Replies

I say this because in the past I've never heard him rail against this ever growing government or our lawless borders. Before this current up coming election, never have I seen him stand up in Congress or anywhere else, and voice outrage at the state of affairs in this country.

Following are some of Thompson's remarks fighting for the balanced budget amendment. He passionately advocated it, and argued strongly for it over the course of senate consideration -- if you're interested, I recommend going to THOMAS.gov and reading all of his speeches on the matter.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we continue down the road toward bankrupting our country. The fact that I keep repeating this, and that others keep repeating this and perhaps we get used to hearing this, does not make it any less true. It cannot be repeated often enough. And behind closed doors Democrats, Republicans, people in the Congress, people in the White House, all admit what has to be done to keep from turning this country into one that is second rate when we leave it to our kids.

The most frustrating part of the last year and a half that I have spent in the U.S. Senate is witnessing close up the fact that we do not have the ability or the willpower to do what we all know is necessary and what we all know is the right thing to do. That is why I believe that our last clear chance to do so is undoubtedly a constitutional amendment to require us to balance the budget.

We all know that Medicare is on its way to insolvency. We all know that Social Security is on its way to insolvency. We claim to have reached a consensus in this country that we need a balanced budget--not only that but that we need to balance it with real numbers and not phony numbers; and, not only that, that we need to do it in 7 years.

But with all of this knowledge and all of this consensus and agreement behind closed doors and all of this coming together in terms of what needs to be done, we cannot take the first step. We have spent the last year to year and a half proving to the American people that we cannot really take the first step toward doing what we know has to be done. And yet there are those among us who continue to say we do not need a balanced budget amendment. Of course, we need to balance the budget, but we do not need a balanced budget amendment to require us to do so. All we have to do is to do the right thing.

I challenge anyone to give any evidence over the last year, year and a half that we have shown any ability or will to do the right thing. It does not exist.

We talk about a 7-year balanced budget. The President has a proposal. We have a proposal. Under the best of circumstances, even if either of these proposals were adopted, it is doubtful that it would be carried out; the proposals are back-end loaded. The President has some 60 something billion of cuts in the last 2 years of that 7-year time period. It is extremely doubtful, to say the least, that those cuts would actually be made when the time came. It is a matter of rolling our sins forward for yet a few more years when most of us are out of office and do not have to face the consequences and under the assumption that future Congresses will have the courage that we do not have except we are making their job tougher than the one we have today.

Even if it does happen, even if we get everything we want, for example, on this side of the aisle, we are looking at the end of that road at a $6 trillion debt. We are looking at the end of that road at the imminent retirement of the baby boomers. And the people who keep up with the demographics point out to us what that is going to mean. By the year 2030, there will be twice as many people over the age of 65 as there were in 1990 and only 20 percent more workers, so those people paying in those FICA taxes for those retirement programs are going to be dwindling in number while the retirees are expanding. We all know what the results of that are going to be.

We all know we cannot continue down this road, and yet it is another election year and so the President vetoes our attempt to balance the budget. He opposes our attempt to pass a constitutional amendment, and our friends on the other side of the aisle fall in in lockstep.

Mr. President, this is not an esoteric economic issue. It is about the future of this country and the kind of America we are going to leave and what it is going to look like to our kids. What it is going to look like is astronomical tax rates they are going to be paying if we continue the spending pattern that we have had. It is going to mean astronomical interest rates that they are going to be paying. It is going to mean more and more reliance on foreign money and foreign investment coming into this country to help us pay the interest on the debt.

It is going to mean diminished savings. We already have the lowest savings rate in the industrialized world, the United States of America does, one of the lowest investment rates in the industrialized world in the United States of America. That is why we are looking at such low growth rates. You add to that the taxes that are going to be necessary to finance this astronomical debt as it goes out here, the interest rates that are going to come from that, and you are talking about economic disaster that is facing us. There is really not any serious debate about that. And all those people who complain about any kind of effort to balance the budget because they are looking out for the kids, they are looking out for the elderly, they are looking out for the young folks, what are you going to say to those young folks then when they cannot even go out and buy their first home when they start their families? What are you going to say when they cannot even buy a car because of the interest rates? And the tax rates they are going to pay. It will not make sense to work any more under those circumstances.

