that we must. This proposal for a 28th amendment does not command for me the same reverence in which I hold the 1st amendment or the 13th or the 19th and, therefore, Mr. President, while I will continue to fight for its admirable goal, I will vote no on the balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to call up motion No. 3 at the desk and that it be considered as one of my relevant amendments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if I might, it is my understanding that there are two unanimous consent requests which deal with two amendments of the Senator from Minnesota. I wonder if I might make those requests and see if they are suitable to the Senator from Minnesota, and we can proceed in that manner. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that will be fine with me. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose? Mr. WELLSTONE. I do. Unanimous-Consent Agreements Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be recognized to call up his motion dealing with homeless children; and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone; 15 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch; and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the majority leader, or his designee, be recognized to table the Wellstone motion; and that that vote occur at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of the Wellstone motion dealing with homeless children, Senator Wellstone be recognized to call up his filed motion No. 2, and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone, 15 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Wellstone motion, and that vote occur in the stacked sequence to begin at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Motion to refer Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Arizona and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me for my colleagues---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend for just a moment while the clerk states the motion, please. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] moves to refer House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget Committee with instructions to report back forthwith House Joint Resolution 1 in status quo and at the earliest date possible, to issue a report, the text of which shall be as follows: ``It is the sense of the Committee that in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children.'' Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. The motion is self- explanatory, it is very reasonable, and it is very important. What this motion says is not that we should delay the vote on the balanced budget amendment. We will have that vote. This is not a part of that constitutional amendment at all. This is just simply a motion which says we will go on record through the Senate Budget Committee that in whatever ways we move forward to balance the budget, whether this constitutional amendment is passed or not --there is really no linkage here--we will go on record, and I would like to again now go through the operative language, it is the sense of the Senate to the Budget Committee: That in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. [[Page S2998]] That is what this motion says. One more time, it is not an amendment to this constitutional amendment. It does not put off the date that we vote on this amendment. I simply ask that the Senate go on record through the Budget Committee that if this amendment passes or even if this amendment does not pass, we will take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. Mr. President, I have been in the Chamber from the beginning of this session with just this amendment which has received, I think, 43 votes. I do not understand why the Senate is not willing to go on record on this question. Mr. President, this motion is essentially a statement by the Senate; it is a request to colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we speak boldly and we speak directly, as we understand children are the most vulnerable citizens in this country. Every time I hear one of my colleagues talk about how we have to reduce the deficit--and by the way, sometimes people get confused between annual deficit and this huge debt we have built up--and that we cannot put this deficit on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren, the best thing we can do for the children of our Nation is to balance the budget, I say to myself, fine, I agree. I am a father. I am a grandfather. But what about the vulnerable children in the United States of America today? Why cannot the Senate go on record--it is a sense of the Senate--that we certainly understand as we go forward with deficit reduction we will not do anything which would increase hunger or homelessness among children in our Nation. Is that too much to ask? What possibly could be the reason for voting no? Senators are talking about how we have to balance the budget for the sake of the children of the future. How about the lives of children living now? How about children right now who happen to be among the most vulnerable group in this Nation? The context is important. The Food Research and Action Center in 1991 estimated that 5.5 million children under 12 years of age are hungry at least one day a month in the United States of America. Second Harvest estimated that, in 1993, emergency food programs served 10,798,375 children. The U.S. Council of Mayors found that, in 1994, 64 percent of the persons receiving food assistance were from families with children. Carnegie Foundation, late 1980's--68 percent of public schoolteachers reported that undernourished children and youth are a problem in school. By the way, I talk to teachers in Minnesota who tell me the same thing. Children are among the homeless in this country and indeed families with children are a substantial segment of the homeless population. The U.S. Council of Mayors estimates that, in 1994, 26 percent of the homeless were children, based upon requests from emergency shelters. That is a pretty large percentage of the homeless population. And, in 1988, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 100,000 children are homeless each day. Mr. President, what does it mean that children are hungry? In comparison to nonhungry children, hungry children are more than three times likely to suffer from unwanted weight loss, more than four times as likely to suffer from fatigue, almost three times as likely to suffer from irritability, and more than 12 times as likely to report disease. Mr. President, let me discuss the context one more time. I have been in this Chamber from the beginning of this session with this basic proposition, either in amendment form, or now, in the most reasonable form possible; as just a motion, a sense of the Senate that would go to the Budget Committee. It is not a part of the constitutional amendment. This motion merely has us going on record that as we move toward a balanced budget, which we are all for as well as deficit reduction, we are not going to take any action that would increase the number of hungry or homeless children in America. Will the Senate not go on record supporting this? I hear Senators say that they are going to make these cuts; that is the best thing they can do for our children and our grandchildren. What about these children? One out of every four children in America is poor. Children's Defense Fund came out with a study last year--this data is accurate and I wish it was not. I wish this was not the reality. One day in the life of American children, three children die from child abuse. One day in the life of American children, nine children are murdered. One day in the life of American children, 13 children die from guns. One day in the life of American children, 27 children, a classroomful, die from poverty. One day in the life of American children, 63 babies die before they are 1 month old. One day in the life of American children, 101 babies die before their first birthday. One day in the life of American children, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight, less than 5.5 pounds--yet the House of Representatives yesterday voted to block grant and cut Women, Infants and Children programs. Cut nutrition programs--that was the vote in the House yesterday. One day in the life of American children, 636 babies are born to women who had late or no prenatal care. One day in the life of American children, 1,234 children run away from home. One day in the life of American children, 2,868 babies are born into poverty. One day in the life of American children, 7,945 children are reported abused or neglected. One day in the life of American children, 100,000 children are homeless. I hope my colleagues are not bored by these statistics. These are real people. These are children in the United States of America. These children, all of these children, are our children. Moments in America for children? Every 35 seconds a child drops out of school in America. Every 30 seconds, a child is born into poverty, every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty. Every 2 minutes a child is born low birth weight. Every 2 minutes a child is born to a woman who had no prenatal care. Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for alcohol-related crime. Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for drug- related crime. I have given this figure before: Every 2 hours a child is murdered and every 4 hours a child takes his or her life in the United States of America. Mr. President, I received a letter from Ona. I do not use last names because I never know whether citizens want to have their names used or not. Ona is 8. My name is Ona and I go to public school and I'm 8. My class has 26 kids in it and only three of them, Iman, Jasmin, and me bring lunches to school. Twenty-three kids in my class depend on the school lunch and now you want to cut those programs. Which do you think is more important, cutting the debt or having poor helpless children having nothing to eat? Senator, that's not right because almost my entire class depends on school breakfast and school lunch, and if you cut these programs they will starve. How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. She is 8 years old. How come my colleagues do not get this? How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. Life is already hard enough for us with pollution, crime and disease. I hope you change your mind. Ona, you do not have to ask me to change my mind. And she is so right. Some of my colleagues say this is just a scare tactic. Prove me wrong. I will give you a chance at 3 o'clock today to prove me wrong. ``This is just a scare tactic.'' Who is kidding whom? Look at the headlines: ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts.'' ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Washington Post, front page story: House Republicans, wielding their budget-cutting axes more forcefully than at any time since taking power, yesterday proposed slashing some $5.2 billion of spending approved by previous Democratic Congresses * * *. Included in the lengthy list of cuts voted out by five appropriations subcommittees during a hectic day of meetings were rural housing loans, nutrition programs for children and pregnant women * * *. Let me repeat: * * * nutrition programs for children and pregnant women, spending on urban parks, and assistance to the poor and elderly for protecting their homes against the cold. That is right. They want to eliminate LIHEAP, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I have spent time with families in Minnesota--it is a cold weather State--who depend on [[Page S2999]] LIHEAP. You are going to cut their energy assistance so they have a choice between heat or eat? It is time to get a little bit more real with people in this country about what this agenda translates into. Another headline, ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' Washington Post, Thursday, February 23, 1995. I have been saying that this would happen from the beginning of the session and I have had people on the other side of the aisle say we are not going to do that. ``We care as much about children as you do.'' Prove me wrong. You get a chance to vote on this today. The article reads: After a full day of beating back Democratic amendments to restore the programs or soften their impact on welfare recipients, Chairman William Goodling said his committee will complete work today on a bill that will abolish the school breakfast, lunch and other nutrition programs for women and children and replace them with a block grant to the States. The Republican measure would freeze the amount of money given to States for child care at $1.94 billion a year, the current level. Representative George Miller [who is right] charged that because the number of needy children is expected to increase, the freeze would cut off child payments for more than 377,000 children in the year 2000. By contrast, funding for the school lunch and nutrition programs would be allowed to grow by $1.87 billion over 5 years. But committee Democrats said this was grossly inadequate and would fall $5 to $7 billion short of what is needed. It is block granted but it is bait and switch. It is block granted with cuts and, in addition, it is no longer an entitlement. So during more difficult times such as recession, if there are additional children who now need the assistance, those who are receiving assistance will have their assistance cut or some will be cut off the support. It is simple. ``House Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Including the Women, Infants, and Children Program. I have had some colleagues say to me this is just a scare tactic. But it is not. Because this is precisely where the cuts are taking place. Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend until the Sergeant at Arms has restored order in the galleries, please. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish that I did not have to come to the floor with this motion. I wish that this was not real. But the evidence is crystal clear. All you have to do is look at the state of children in America today. They are the most vulnerable citizens, the most poor. I am just saying to my colleague, can we not go on record that we are not going to pass any legislation or make any cuts that will increase hunger among children? Then I look at what has happened on the House side. They are cutting nutrition programs--cutting nutrition programs--the very thing that my colleagues over here said we will not do. And what people now say is do not worry about the House. The U.S. Senate is a different body, and it is. We are more deliberative. We do not ram things through. We are more careful. But now what I have to say to some of my colleagues is two or three times I have come to this floor and asked you to please go on record that we will not do anything that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. And each time, you voted no. Mr. President, The Children's Defense Fund that reported on where this balanced budget amendment will take us--I do not have the chart I usually have with me. But, roughly speaking, if you include in this package the baseline CBO projections plus tax cuts, which do not make a lot of sense when you are trying to do deficit reduction, broad-based tax cuts, plus increases in the Pentagon budget, it is about $1.3 trillion that needs to be cut between now and the year 2002. Mr. President, if Social Security is off the table--and it should be--if you are going to have to pay the interest on the debt and if military spending is going up, then it is pretty clear what is left. When you look at what has been taken off the table and what has been left on the table, it is crystal clear that you are going to have to have, about 30-percent cuts across the board. It may be that veterans programs will not be cut 30 percent. I hope not. But you basically have higher education; you have Medicare and Medicaid; you have veterans; and you have these low-income children's programs. Yesterday in the House, they are talking about cutting the Women, Infants, and Children Program, and the school lunch program. They are talking about eliminating the low-income energy assistance program. That is for low-income people in cold-weather States like Minnesota. I visited with those families. These issues are real to them. But when Senator Feingold and I came out on the floor of the Senate last week, and we had a very reasonable motion, that the Senate would go on record through the Budget Committee that we will consider $425 billion of tax expenditures, many of them loopholes, deductions and outright dodges for the largest corporations and financial institutions in America, they voted it down. So I understand what the Children's Defense Fund understands, that on present legislative course, this is where we are heading: By year 2002, 7.5 million children lose federally subsidized lunches, 6.6 million children lose their health care through Medicaid, 3 million children lose food stamps, and 2 million young children and mothers lose nutritional assistance through the WIC program. This is a very destructive way to ensure that our children are not burdened by debt. May I repeat that? This is a very destructive way of assuring that our children will not be burdened by debt, to cut into the very nutrition programs that benefit children right now who are so vulnerable in the United States of America, all for the sake of making sure that our children in the future are not burdened by debt. I wish my colleagues were as concerned about the children right now as they are about the children in the future. Mr. President, I might ask the Chair how much time I have remaining. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has approximately 20 minutes remaining. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is interested in responding, then I will yield the floor for a moment and reserve the rest of my time. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized to call up his amendment No. 301 following the remarks of Senator Hollings today, and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Byrd amendment, and that vote occur in the stacked sequence beginning at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HATCH. I thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Minnesota. Mr. President, we are now--let me take a few minutes--in our 25th day since this amendment was brought to the floor. Twenty-five days have expired since we started debating the balanced budget amendment. As you can see, I have added one more day, the 25th. This red line all the way from there over to here happens to be the baseline of $4.8 trillion, which is our national debt. It is $18,500 for every man, woman, and child in America, plus it is going up every day. Each day that we have debated this balanced budget amendment, I just want the American people to understand that our national debt has gone up $829 billion. We are now in the 25th day, and our national debt has been increased since we began this debate $2.736 billion. I do not care who you are. You have to draw the analogy between Rome [[Page S3000]] under Nero, as he fiddled while Rome burned. Fortunately, we do have a vote next Tuesday. We will decide this one way or the other, whether we are going to put a mechanism into the Constitution that will force Members of Congress to at least look at these details and do something about it. We will make it more difficult for them to spend more and to take more. It does not stop them, but it certainly makes it more difficult. What I have to say is that predicted opponents of the balanced budget amendment are trotting out a series of sympathetic Government beneficiaries and attempting either to exempt them from the balanced budget amendment or use them to argue against not just the amendment but indeed against balancing the budget at all. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HATCH. Yes. Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator understands that this is a motion. It is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. This has no linkage. This is simply a sense-of-the-Senate to the Budget Committee that when it comes to balancing the budget, we will go on record that we will not increase the number of hungry and homeless children. That is all this motion says. The Senator speaks to that, and that is why I asked the question. Mr. HATCH. I understand. This motion, in my opinion, is just another in a parade of exemptions which the opponents of the balanced budget amendment have tried to tack on. I know the Senator is sincere. I have worked with him ever since he has been here. He has a great deal of sincerity with regard to the people who are in difficulty and have difficulty, and especially the homeless. But I think, in that sense, it is just as inappropriate as the other motions that have been brought to the Senate. Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. HATCH. Yes, I will be happy to yield. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, does the Senator understand that this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment and, in that sense, it is not an exemption? It just simply asks us to go on record, through the Budget Committee, that we will not do anything that would increase more hunger or homelessness among children. Does the Senator understand that? Mr. HATCH. I do. Mr. WELLSTONE. That is all I am asking. Could the Senator tell me, does the Senator know, during this period of time, how many more hungry or homeless children there have been in the United States of America? Mr. HATCH. I do not think anybody fully knows. Mr. WELLSTONE. But is it not interesting that we do not know what we do not want to know. Why do we not know? Mr. HATCH. I disagree with the Senator that I do not want to know. I think the Senator knows my whole career has been spent helping those who are less fortunate. Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator does. I certainly do understand that. That is why I asked the Senator from Utah, who is probably one of the Senators I consider to be a really good friend. Let me ask the Senator, why is this an unreasonable proposition, given the headline ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing,'' what is going on on the House side right now, and given the fear of so many of the people that are working down in the trenches with children, that we both admire, about where these cuts are going to take place? This is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment. This is just a sense of the Senate. Why is it so unreasonable, since we will have the vote on Tuesday--no more delay--why is it so unreasonable for me to ask the Senate to go on record that we will not make any cuts that will increase hunger or homelessness among children? Why does the Senator from Utah not support this, since he cares about this certainly as much as I do, and others? (Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.) Mr. HATCH. Let me try to answer the Senator. Mr. President, the Founders gave Congress the power to spend money. They did not go on record as being opposed to action which would increase the number of homeless children or any other budget policy issue. They understood that the Constitution establishes the processes and the procedures under which our Government operates or would operate from that point on. Which policy choices may be made under those procedures do not belong in the discussion of the great principles of our Constitution. We are talking about a constitutional amendment that could save our country, because our country, as we can easily see, is going more and more into debt to the point where interest against the national debt is now consuming 50 percent of all personal income taxes paid every year. Now, I know my colleague is concerned about the homeless--so am I-- and so many others, from child care right on through to people with AIDS. I testified yesterday in favor of the Kennedy-Hatch Ryan White bill, which, of course, provides money for the cities with hardcore AIDS problems. So I feel very deeply about these issues. But I feel very deeply that those moneys are not going to be there if we keep running this country into bankruptcy. And if we think we have homeless people now, wait until you see what happens as that interest keeps going to the point where it consumes all of our personal income taxes. It is now consuming half of the personal income taxes paid in America today. We are going up, as this balanced budget amendment debt tracker shows, as this debate continues. We are already up to $20 billion, almost $21 billion, in the 25 days that we have debated this amendment. Now, Mr. President, I am concerned about it. Of course, we will do what we think is best for the children of America and for the homeless of America. But the least thing we can do for them is to pass the balanced budget amendment so they have a future, so that Members of Congress, most of whom are altruistic and want to do good for people, have to live within certain means, have to live within the means of this country. You know, if you think about it, if we pass the balanced budget amendment, then I think we will have an answer to the question why a child born today will pay an extra $100,000 in taxes over his or her lifetime for the debt that is being projected to accumulate in just the first 18 years of that child's life. And there will be another $5,000 in taxes for every additional $200 billion deficit. Mr. President, our President has sent us a budget that for the next 12 years projects $200 billion deficits a year. That is billion, with a ``b.'' Every year that happens, these children's taxes will go up $5,000 more. They will become more tax debt owing, $5,000 more for each year there is a $200 billion deficit. So if it is 12 years, that is $60,000 more on top of the current $100,000 they are going to be saddled with because of the way we have been handling situations. Mr. President, most Government programs have beneficiaries with some political popularity or power or attractiveness. And that is why they receive benefits in the first place. But this kind of thinking, that