Mr. President, I will be very brief so that colleagues will know that we can end the day, especially the desk staff will know that they can get home to their loved ones.<p>
I did want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that yesterday in the Budget Committee, when Secretary Christopher was there, inadvertently a Republican staff document was attached to part of his testimony and was handed out. I might say that it is a very interesting document. The document that has been prepared by the majority on the Budget Committee shows function 150, International Affairs. It is headlined, `Fiscal Year 1996 Balanced Budget Resolution.' Down in the corner it says, `For Internal Purposes Only.' But it was handed out inadvertently.<p>
What I think is interesting about this document is it suggests that the majority has a plan to move towards a balanced budget, and I commend them for that. I hope they do have a plan. But I would say to my colleagues that if they have a plan, then we should revisit the question of the right to know provision that we sought to add to the balanced budget amendment .<p>
We sought to add a provision that called on the Republican majority to produce their plan on how they intended to balance the budget so that the States could be advised of that before they had to vote to ratify it, and so that our colleagues who are about to vote on a balanced budget amendment could know what was the outline of the plan.<p>
The Republican majority resisted that right-to-know effort by saying they could not say what a long-term plan was because there were so many things, it would be hard to determine and hard to project and hard to forecast. And yet we find in this document, which was released inadvertently, that at least with respect to one function of the budget they do have a detailed plan, very specific as to what they have in mind; terminating a set of programs, reducing other programs in order to reduce the 150 function, which, of course, is the international affairs function.<p>
This suggests at the very least that other functions for other areas have a plan, something that is in the works, something that is available, that could provide some guidance as to where the majority is going with respect to a plan to balance the budget over the next 7 years.<p>
I would just say to my colleagues that if in fact there are plans for other functional areas, as there clearly is for the international affairs section, we ought to have a chance to see it. We ought to have a chance before we vote on a balanced budget amendment. The American people ought to have a chance to see what the plan is.<p>
What does the Republican majority have in mind for how they intend to balance this budget? I think that would certainly influence some votes in this debate.<p>
Let me just say that I am one Member who is undecided on the question of how I will vote on a balanced budget amendment. I am not being coy. I am seriously undecided at this point. I want to see what is the final provision on which we will vote.<p>
Let me just add that I am absolutely convinced we must balance the budget in the next 7 years. It is absolutely imperative that we do so. Whether we have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution or not, this Senator believes we have to balance the budget because we have a window of opportunity here before the baby boomers retire, at which time Government spending will skyrocket. And that will put enormous pressure on the economy of this country.<p>
So we have a chance here in the next 7 years to get our fiscal house in order. That must be done. But I have reservations about the elements of this constitutional amendment in terms of the provision that would provide for looting the Social Security trust fund in order to balance the operating budget, the involvement of courts. The last thing I wish to see happening is the Supreme Court of the United States writing the budget of the United States. No judge was ever elected to do that.<p>
I am also concerned about the lack of a capital budget. The vast majority of States that have a balanced budget requirement provide for a capital budget. You can pay for big investments over a period of time. That is what State governments do. That is what we do in our own personal lives. I know very few people who buy a house for cash. Most people take out a mortgage.<p>
So those are, I think, legitimate concerns. But beyond that, I think we also have the question of how we do it. How do we balance the budget? And if our Republican colleagues, in fact, have a plan, one that they have not released and not revealed--and I think the fact that they clearly have one with respect to one function of the budget suggests they probably have it for other functions of the budget--that is something that could form the basis for an important discussion and debate about how we accomplish a balanced budget.<p>
Let me just conclude by saying I would very much like to see us structure a means to require both sides to put down a plan to balance this budget simultaneously.<p>
What is going on is we have a bit of Alphonse and Gaston, the chicken and the egg; nobody wants to go first. And I am working on legislation now that would require us, if the balanced budget amendment fails, to have the budget committees of both Houses and the President put down a plan to balance the budget over the next 7 years and to lay it down by May 1--have both sides be required to come to the table and lay down their plans to balance the budget. It is clear to me now the Republican majority is working on such a plan. Perhaps they have one completed, at least in preliminary outline. I think it would be very important for that to be shared with our colleagues and with the rest of the country as we consider this very important matter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.<p>
