Angie Craig: “Well, to my colleague from the other side, and one of the primary sponsors of the balanced budget amendment, it would…”

“Well, to my colleague from the other side, and one of the primary sponsors of the balanced budget amendment, it would not be unrealistic. But what is realistic to talk about is the very thing that all of us know who focus on the balanced budget amendment. And how we get there by the year 2002 is a simple matter--although complicated and very tough to do--of reducing the growth rate of Federal budgets from about 5 percent to about 3 percent. When the American public hears that, they say to a Senator Simon of Illinois or a Senator Craig of Idaho, that sounds immensely reasonable. While it may be tough to do, it is a heck of a lot more reasonable to understand that is the kind of approach we are talking about. Then, apparently, the game plan, or the threat, there is the impending damage that could come from that kind of language that would suggest we have to cut $1.3 trillion from budgets. What we could also say is that if we do not have a balanced budget amendment, by the year 2002 the Federal budget will be $1.3 trillion larger, or that the Federal deficit will be $500 or $600 billion annually, or that the Federal debt will be $6 or $7 trillion, or that interest on the debt will be $400 billion annualized. That is not at all what they are talking about. Instead of talking about the kind of positive things that can grow and emanate from a balanced budget, they are talking about all of the negatives.…”