we should spend for these worthy beneficiaries whether we have the money or not, is precisely why we have the colossal national debt that we do. And I am just pointing to the balanced budget amendment debt tracker, which just shows the 25 days of increased debt, $21 billion so far. The power of the tax spenders has always been built on appealing to an attractive, narrow interest and that power has always outweighed the more diffused interest of the taxpayers and of our children, who cannot yet vote whose moneys we are spending in advance. Mr. President, this is business as usual, and it is what the balanced budget amendment is designed to end. The purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to ensure that Congress takes into account increased taxes, stagnant wages, higher interest rates, and the insurmountable debt that we will leave to our children if we keep spending the money that we do not have. [[Page S3001]] The parade of special interest groups embodied by so many of the amendments which have been offered against this balanced budget amendment, including this one, is to take the focus off our children's future and put it on the short-term interest of another, perhaps worthy, special interest group. There are thousands of special interest groups in our country. I wish we had enough money to take care of all of them and to do it in a way that would give them dignity and would help them to find their own way, would empower them to be able to make something of their lives. There is no question that all of us want to do that. But we are never going to do it--we are going to have more homeless, we are going to have more children bereft of what they need, we are going to have less of a future for them--if we do not pass this balanced budget amendment and get this spending under control. Make no mistake, those who keep bringing up these amendments for special interest groups, who are needy and whom we all want to help, in order to kill this amendment by 1,000 cuts, I think their efforts ought to be rejected. And that does not mean that they are not sincere or they are not good people or they are not trying to do their best. I find no fault with my friend from Minnesota in worrying about those who are homeless. I do, too. But if we are really worried about them, then let us get this country's spending practices under control so that this country's economy is strong so we can help them. I am willing to do that, and I have a reputation around here for trying. I think the Senate should get on with its business of weighing each of the interests presented to make choices among all the worthy programs within the constraints of the revenues we are willing to raise, like reasonable economic actors. Our problem today is, because we do not have a balanced budget amendment, people do not care how much they spend of the future of our children. They can feel very good towards themselves that they are compassionate and considerate of those who need help. But what they do not tell is the other side of that coin--that all of us are going to need help in the future if this country's economy becomes less than what it is, and it has no other way to go if we do not start getting our spending under control. So I suggest that, in spite of the sincerity of my friend from Minnesota, we vote down this amendment, as we have had to do, in order to preserve this concept of a balanced budget in the Constitution. This is our last chance. This is the first time in history, the first time in history, that the House of Representatives has had the guts, as a collective body, to get a two-thirds vote--which is very, very difficult to do--to pass the balanced budget amendment. The reason they have is because of the budget-courageous Democrats and Republicans who decided the country is more important than any special interest. And that we have to get the country under control and spending practices under control if we are really going to help the special interests, many of whom are worthy interests. On the one hand, I commend the distinguished Senator for his compassion and his desire to help people. On the other hand, I have difficulties with those who have brought up these amendments because every one of these amendments would make the balanced budget amendment less important. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I find the remarks of my good friend from Utah to be very important. I want to come back to a couple of basic points because I really believe that the vote on this motion is a real moment of truth here. First of all, Mr. President, this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That is not what they are voting on. This motion just says that we go on record we will not take any action which will increase the number of hungry or homeless children. It is that simple. I did not say we should balance the budget. I did not say we should not have serious deficit reduction. We have to make choices. It is a question of whether there is a standard of fairness. I want the Senate to go on record. Second of all, Mr. President, my colleague from Utah talked all about the Constitution, and therefore this is no place for a discussion of hunger and homelessness among children, because it is a different order of question. I might remind my colleague that the Preamble of the Constitution says: ``We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare.'' I would think that children are a part of how we promote the general welfare. Do not tell me that being on the floor of the Senate and talking about children does not have anything to do with the founding documents of our Nation. We talk about promoting the general welfare, I assume that includes children. The third point, Mr. President, I heard my colleague use the words ``special interest'' more than once. Children are special interests. We are all for the future, and we are all talking about we want to make sure that our children and grandchildren do not have to carry this debt. How about the children now? Now, Mr. President, I do not have such a fancy chart but the facts remain. Every 5 seconds a student drops out of school; every 30 seconds, a baby is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a baby is born at low birthweight; every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had no prenatal care; every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol- related crime; every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime; every 7 minutes a child is arrested for a drug crime; every 2 hours a child is murdered; every 4 hours a child commits suicide. I spoke about 100,000 homeless and 5 million hungry children earlier. I hear my colleague talking about our generosity. We cannot talk about our generosity. We have abandoned many children in the United States of America. I might add we devalued the work of many adults that work with those children. That is what these statistics say. And now, rather than investing more in our children, we are cutting programs. Three children die from child abuse; 1 day, 9 children are murdered; 1 day, 63 babies die before they are one month old; 1 day, 101 babies die before their first birthday; 1 day, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight. And I can go on and on. Mr. President, why do we not juxtapose these figures, these statistics about children in America today, with the headlines in the Washington Post, ``House Panels Vote Special Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing''; ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' I do not really think my colleagues can have it both ways. Let me get right down to the essence of this motion. We have these figures. We have the Children's Defense Fund which has been the organization most down in the trenches with children. I have State-by- State variations. I could read from every State--Idaho, Minnesota, Utah--about the projected cuts, because we know there will be cuts in these programs. We have to cut somewhere. Now, I came on to the floor of the Senate during the Congressional Accountability Act, and I had an amendment that came from Minnesota that essentially said before we send the balanced budget amendment to the States, let Senators lay out where we will be making the cuts. It was voted down. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, had a similar amendment. It was voted down. My colleagues will not specify where they will make the cuts, but when Senator Feingold and I said how about oil company subsidies, pharmaceutical subsidies, or $425 billion in tax holes, loopholes, deductions, and sometimes outright dodges, would we consider that in how we would balance the budget? No. That was the vote. My colleague from Utah says we have to make difficult choices. That is true. I am for cutting the Pentagon budget. I do not think military contractors are in a position where they cannot afford to tighten their belt. They are not being asked to tighten their belt. Nor [[Page S3002]] are we going after tax dodges and loopholes and deductions, and we have a bidding war on tax cuts. So there we have $1.3 trillion. We will not specify where we make the cuts, but we know what is left. I am saying to my colleagues, we cannot have it both ways. Do not, one more time on the floor of the U.S. Senate, say to me or say to children in this country, that this is just a scare tactic. I wish it were just a scare tactic. Or this is just a political strategy to get people on record. What I am saying to my colleagues is, is it too much to ask that we go on record saying to our Budget Committee, as we go forward with deficit reduction and as we go forward to balancing the budget which we are all for one way or the other, we go on record, we are not going to do anything that will increase hunger, homelessness among children? Know why my colleagues will not vote for this Mr. President? Because that is what we are going to do. The reason my colleagues will not vote for this is because that is precisely what we are going to do. I do not understand for the life of me why I cannot get the U.S. Senate on record on this very fundamental basic question. We cannot go forward with deficit reduction. I do not want to let colleagues say he is just doing this motion because he is not in favor of deficit reduction. That is not true. I voted for huge deficit reduction. I want to see all sorts of cuts. I would like to see the oil companies tighten their belt. I do not hear anything about that. But, no, I do not want to see the most vulnerable citizens being hurt. Mr. President, I have heard a couple of colleagues talk about the last election. And the people voted for change. People voted for change, but not this kind of change. There is too much goodness in the United States of America to cut nutrition programs and school lunch programs and child care programs, all in the name of deficit reduction. That is not where people in the United States of America want to see the cuts. My colleagues need to understand that. So, Mr. President, I come out here determined because I have a real sense of trepidation. I know what is going to happen with these programs. I know the majority leader was out on the floor saying we care as much about children as the Senator from Minnesota. I know my colleague from Utah says that. I now say prove me wrong. Prove now this afternoon that this is just a scare tactic. I want to be wrong. Prove this afternoon that this is just some political strategy. Let us go on record, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we are serious about deficit reduction, we are serious about balancing the budget, because I think we all are. And what we are going to do is go on record this afternoon, not with an amendment to this constitutional amendment--that is not what this is. This is just simply a motion to go on record that when we make these cuts, we are not going to do anything to increase hunger or homelessness among children. I do not understand why I cannot get 100 votes for it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is finished with his remarks, I will be pleased to yield him some of my time if he needs it, or I will yield back my time. Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to agree to that, to yield back time on both sides. And then the votes are to be stacked, as I understand it, beginning at 3. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is scheduled to occur at 3 o'clock. Mr. HATCH. Then I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, is it appropriate for me to table and ask for the yeas and nays with the understanding that the vote not occur until 3, or should we just wait until then? The PRESIDING OFFICER. First we must announce the result of the request for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, with the understanding that it will not be voted upon until 3 o'clock. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur beginning at 3 o'clock today. Mr. WELLSTONE. For a few moments, I will suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the next amendment, let me just say a few words about the impact of the deficit on the average American. We need to stop talking and start working on getting our fiscal house in order by passing the balanced budget amendment and working

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
(Senate - February 23, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2995-S3034] BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know that my colleague, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, has come to the floor to speak. I ask unanimous consent that, after he speaks, it then be in order to call up a motion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this debate is about amending the U.S. Constitution. If we approve the proposal as offered by the distinguished Senator from Utah and others--as the House already has-- it will be up to the States of this country to ratify or reject what would become the 28th constitutional change in 206 years. The Constitution of the United States represents the greatest democratic achievement in the history of human civilization. It--and the self-evident truths which are its bases--has guided the decisions and the heroic sacrifices of Americans for two centuries. Its precepts are the guiding light and have been a shining beacon of hope for millions across the globe who hunger for the freedoms that democracy guarantees. It has served not only us, it has served the world, as well. It is not, Mr. President, a document, therefore, to be amended lightly. Indeed, my strongest objection to this proposal is that it does not belong in our Constitution; it belongs in our law. In addition to this argument, I also intend to suggest that the political will to enact changes in law to balance our budget--which was missing from many previous Congresses--now appears to be here. In fact, I wish the time taken to debate this change in our Constitution was instead spent debating the changes needed in the statutes that dictate current and future spending. This does not mean, Mr. President, I agree with those who have complained about the length of time we have spent on this proposal. This complaint is without merit. This great document should not be amended in a rush of passion. It is evident from the Constitution itself that its authors intended the process of amendment to be slow, difficult, and laborious. So difficult that it has been attempted with success only 17 times since the Bill of Rights. This document is not meant to be tampered with in a trivial fashion. As I said, the proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution is intended to affect the behavior of America's congressional representatives. In that regard, it is unique. Except for the 25th amendment, which addresses the issue of transfer of power, other amendments affecting the behavior of all Americans by limiting the power of Government, protecting public freedoms, prohibiting the majority from encroaching on the rights of the minority or regulating the behavior of the States. This would be the only amendment aimed at regulating the behavior of 535 Americans, who the amendment assumes are incapable of making the difficult decisions without the guidance of the Constitution's hand. That theory is grounded in the assumption that Congress and the public lack the political will to balance the budget. Specifically, the proposal contains 294 words. It would raise from a simple majority to three-fifths the vote necessary in Congress for deficit spending. It would set a goal of balancing our budget by the year 2002. The amendment empowers Congress to pass legislation detailing how to enforce that goal, but does not itself specify enforcement measures. The only answer to the question of what will happen if Congress and the President fail to balance the budget is that nobody knows. The only mechanism our country has for enforcing the Constitution is the courts. So the amendment's ambiguity prevents the serious possibility of protracted court battles which give unelected judiciary unwarranted control over budget policy. The proponents of this amendment sincerely believe our Constitution needs to be changed in order to force Members of Congress to change their behavior, which supporters argue they will not do because they are afraid of offending the citizens who have sent them here in the first place. On that basis there is a long list of constitutional change they should propose, including campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and term limits, just to name a few. Mr. President, I support the goal of a balanced budget, and have fought and am fighting and will continue to fight to achieve it. However, desirability of a goal cannot become the only standard to which we hold constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments must meet a higher standard. The Constitution and its 27 amendments express broadly our values as a Nation. The Constitution does not dictate specific policies, fiscal or otherwise. We attempted to use the Constitution for that purpose once, banning alcohol in the 18th amendment, and it proved to be a colossal failure. Fundamentally, we should amend the Constitution to make broad statements of national principle. And most importantly, Mr. President, we should amend the Constitution as an act of last resort when no other means are adequate to reach our goals. We do so out of reverence for a document we have believed for two centuries should not be changed except in the most extraordinary circumstances. We have used constitutional amendments to express our preference as a Nation for the principles of free speech, the right to vote and the right of each individual to live free. The question before Members today is whether the need for a balanced budget belongs in such distinguished company. While I oppose this amendment, Mr. President, I understand the arguments for it. I have had the privilege of serving here for 6 years and I am entering my seventh budget cycle as a consequence. Every time the President of either party, since I have been here, has sent a budget to this body it has been greeted with speeches and promises and rhetoric about the need to balance the budget. And each time, those speeches and promises and rhetoric have been greeted with votes in the opposite direction. Many of those whose judgment I most respect in this body support this amendment, including the senior Senator from Nebraska, whose reputation as a budget cutter needs no expounding by me. I am sympathetic. Clearly something is wrong with a system which so consistently produces deficits so large. The question for me is not whether something is wrong, but precisely, what is wrong? Do we run a massive deficit because something in the Constitution is broken? Were the Founding Fathers mistaken in assigning the elected representatives of the people the task of setting fiscal and budget policy? And is a constitutional amendment, as opposed to a statute requiring a balanced budget, the only workable solution? If the answers to these questions were yes, then a constitutional amendment in my judgment would be appropriate. But my answer in all three of these questions, is a resounding no. If, on the other hand, the problem lies in the behavior of the 535 individuals whose actions produce the deficit, as opposed to the document that governs it, then a constitutional amendment is both an inappropriate and ineffective means for balancing the budget. If a simple statute rather than an [[Page S2996]] amendment will work, we should leave the Constitution alone. Supporters of the amendment note we tried statute in 1985 in the form of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law and that law failed miserably. Therefore, the argument goes, a more powerful tool than ordinary statute--in other words, constitutional amendment--is necessary. The assumption, apparently is that a constitutional amendment mandate would provide the legal and the political cover needed to cast the tough votes in a climate in which the political will for doing so does not exist. But the fact is, Mr. President, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings failed not because it was a statute as opposed to an amendment, but because the political will to balance the budget did not exist in 1985. Gramm- Rudman-Hollings set deficit targets to set up on a glidepath, a term we are hearing again today, to achieve zero deficits by 1991. The deficit target for 1986 was $172 billion. We end up $222 billion in the hole. President Reagan's budgets did not even meet the Gramm- Rudman-Hollings targets in that year, much less a balanced budget. And even though Gramm-Rudman-Hollings provided the legal and political cover for deficit reduction, neither Congress nor the President has the stomach for it. Now we are attempting to find in the Constitution what we could not find in ourselves. I believe, Mr. President, that 1995 and 1985 are two very different times. I have heard the American people say loud and clear in this last November election that not only does the will to balance the budget exist, it thrives. We all know that the political will to balance the budget exists today to a much larger degree than it did in 1985. In fact, there is much more enthusiasm than existed even in 1994. The political dynamic has changed in this Congress. I believe the political will now exists to make the tough choices. To illustrate this change, consider our attitude toward spending cuts today. A year ago when a bipartisan coalition of Senators offered and fought for an amendment which would have cut $94 billion in spending over 5 years, the administration argued against it, saying our economy would enter a recession. But since the election, Mr. President, the same administration opponents are scrambling to propose cuts that are larger than the ones that they opposed just a little over a year ago. There are far more Senators and Representatives today who are prepared to vote for spending cuts than there were last year. And there is evidence of a willingness to form bipartisan coalitions in the beginning to tackle the problem, including our most politically charged problem, Federal entitlements. So I say that after the rhetoric for and against this amendment is over, let Senators get to work to show Americans we have the courage this amendment presumes that we lack. While it is true that the President's recently submitted budget does little to reduce the deficit, the stomach for the tough choices does exist in this body. If the appeal of a balanced budget amendment is simply the legal or political cover it provides for the tough choice, a statutory change would provide the same cover. If the presumption behind the amendment is that the political will to balance the budget does not exist, then make no mistake, those who lack that political will can find a way to circumvent this amendment. An amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a powerful weapon, not one to be taken lightly. This weapon can be disarmed with 60 votes in the Senate, only 9 more than it takes for deficit spending today. And beyond all the legal maneuvers, there is no cover for tough decisions but the courage to make them. So I simply am not convinced a balanced budget amendment is necessary. It assumes a structural flaw in our Constitution that prevents the 535 Members of Congress from balancing the budget. In fact, there is no such flaw in the Constitution. To the extent such a flaw exists, it is in the 535 Members of Congress themselves, not the document that governs us. The fact is, we can balance the budget this year if we wanted to, and we can by statute direct the Congress to balance the budget by 2002, 2003, or any other date that we choose. Furthermore, I believe this debate is misdirected. The balanced budget amendment tells us what to do over the next 7 years but ignores the following 20, the years which ought to command our attention. A balanced budget by the year 2002 still ignores the most important fiscal challenge we face: The rapid growth in entitlement spending over the next 30 years. The year on which we ought to be focused is not 2002, but 2012 when the baby boomer generation begins to retire and places a severe strain on the Federal budget. Our biggest fiscal challenge is demographic, not constitutional, and the amendment before us does not and cannot address it. Unfortunately and conveniently, this demographic challenge is kept from our view, not by an incomplete Constitution, but by a budgeting process that discourages long-term planning. The budget the President sent us tells us what to do for the next 5 years--5 years, Mr. President. The balanced budget amendment tells us what happens over 7 years. Five- and seven-year spans are completely inadequate when the most difficult budget decisions we need to make deal with problems we will face 20, 25 and 30 years down the road, when the aging of our population propels entitlement spending out of control. The most important recommendation of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform is that we began to look at the impact of the budget over 30 years, rather than just 5 or 7. The reason that our country looks very different and our current budgets look very different viewed over that span is, as I said, not one of our Constitution, not, indeed, even one of our statute, but one of demographics. We can see the trend in the short-term. The big four entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal retirement-- will consume 44 percent of the budget this year. Mandatory spending will consume 65 percent. By 2000, it will be 70 percent. By 2005, the number is 78 percent. Those numbers, Mr. President, are straight from CBO. If we project further, we see that by 2012, mandatory spending plus interest on the national debt will consume every dollar we collect in taxes. By 2013, we will be forced to begin dipping into the surplus of the Social Security trust funds to cover benefit payments, a practice that will go on for no more than 16 years before the trust fund goes bankrupt in the year 2029. These trends have nothing to do with the Constitution, political will or pork barrel politics. They have to do with the simple fact that our population is getting older while the work force gets smaller. My generation did not have as many children as our parents expected and, as a consequence, the system under which each generation of workers supports the preceding generation of retirees simply will not hold up much longer. Indeed, long-term entitlement reform, coupled with a reasonable reduction in discretionary spending, including defense, would reduce interest rates dramatically and achieve the goal of this amendment without tampering with the Constitution. In this context, I need to address the role of Social Security in this debate. I have heard speaker after speaker come to the floor on both sides of the issue and announce their support for this program. I agree with them all. Social Security is one of the most, if not the most, important and successful Government programs we operate. Social Security should not and, indeed, does not need to be used to balance the budget. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Social Security will start running a deficit in 2013, due, as I mentioned earlier, to the retirement of the baby boomer generation and the fact that more retirees will be drawing from the trust funds while fewer workers contribute to it. The general fund currently borrows against the surplus, and when Social Security begins running a deficit, the decisionmaking capacity of future Congresses will be limited, because large amounts of the general fund will have to be used to repay the money we are borrowing from the trust fund today. That situation will tempt future Congresses to run Social Security in deficit if it is exempted from deficit calculations. That development would, of [[Page S2997]] course, only further jeopardize the program. Even today, our decisionmaking capacity is already limited by the growth of entitlement spending. In 1963, a little more than 30 years ago, spending on entitlements and interest on the national debt consumed 30 percent of our Federal budget. This year, entitlements and net interest will devour 65 percent. The present budget assumes 66 percent for next year and by 2000, the number will be 70 percent. Mr. President, that is the problem that we face. That is why we are forced year after year after year to come and cut domestic discretionary programs, whether it is defense or nondefense. The pressure is coming from entitlement programs that are consuming a larger and larger percent of our budget inexorably by the year 2013, it will be 100 percent, converting the Federal Government into an ATM machine. The result is a question of fairness between generations. Today there are roughly five workers paying taxes to support the taxes of each retiree. When my generation retires, there will be fewer than three workers per retiree. Unless we take action now, the choice forced upon our children will be excruciating. Continue to fund benefits at current levels by radically raising taxes on the working population or slash benefits dramatically. Finally, Mr. President, as we debate this amendment, I hope we keep our eyes on a larger prize in blind reference to the idea of a balanced budget. Our goals should, in my view, be economic prosperity. I support deficit reduction as a means to that end. Deficit reduction is important not as an abstract ideal but as an economic comparative. I believe in balancing the budget because it is the surest and most powerful way to increase national savings. And increased national savings will lead to increased national productivity which in turn will lead to higher standards of living for the American family. There is no short cut to savings and no substitute that will get results. Increased national savings mean lower long-term interest rates and increased job growth in the private sector. The balanced budget amendment assumes that a balanced budget is always the best economic policy. A balanced budget, Mr. President, is usually the best economic strategy, but it is by no means always the best strategy for this country. Downward turns in the economy complicate the picture. Downward turns will result in lower revenues and higher spending so there will be times, although very few of them, when a strict requirement for balancing the budget harms the economy by requiring the collection of more and more taxes to cover more and more spending in an economic environment which makes revenue collection more difficult in the first place. As I say, I believe those times are few and far between. But the Constitution is too blunt an instrument to distinguish between good times and bad. The American people hired us to do that job, not to cede it to a legal document that cannot assess the evolving needs of our economy. The bottom line for me as we debate this amendment is whether it moves us toward achieving the correct goals and whether, if it does, we need to amend the Constitution to get there. My answer to the first question is mixed. I believe a balanced budget is an important goal, but only as a component of an overall economic strategy which recognizes that skyrocketing entitlement spending is the most serious fiscal challenge we face. My answer to the second question is more certain. I believe that once we set those goals, we can achieve them by statute or, more importantly, by changing our own behavior rather than changing the Constitution. My respect for this document precludes me from voting to tamper with it when I am not convinced that we must. This proposal for a 28th amendment does not command for me the same reverence in which I hold the 1st amendment or the 13th or the 19th and, therefore, Mr. President, while I will continue to fight for its admirable goal, I will vote no on the balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to call up motion No. 3 at the desk and that it be considered as one of my relevant amendments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if I might, it is my understanding that there are two unanimous consent requests which deal with two amendments of the Senator from Minnesota. I wonder if I might make those requests and see if they are suitable to the Senator from Minnesota, and we can proceed in that manner. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that will be fine with me. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose? Mr. WELLSTONE. I do. Unanimous-Consent Agreements Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be recognized to call up his motion dealing with homeless children; and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone; 15 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch; and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the majority leader, or his designee, be recognized to table the Wellstone motion; and that that vote occur at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of the Wellstone motion dealing with homeless children, Senator Wellstone be recognized to call up his filed motion No. 2, and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone, 15 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Wellstone motion, and that vote occur in the stacked sequence to begin at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Motion to refer Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Arizona and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me for my colleagues---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend for just a moment while the clerk states the motion, please. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] moves to refer House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget Committee with instructions to report back forthwith House Joint Resolution 1 in status quo and at the earliest date possible, to issue a report, the text of which shall be as follows: ``It is the sense of the Committee that in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children.'' Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. The motion is self- explanatory, it is very reasonable, and it is very important. What this motion says is not that we should delay the vote on the balanced budget amendment. We will have that vote. This is not a part of that constitutional amendment at all. This is just simply a motion which says we will go on record through the Senate Budget Committee that in whatever ways we move forward to balance the budget, whether this constitutional amendment is passed or not --there is really no linkage here--we will go on record, and I would like to again now go through the operative language, it is the sense of the Senate to the Budget Committee: That in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. [[Page S2998]] That is what this motion says. One more time, it is not an amendment to this constitutional amendment. It does not put off the date that we vote on this amendment. I simply ask that the Senate go on record through the Budget Committee that if this amendment passes or even if this amendment does not pass, we will take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. Mr. President, I have been in the Chamber from the beginning of this session with just this amendment which has received, I think, 43 votes. I do not understand why the Senate is not willing to go on record on this question. Mr. President, this motion is essentially a statement by the Senate; it is a request to colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we speak boldly and we speak directly, as we understand children are the most vulnerable citizens in this country. Every time I hear one of my colleagues talk about how we have to reduce the deficit--and by the way, sometimes people get confused between annual deficit and this huge debt we have built up--and that we cannot put this deficit on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren, the best thing we can do for the children of our Nation is to balance the budget, I say to myself, fine, I agree. I am a father. I am a grandfather. But what about the vulnerable children in the United States of America today? Why cannot the Senate go on record--it is a sense of the Senate--that we certainly understand as we go forward with deficit reduction we will not do anything which would increase hunger or homelessness among children in our Nation. Is that too much to ask? What possibly could be the reason for voting no? Senators are talking about how we have to balance the budget for the sake of the children of the future. How about the lives of children living now? How about children right now who happen to be among the most vulnerable group in this Nation? The context is important. The Food Research and Action Center in 1991 estimated that 5.5 million children under 12 years of age are hungry at least one day a month in the United States of America. Second Harvest estimated that, in 1993, emergency food programs served 10,798,375 children. The U.S. Council of Mayors found that, in 1994, 64 percent of the persons receiving food assistance were from families with children. Carnegie Foundation, late 1980's--68 percent of public schoolteachers reported that undernourished children and youth are a problem in school. By the way, I talk to teachers in Minnesota who tell me the same thing. Children are among the homeless in this country and indeed families with children are a substantial segment of the homeless population. The U.S. Council of Mayors estimates that, in 1994, 26 percent of the homeless were children, based upon requests from emergency shelters. That is a pretty large percentage of the homeless population. And, in 1988, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 100,000 children are homeless each day. Mr. President, what does it mean that children are hungry? In comparison to nonhungry children, hungry children are more than three times likely to suffer from unwanted weight loss, more than four times as likely to suffer from fatigue, almost three times as likely to suffer from irritability, and more than 12 times as likely to report disease. Mr. President, let me discuss the context one more time. I have been in this Chamber from the beginning of this session with this basic proposition, either in amendment form, or now, in the most reasonable form possible; as just a motion, a sense of the Senate that would go to the Budget Committee. It is not a part of the constitutional amendment. This motion merely has us going on record that as we move toward a balanced budget, which we are all for as well as deficit reduction, we are not going to take any action that would increase the number of hungry or homeless children in America. Will the Senate not go on record supporting this? I hear Senators say that they are going to make these cuts; that is the best thing they can do for our children and our grandchildren. What about these children? One out of every four children in America is poor. Children's Defense Fund came out with a study last year--this data is accurate and I wish it was not. I wish this was not the reality. One day in the life of American children, three children die from child abuse. One day in the life of American children, nine children are murdered. One day in the life of American children, 13 children die from guns. One day in the life of American children, 27 children, a classroomful, die from poverty. One day in the life of American children, 63 babies die before they are 1 month old. One day in the life of American children, 101 babies die before their first birthday. One day in the life of American children, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight, less than 5.5 pounds--yet the House of Representatives yesterday voted to block grant and cut Women, Infants and Children programs. Cut nutrition programs--that was the vote in the House yesterday. One day in the life of American children, 636 babies are born to women who had late or no prenatal care. One day in the life of American children, 1,234 children run away from home. One day in the life of American children, 2,868 babies are born into poverty. One day in the life of American children, 7,945 children are reported abused or neglected. One day in the life of American children, 100,000 children are homeless. I hope my colleagues are not bored by these statistics. These are real people. These are children in the United States of America. These children, all of these children, are our children. Moments in America for children? Every 35 seconds a child drops out of school in America. Every 30 seconds, a child is born into poverty, every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty. Every 2 minutes a child is born low birth weight. Every 2 minutes a child is born to a woman who had no prenatal care. Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for alcohol-related crime. Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for drug- related crime. I have given this figure before: Every 2 hours a child is murdered and every 4 hours a child takes his or her life in the United States of America. Mr. President, I received a letter from Ona. I do not use last names because I never know whether citizens want to have their names used or not. Ona is 8. My name is Ona and I go to public school and I'm 8. My class has 26 kids in it and only three of them, Iman, Jasmin, and me bring lunches to school. Twenty-three kids in my class depend on the school lunch and now you want to cut those programs. Which do you think is more important, cutting the debt or having poor helpless children having nothing to eat? Senator, that's not right because almost my entire class depends on school breakfast and school lunch, and if you cut these programs they will starve. How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. She is 8 years old. How come my colleagues do not get this? How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. Life is already hard enough for us with pollution, crime and disease. I hope you change your mind. Ona, you do not have to ask me to change my mind. And she is so right. Some of my colleagues say this is just a scare tactic. Prove me wrong. I will give you a chance at 3 o'clock today to prove me wrong. ``This is just a scare tactic.'' Who is kidding whom? Look at the headlines: ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts.'' ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Washington Post, front page story: House Republicans, wielding their budget-cutting axes more forcefully than at any time since taking power, yesterday proposed slashing some $5.2 billion of spending approved by previous Democratic Congresses * * *. Included in the lengthy list of cuts voted out by five appropriations subcommittees during a hectic day of meetings were rural housing loans, nutrition programs for children and pregnant women * * *. Let me repeat: * * * nutrition programs for children and pregnant women, spending on urban parks, and assistance to the poor and elderly for protecting their homes against the cold. That is right. They want to eliminate LIHEAP, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I have spent time with families in Minnesota--it is a cold weather State--who depend on [[Page S2999]] LIHEAP. You are going to cut their energy assistance so they have a choice between heat or eat? It is time to get a little bit more real with people in this country about what this agenda translates into. Another headline, ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' Washington Post, Thursday, February 23, 1995. I have been saying that this would happen from the beginning of the session and I have had people on the other side of the aisle say we are not going to do that. ``We care as much about children as you do.'' Prove me wrong. You get a chance to vote on this today. The article reads: After a full day of beating back Democratic amendments to restore the programs or soften their impact on welfare recipients, Chairman William Goodling said his committee will complete work today on a bill that will abolish the school breakfast, lunch and other nutrition programs for women and children and replace them with a block grant to the States. The Republican measure would freeze the amount of money given to States for child care at $1.94 billion a year, the current level. Representative George Miller [who is right] charged that because the number of needy children is expected to increase, the freeze would cut off child payments for more than 377,000 children in the year 2000. By contrast, funding for the school lunch and nutrition programs would be allowed to grow by $1.87 billion over 5 years. But committee Democrats said this was grossly inadequate and would fall $5 to $7 billion short of what is needed. It is block granted but it is bait and switch. It is block granted with cuts and, in addition, it is no longer an entitlement. So during more difficult times such as recession, if there are additional children who now need the assistance, those who are receiving assistance will have their assistance cut or some will be cut off the support. It is simple. ``House Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Including the Women, Infants, and Children Program. I have had some colleagues say to me this is just a scare tactic. But it is not. Because this is precisely where the cuts are taking place. Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend until the Sergeant at Arms has restored order in the galleries, please. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish that I did not have to come to the floor with this motion. I wish that this was not real. But the evidence is crystal clear. All you have to do is look at the state of children in America today. They are the most vulnerable citizens, the most poor. I am just saying to my colleague, can we not go on record that we are not going to pass any legislation or make any cuts that will increase hunger among children? Then I look at what has happened on the House side. They are cutting nutrition programs--cutting nutrition programs--the very thing that my colleagues over here said we will not do. And what people now say is do not worry about the House. The U.S. Senate is a different body, and it is. We are more deliberative. We do not ram things through. We are more careful. But now what I have to say to some of my colleagues is two or three times I have come to this floor and asked you to please go on record that we will not do anything that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. And each time, you voted no. Mr. President, The Children's Defense Fund that reported on where this balanced budget amendment will take us--I do not have the chart I usually have with me. But, roughly speaking, if you include in this package the baseline CBO projections plus tax cuts, which do not make a lot of sense when you are trying to do deficit reduction, broad-based tax cuts, plus increases in the Pentagon budget, it is about $1.3 trillion that needs to be cut between now and the year 2002. Mr. President, if Social Security is off the table--and it should be--if you are going to have to pay the interest on the debt and if military spending is going up, then it is pretty clear what is left. When you look at what has been taken off the table and what has been left on the table, it is crystal clear that you are going to have to have, about 30-percent cuts across the board. It may be that veterans programs will not be cut 30 percent. I hope not. But you basically have higher education; you have Medicare and Medicaid; you have veterans; and you have these low-income children's programs. Yesterday in the House, they are talking about cutting the Women, Infants, and Children Program, and the school lunch program. They are talking about eliminating the low-income energy assistance program. That is for low-income people in cold-weather States like Minnesota. I visited with those families. These issues are real to them. But when Senator Feingold and I came out on the floor of the Senate last week, and we had a very reasonable motion, that the Senate would go on record through the Budget Committee that we will consider $425 billion of tax expenditures, many of them loopholes, deductions and outright dodges for the largest corporations and financial institutions in America, they voted it down. So I understand what the Children's Defense Fund understands, that on present legislative course, this is where we are heading: By year 2002, 7.5 million children lose federally subsidized lunches, 6.6 million children lose their health care through Medicaid, 3 million children lose food stamps, and 2 million young children and mothers lose nutritional assistance through the WIC program. This is a very destructive way to ensure that our children are not burdened by debt. May I repeat that? This is a very destructive way of assuring that our children will not be burdened by debt, to cut into the very nutrition programs that benefit children right now who are so vulnerable in the United States of America, all for the sake of making sure that our children in the future are not burdened by debt. I wish my colleagues were as concerned about the children right now as they are about the children in the future. Mr. President, I might ask the Chair how much time I have remaining. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has approximately 20 minutes remaining. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is interested in responding, then I will yield the floor for a moment and reserve the rest of my time. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized to call up his amendment No. 301 following the remarks of Senator Hollings today, and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Byrd amendment, and that vote occur in the stacked sequence beginning at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HATCH. I thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Minnesota. Mr. President, we are now--let me take a few minutes--in our 25th day since this amendment was brought to the floor. Twenty-five days have expired since we started debating the balanced budget amendment. As you can see, I have added one more day, the 25th. This red line all the way from there over to here happens to be the baseline of $4.8 trillion, which is our national debt. It is $18,500 for every man, woman, and child in America, plus it is going up every day. Each day that we have debated this balanced budget amendment, I just want the American people to understand that our national debt has gone up $829 billion. We are now in the 25th day, and our national debt has been increased since we began this debate $2.736 billion. I do not care who you are. You have to draw the analogy between Rome [[Page S3000]] under Nero, as he fiddled while Rome burned. Fortunately, we do have a vote next Tuesday. We will decide this one way or the other, whether we are going to put a mechanism into the Constitution that will force Members of Congress to at least look at these details and do something about it. We will make it more difficult for them to spend more and to take more. It does not stop them, but it certainly makes it more difficult. What I have to say is that predicted opponents of the balanced budget amendment are trotting out a series of sympathetic Government beneficiaries and attempting either to exempt them from the balanced budget amendment or use them to argue against not just the amendment but indeed against balancing the budget at all. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HATCH. Yes. Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator understands that this is a motion. It is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. This has no linkage. This is simply a sense-of-the-Senate to the Budget Committee that when it comes to balancing the budget, we will go on record that we will not increase the number of hungry and homeless children. That is all this motion says. The Senator speaks to that, and that is why I asked the question. Mr. HATCH. I understand. This motion, in my opinion, is just another in a parade of exemptions which the opponents of the balanced budget amendment have tried to tack on. I know the Senator is sincere. I have worked with him ever since he has been here. He has a great deal of sincerity with regard to the people who are in difficulty and have difficulty, and especially the homeless. But I think, in that sense, it is just as inappropriate as the other motions that have been brought to the Senate. Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. HATCH. Yes, I will be happy to yield. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, does the Senator understand that this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment and, in that sense, it is not an exemption? It just simply asks us to go on record, through the Budget Committee, that we will not do anything that would increase more hunger or homelessness among children. Does the Senator understand that? Mr. HATCH. I do. Mr. WELLSTONE. That is all I am asking. Could the Senator tell me, does the Senator know, during this period of time, how many more hungry or homeless children there have been in the United States of America? Mr. HATCH. I do not think anybody fully knows. Mr. WELLSTONE. But is it not interesting that we do not know what we do not want to know. Why do we not know? Mr. HATCH. I disagree with the Senator that I do not want to know. I think the Senator knows my whole career has been spent helping those who are less fortunate. Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator does. I certainly do understand that. That is why I asked the Senator from Utah, who is probably one of the Senators I consider to be a really good friend. Let me ask the Senator, why is this an unreasonable proposition, given the headline ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing,'' what is going on on the House side right now, and given the fear of so many of the people that are working down in the trenches with children, that we both admire, about where these cuts are going to take place? This is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment. This is just a sense of the Senate. Why is it so unreasonable, since we will have the vote on Tuesday--no more delay--why is it so unreasonable for me to ask the Senate to go on record that we will not make any cuts that will increase hunger or homelessness among children? Why does the Senator from Utah not support this, since he cares about this certainly as much as I do, and others? (Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.) Mr. HATCH. Let me try to answer the Senator. Mr. President, the Founders gave Congress the power to spend money. They did not go on record as being opposed to action which would increase the number of homeless children or any other budget policy issue. They understood that the Constitution establishes the processes and the procedures under which our Government operates or would operate from that point on. Which policy choices may be made under those procedures do not belong in the discussion of the great principles of our Constitution. We are talking about a constitutional amendment that could save our country, because our country, as we can easily see, is going more and more into debt to the point where interest against the national debt is now consuming 50 percent of all personal income taxes paid every year. Now, I know my colleague is concerned about the homeless--so am I-- and so many others, from child care right on through to people with AIDS. I testified yesterday in favor of the Kennedy-Hatch Ryan White bill, which, of course, provides money for the cities with hardcore AIDS problems. So I feel very deeply about these issues. But I feel very deeply that those moneys are not going to be there if we keep running this country into bankruptcy. And if we think we have homeless people now, wait until you see what happens as that interest keeps going to the point where it consumes all of our personal income taxes. It is now consuming half of the personal income taxes paid in America today. We are going up, as this balanced budget amendment debt tracker shows, as this debate continues. We are already up to $20 billion, almost $21 billion, in the 25 days that we have debated this amendment. Now, Mr. President, I am concerned about it. Of course, we will do what we think is best for the children of America and for the homeless of America. But the least thing we can do for them is to pass the balanced budget amendment so they have a future, so that Members of Congress, most of whom are altruistic and want to do good for people, have to live within certain means, have to live within the means of this country. You know, if you think about it, if we pass the balanced budget amendment, then I think we will have an answer to the question why a child born today will pay an extra $100,000 in taxes over his or her lifetime for the debt that is being projected to accumulate in just the first 18 years of that child's life. And there will be another $5,000 in taxes for every additional $200 billion deficit. Mr. President, our President has sent us a budget that for the next 12 years projects $200 billion deficits a year. That is billion, with a ``b.'' Every year that happens, these children's taxes will go up $5,000 more. They will become more tax debt owing, $5,000 more for each year there is a $200 billion deficit. So if it is 12 years, that is $60,000 more on top of the current $100,000 they are going to be saddled with because of the way we have been handling situations. Mr. President, most Government programs have beneficiaries with some political popularity or power or attractiveness. And that is why they receive benefits in the first place. But this kind of thinking, that we should spend for these worthy beneficiaries whether we have the money or not, is precisely why we have the colossal national debt that we do. And I am just pointing to the balanced budget amendment debt tracker, which just shows the 25 days of increased debt, $21 billion so far. The power of the tax spenders has always been built on appealing to an attractive, narrow interest and that power has always outweighed the more diffused interest of the taxpayers and of our children, who cannot yet vote whose moneys we are spending in advance. Mr. President, this is business as usual, and it is what the balanced budget amendment is designed to end. The purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to ensure that Congress takes into account increased taxes, stagnant wages, higher interest rates, and the insurmountable debt that we will leave to our children if we keep spending the money that we do not have. [[Page S3001]] The parade of special interest groups embodied by so many of the amendments which have been offered against this balanced budget amendment, including this one, is to take the focus off our children's future and put it on the short-term interest of another, perhaps worthy, special interest group. There are thousands of special interest groups in our country. I wish we had enough money to take care of all of them and to do it in a way that would give them dignity and would help them to find their own way, would empower them to be able to make something of their lives. There is no question that all of us want to do that. But we are never going to do it--we are going to have more homeless, we are going to have more children bereft of what they need, we are going to have less of a future for them--if we do not pass this balanced budget amendment and get this spending under control. Make no mistake, those who keep bringing up these amendments for special interest groups, who are needy and whom we all want to help, in order to kill this amendment by 1,000 cuts, I think their efforts ought to be rejected. And that does not mean that they are not sincere or they are not good people or they are not trying to do their best. I find no fault with my friend from Minnesota in worrying about those who are homeless. I do, too. But if we are really worried about them, then let us get this country's spending practices under control so that this country's economy is strong so we can help them. I am willing to do that, and I have a reputation around here for trying. I think the Senate should get on with its business of weighing each of the interests presented to make choices among all the worthy programs within the constraints of the revenues we are willing to raise, like reasonable economic actors. Our problem today is, because we do not have a balanced budget amendment, people do not care how much they spend of the future of our children. They can feel very good towards themselves that they are compassionate and considerate of those who need help. But what they do not tell is the other side of that coin--that all of us are going to need help in the future if this country's economy becomes less than what it is, and it has no other way to go if we do not start getting our spending under control. So I suggest that, in spite of the sincerity of my friend from Minnesota, we vote down this amendment, as we have had to do, in order to preserve this concept of a balanced budget in the Constitution. This is our last chance. This is the first time in history, the first time in history, that the House of Representatives has had the guts, as a collective body, to get a two-thirds vote--which is very, very difficult to do--to pass the balanced budget amendment. The reason they have is because of the budget-courageous Democrats and Republicans who decided the country is more important than any special interest. And that we have to get the country under control and spending practices under control if we are really going to help the special interests, many of whom are worthy interests. On the one hand, I commend the distinguished Senator for his compassion and his desire to help people. On the other hand, I have difficulties with those who have brought up these amendments because every one of these amendments would make the balanced budget amendment less important. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I find the remarks of my good friend from Utah to be very important. I want to come back to a couple of basic points because I really believe that the vote on this motion is a real moment of truth here. First of all, Mr. President, this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That is not what they are voting on. This motion just says that we go on record we will not take any action which will increase the number of hungry or homeless children. It is that simple. I did not say we should balance the budget. I did not say we should not have serious deficit reduction. We have to make choices. It is a question of whether there is a standard of fairness. I want the Senate to go on record. Second of all, Mr. President, my colleague from Utah talked all about the Constitution, and therefore this is no place for a discussion of hunger and homelessness among children, because it is a different order of question. I might remind my colleague that the Preamble of the Constitution says: ``We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare.'' I would think that children are a part of how we promote the general welfare. Do not tell me that being on the floor of the Senate and talking about children does not have anything to do with the founding documents of our Nation. We talk about promoting the general welfare, I assume that includes children. The third point, Mr. President, I heard my colleague use the words ``special interest'' more than once. Children are special interests. We are all for the future, and we are all talking about we want to make sure that our children and grandchildren do not have to carry this debt. How about the children now? Now, Mr. President, I do not have such a fancy chart but the facts remain. Every 5 seconds a student drops out of school; every 30 seconds, a baby is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a baby is born at low birthweight; every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had no prenatal care; every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol- related crime; every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime; every 7 minutes a child is arrested for a drug crime; every 2 hours a child is murdered; every 4 hours a child commits suicide. I spoke about 100,000 homeless and 5 million hungry children earlier. I hear my colleague talking about our generosity. We cannot talk about our generosity. We have abandoned many children in the United States of America. I might add we devalued the work of many adults that work with those children. That is what these statistics say. And now, rather than investing more in our children, we are cutting programs. Three children die from child abuse; 1 day, 9 children are murdered; 1 day, 63 babies die before they are one month old; 1 day, 101 babies die before their first birthday; 1 day, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight. And I can go on and on. Mr. President, why do we not juxtapose these figures, these statistics about children in America today, with the headlines in the Washington Post, ``House Panels Vote Special Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing''; ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' I do not really think my colleagues can have it both ways. Let me get right down to the essence of this motion. We have these figures. We have the Children's Defense Fund which has been the organization most down in the trenches with children. I have State-by- State variations. I could read from every State--Idaho, Minnesota, Utah--about the projected cuts, because we know there will be cuts in these programs. We have to cut somewhere. Now, I came on to the floor of the Senate during the Congressional Accountability Act, and I had an amendment that came from Minnesota that essentially said before we send the balanced budget amendment to the States, let Senators lay out where we will be making the cuts. It was voted down. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, had a similar amendment. It was voted down. My colleagues will not specify where they will make the cuts, but when Senator Feingold and I said how about oil company subsidies, pharmaceutical subsidies, or $425 billion in tax holes, loopholes, deductions, and sometimes outright dodges, would we consider that in how we would balance the budget? No. That was the vote. My colleague from Utah says we have to make difficult choices. That is true. I am for cutting the Pentagon budget. I do not think military contractors are in a position where they cannot afford to tighten their belt. They are not being asked to tighten their belt. Nor [[Page S3002]] are we going after tax dodges and loopholes and deductions, and we have a bidding war on tax cuts. So there we have $1.3 trillion. We will not specify where we make the cuts, but we know what is left. I am saying to my colleagues, we cannot have it both ways. Do not, one more time on the floor of the U.S. Senate, say to me or say to children in this country, that this is just a scare tactic. I wish it were just a scare tactic. Or this is just a political strategy to get people on record. What I am saying to my colleagues is, is it too much to ask that we go on record saying to our Budget Committee, as we go forward with deficit reduction and as we go forward to balancing the budget which we are all for one way or the other, we go on record, we are not going to do anything that will increase hunger, homelessness among children? Know why my colleagues will not vote for this Mr. President? Because that is what we are going to do. The reason my colleagues will not vote for this is because that is precisely what we are going to do. I do not understand for the life of me why I cannot get the U.S. Senate on record on this very fundamental basic question. We cannot go forward with deficit reduction. I do not want to let colleagues say he is just doing this motion because he is not in favor of deficit reduction. That is not true. I voted for huge deficit reduction. I want to see all sorts of cuts. I would like to see the oil companies tighten their belt. I do not hear anything about that. But, no, I do not want to see the most vulnerable citizens being hurt. Mr. President, I have heard a couple of colleagues talk about the last election. And the people voted for change. People voted for change, but not this kind of change. There is too much goodness in the United States of America to cut nutrition programs and school lunch programs and child care programs, all in the name of deficit reduction. That is not where people in the United States of America want to see the cuts. My colleagues need to understand that. So, Mr. President, I come out here determined because I have a real sense of trepidation. I know what is going to happen with these programs. I know the majority leader was out on the floor saying we care as much about children as the Senator from Minnesota. I know my colleague from Utah says that. I now say prove me wrong. Prove now this afternoon that this is just a scare tactic. I want to be wrong. Prove this afternoon that this is just some political strategy. Let us go on record, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we are serious about deficit reduction, we are serious about balancing the budget, because I think we all are. And what we are going to do is go on record this afternoon, not with an amendment to this constitutional amendment--that is not what this is. This is just simply a motion to go on record that when we make these cuts, we are not going to do anything to increase hunger or homelessness among children. I do not understand why I cannot get 100 votes for it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is finished with his remarks, I will be pleased to yield him some of my time if he needs it, or I will yield back my time. Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to agree to that, to yield back time on both sides. And then the votes are to be stacked, as I understand it, beginning at 3. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is scheduled to occur at 3 o'clock. Mr. HATCH. Then I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, is it appropriate for me to table and ask for the yeas and nays with the understanding that the vote not occur until 3, or should we just wait until then? The PRESIDING OFFICER. First we must announce the result of the request for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, with the understanding that it will not be voted upon until 3 o'clock. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur beginning at 3 o'clock today. Mr. WELLSTONE. For a few moments, I will suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the next amendment, let me just say a few words about the impact of the deficit on the average American. We need to stop talking and start working on getting our fiscal house in order by passing the balanced budget amendment an

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
(Senate - February 23, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2995-S3034] BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know that my colleague, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, has come to the floor to speak. I ask unanimous consent that, after he speaks, it then be in order to call up a motion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this debate is about amending the U.S. Constitution. If we approve the proposal as offered by the distinguished Senator from Utah and others--as the House already has-- it will be up to the States of this country to ratify or reject what would become the 28th constitutional change in 206 years. The Constitution of the United States represents the greatest democratic achievement in the history of human civilization. It--and the self-evident truths which are its bases--has guided the decisions and the heroic sacrifices of Americans for two centuries. Its precepts are the guiding light and have been a shining beacon of hope for millions across the globe who hunger for the freedoms that democracy guarantees. It has served not only us, it has served the world, as well. It is not, Mr. President, a document, therefore, to be amended lightly. Indeed, my strongest objection to this proposal is that it does not belong in our Constitution; it belongs in our law. In addition to this argument, I also intend to suggest that the political will to enact changes in law to balance our budget--which was missing from many previous Congresses--now appears to be here. In fact, I wish the time taken to debate this change in our Constitution was instead spent debating the changes needed in the statutes that dictate current and future spending. This does not mean, Mr. President, I agree with those who have complained about the length of time we have spent on this proposal. This complaint is without merit. This great document should not be amended in a rush of passion. It is evident from the Constitution itself that its authors intended the process of amendment to be slow, difficult, and laborious. So difficult that it has been attempted with success only 17 times since the Bill of Rights. This document is not meant to be tampered with in a trivial fashion. As I said, the proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution is intended to affect the behavior of America's congressional representatives. In that regard, it is unique. Except for the 25th amendment, which addresses the issue of transfer of power, other amendments affecting the behavior of all Americans by limiting the power of Government, protecting public freedoms, prohibiting the majority from encroaching on the rights of the minority or regulating the behavior of the States. This would be the only amendment aimed at regulating the behavior of 535 Americans, who the amendment assumes are incapable of making the difficult decisions without the guidance of the Constitution's hand. That theory is grounded in the assumption that Congress and the public lack the political will to balance the budget. Specifically, the proposal contains 294 words. It would raise from a simple majority to three-fifths the vote necessary in Congress for deficit spending. It would set a goal of balancing our budget by the year 2002. The amendment empowers Congress to pass legislation detailing how to enforce that goal, but does not itself specify enforcement measures. The only answer to the question of what will happen if Congress and the President fail to balance the budget is that nobody knows. The only mechanism our country has for enforcing the Constitution is the courts. So the amendment's ambiguity prevents the serious possibility of protracted court battles which give unelected judiciary unwarranted control over budget policy. The proponents of this amendment sincerely believe our Constitution needs to be changed in order to force Members of Congress to change their behavior, which supporters argue they will not do because they are afraid of offending the citizens who have sent them here in the first place. On that basis there is a long list of constitutional change they should propose, including campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and term limits, just to name a few. Mr. President, I support the goal of a balanced budget, and have fought and am fighting and will continue to fight to achieve it. However, desirability of a goal cannot become the only standard to which we hold constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments must meet a higher standard. The Constitution and its 27 amendments express broadly our values as a Nation. The Constitution does not dictate specific policies, fiscal or otherwise. We attempted to use the Constitution for that purpose once, banning alcohol in the 18th amendment, and it proved to be a colossal failure. Fundamentally, we should amend the Constitution to make broad statements of national principle. And most importantly, Mr. President, we should amend the Constitution as an act of last resort when no other means are adequate to reach our goals. We do so out of reverence for a document we have believed for two centuries should not be changed except in the most extraordinary circumstances. We have used constitutional amendments to express our preference as a Nation for the principles of free speech, the right to vote and the right of each individual to live free. The question before Members today is whether the need for a balanced budget belongs in such distinguished company. While I oppose this amendment, Mr. President, I understand the arguments for it. I have had the privilege of serving here for 6 years and I am entering my seventh budget cycle as a consequence. Every time the President of either party, since I have been here, has sent a budget to this body it has been greeted with speeches and promises and rhetoric about the need to balance the budget. And each time, those speeches and promises and rhetoric have been greeted with votes in the opposite direction. Many of those whose judgment I most respect in this body support this amendment, including the senior Senator from Nebraska, whose reputation as a budget cutter needs no expounding by me. I am sympathetic. Clearly something is wrong with a system which so consistently produces deficits so large. The question for me is not whether something is wrong, but precisely, what is wrong? Do we run a massive deficit because something in the Constitution