Yet we heard in the last couple days now the latest bid in the tax cut game from the President is to finance 2 years of college for people. I can only say we can debate that issue later, but we better be financing maybe 10 or 15 years of college for people because they better stay in college. There are not going to be any jobs out there for them at the rate we are going. Everybody cannot go to college and stay forever. There has to be a work force out there, and they have to have reasonable interest rates to pay when they go to buy the items to build their family. They will have no need to buy a home. We are making it so they will not be able to do that.

We are the first generation in our history that even considered borrowing against our kids and those yet unborn to finance our own consumption. That is shameful. That is what we are doing. And yet we continue to say we do not need a constitutional amendment; we just need to do the right thing, when today, even today, every man, woman, and child is paying $1,000 a year just to finance the interest on the debt.

Some say, well, we are making progress. We passed the largest tax increase in the history of the world, and we temporarily reduced the deficit, knowing that when the baby boomers start retiring in the next few years, it looks as if a rate that is slowing down is going to go off the charts in an upward direction.

We say, well, look at what we did last year: We cut $23 billion from the budget from the year before. A drop in the bucket, Mr. President. We did not touch any of those areas that are increasing, some at the rate of 10 percent a year, that are going to have to be reformed if there is any hope of saving them.

Yet now we hear all of the same old arguments against the balanced budget amendment--we should not be tinkering with the Constitution. And I certainly think we should not be tinkering with the Constitution. But the Founding Fathers assumed that changed circumstances required us to seriously address our Constitution from time to time.

I would say the circumstances have changed. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington never thought about the possibility of bankrupting the next generation before they were even born. Those are the changed circumstances we are looking at today.

I would also say, Mr. President, if we have an economic meltdown in this country, there are going to be changes in regulations, there are going to be changes in statutory law, and, yes, there are going to be changes in the Constitution that are worse than our worst nightmares right now about what those changes might be. So the answer to that is to make some reasonable changes to get us on a flight path that shows some possibility of saving ourselves from ourselves.

Is that a pitiful situation or not? Of course it is. It should not be that way. But we have given ourselves now ample opportunity under all kinds of circumstances to so-called do the right thing, and yet here we are a year, a year and a half later. Every time somebody makes a proposal, the other side goes on television with 30-second attack ads to make sure we do not do anything responsible, because this is an election year. And yet they say we do not need a constitutional amendment. I say we need to do whatever is necessary to keep from handing this country over to our kids in a way that we would certainly not want our parents to have handed it over to us, and they, in fact, did not.

The other argument we hear, of course, is one that the opponents of the balanced budget amendment want to protect Social Security. Mr. President, in my brief time here I have learned that if you want to stop something, if you want to throw a roadblock in the way of something being accomplished, you run out the old Social Security red herring and try your best to scare the elderly, because if you can scare the elderly, you can create enough temporary political confusion that you can prevent any kind of reform.

This is, of course, what has happened again. Six of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in 1994, when there was no chance of a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget passing, voted for the amendment. Last year, when we had a real good shot at getting it passed, we fell one vote short. One Senator switched back and voted against the constitutional amendment. And the reason for that is they discovered that it might have endangered Social Security in some way.

The argument goes that because we include the receipts that go into Social Security and the expenditures that go out of Social Security in the entire budget, in some way that is endangering that program, and if we somehow pulled it out and set it over here to the side, that in some way would protect it. Of course, it is an appeal to fear. It is an appeal to ignorance. It has no relationship to reality. It has been pointed out on this floor by my Republican and Democratic colleagues alike. Senator Simon of Illinois just the other day, of course, pointed it out as a fig leaf that some will try to hide behind because they do not want a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Time magazine called that argument `mendacious nonsense,' the idea that the constitutional amendment to balance the budget would somehow endanger Social Security.

The fact of the matter is, only if we get the reforms necessary to keep from bankrupting this country can we protect and preserve Social Security. So the contrary of that argument is the case. Not to mention the fact that all we are doing is treating it the way that we have been treating it for three decades in this country, Democrat and Republican administrations alike.