is broken? Were the Founding Fathers mistaken in assigning the elected representatives of the people the task of setting fiscal and budget policy? And is a constitutional amendment, as opposed to a statute requiring a balanced budget, the only workable solution? If the answers to these questions were yes, then a constitutional amendment in my judgment would be appropriate. But my answer in all three of these questions, is a resounding no. If, on the other hand, the problem lies in the behavior of the 535 individuals whose actions produce the deficit, as opposed to the document that governs it, then a constitutional amendment is both an inappropriate and ineffective means for balancing the budget. If a simple statute rather than an [[Page S2996]] amendment will work, we should leave the Constitution alone. Supporters of the amendment note we tried statute in 1985 in the form of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law and that law failed miserably. Therefore, the argument goes, a more powerful tool than ordinary statute--in other words, constitutional amendment--is necessary. The assumption, apparently is that a constitutional amendment mandate would provide the legal and the political cover needed to cast the tough votes in a climate in which the political will for doing so does not exist. But the fact is, Mr. President, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings failed not because it was a statute as opposed to an amendment, but because the political will to balance the budget did not exist in 1985. Gramm- Rudman-Hollings set deficit targets to set up on a glidepath, a term we are hearing again today, to achieve zero deficits by 1991. The deficit target for 1986 was $172 billion. We end up $222 billion in the hole. President Reagan's budgets did not even meet the Gramm- Rudman-Hollings targets in that year, much less a balanced budget. And even though Gramm-Rudman-Hollings provided the legal and political cover for deficit reduction, neither Congress nor the President has the stomach for it. Now we are attempting to find in the Constitution what we could not find in ourselves. I believe, Mr. President, that 1995 and 1985 are two very different times. I have heard the American people say loud and clear in this last November election that not only does the will to balance the budget exist, it thrives. We all know that the political will to balance the budget exists today to a much larger degree than it did in 1985. In fact, there is much more enthusiasm than existed even in 1994. The political dynamic has changed in this Congress. I believe the political will now exists to make the tough choices. To illustrate this change, consider our attitude toward spending cuts today. A year ago when a bipartisan coalition of Senators offered and fought for an amendment which would have cut $94 billion in spending over 5 years, the administration argued against it, saying our economy would enter a recession. But since the election, Mr. President, the same administration opponents are scrambling to propose cuts that are larger than the ones that they opposed just a little over a year ago. There are far more Senators and Representatives today who are prepared to vote for spending cuts than there were last year. And there is evidence of a willingness to form bipartisan coalitions in the beginning to tackle the problem, including our most politically charged problem, Federal entitlements. So I say that after the rhetoric for and against this amendment is over, let Senators get to work to show Americans we have the courage this amendment presumes that we lack. While it is true that the President's recently submitted budget does little to reduce the deficit, the stomach for the tough choices does exist in this body. If the appeal of a balanced budget amendment is simply the legal or political cover it provides for the tough choice, a statutory change would provide the same cover. If the presumption behind the amendment is that the political will to balance the budget does not exist, then make no mistake, those who lack that political will can find a way to circumvent this amendment. An amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a powerful weapon, not one to be taken lightly. This weapon can be disarmed with 60 votes in the Senate, only 9 more than it takes for deficit spending today. And beyond all the legal maneuvers, there is no cover for tough decisions but the courage to make them. So I simply am not convinced a balanced budget amendment is necessary. It assumes a structural flaw in our Constitution that prevents the 535 Members of Congress from balancing the budget. In fact, there is no such flaw in the Constitution. To the extent such a flaw exists, it is in the 535 Members of Congress themselves, not the document that governs us. The fact is, we can balance the budget this year if we wanted to, and we can by statute direct the Congress to balance the budget by 2002, 2003, or any other date that we choose. Furthermore, I believe this debate is misdirected. The balanced budget amendment tells us what to do over the next 7 years but ignores the following 20, the years which ought to command our attention. A balanced budget by the year 2002 still ignores the most important fiscal challenge we face: The rapid growth in entitlement spending over the next 30 years. The year on which we ought to be focused is not 2002, but 2012 when the baby boomer generation begins to retire and places a severe strain on the Federal budget. Our biggest fiscal challenge is demographic, not constitutional, and the amendment before us does not and cannot address it. Unfortunately and conveniently, this demographic challenge is kept from our view, not by an incomplete Constitution, but by a budgeting process that discourages long-term planning. The budget the President sent us tells us what to do for the next 5 years--5 years, Mr. President. The balanced budget amendment tells us what happens over 7 years. Five- and seven-year spans are completely inadequate when the most difficult budget decisions we need to make deal with problems we will face 20, 25 and 30 years down the road, when the aging of our population propels entitlement spending out of control. The most important recommendation of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform is that we began to look at the impact of the budget over 30 years, rather than just 5 or 7. The reason that our country looks very different and our current budgets look very different viewed over that span is, as I said, not one of our Constitution, not, indeed, even one of our statute, but one of demographics. We can see the trend in the short-term. The big four entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal retirement-- will consume 44 percent of the budget this year. Mandatory spending will consume 65 percent. By 2000, it will be 70 percent. By 2005, the number is 78 percent. Those numbers, Mr. President, are straight from CBO. If we project further, we see that by 2012, mandatory spending plus interest on the national debt will consume every dollar we collect in taxes. By 2013, we will be forced to begin dipping into the surplus of the Social Security trust funds to cover benefit payments, a practice that will go on for no more than 16 years before the trust fund goes bankrupt in the year 2029. These trends have nothing to do with the Constitution, political will or pork barrel politics. They have to do with the simple fact that our population is getting older while the work force gets smaller. My generation did not have as many children as our parents expected and, as a consequence, the system under which each generation of workers supports the preceding generation of retirees simply will not hold up much longer. Indeed, long-term entitlement reform, coupled with a reasonable reduction in discretionary spending, including defense, would reduce interest rates dramatically and achieve the goal of this amendment without tampering with the Constitution. In this context, I need to address the role of Social Security in this debate. I have heard speaker after speaker come to the floor on both sides of the issue and announce their support for this program. I agree with them all. Social Security is one of the most, if not the most, important and successful Government programs we operate. Social Security should not and, indeed, does not need to be used to balance the budget. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Social Security will start running a deficit in 2013, due, as I mentioned earlier, to the retirement of the baby boomer generation and the fact that more retirees will be drawing from the trust funds while fewer workers contribute to it. The general fund currently borrows against the surplus, and when Social Security begins running a deficit, the decisionmaking capacity of future Congresses will be limited, because large amounts of the general fund will have to be used to repay the money we are borrowing from the trust fund today. That situation will tempt future Congresses to run Social Security in deficit if it is exempted from deficit calculations. That development would, of [[Page S2997]] course, only further jeopardize the program. Even today, our decisionmaking capacity is already limited by the growth of entitlement spending. In 1963, a little more than 30 years ago, spending on entitlements and interest on the national debt consumed 30 percent of our Federal budget. This year, entitlements and net interest will devour 65 percent. The present budget assumes 66 percent for next year and by 2000, the number will be 70 percent. Mr. President, that is the problem that we face. That is why we are forced year after year after year to come and cut domestic discretionary programs, whether it is defense or nondefense. The pressure is coming from entitlement programs that are consuming a larger and larger percent of our budget inexorably by the year 2013, it will be 100 percent, converting the Federal Government into an ATM machine. The result is a question of fairness between generations. Today there are roughly five workers paying taxes to support the taxes of each retiree. When my generation retires, there will be fewer than three workers per retiree. Unless we take action now, the choice forced upon our children will be excruciating. Continue to fund benefits at current levels by radically raising taxes on the working population or slash benefits dramatically. Finally, Mr. President, as we debate this amendment, I hope we keep our eyes on a larger prize in blind reference to the idea of a balanced budget. Our goals should, in my view, be economic prosperity. I support deficit reduction as a means to that end. Deficit reduction is important not as an abstract ideal but as an economic comparative. I believe in balancing the budget because it is the surest and most powerful way to increase national savings. And increased national savings will lead to increased national productivity which in turn will lead to higher standards of living for the American family. There is no short cut to savings and no substitute that will get results. Increased national savings mean lower long-term interest rates and increased job growth in the private sector. The balanced budget amendment assumes that a balanced budget is always the best economic policy. A balanced budget, Mr. President, is usually the best economic strategy, but it is by no means always the best strategy for this country. Downward turns in the economy complicate the picture. Downward turns will result in lower revenues and higher spending so there will be times, although very few of them, when a strict requirement for balancing the budget harms the economy by requiring the collection of more and more taxes to cover more and more spending in an economic environment which makes revenue collection more difficult in the first place. As I say, I believe those times are few and far between. But the Constitution is too blunt an instrument to distinguish between good times and bad. The American people hired us to do that job, not to cede it to a legal document that cannot assess the evolving needs of our economy. The bottom line for me as we debate this amendment is whether it moves us toward achieving the correct goals and whether, if it does, we need to amend the Constitution to get there. My answer to the first question is mixed. I believe a balanced budget is an important goal, but only as a component of an overall economic strategy which recognizes that skyrocketing entitlement spending is the most serious fiscal challenge we face. My answer to the second question is more certain. I believe that once we set those goals, we can achieve them by statute or, more importantly, by changing our own behavior rather than changing the Constitution. My respect for this document precludes me from voting to tamper with it when I am not convinced that we must. This proposal for a 28th amendment does not command for me the same reverence in which I hold the 1st amendment or the 13th or the 19th and, therefore, Mr. President, while I will continue to fight for its admirable goal, I will vote no on the balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to call up motion No. 3 at the desk and that it be considered as one of my relevant amendments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if I might, it is my understanding that there are two unanimous consent requests which deal with two amendments of the Senator from Minnesota. I wonder if I might make those requests and see if they are suitable to the Senator from Minnesota, and we can proceed in that manner. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that will be fine with me. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose? Mr. WELLSTONE. I do. Unanimous-Consent Agreements Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be recognized to call up his motion dealing with homeless children; and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone; 15 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch; and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the majority leader, or his designee, be recognized to table the Wellstone motion; and that that vote occur at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of the Wellstone motion dealing with homeless children, Senator Wellstone be recognized to call up his filed motion No. 2, and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone, 15 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Wellstone motion, and that vote occur in the stacked sequence to begin at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Motion to refer Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Arizona and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me for my colleagues---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend for just a moment while the clerk states the motion, please. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] moves to refer House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget Committee with instructions to report back forthwith House Joint Resolution 1 in status quo and at the earliest date possible, to issue a report, the text of which shall be as follows: ``It is the sense of the Committee that in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children.'' Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. The motion is self- explanatory, it is very reasonable, and it is very important. What this motion says is not that we should delay the vote on the balanced budget amendment. We will have that vote. This is not a part of that constitutional amendment at all. This is just simply a motion which says we will go on record through the Senate Budget Committee that in whatever ways we move forward to balance the budget, whether this constitutional amendment is passed or not --there is really no linkage here--we will go on record, and I would like to again now go through the operative language, it is the sense of the Senate to the Budget Committee: That in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. [[Page S2998]] That is what this motion says. One more time, it is not an amendment to this constitutional amendment. It does not put off the date that we vote on this amendment. I simply ask that the Senate go on record through the Budget Committee that if this amendment passes or even if this amendment does not pass, we will take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. Mr. President, I have been in the Chamber from the beginning of this session with just this amendment which has received, I think, 43 votes. I do not understand why the Senate is not willing to go on record on this question. Mr. President, this motion is essentially a statement by the Senate; it is a request to colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we speak boldly and we speak directly, as we understand children are the most vulnerable citizens in this country. Every time I hear one of my colleagues talk about how we have to reduce the deficit--and by the way, sometimes people get confused between annual deficit and this huge debt we have built up--and that we cannot put this deficit on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren, the best thing we can do for the children of our Nation is to balance the budget, I say to myself, fine, I agree. I am a father. I am a grandfather. But what about the vulnerable children in the United States of America today? Why cannot the Senate go on record--it is a sense of the Senate--that we certainly understand as we go forward with deficit reduction we will not do anything which would increase hunger or homelessness among children in our Nation. Is that too much to ask? What possibly could be the reason for voting no? Senators are talking about how we have to balance the budget for the sake of the children of the future. How about the lives of children living now? How about children right now who happen to be among the most vulnerable group in this Nation? The context is important. The Food Research and Action Center in 1991 estimated that 5.5 million children under 12 years of age are hungry at least one day a month in the United States of America. Second Harvest estimated that, in 1993, emergency food programs served 10,798,375 children. The U.S. Council of Mayors found that, in 1994, 64 percent of the persons receiving food assistance were from families with children. Carnegie Foundation, late 1980's--68 percent of public schoolteachers reported that undernourished children and youth are a problem in school. By the way, I talk to teachers in Minnesota who tell me the same thing. Children are among the homeless in this country and indeed families with children are a substantial segment of the homeless population. The U.S. Council of Mayors estimates that, in 1994, 26 percent of the homeless were children, based upon requests from emergency shelters. That is a pretty large percentage of the homeless population. And, in 1988, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 100,000 children are homeless each day. Mr. President, what does it mean that children are hungry? In comparison to nonhungry children, hungry children are more than three times likely to suffer from unwanted weight loss, more than four times as likely to suffer from fatigue, almost three times as likely to suffer from irritability, and more than 12 times as likely to report disease. Mr. President, let me discuss the context one more time. I have been in this Chamber from the beginning of this session with this basic proposition, either in amendment form, or now, in the most reasonable form possible; as just a motion, a sense of the Senate that would go to the Budget Committee. It is not a part of the constitutional amendment. This motion merely has us going on record that as we move toward a balanced budget, which we are all for as well as deficit reduction, we are not going to take any action that would increase the number of hungry or homeless children in America. Will the Senate not go on record supporting this? I hear Senators say that they are going to make these cuts; that is the best thing they can do for our children and our grandchildren. What about these children? One out of every four children in America is poor. Children's Defense Fund came out with a study last year--this data is accurate and I wish it was not. I wish this was not the reality. One day in the life of American children, three children die from child abuse. One day in the life of American children, nine children are murdered. One day in the life of American children, 13 children die from guns. One day in the life of American children, 27 children, a classroomful, die from poverty. One day in the life of American children, 63 babies die before they are 1 month old. One day in the life of American children, 101 babies die before their first birthday. One day in the life of American children, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight, less than 5.5 pounds--yet the House of Representatives yesterday voted to block grant and cut Women, Infants and Children programs. Cut nutrition programs--that was the vote in the House yesterday. One day in the life of American children, 636 babies are born to women who had late or no prenatal care. One day in the life of American children, 1,234 children run away from home. One day in the life of American children, 2,868 babies are born into poverty. One day in the life of American children, 7,945 children are reported abused or neglected. One day in the life of American children, 100,000 children are homeless. I hope my colleagues are not bored by these statistics. These are real people. These are children in the United States of America. These children, all of these children, are our children. Moments in America for children? Every 35 seconds a child drops out of school in America. Every 30 seconds, a child is born into poverty, every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty. Every 2 minutes a child is born low birth weight. Every 2 minutes a child is born to a woman who had no prenatal care. Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for alcohol-related crime. Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for drug- related crime. I have given this figure before: Every 2 hours a child is murdered and every 4 hours a child takes his or her life in the United States of America. Mr. President, I received a letter from Ona. I do not use last names because I never know whether citizens want to have their names used or not. Ona is 8. My name is Ona and I go to public school and I'm 8. My class has 26 kids in it and only three of them, Iman, Jasmin, and me bring lunches to school. Twenty-three kids in my class depend on the school lunch and now you want to cut those programs. Which do you think is more important, cutting the debt or having poor helpless children having nothing to eat? Senator, that's not right because almost my entire class depends on school breakfast and school lunch, and if you cut these programs they will starve. How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. She is 8 years old. How come my colleagues do not get this? How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. Life is already hard enough for us with pollution, crime and disease. I hope you change your mind. Ona, you do not have to ask me to change my mind. And she is so right. Some of my colleagues say this is just a scare tactic. Prove me wrong. I will give you a chance at 3 o'clock today to prove me wrong. ``This is just a scare tactic.'' Who is kidding whom? Look at the headlines: ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts.'' ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Washington Post, front page story: House Republicans, wielding their budget-cutting axes more forcefully than at any time since taking power, yesterday proposed slashing some $5.2 billion of spending approved by previous Democratic Congresses * * *. Included in the lengthy list of cuts voted out by five appropriations subcommittees during a hectic day of meetings were rural housing loans, nutrition programs for children and pregnant women * * *. Let me repeat: * * * nutrition programs for children and pregnant women, spending on urban parks, and assistance to the poor and elderly for protecting their homes against the cold. That is right. They want to eliminate LIHEAP, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I have spent time with families in Minnesota--it is a cold weather State--who depend on [[Page S2999]] LIHEAP. You are going to cut their energy assistance so they have a choice between heat or eat? It is time to get a little bit more real with people in this country about what this agenda translates into. Another headline, ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' Washington Post, Thursday, February 23, 1995. I have been saying that this would happen from the beginning of the session and I have had people on the other side of the aisle say we are not going to do that. ``We care as much about children as you do.'' Prove me wrong. You get a chance to vote on this today. The article reads: After a full day of beating back Democratic amendments to restore the programs or soften their impact on welfare recipients, Chairman William Goodling said his committee will complete work today on a bill that will abolish the school breakfast, lunch and other nutrition programs for women and children and replace them with a block grant to the States. The Republican measure would freeze the amount of money given to States for child care at $1.94 billion a year, the current level. Representative George Miller [who is right] charged that because the number of needy children is expected to increase, the freeze would cut off child payments for more than 377,000 children in the year 2000. By contrast, funding for the school lunch and nutrition programs would be allowed to grow by $1.87 billion over 5 years. But committee Democrats said this was grossly inadequate and would fall $5 to $7 billion short of what is needed. It is block granted but it is bait and switch. It is block granted with cuts and, in addition, it is no longer an entitlement. So during more difficult times such as recession, if there are additional children who now need the assistance, those who are receiving assistance will have their assistance cut or some will be cut off the support. It is simple. ``House Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Including the Women, Infants, and Children Program. I have had some colleagues say to me this is just a scare tactic. But it is not. Because this is precisely where the cuts are taking place. Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend until the Sergeant at Arms has restored order in the galleries, please. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish that I did not have to come to the floor with this motion. I wish that this was not real. But the evidence is crystal clear. All you have to do is look at the state of children in America today. They are the most vulnerable citizens, the most poor. I am just saying to my colleague, can we not go on record that we are not going to pass any legislation or make any cuts that will increase hunger among children? Then I look at what has happened on the House side. They are cutting nutrition programs--cutting nutrition programs--the very thing that my colleagues over here said we will not do. And what people now say is do not worry about the House. The U.S. Senate is a different body, and it is. We are more deliberative. We do not ram things through. We are more careful. But now what I have to say to some of my colleagues is two or three times I have come to this floor and asked you to please go on record that we will not do anything that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. And each time, you voted no. Mr. President, The Children's Defense Fund that reported on where this balanced budget amendment will take us--I do not have the chart I usually have with me. But, roughly speaking, if you include in this package the baseline CBO projections plus tax cuts, which do not make a lot of sense when you are trying to do deficit reduction, broad-based tax cuts, plus increases in the Pentagon budget, it is about $1.3 trillion that needs to be cut between now and the year 2002. Mr. President, if Social Security is off the table--and it should be--if you are going to have to pay the interest on the debt and if military spending is going up, then it is pretty clear what is left. When you look at what has been taken off the table and what has been left on the table, it is crystal clear that you are going to have to have, about 30-percent cuts across the board. It may be that veterans programs will not be cut 30 percent. I hope not. But you basically have higher education; you have Medicare and Medicaid; you have veterans; and you have these low-income children's programs. Yesterday in the House, they are talking about cutting the Women, Infants, and Children Program, and the school lunch program. They are talking about eliminating the low-income energy assistance program. That is for low-income people in cold-weather States like Minnesota. I visited with those families. These issues are real to them. But when Senator Feingold and I came out on the floor of the Senate last week, and we had a very reasonable motion, that the Senate would go on record through the Budget Committee that we will consider $425 billion of tax expenditures, many of them loopholes, deductions and outright dodges for the largest corporations and financial institutions in America, they voted it down. So I understand what the Children's Defense Fund understands, that on present legislative course, this is where we are heading: By year 2002, 7.5 million children lose federally subsidized lunches, 6.6 million children lose their health care through Medicaid, 3 million children lose food stamps, and 2 million young children and mothers lose nutritional assistance through the WIC program. This is a very destructive way to ensure that our children are not burdened by debt. May I repeat that? This is a very destructive way of assuring that our children will not be burdened by debt, to cut into the very nutrition programs that benefit children right now who are so vulnerable in the United States of America, all for the sake of making sure that our children in the future are not burdened by debt. I wish my colleagues were as concerned about the children right now as they are about the children in the future. Mr. President, I might ask the Chair how much time I have remaining. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has approximately 20 minutes remaining. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is interested in responding, then I will yield the floor for a moment and reserve the rest of my time. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized to call up his amendment No. 301 following the remarks of Senator Hollings today, and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Byrd amendment, and that vote occur in the stacked sequence beginning at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HATCH. I thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Minnesota. Mr. President, we are now--let me take a few minutes--in our 25th day since this amendment was brought to the floor. Twenty-five days have expired since we started debating the balanced budget amendment. As you can see, I have added one more day, the 25th. This red line all the way from there over to here happens to be the baseline of $4.8 trillion, which is our national debt. It is $18,500 for every man, woman, and child in America, plus it is going up every day. Each day that we have debated this balanced budget amendment, I just want the American people to understand that our national debt has gone up $829 billion. We are now in the 25th day, and our national debt has been increased since we began this debate $2.736 billion. I do not care who you are. You have to draw the analogy between Rome [[Page S3000]] under Nero, as he fiddled while Rome burned. Fortunately, we do have a vote next Tuesday. We will decide this one way or the other, whether we are going to put a mechanism into the Constitution that will force Members of Congress to at least look at these details and do something about it. We will make it more difficult for them to spend more and to take more. It does not stop them, but it certainly makes it more difficult. What I have to say is that predicted opponents of the balanced budget amendment are trotting out a series of sympathetic Government beneficiaries and attempting either to exempt them from the balanced budget amendment or use them to argue against not just the amendment but indeed against balancing the budget at all. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HATCH. Yes. Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator understands that this is a motion. It is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. This has no linkage. This is simply a sense-of-the-Senate to the Budget Committee that when it comes to balancing the budget, we will go on record that we will not increase the number of hungry and homeless children. That is all this motion says. The Senator speaks to that, and that is why I asked the question. Mr. HATCH. I understand. This motion, in my opinion, is just another in a parade of exemptions which the opponents of the balanced budget amendment have tried to tack on. I know the Senator is sincere. I have worked with him ever since he has been here. He has a great deal of sincerity with regard to the people who are in difficulty and have difficulty, and especially the homeless. But I think, in that sense, it is just as inappropriate as the other motions that have been brought to the Senate. Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. HATCH. Yes, I will be happy to yield. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, does the Senator understand that this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment and, in that sense, it is not an exemption? It just simply asks us to go on record, through the Budget Committee, that we will not do anything that would increase more hunger or homelessness among children. Does the Senator understand that? Mr. HATCH. I do. Mr. WELLSTONE. That is all I am asking. Could the Senator tell me, does the Senator know, during this period of time, how many more hungry or homeless children there have been in the United States of America? Mr. HATCH. I do not think anybody fully knows. Mr. WELLSTONE. But is it not interesting that we do not know what we do not want to know. Why do we not know? Mr. HATCH. I disagree with the Senator that I do not want to know. I think the Senator knows my whole career has been spent helping those who are less fortunate. Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator does. I certainly do understand that. That is why I asked the Senator from Utah, who is probably one of the Senators I consider to be a really good friend. Let me ask the Senator, why is this an unreasonable proposition, given the headline ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing,'' what is going on on the House side right now, and given the fear of so many of the people that are working down in the trenches with children, that we both admire, about where these cuts are going to take place? This is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment. This is just a sense of the Senate. Why is it so unreasonable, since we will have the vote on Tuesday--no more delay--why is it so unreasonable for me to ask the Senate to go on record that we will not make any cuts that will increase hunger or homelessness among children? Why does the Senator from Utah not support this, since he cares about this certainly as much as I do, and others? (Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.) Mr. HATCH. Let me try to answer the Senator. Mr. President, the Founders gave Congress the power to spend money. They did not go on record as being opposed to action which would increase the number of homeless children or any other budget policy issue. They understood that the Constitution establishes the processes and the procedures under which our Government operates or would operate from that point on. Which policy choices may be made under those procedures do not belong in the discussion of the great principles of our Constitution. We are talking about a constitutional amendment that could save our country, because our country, as we can easily see, is going more and more into debt to the point where interest against the national debt is now consuming 50 percent of all personal income taxes paid every year. Now, I know my colleague is concerned about the homeless--so am I-- and so many others, from child care right on through to people with AIDS. I testified yesterday in favor of the Kennedy-Hatch Ryan White bill, which, of course, provides money for the cities with hardcore AIDS problems. So I feel very deeply about these issues. But I feel very deeply that those moneys are not going to be there if we keep running this country into bankruptcy. And if we think we have homeless people now, wait until you see what happens as that interest keeps going to the point where it consumes all of our personal income taxes. It is now consuming half of the personal income taxes paid in America today. We are going up, as this balanced budget amendment debt tracker shows, as this debate continues. We are already up to $20 billion, almost $21 billion, in the 25 days that we have debated this amendment. Now, Mr. President, I am concerned about it. Of course, we will do what we think is best for the children of America and for the homeless of America. But the least thing we can do for them is to pass the balanced budget amendment so they have a future, so that Members of Congress, most of whom are altruistic and want to do good for people, have to live within certain means, have to live within the means of this country. You know, if you think about it, if we pass the balanced budget amendment, then I think we will have an answer to the question why a child born today will pay an extra $100,000 in taxes over his or her lifetime for the debt that is being projected to accumulate in just the first 18 years of that child's life. And there will be another $5,000 in taxes for every additional $200 billion deficit. Mr. President, our President has sent us a budget that for the next 12 years projects $200 billion deficits a year. That is billion, with a ``b.'' Every year that happens, these children's taxes will go up $5,000 more. They will become more tax debt owing, $5,000 more for each year there is a $200 billion deficit. So if it is 12 years, that is $60,000 more on top of the current $100,000 they are going to be saddled with because of the way we have been handling situations. Mr. President, most Government programs have beneficiaries with some political popularity or power or attractiveness. And that is why they receive benefits in the first place. But this kind of thinking, that we should spend for these worthy beneficiaries whether we have the money or not, is precisely why we have the colossal national debt that we do. And I am just pointing to the balanced budget amendment debt tracker, which just shows the 25 days of increased debt, $21 billion so far. The power of the tax spenders has always been built on appealing to an attractive, narrow interest and that power has always outweighed the more diffused interest of the taxpayers and of our children, who cannot yet vote whose moneys we are spending in advance. Mr. President, this is business as usual, and it is what the balanced budget amendment is designed to end. The purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to ensure that Congress takes into account increased taxes, stagnant wages, higher interest rates, and the insurmountable debt that we will leave to our children if we keep spending the money that we do not have. [[Page S3001]] The parade of special interest groups embodied by so many of the amendments which have been offered against this balanced budget amendment, including this one, is to take the focus off our children's future and put it on the short-term interest of another, perhaps worthy, special interest group. There are thousands of special interest groups in our country. I wish we had enough money to take care of all of them and to do it in a way that would give them dignity and would help them to find their own way, would empower them to be able to make something of their lives. There is no question that all of us want to do that. But we are never going to do it--we are going to have more homeless, we are going to have more children bereft of what they need, we are going to have less of a future for them--if we do not pass this balanced budget amendment and get this spending under control. Make no mistake, those who keep bringing up these amendments for special interest groups, who are needy and whom we all want to help, in order to kill this amendment by 1,000 cuts, I think their efforts ought to be rejected. And that does not mean that they are not sincere or they are not good people or they are not trying to do their best. I find no fault with my friend from Minnesota in worrying about those who are homeless. I do, too. But if we are really worried about them, then let us get this country's spending practices under control so that this country's economy is strong so we can help them. I am willing to do that, and I have a reputation around here for trying. I think the Senate should get on with its business of weighing each of the interests presented to make choices among all the worthy programs within the constraints of the revenues we are willing to raise, like reasonable economic actors. Our problem today is, because we do not have a balanced budget amendment, people do not care how much they spend of the future of our children. They can feel very good towards themselves that they are compassionate and considerate of those who need help. But what they do not tell is the other side of that coin--that all of us are going to need help in the future if this country's economy becomes less than what it is, and it has no other way to go if we do not start getting our spending under control. So I suggest that, in spite of the sincerity of my friend from Minnesota, we vote down this amendment, as we have had to do, in order to preserve this concept of a balanced budget in the Constitution. This is our last chance. This is the first time in history, the first time in history, that the House of Representatives has had the guts, as a collective body, to get a two-thirds vote--which is very, very difficult to do--to pass the balanced budget amendment. The reason they have is because of the budget-courageous Democrats and Republicans who decided the country is more important than any special interest. And that we have to get the country under control and spending practices under control if we are really going to help the special interests, many of whom are worthy interests. On the one hand, I commend the distinguished Senator for his compassion and his desire to help people. On the other hand, I have difficulties with those who have brought up these amendments because every one of these amendments would make the balanced budget amendment less important. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I find the remarks of my good friend from Utah to be very important. I want to come back to a couple of basic points because I really believe that the vote on this motion is a real moment of truth here. First of all, Mr. President, this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That is not what they are voting on. This motion just says that we go on record we will not take any action which will increase the number of hungry or homeless children. It is that simple. I did not say we should balance the budget. I did not say we should not have serious deficit reduction. We have to make choices. It is a question of whether there is a standard of fairness. I want the Senate to go on record. Second of all, Mr. President, my colleague from Utah talked all about the Constitution, and therefore this is no place for a discussion of hunger and homelessness among children, because it is a different order of question. I might remind my colleague that the Preamble of the Constitution says: ``We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare.'' I would think that children are a part of how we promote the general welfare. Do not tell me that being on the floor of the Senate and talking about children does not have anything to do with the founding documents of our Nation. We talk about promoting the general welfare, I assume that includes children. The third point, Mr. President, I heard my colleague use the words ``special interest'' more than once. Children are special interests. We are all for the future, and we are all talking about we want to make sure that our children and grandchildren do not have to carry this debt. How about the children now? Now, Mr. President, I do not have such a fancy chart but the facts remain. Every 5 seconds a student drops out of school; every 30 seconds, a baby is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a baby is born at low birthweight; every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had no prenatal care; every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol- related crime; every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime; every 7 minutes a child is arrested for a drug crime; every 2 hours a child is murdered; every 4 hours a child commits suicide. I spoke about 100,000 homeless and 5 million hungry children earlier. I hear my colleague talking about our generosity. We cannot talk about our generosity. We have abandoned many children in the United States of America. I might add we devalued the work of many adults that work with those children. That is what these statistics say. And now, rather than investing more in our children, we are cutting programs. Three children die from child abuse; 1 day, 9 children are murdered; 1 day, 63 babies die before they are one month old; 1 day, 101 babies die before their first birthday; 1 day, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight. And I can go on and on. Mr. President, why do we not juxtapose these figures, these statistics about children in America today, with the headlines in the Washington Post, ``House Panels Vote Special Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing''; ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' I do not really think my colleagues can have it both ways. Let me get right down to the essence of this motion. We have these figures. We have the Children's Defense Fund which has been the organization most down in the trenches with children. I have State-by- State variations. I could read from every State--Idaho, Minnesota, Utah--about the projected cuts, because we know there will be cuts in these programs. We have to cut somewhere. Now, I came on to the floor of the Senate during the Congressional Accountability Act, and I had an amendment that came from Minnesota that essentially said before we send the balanced budget amendment to the States, let Senators lay out where we will be making the cuts. It was voted down. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, had a similar amendment. It was voted down. My colleagues will not specify where they will make the cuts, but when Senator Feingold and I said how about oil company subsidies, pharmaceutical subsidies, or $425 billion in tax holes, loopholes, deductions, and sometimes outright dodges, would we consider that in how we would balance the budget? No. That was the vote. My colleague from Utah says we have to make difficult choices. That is true. I am for cutting the Pentagon budget. I do not think military contractors are in a position where they cannot afford to tighten their belt. They are not being asked to tighten their belt. Nor [[Page S3002]] are we going after tax dodges and loopholes and deductions, and we have a bidding war on tax cuts. So there we have $1.3 trillion. We will not specify where we make the cuts, but we know what is left. I am saying to my colleagues, we cannot have it both ways. Do not, one more time on the floor of the U.S. Senate, say to me or say to children in this country, that this is just a scare tactic. I wish it were just a scare tactic. Or this is just a political strategy to get people on record. What I am saying to my colleagues is, is it too much to ask that we go on record saying to our Budget Committee, as we go forward with deficit reduction and as we go forward to balancing the budget which we are all for one way or the other, we go on record, we are not going to do anything that will increase hunger, homelessness among children? Know why my colleagues will not vote for this Mr. President? Because that is what we are going to do. The reason my colleagues will not vote for this is because that is precisely what we are going to do. I do not understand for the life of me why I cannot get the U.S. Senate on record on this very fundamental basic question. We cannot go forward with deficit reduction. I do not want to let colleagues say he is just doing this motion because he is not in favor of deficit reduction. That is not true. I voted for huge deficit reduction. I want to see all sorts of cuts. I would like to see the oil companies tighten their belt. I do not hear anything about that. But, no, I do not want to see the most vulnerable citizens being hurt. Mr. President, I have heard a couple of colleagues talk about the last election. And the people voted for change. People voted for change, but not this kind of change. There is too much goodness in the United States of America to cut nutrition programs and school lunch programs and child care programs, all in the name of deficit reduction. That is not where people in the United States of America want to see the cuts. My colleagues need to understand that. So, Mr. President, I come out here determined because I have a real sense of trepidation. I know what is going to happen with these programs. I know the majority leader was out on the floor saying we care as much about children as the Senator from Minnesota. I know my colleague from Utah says that. I now say prove me wrong. Prove now this afternoon that this is just a scare tactic. I want to be wrong. Prove this afternoon that this is just some political strategy. Let us go on record, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we are serious about deficit reduction, we are serious about balancing the budget, because I think we all are. And what we are going to do is go on record this afternoon, not with an amendment to this constitutional amendment--that is not what this is. This is just simply a motion to go on record that when we make these cuts, we are not going to do anything to increase hunger or homelessness among children. I do not understand why I cannot get 100 votes for it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is finished with his remarks, I will be pleased to yield him some of my time if he needs it, or I will yield back my time. Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to agree to that, to yield back time on both sides. And then the votes are to be stacked, as I understand it, beginning at 3. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is scheduled to occur at 3 o'clock. Mr. HATCH. Then I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, is it appropriate for me to table and ask for the yeas and nays with the understanding that the vote not occur until 3, or should we just wait until then? The PRESIDING OFFICER. First we must announce the result of the request for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, with the understanding that it will not be voted upon until 3 o'clock. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur beginning at 3 o'clock today. Mr. WELLSTONE. For a few moments, I will suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the next amendment, let me just say a few words about the impact of the deficit on the average American. We need to stop talking and start working on getting our fiscal house in order by passing the balanced budget amendment and working

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.