President Clinton's last budget kept it all together, just the way we have always done. We did not hear any cries from our friends on the other side of the aisle when that happened. They voted for it. They voted for that budget, to keep all Government revenues and all Government expenditures together. You are not looking at a realistic situation if you do not consider them together. We all agreed on that. So the Johnny-come-lately argument. Not to mention the fact that if, in some way, Social Security was sequestered from the entire budgetary process, that would make, of course, balancing the budget impossible because it would require $360 billion more cuts than what we have to make now. We have shown we cannot do what is necessary now, but if the income and the outflow of Social Security were taken out of it, we would have to cut programs another $360 billion. The opponents of the balanced budget amendment know this. They know it would make it absolutely impossible to be workable under those circumstances. We strained and fought for a year and a half. We got $23 billion in cuts--not $360 billion, but $23 billion.

But the point they make is that Social Security is now in surplus, so if you put it all together in the general budget, the general budget is getting the benefit of Social Security because it is in surplus and it makes the deficit look smaller. And it is true. It is true. That is the way the books are kept, and that is true, when you talk about for the next 15 years, for the general budget. You know, those are Americans, too, getting the benefit of the general budget. Many of the same people who get the benefit of Social Security get the benefit of the programs in the general budget. But for the next 15 years, the numbers on the Social Security side will assist on the general budget side. And that is true.

But typical of the way that we think in Washington, DC--which is, if we are lucky, a couple of inches past our nose--we are not looking down the road. We are not caring about anybody but ourselves. We are not even caring about our own children. Because look at 16 years out. Social Security is in surplus now, but along about 2011, Social Security goes into the red, and we will be paying out more in Social Security, at a steeper and steeper rate, than we are taking in. So, by being a part of the general budget, under those circumstances Social Security gets the benefit of that, because where is the money going to come from to make the Social Security payments if not from the general budget? Nobody, no opponent of this measure, is coming here and saying we need more Social Security taxes. Nobody wants to advocate this. So where is the money going to come from? The point is, approximately $850 billion annually will be needed by the year 2030 to fund Social Security, to pay current the liability over and above payroll tax receipts. So, by the year 2030, Social Security is going to need $850 billion from somewhere. We are in surplus now, but here is what it is going to look like starting about 2011. But by 2030, we have dug a real big deep ditch for ourselves. Nobody wants to talk about that.

Mr. President, just to repeat, the so-called saving Social Security by not going along with the bookkeeping entry that we have done for three decades, Democrats and Republicans, is a total red herring, a figleaf to hide behind by those who do not want to stop the culture of spend, spend, spend, and hopefully elect, elect, elect in a campaign year. Mr. President, in conclusion, I urge we take what I referred to earlier as this last clear chance that I believe we have this year to take that first step--it is not a solution; goodness knows we are a long, long way from a solution--but to take this first step toward doing something responsible so we can hand this country over to our kids and to our grandkids in halfway decent shape, the way our parents and forefathers did for us.

I yield the floor.

Source: Congressional Record, THOMAS.gov, June 5, 1996

Here are some of Thompson's arguments in his fight to return rightful Constitutional power back to states and localities:

S.2445: A bill to provide that the formulation and implementation of policies by Federal departments and agencies shall follow the principles of federalism, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred [TN] (introduced 9/8/1998)

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federalism Enforcement Act, a bill to promote the principles of federalism and to restore the proper respect for State and local governments and the communities they serve. I am pleased that Senators Nickles, Craig, Thurmond, and Hutchinson have joined me as cosponsors of this legislation.

Federalism is the cornerstone of our Democracy. It is the principle that the Federal Government has limited powers and that government closest to the people--States and localities--play a critical role in our governmental system. Our Founding Fathers had grave concerns about the tendency of a central government to aggrandize itself and thus encroach on State sovereignty, and ultimately, individual liberty. Federalism is our chief bulwark against Federal encroachment and individual liberty. Our Founders also knew that keeping decision making powers closer to home led to more accountable and effective government. Their federalist vision is clearly reflected in the 10th amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The legislation I am introducing today requires agencies to respect this vision of federalism when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It will preserve the division of responsibilities between the States and the Federal Government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution and established in Executive order by President Ronald Reagan.