(Senate - February 23, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S2995-S3034] BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know that my colleague, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, has come to the floor to speak. I ask unanimous consent that, after he speaks, it then be in order to call up a motion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this debate is about amending the U.S. Constitution. If we approve the proposal as offered by the distinguished Senator from Utah and others--as the House already has-- it will be up to the States of this country to ratify or reject what would become the 28th constitutional change in 206 years. The Constitution of the United States represents the greatest democratic achievement in the history of human civilization. It--and the self-evident truths which are its bases--has guided the decisions and the heroic sacrifices of Americans for two centuries. Its precepts are the guiding light and have been a shining beacon of hope for millions across the globe who hunger for the freedoms that democracy guarantees. It has served not only us, it has served the world, as well. It is not, Mr. President, a document, therefore, to be amended lightly. Indeed, my strongest objection to this proposal is that it does not belong in our Constitution; it belongs in our law. In addition to this argument, I also intend to suggest that the political will to enact changes in law to balance our budget--which was missing from many previous Congresses--now appears to be here. In fact, I wish the time taken to debate this change in our Constitution was instead spent debating the changes needed in the statutes that dictate current and future spending. This does not mean, Mr. President, I agree with those who have complained about the length of time we have spent on this proposal. This complaint is without merit. This great document should not be amended in a rush of passion. It is evident from the Constitution itself that its authors intended the process of amendment to be slow, difficult, and laborious. So difficult that it has been attempted with success only 17 times since the Bill of Rights. This document is not meant to be tampered with in a trivial fashion. As I said, the proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution is intended to affect the behavior of America's congressional representatives. In that regard, it is unique. Except for the 25th amendment, which addresses the issue of transfer of power, other amendments affecting the behavior of all Americans by limiting the power of Government, protecting public freedoms, prohibiting the majority from encroaching on the rights of the minority or regulating the behavior of the States. This would be the only amendment aimed at regulating the behavior of 535 Americans, who the amendment assumes are incapable of making the difficult decisions without the guidance of the Constitution's hand. That theory is grounded in the assumption that Congress and the public lack the political will to balance the budget. Specifically, the proposal contains 294 words. It would raise from a simple majority to three-fifths the vote necessary in Congress for deficit spending. It would set a goal of balancing our budget by the year 2002. The amendment empowers Congress to pass legislation detailing how to enforce that goal, but does not itself specify enforcement measures. The only answer to the question of what will happen if Congress and the President fail to balance the budget is that nobody knows. The only mechanism our country has for enforcing the Constitution is the courts. So the amendment's ambiguity prevents the serious possibility of protracted court battles which give unelected judiciary unwarranted control over budget policy. The proponents of this amendment sincerely believe our Constitution needs to be changed in order to force Members of Congress to change their behavior, which supporters argue they will not do because they are afraid of offending the citizens who have sent them here in the first place. On that basis there is a long list of constitutional change they should propose, including campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and term limits, just to name a few. Mr. President, I support the goal of a balanced budget, and have fought and am fighting and will continue to fight to achieve it. However, desirability of a goal cannot become the only standard to which we hold constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments must meet a higher standard. The Constitution and its 27 amendments express broadly our values as a Nation. The Constitution does not dictate specific policies, fiscal or otherwise. We attempted to use the Constitution for that purpose once, banning alcohol in the 18th amendment, and it proved to be a colossal failure. Fundamentally, we should amend the Constitution to make broad statements of national principle. And most importantly, Mr. President, we should amend the Constitution as an act of last resort when no other means are adequate to reach our goals. We do so out of reverence for a document we have believed for two centuries should not be changed except in the most extraordinary circumstances. We have used constitutional amendments to express our preference as a Nation for the principles of free speech, the right to vote and the right of each individual to live free. The question before Members today is whether the need for a balanced budget belongs in such distinguished company. While I oppose this amendment, Mr. President, I understand the arguments for it. I have had the privilege of serving here for 6 years and I am entering my seventh budget cycle as a consequence. Every time the President of either party, since I have been here, has sent a budget to this body it has been greeted with speeches and promises and rhetoric about the need to balance the budget. And each time, those speeches and promises and rhetoric have been greeted with votes in the opposite direction. Many of those whose judgment I most respect in this body support this amendment, including the senior Senator from Nebraska, whose reputation as a budget cutter needs no expounding by me. I am sympathetic. Clearly something is wrong with a system which so consistently produces deficits so large. The question for me is not whether something is wrong, but precisely, what is wrong? Do we run a massive deficit because something in the Constitution is broken? Were the Founding Fathers mistaken in assigning the elected representatives of the people the task of setting fiscal and budget policy? And is a constitutional amendment, as opposed to a statute requiring a balanced budget, the only workable solution? If the answers to these questions were yes, then a constitutional amendment in my judgment would be appropriate. But my answer in all three of these questions, is a resounding no. If, on the other hand, the problem lies in the behavior of the 535 individuals whose actions produce the deficit, as opposed to the document that governs it, then a constitutional amendment is both an inappropriate and ineffective means for balancing the budget. If a simple statute rather than an [[Page S2996]] amendment will work, we should leave the Constitution alone. Supporters of the amendment note we tried statute in 1985 in the form of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law and that law failed miserably. Therefore, the argument goes, a more powerful tool than ordinary statute--in other words, constitutional amendment--is necessary. The assumption, apparently is that a constitutional amendment mandate would provide the legal and the political cover needed to cast the tough votes in a climate in which the political will for doing so does not exist. But the fact is, Mr. President, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings failed not because it was a statute as opposed to an amendment, but because the political will to balance the budget did not exist in 1985. Gramm- Rudman-Hollings set deficit targets to set up on a glidepath, a term we are hearing again today, to achieve zero deficits by 1991. The deficit target for 1986 was $172 billion. We end up $222 billion in the hole. President Reagan's budgets did not even meet the Gramm- Rudman-Hollings targets in that year, much less a balanced budget. And even though Gramm-Rudman-Hollings provided the legal and political cover for deficit reduction, neither Congress nor the President has the stomach for it. Now we are attempting to find in the Constitution what we could not find in ourselves. I believe, Mr. President, that 1995 and 1985 are two very different times. I have heard the American people say loud and clear in this last November election that not only does the will to balance the budget exist, it thrives. We all know that the political will to balance the budget exists today to a much larger degree than it did in 1985. In fact, there is much more enthusiasm than existed even in 1994. The political dynamic has changed in this Congress. I believe the political will now exists to make the tough choices. To illustrate this change, consider our attitude toward spending cuts today. A year ago when a bipartisan coalition of Senators offered and fought for an amendment which would have cut $94 billion in spending over 5 years, the administration argued against it, saying our economy would enter a recession. But since the election, Mr. President, the same administration opponents are scrambling to propose cuts that are larger than the ones that they opposed just a little over a year ago. There are far more Senators and Representatives today who are prepared to vote for spending cuts than there were last year. And there is evidence of a willingness to form bipartisan coalitions in the beginning to tackle the problem, including our most politically charged problem, Federal entitlements. So I say that after the rhetoric for and against this amendment is over, let Senators get to work to show Americans we have the courage this amendment presumes that we lack. While it is true that the President's recently submitted budget does little to reduce the deficit, the stomach for the tough choices does exist in this body. If the appeal of a balanced budget amendment is simply the legal or political cover it provides for the tough choice, a statutory change would provide the same cover. If the presumption behind the amendment is that the political will to balance the budget does not exist, then make no mistake, those who lack that political will can find a way to circumvent this amendment. An amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a powerful weapon, not one to be taken lightly. This weapon can be disarmed with 60 votes in the Senate, only 9 more than it takes for deficit spending today. And beyond all the legal maneuvers, there is no cover for tough decisions but the courage to make them. So I simply am not convinced a balanced budget amendment is necessary. It assumes a structural flaw in our Constitution that prevents the 535 Members of Congress from balancing the budget. In fact, there is no such flaw in the Constitution. To the extent such a flaw exists, it is in the 535 Members of Congress themselves, not the document that governs us. The fact is, we can balance the budget this year if we wanted to, and we can by statute direct the Congress to balance the budget by 2002, 2003, or any other date that we choose. Furthermore, I believe this debate is misdirected. The balanced budget amendment tells us what to do over the next 7 years but ignores the following 20, the years which ought to command our attention. A balanced budget by the year 2002 still ignores the most important fiscal challenge we face: The rapid growth in entitlement spending over the next 30 years. The year on which we ought to be focused is not 2002, but 2012 when the baby boomer generation begins to retire and places a severe strain on the Federal budget. Our biggest fiscal challenge is demographic, not constitutional, and the amendment before us does not and cannot address it. Unfortunately and conveniently, this demographic challenge is kept from our view, not by an incomplete Constitution, but by a budgeting process that discourages long-term planning. The budget the President sent us tells us what to do for the next 5 years--5 years, Mr. President. The balanced budget amendment tells us what happens over 7 years. Five- and seven-year spans are completely inadequate when the most difficult budget decisions we need to make deal with problems we will face 20, 25 and 30 years down the road, when the aging of our population propels entitlement spending out of control. The most important recommendation of the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform is that we began to look at the impact of the budget over 30 years, rather than just 5 or 7. The reason that our country looks very different and our current budgets look very different viewed over that span is, as I said, not one of our Constitution, not, indeed, even one of our statute, but one of demographics. We can see the trend in the short-term. The big four entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal retirement-- will consume 44 percent of the budget this year. Mandatory spending will consume 65 percent. By 2000, it will be 70 percent. By 2005, the number is 78 percent. Those numbers, Mr. President, are straight from CBO. If we project further, we see that by 2012, mandatory spending plus interest on the national debt will consume every dollar we collect in taxes. By 2013, we will be forced to begin dipping into the surplus of the Social Security trust funds to cover benefit payments, a practice that will go on for no more than 16 years before the trust fund goes bankrupt in the year 2029. These trends have nothing to do with the Constitution, political will or pork barrel politics. They have to do with the simple fact that our population is getting older while the work force gets smaller. My generation did not have as many children as our parents expected and, as a consequence, the system under which each generation of workers supports the preceding generation of retirees simply will not hold up much longer. Indeed, long-term entitlement reform, coupled with a reasonable reduction in discretionary spending, including defense, would reduce interest rates dramatically and achieve the goal of this amendment without tampering with the Constitution. In this context, I need to address the role of Social Security in this debate. I have heard speaker after speaker come to the floor on both sides of the issue and announce their support for this program. I agree with them all. Social Security is one of the most, if not the most, important and successful Government programs we operate. Social Security should not and, indeed, does not need to be used to balance the budget. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Social Security will start running a deficit in 2013, due, as I mentioned earlier, to the retirement of the baby boomer generation and the fact that more retirees will be drawing from the trust funds while fewer workers contribute to it. The general fund currently borrows against the surplus, and when Social Security begins running a deficit, the decisionmaking capacity of future Congresses will be limited, because large amounts of the general fund will have to be used to repay the money we are borrowing from the trust fund today. That situation will tempt future Congresses to run Social Security in deficit if it is exempted from deficit calculations. That development would, of [[Page S2997]] course, only further jeopardize the program. Even today, our decisionmaking capacity is already limited by the growth of entitlement spending. In 1963, a little more than 30 years ago, spending on entitlements and interest on the national debt consumed 30 percent of our Federal budget. This year, entitlements and net interest will devour 65 percent. The present budget assumes 66 percent for next year and by 2000, the number will be 70 percent. Mr. President, that is the problem that we face. That is why we are forced year after year after year to come and cut domestic discretionary programs, whether it is defense or nondefense. The pressure is coming from entitlement programs that are consuming a larger and larger percent of our budget inexorably by the year 2013, it will be 100 percent, converting the Federal Government into an ATM machine. The result is a question of fairness between generations. Today there are roughly five workers paying taxes to support the taxes of each retiree. When my generation retires, there will be fewer than three workers per retiree. Unless we take action now, the choice forced upon our children will be excruciating. Continue to fund benefits at current levels by radically raising taxes on the working population or slash benefits dramatically. Finally, Mr. President, as we debate this amendment, I hope we keep our eyes on a larger prize in blind reference to the idea of a balanced budget. Our goals should, in my view, be economic prosperity. I support deficit reduction as a means to that end. Deficit reduction is important not as an abstract ideal but as an economic comparative. I believe in balancing the budget because it is the surest and most powerful way to increase national savings. And increased national savings will lead to increased national productivity which in turn will lead to higher standards of living for the American family. There is no short cut to savings and no substitute that will get results. Increased national savings mean lower long-term interest rates and increased job growth in the private sector. The balanced budget amendment assumes that a balanced budget is always the best economic policy. A balanced budget, Mr. President, is usually the best economic strategy, but it is by no means always the best strategy for this country. Downward turns in the economy complicate the picture. Downward turns will result in lower revenues and higher spending so there will be times, although very few of them, when a strict requirement for balancing the budget harms the economy by requiring the collection of more and more taxes to cover more and more spending in an economic environment which makes revenue collection more difficult in the first place. As I say, I believe those times are few and far between. But the Constitution is too blunt an instrument to distinguish between good times and bad. The American people hired us to do that job, not to cede it to a legal document that cannot assess the evolving needs of our economy. The bottom line for me as we debate this amendment is whether it moves us toward achieving the correct goals and whether, if it does, we need to amend the Constitution to get there. My answer to the first question is mixed. I believe a balanced budget is an important goal, but only as a component of an overall economic strategy which recognizes that skyrocketing entitlement spending is the most serious fiscal challenge we face. My answer to the second question is more certain. I believe that once we set those goals, we can achieve them by statute or, more importantly, by changing our own behavior rather than changing the Constitution. My respect for this document precludes me from voting to tamper with it when I am not convinced that we must. This proposal for a 28th amendment does not command for me the same reverence in which I hold the 1st amendment or the 13th or the 19th and, therefore, Mr. President, while I will continue to fight for its admirable goal, I will vote no on the balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to call up motion No. 3 at the desk and that it be considered as one of my relevant amendments. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, if I might, it is my understanding that there are two unanimous consent requests which deal with two amendments of the Senator from Minnesota. I wonder if I might make those requests and see if they are suitable to the Senator from Minnesota, and we can proceed in that manner. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that will be fine with me. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose? Mr. WELLSTONE. I do. Unanimous-Consent Agreements Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be recognized to call up his motion dealing with homeless children; and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone; 15 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch; and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the majority leader, or his designee, be recognized to table the Wellstone motion; and that that vote occur at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of the Wellstone motion dealing with homeless children, Senator Wellstone be recognized to call up his filed motion No. 2, and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone, 15 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Wellstone motion, and that vote occur in the stacked sequence to begin at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Motion to refer Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Arizona and I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me for my colleagues---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend for just a moment while the clerk states the motion, please. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] moves to refer House Joint Resolution 1 to the Budget Committee with instructions to report back forthwith House Joint Resolution 1 in status quo and at the earliest date possible, to issue a report, the text of which shall be as follows: ``It is the sense of the Committee that in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children.'' Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. The motion is self- explanatory, it is very reasonable, and it is very important. What this motion says is not that we should delay the vote on the balanced budget amendment. We will have that vote. This is not a part of that constitutional amendment at all. This is just simply a motion which says we will go on record through the Senate Budget Committee that in whatever ways we move forward to balance the budget, whether this constitutional amendment is passed or not --there is really no linkage here--we will go on record, and I would like to again now go through the operative language, it is the sense of the Senate to the Budget Committee: That in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, Congress should take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. [[Page S2998]] That is what this motion says. One more time, it is not an amendment to this constitutional amendment. It does not put off the date that we vote on this amendment. I simply ask that the Senate go on record through the Budget Committee that if this amendment passes or even if this amendment does not pass, we will take no action which would increase the number of hungry or homeless children. Mr. President, I have been in the Chamber from the beginning of this session with just this amendment which has received, I think, 43 votes. I do not understand why the Senate is not willing to go on record on this question. Mr. President, this motion is essentially a statement by the Senate; it is a request to colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we speak boldly and we speak directly, as we understand children are the most vulnerable citizens in this country. Every time I hear one of my colleagues talk about how we have to reduce the deficit--and by the way, sometimes people get confused between annual deficit and this huge debt we have built up--and that we cannot put this deficit on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren, the best thing we can do for the children of our Nation is to balance the budget, I say to myself, fine, I agree. I am a father. I am a grandfather. But what about the vulnerable children in the United States of America today? Why cannot the Senate go on record--it is a sense of the Senate--that we certainly understand as we go forward with deficit reduction we will not do anything which would increase hunger or homelessness among children in our Nation. Is that too much to ask? What possibly could be the reason for voting no? Senators are talking about how we have to balance the budget for the sake of the children of the future. How about the lives of children living now? How about children right now who happen to be among the most vulnerable group in this Nation? The context is important. The Food Research and Action Center in 1991 estimated that 5.5 million children under 12 years of age are hungry at least one day a month in the United States of America. Second Harvest estimated that, in 1993, emergency food programs served 10,798,375 children. The U.S. Council of Mayors found that, in 1994, 64 percent of the persons receiving food assistance were from families with children. Carnegie Foundation, late 1980's--68 percent of public schoolteachers reported that undernourished children and youth are a problem in school. By the way, I talk to teachers in Minnesota who tell me the same thing. Children are among the homeless in this country and indeed families with children are a substantial segment of the homeless population. The U.S. Council of Mayors estimates that, in 1994, 26 percent of the homeless were children, based upon requests from emergency shelters. That is a pretty large percentage of the homeless population. And, in 1988, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 100,000 children are homeless each day. Mr. President, what does it mean that children are hungry? In comparison to nonhungry children, hungry children are more than three times likely to suffer from unwanted weight loss, more than four times as likely to suffer from fatigue, almost three times as likely to suffer from irritability, and more than 12 times as likely to report disease. Mr. President, let me discuss the context one more time. I have been in this Chamber from the beginning of this session with this basic proposition, either in amendment form, or now, in the most reasonable form possible; as just a motion, a sense of the Senate that would go to the Budget Committee. It is not a part of the constitutional amendment. This motion merely has us going on record that as we move toward a balanced budget, which we are all for as well as deficit reduction, we are not going to take any action that would increase the number of hungry or homeless children in America. Will the Senate not go on record supporting this? I hear Senators say that they are going to make these cuts; that is the best thing they can do for our children and our grandchildren. What about these children? One out of every four children in America is poor. Children's Defense Fund came out with a study last year--this data is accurate and I wish it was not. I wish this was not the reality. One day in the life of American children, three children die from child abuse. One day in the life of American children, nine children are murdered. One day in the life of American children, 13 children die from guns. One day in the life of American children, 27 children, a classroomful, die from poverty. One day in the life of American children, 63 babies die before they are 1 month old. One day in the life of American children, 101 babies die before their first birthday. One day in the life of American children, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight, less than 5.5 pounds--yet the House of Representatives yesterday voted to block grant and cut Women, Infants and Children programs. Cut nutrition programs--that was the vote in the House yesterday. One day in the life of American children, 636 babies are born to women who had late or no prenatal care. One day in the life of American children, 1,234 children run away from home. One day in the life of American children, 2,868 babies are born into poverty. One day in the life of American children, 7,945 children are reported abused or neglected. One day in the life of American children, 100,000 children are homeless. I hope my colleagues are not bored by these statistics. These are real people. These are children in the United States of America. These children, all of these children, are our children. Moments in America for children? Every 35 seconds a child drops out of school in America. Every 30 seconds, a child is born into poverty, every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty. Every 2 minutes a child is born low birth weight. Every 2 minutes a child is born to a woman who had no prenatal care. Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for alcohol-related crime. Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for drug- related crime. I have given this figure before: Every 2 hours a child is murdered and every 4 hours a child takes his or her life in the United States of America. Mr. President, I received a letter from Ona. I do not use last names because I never know whether citizens want to have their names used or not. Ona is 8. My name is Ona and I go to public school and I'm 8. My class has 26 kids in it and only three of them, Iman, Jasmin, and me bring lunches to school. Twenty-three kids in my class depend on the school lunch and now you want to cut those programs. Which do you think is more important, cutting the debt or having poor helpless children having nothing to eat? Senator, that's not right because almost my entire class depends on school breakfast and school lunch, and if you cut these programs they will starve. How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. She is 8 years old. How come my colleagues do not get this? How do they explain to a starving child, oh, we are cutting the debt. It will be good for you. Life is already hard enough for us with pollution, crime and disease. I hope you change your mind. Ona, you do not have to ask me to change my mind. And she is so right. Some of my colleagues say this is just a scare tactic. Prove me wrong. I will give you a chance at 3 o'clock today to prove me wrong. ``This is just a scare tactic.'' Who is kidding whom? Look at the headlines: ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts.'' ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Washington Post, front page story: House Republicans, wielding their budget-cutting axes more forcefully than at any time since taking power, yesterday proposed slashing some $5.2 billion of spending approved by previous Democratic Congresses * * *. Included in the lengthy list of cuts voted out by five appropriations subcommittees during a hectic day of meetings were rural housing loans, nutrition programs for children and pregnant women * * *. Let me repeat: * * * nutrition programs for children and pregnant women, spending on urban parks, and assistance to the poor and elderly for protecting their homes against the cold. That is right. They want to eliminate LIHEAP, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I have spent time with families in Minnesota--it is a cold weather State--who depend on [[Page S2999]] LIHEAP. You are going to cut their energy assistance so they have a choice between heat or eat? It is time to get a little bit more real with people in this country about what this agenda translates into. Another headline, ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' Washington Post, Thursday, February 23, 1995. I have been saying that this would happen from the beginning of the session and I have had people on the other side of the aisle say we are not going to do that. ``We care as much about children as you do.'' Prove me wrong. You get a chance to vote on this today. The article reads: After a full day of beating back Democratic amendments to restore the programs or soften their impact on welfare recipients, Chairman William Goodling said his committee will complete work today on a bill that will abolish the school breakfast, lunch and other nutrition programs for women and children and replace them with a block grant to the States. The Republican measure would freeze the amount of money given to States for child care at $1.94 billion a year, the current level. Representative George Miller [who is right] charged that because the number of needy children is expected to increase, the freeze would cut off child payments for more than 377,000 children in the year 2000. By contrast, funding for the school lunch and nutrition programs would be allowed to grow by $1.87 billion over 5 years. But committee Democrats said this was grossly inadequate and would fall $5 to $7 billion short of what is needed. It is block granted but it is bait and switch. It is block granted with cuts and, in addition, it is no longer an entitlement. So during more difficult times such as recession, if there are additional children who now need the assistance, those who are receiving assistance will have their assistance cut or some will be cut off the support. It is simple. ``House Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' ``House Panels Vote Social Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing.'' Including the Women, Infants, and Children Program. I have had some colleagues say to me this is just a scare tactic. But it is not. Because this is precisely where the cuts are taking place. Mr. President, may I have order in the Chamber? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend until the Sergeant at Arms has restored order in the galleries, please. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish that I did not have to come to the floor with this motion. I wish that this was not real. But the evidence is crystal clear. All you have to do is look at the state of children in America today. They are the most vulnerable citizens, the most poor. I am just saying to my colleague, can we not go on record that we are not going to pass any legislation or make any cuts that will increase hunger among children? Then I look at what has happened on the House side. They are cutting nutrition programs--cutting nutrition programs--the very thing that my colleagues over here said we will not do. And what people now say is do not worry about the House. The U.S. Senate is a different body, and it is. We are more deliberative. We do not ram things through. We are more careful. But now what I have to say to some of my colleagues is two or three times I have come to this floor and asked you to please go on record that we will not do anything that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. And each time, you voted no. Mr. President, The Children's Defense Fund that reported on where this balanced budget amendment will take us--I do not have the chart I usually have with me. But, roughly speaking, if you include in this package the baseline CBO projections plus tax cuts, which do not make a lot of sense when you are trying to do deficit reduction, broad-based tax cuts, plus increases in the Pentagon budget, it is about $1.3 trillion that needs to be cut between now and the year 2002. Mr. President, if Social Security is off the table--and it should be--if you are going to have to pay the interest on the debt and if military spending is going up, then it is pretty clear what is left. When you look at what has been taken off the table and what has been left on the table, it is crystal clear that you are going to have to have, about 30-percent cuts across the board. It may be that veterans programs will not be cut 30 percent. I hope not. But you basically have higher education; you have Medicare and Medicaid; you have veterans; and you have these low-income children's programs. Yesterday in the House, they are talking about cutting the Women, Infants, and Children Program, and the school lunch program. They are talking about eliminating the low-income energy assistance program. That is for low-income people in cold-weather States like Minnesota. I visited with those families. These issues are real to them. But when Senator Feingold and I came out on the floor of the Senate last week, and we had a very reasonable motion, that the Senate would go on record through the Budget Committee that we will consider $425 billion of tax expenditures, many of them loopholes, deductions and outright dodges for the largest corporations and financial institutions in America, they voted it down. So I understand what the Children's Defense Fund understands, that on present legislative course, this is where we are heading: By year 2002, 7.5 million children lose federally subsidized lunches, 6.6 million children lose their health care through Medicaid, 3 million children lose food stamps, and 2 million young children and mothers lose nutritional assistance through the WIC program. This is a very destructive way to ensure that our children are not burdened by debt. May I repeat that? This is a very destructive way of assuring that our children will not be burdened by debt, to cut into the very nutrition programs that benefit children right now who are so vulnerable in the United States of America, all for the sake of making sure that our children in the future are not burdened by debt. I wish my colleagues were as concerned about the children right now as they are about the children in the future. Mr. President, I might ask the Chair how much time I have remaining. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has approximately 20 minutes remaining. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is interested in responding, then I will yield the floor for a moment and reserve the rest of my time. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized to call up his amendment No. 301 following the remarks of Senator Hollings today, and that time prior to a motion to table be limited to the following: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hatch, and that following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to table the Byrd amendment, and that vote occur in the stacked sequence beginning at 3 p.m. today. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HATCH. I thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Minnesota. Mr. President, we are now--let me take a few minutes--in our 25th day since this amendment was brought to the floor. Twenty-five days have expired since we started debating the balanced budget amendment. As you can see, I have added one more day, the 25th. This red line all the way from there over to here happens to be the baseline of $4.8 trillion, which is our national debt. It is $18,500 for every man, woman, and child in America, plus it is going up every day. Each day that we have debated this balanced budget amendment, I just want the American people to understand that our national debt has gone up $829 billion. We are now in the 25th day, and our national debt has been increased since we began this debate $2.736 billion. I do not care who you are. You have to draw the analogy between Rome [[Page S3000]] under Nero, as he fiddled while Rome burned. Fortunately, we do have a vote next Tuesday. We will decide this one way or the other, whether we are going to put a mechanism into the Constitution that will force Members of Congress to at least look at these details and do something about it. We will make it more difficult for them to spend more and to take more. It does not stop them, but it certainly makes it more difficult. What I have to say is that predicted opponents of the balanced budget amendment are trotting out a series of sympathetic Government beneficiaries and attempting either to exempt them from the balanced budget amendment or use them to argue against not just the amendment but indeed against balancing the budget at all. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HATCH. Yes. Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator understands that this is a motion. It is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. This has no linkage. This is simply a sense-of-the-Senate to the Budget Committee that when it comes to balancing the budget, we will go on record that we will not increase the number of hungry and homeless children. That is all this motion says. The Senator speaks to that, and that is why I asked the question. Mr. HATCH. I understand. This motion, in my opinion, is just another in a parade of exemptions which the opponents of the balanced budget amendment have tried to tack on. I know the Senator is sincere. I have worked with him ever since he has been here. He has a great deal of sincerity with regard to the people who are in difficulty and have difficulty, and especially the homeless. But I think, in that sense, it is just as inappropriate as the other motions that have been brought to the Senate. Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. HATCH. Yes, I will be happy to yield. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, does the Senator understand that this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment and, in that sense, it is not an exemption? It just simply asks us to go on record, through the Budget Committee, that we will not do anything that would increase more hunger or homelessness among children. Does the Senator understand that? Mr. HATCH. I do. Mr. WELLSTONE. That is all I am asking. Could the Senator tell me, does the Senator know, during this period of time, how many more hungry or homeless children there have been in the United States of America? Mr. HATCH. I do not think anybody fully knows. Mr. WELLSTONE. But is it not interesting that we do not know what we do not want to know. Why do we not know? Mr. HATCH. I disagree with the Senator that I do not want to know. I think the Senator knows my whole career has been spent helping those who are less fortunate. Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator does. I certainly do understand that. That is why I asked the Senator from Utah, who is probably one of the Senators I consider to be a really good friend. Let me ask the Senator, why is this an unreasonable proposition, given the headline ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing,'' what is going on on the House side right now, and given the fear of so many of the people that are working down in the trenches with children, that we both admire, about where these cuts are going to take place? This is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment. This is just a sense of the Senate. Why is it so unreasonable, since we will have the vote on Tuesday--no more delay--why is it so unreasonable for me to ask the Senate to go on record that we will not make any cuts that will increase hunger or homelessness among children? Why does the Senator from Utah not support this, since he cares about this certainly as much as I do, and others? (Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.) Mr. HATCH. Let me try to answer the Senator. Mr. President, the Founders gave Congress the power to spend money. They did not go on record as being opposed to action which would increase the number of homeless children or any other budget policy issue. They understood that the Constitution establishes the processes and the procedures under which our Government operates or would operate from that point on. Which policy choices may be made under those procedures do not belong in the discussion of the great principles of our Constitution. We are talking about a constitutional amendment that could save our country, because our country, as we can easily see, is going more and more into debt to the point where interest against the national debt is now consuming 50 percent of all personal income taxes paid every year. Now, I know my colleague is concerned about the homeless--so am I-- and so many others, from child care right on through to people with AIDS. I testified yesterday in favor of the Kennedy-Hatch Ryan White bill, which, of course, provides money for the cities with hardcore AIDS problems. So I feel very deeply about these issues. But I feel very deeply that those moneys are not going to be there if we keep running this country into bankruptcy. And if we think we have homeless people now, wait until you see what happens as that interest keeps going to the point where it consumes all of our personal income taxes. It is now consuming half of the personal income taxes paid in America today. We are going up, as this balanced budget amendment debt tracker shows, as this debate continues. We are already up to $20 billion, almost $21 billion, in the 25 days that we have debated this amendment. Now, Mr. President, I am concerned about it. Of course, we will do what we think is best for the children of America and for the homeless of America. But the least thing we can do for them is to pass the balanced budget amendment so they have a future, so that Members of Congress, most of whom are altruistic and want to do good for people, have to live within certain means, have to live within the means of this country. You know, if you think about it, if we pass the balanced budget amendment, then I think we will have an answer to the question why a child born today will pay an extra $100,000 in taxes over his or her lifetime for the debt that is being projected to accumulate in just the first 18 years of that child's life. And there will be another $5,000 in taxes for every additional $200 billion deficit. Mr. President, our President has sent us a budget that for the next 12 years projects $200 billion deficits a year. That is billion, with a ``b.'' Every year that happens, these children's taxes will go up $5,000 more. They will become more tax debt owing, $5,000 more for each year there is a $200 billion deficit. So if it is 12 years, that is $60,000 more on top of the current $100,000 they are going to be saddled with because of the way we have been handling situations. Mr. President, most Government programs have beneficiaries with some political popularity or power or attractiveness. And that is why they receive benefits in the first place. But this kind of thinking, that we should spend for these worthy beneficiaries whether we have the money or not, is precisely why we have the colossal national debt that we do. And I am just pointing to the balanced budget amendment debt tracker, which just shows the 25 days of increased debt, $21 billion so far. The power of the tax spenders has always been built on appealing to an attractive, narrow interest and that power has always outweighed the more diffused interest of the taxpayers and of our children, who cannot yet vote whose moneys we are spending in advance. Mr. President, this is business as usual, and it is what the balanced budget amendment is designed to end. The purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to ensure that Congress takes into account increased taxes, stagnant wages, higher interest rates, and the insurmountable debt that we will leave to our children if we keep spending the money that we do not have. [[Page S3001]] The parade of special interest groups embodied by so many of the amendments which have been offered against this balanced budget amendment, including this one, is to take the focus off our children's future and put it on the short-term interest of another, perhaps worthy, special interest group. There are thousands of special interest groups in our country. I wish we had enough money to take care of all of them and to do it in a way that would give them dignity and would help them to find their own way, would empower them to be able to make something of their lives. There is no question that all of us want to do that. But we are never going to do it--we are going to have more homeless, we are going to have more children bereft of what they need, we are going to have less of a future for them--if we do not pass this balanced budget amendment and get this spending under control. Make no mistake, those who keep bringing up these amendments for special interest groups, who are needy and whom we all want to help, in order to kill this amendment by 1,000 cuts, I think their efforts ought to be rejected. And that does not mean that they are not sincere or they are not good people or they are not trying to do their best. I find no fault with my friend from Minnesota in worrying about those who are homeless. I do, too. But if we are really worried about them, then let us get this country's spending practices under control so that this country's economy is strong so we can help them. I am willing to do that, and I have a reputation around here for trying. I think the Senate should get on with its business of weighing each of the interests presented to make choices among all the worthy programs within the constraints of the revenues we are willing to raise, like reasonable economic actors. Our problem today is, because we do not have a balanced budget amendment, people do not care how much they spend of the future of our children. They can feel very good towards themselves that they are compassionate and considerate of those who need help. But what they do not tell is the other side of that coin--that all of us are going to need help in the future if this country's economy becomes less than what it is, and it has no other way to go if we do not start getting our spending under control. So I suggest that, in spite of the sincerity of my friend from Minnesota, we vote down this amendment, as we have had to do, in order to preserve this concept of a balanced budget in the Constitution. This is our last chance. This is the first time in history, the first time in history, that the House of Representatives has had the guts, as a collective body, to get a two-thirds vote--which is very, very difficult to do--to pass the balanced budget amendment. The reason they have is because of the budget-courageous Democrats and Republicans who decided the country is more important than any special interest. And that we have to get the country under control and spending practices under control if we are really going to help the special interests, many of whom are worthy interests. On the one hand, I commend the distinguished Senator for his compassion and his desire to help people. On the other hand, I have difficulties with those who have brought up these amendments because every one of these amendments would make the balanced budget amendment less important. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I find the remarks of my good friend from Utah to be very important. I want to come back to a couple of basic points because I really believe that the vote on this motion is a real moment of truth here. First of all, Mr. President, this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That is not what they are voting on. This motion just says that we go on record we will not take any action which will increase the number of hungry or homeless children. It is that simple. I did not say we should balance the budget. I did not say we should not have serious deficit reduction. We have to make choices. It is a question of whether there is a standard of fairness. I want the Senate to go on record. Second of all, Mr. President, my colleague from Utah talked all about the Constitution, and therefore this is no place for a discussion of hunger and homelessness among children, because it is a different order of question. I might remind my colleague that the Preamble of the Constitution says: ``We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare.'' I would think that children are a part of how we promote the general welfare. Do not tell me that being on the floor of the Senate and talking about children does not have anything to do with the founding documents of our Nation. We talk about promoting the general welfare, I assume that includes children. The third point, Mr. President, I heard my colleague use the words ``special interest'' more than once. Children are special interests. We are all for the future, and we are all talking about we want to make sure that our children and grandchildren do not have to carry this debt. How about the children now? Now, Mr. President, I do not have such a fancy chart but the facts remain. Every 5 seconds a student drops out of school; every 30 seconds, a baby is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a baby is born at low birthweight; every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had no prenatal care; every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol- related crime; every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime; every 7 minutes a child is arrested for a drug crime; every 2 hours a child is murdered; every 4 hours a child commits suicide. I spoke about 100,000 homeless and 5 million hungry children earlier. I hear my colleague talking about our generosity. We cannot talk about our generosity. We have abandoned many children in the United States of America. I might add we devalued the work of many adults that work with those children. That is what these statistics say. And now, rather than investing more in our children, we are cutting programs. Three children die from child abuse; 1 day, 9 children are murdered; 1 day, 63 babies die before they are one month old; 1 day, 101 babies die before their first birthday; 1 day, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight. And I can go on and on. Mr. President, why do we not juxtapose these figures, these statistics about children in America today, with the headlines in the Washington Post, ``House Panels Vote Special Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing''; ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' I do not really think my colleagues can have it both ways. Let me get right down to the essence of this motion. We have these figures. We have the Children's Defense Fund which has been the organization most down in the trenches with children. I have State-by- State variations. I could read from every State--Idaho, Minnesota, Utah--about the projected cuts, because we know there will be cuts in these programs. We have to cut somewhere. Now, I came on to the floor of the Senate during the Congressional Accountability Act, and I had an amendment that came from Minnesota that essentially said before we send the balanced budget amendment to the States, let Senators lay out where we will be making the cuts. It was voted down. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, had a similar amendment. It was voted down. My colleagues will not specify where they will make the cuts, but when Senator Feingold and I said how about oil company subsidies, pharmaceutical subsidies, or $425 billion in tax holes, loopholes, deductions, and sometimes outright dodges, would we consider that in how we would balance the budget? No. That was the vote. My colleague from Utah says we have to make difficult choices. That is true. I am for cutting the Pentagon budget. I do not think military contractors are in a position where they cannot afford to tighten their belt. They are not being asked to tighten their belt. Nor [[Page S3002]] are we going after tax dodges and loopholes and deductions, and we have a bidding war on tax cuts. So there we have $1.3 trillion. We will not specify where we make the cuts, but we know what is left. I am saying to my colleagues, we cannot have it both ways. Do not, one more time on the floor of the U.S. Senate, say to me or say to children in this country, that this is just a scare tactic. I wish it were just a scare tactic. Or this is just a political strategy to get people on record. What I am saying to my colleagues is, is it too much to ask that we go on record saying to our Budget Committee, as we go forward with deficit reduction and as we go forward to balancing the budget which we are all for one way or the other, we go on record, we are not going to do anything that will increase hunger, homelessness among children? Know why my colleagues will not vote for this Mr. President? Because that is what we are going to do. The reason my colleagues will not vote for this is because that is precisely what we are going to do. I do not understand for the life of me why I cannot get the U.S. Senate on record on this very fundamental basic question. We cannot go forward with deficit reduction. I do not want to let colleagues say he is just doing this motion because he is not in favor of deficit reduction. That is not true. I voted for huge deficit reduction. I want to see all sorts of cuts. I would like to see the oil companies tighten their belt. I do not hear anything about that. But, no, I do not want to see the most vulnerable citizens being hurt. Mr. President, I have heard a couple of colleagues talk about the last election. And the people voted for change. People voted for change, but not this kind of change. There is too much goodness in the United States of America to cut nutrition programs and school lunch programs and child care programs, all in the name of deficit reduction. That is not where people in the United States of America want to see the cuts. My colleagues need to understand that. So, Mr. President, I come out here determined because I have a real sense of trepidation. I know what is going to happen with these programs. I know the majority leader was out on the floor saying we care as much about children as the Senator from Minnesota. I know my colleague from Utah says that. I now say prove me wrong. Prove now this afternoon that this is just a scare tactic. I want to be wrong. Prove this afternoon that this is just some political strategy. Let us go on record, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we are serious about deficit reduction, we are serious about balancing the budget, because I think we all are. And what we are going to do is go on record this afternoon, not with an amendment to this constitutional amendment--that is not what this is. This is just simply a motion to go on record that when we make these cuts, we are not going to do anything to increase hunger or homelessness among children. I do not understand why I cannot get 100 votes for it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is finished with his remarks, I will be pleased to yield him some of my time if he needs it, or I will yield back my time. Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to agree to that, to yield back time on both sides. And then the votes are to be stacked, as I understand it, beginning at 3. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is scheduled to occur at 3 o'clock. Mr. HATCH. Then I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, is it appropriate for me to table and ask for the yeas and nays with the understanding that the vote not occur until 3, or should we just wait until then? The PRESIDING OFFICER. First we must announce the result of the request for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, with the understanding that it will not be voted upon until 3 o'clock. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote will occur beginning at 3 o'clock today. Mr. WELLSTONE. For a few moments, I will suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while we are waiting for the next amendment, let me just say a few words about the impact of the deficit on the average American. We need to stop talking and start working on getting our fiscal house in order by passing the balanced budget amendment an