The Reagan order on federalism had it right. It directed Federal departments and agencies to refrain from imposing one-size-fits-all regulation on the States. It held that the laws passed by Congress were not presumed to preempt State law unless done so explicitly. It required agencies to assess the impact of agency action on federalism. But the people running the executive branch today, from the top on down, do not seem to feel the Reagan order applies to them. They made this abundantly clear when they tried to revoke it with Clinton Executive Order 13083.

In May, President Clinton quietly signed Executive Order 13083, which by its terms claims to promote federalism. Ironically, this order that is supposed to promote better communication between Federal and local government was issued in secret--without even talking to State and local officials at all. Worse still, the order would seriously undermine federalism and effectively turn the 10th amendment on its head. The Reagan Executive Order 12612 promoted the 10th amendment and set a clear presumption against Federal meddling in local affairs. The new Clinton order would create, but not be limited to, nine new policy justifications for Federal meddling. The list is so ambiguous that it would give Federal bureaucrats free rein to trample on local matters. The new Clinton order also would revoke President Clinton's own 1993 Executive Order 12875 that directed Federal agencies not to impose unfunded mandates on the States.

Understandably, State and local officials were deeply offended by the Clinton order and the White House snub in drafting it. On July 17, the major groups representing State and local officials sent a remarkable letter to the President, urging him to withdraw the order and to restore the Reagan federalism order and the 1993 unfunded mandates order. On July 22, several of my colleagues and I supported State and local officials by sponsoring a resolution calling on President Clinton to repeal his new order. That resolution passed the Senate unanimously. The House also has voiced opposition to the Clinton order. Congressman McIntosh held a hearing, and joined with six of his colleagues to introduce a bill nullifying Executive Order 13083.

The White House had a chance to extinguish the firestorm of protest from Governors, State legislators, mayors, county executives, and other local officials around the country by permanently revoking Executive Order 13083. Instead, the White House chose to preserve some wiggle room by `suspending' the order on August 5, leading some to ask if that action is permanent or just an effort to delay the order until the opposition dies down. If the President can admit that he made a mistake in signing his federalism order, he should permanently revoke it, plain and simple. Unfortunately, the White House has yet to correct its insult to State and local officials and the communities they serve. Instead of revoking the Clinton order, the administration is preparing for belated consultations with State and local government representatives. This effort at damage control does not hide the fact that the Clinton order is an open invitation for Federal interference in local affairs, and in the administration's eyes, it is still on the table.

In light of this threat to the tenth amendment principle of a limited Federal Government, Congress must stand ready to act. The Federalism Enforcement Act is necessary to ensure that the current administration exercises some restraint when regulating in areas that affect our States and communities, and respects the principles of State sovereignty and limited Federal Government on which our Nation was founded.

First, the bill directs Federal agencies to adhere to constitutional principles and not to encroach on the constitutional authority of the States. The Clinton federalism order would have shifted the presumption against Federal intervention to provide new policy justifications for Federal interference in State and local affairs. My bill returns us to the language of the Reagan order. Second, the bill would restore the preemption standards established in the Reagan order. The Clinton order would have encouraged Federal agencies to intrude into State affairs and deleted the Reagan preemption principle that, when in doubt, agencies should err on the side of State sovereignty.

Third, the bill would direct agencies to prepare a federalism assessment of certain agency actions, such as regulations that have significant federalism implications. The Clinton order would have deleted this requirement. Finally, the Federalism Enforcement Act would express the sense of the Congress that Federal agencies should not propose legislation that would regulate the States in ways that would interfere with their separate and independent functions, attach conditions to Federal grants which are unrelated to the purposes of the grant, or preempt State law in ways inconsistent with the act. Because only the President can enforce this requirement using his article II constitutional powers, it is expressed as a resolution urging him to do so.

The principles of federalism rightly are being reinvigorated. Much of the innovation that has improved this country began at the State and local level. People want important decisions that affect their daily lives to be made in their community--not dictated on high from Washington. And federalism is blossoming in recent constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court. The Federalism Enforcement Act I am introducing today will continue this restoration of the balance between national and State power as conceived by the Framers of the Constitution.