A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of war and subject to suspension by the Congress) that the total amount of money expended by the United States during any fiscal year not exceed the amount of certain revenue received by the United States during such fiscal year and not exceed 20 per centum of the gross national product of the United States during the previous calendar year.

Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2005 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

This is the same amendment that I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget.

Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``. . . . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.''

I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.

Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts.

A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the government demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs.

More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment.

On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Government spent more than $318 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined.

We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently more than $7 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments.

Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much.

We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as we continue to debate the Federal Government's fiscal year 2005 budget, I can think of no better time to discuss the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is for that reason that I stand before you today--to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

This is the same amendment that I have introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my entire tenure in Congress, during the good economic times and the bad, I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe that one of the most important things the Federal Government can do to enhance the lives of all Americans and future generations is to balance the Federal budget.

Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``. . . . . there is a general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves.''

I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have, in fact, saddled future generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. Over the past 30 years, annual deficits have become routine and the Federal Government has built up massive debt. Furthermore, Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.

Over the years, we have witnessed countless ``budget summits'' and ``bipartisan budget deals,'' and we have heard, time and again, the promises of ``deficit reduction.'' But despite all of these charades, the Federal budget remains severely out of balance today. The truth is, it will never be balanced as long as the President and the Congress are allowed to shortchange the welfare of future generations to pay for current consumption. This is evidenced by the fact that I stood in this same place, introducing this same legislation during both the 106th and the 107th Congresses while the Federal budget was actually in balance. But alas, I stand here today with an enormous Federal deficit and a ballooning Federal debt.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is the only certain mechanism to break the cycle of deficit spending and ensure that the Government does not continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with the current generation's debts.

A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into the hands of hard working people. Moreover, if the government demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial economic growth and create thousands of new jobs.

More money in the pockets of Americans and more job creation by the economy can become a reality with a simple step--a balanced budget amendment.

On the other hand, without a balanced budget amendment, the Government will continue to waste the taxpayers' money on unnecessary interest payments. In fiscal year 2003, the Federal Government spent more than $318 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is more than the amount spent on all education, job training, and crime programs combined.

We might as well be taking these hard-earned tax dollars and pouring them down the drain. I believe that this money could be better spent on improving education, developing new medical technologies, finding a cure for cancer, or even returning it to the people who earned it in the first place. But instead, about 15 percent of the Federal budget is being wasted on interest payments because advocates of big government continue to block all efforts to balance the budget.

A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution can be the solution to this perpetual problem. A balanced budget amendment will put us on a path to paying off our national debt, which is currently more than $7 trillion. This amendment will help ensure that taxpayers' money will no longer be wasted on interest payments.

Opponents of a balanced budget amendment treat it as if it is something extraordinary. They are right, a balanced Federal budget would be extraordinary. And I believe that adopting an amendment that would require the Federal Government to do what every American already has to do--balance their checkbook--is exactly what this country needs to prove that Washington is serious about accomplishing this extraordinary feat. A balanced budget amendment is simply a promise to the American people that the Government will spend their hard-earned tax dollars responsibly. I think that we owe our constituents and future generations of Americans that much.

We do not need any more budget deals or false promises from Washington to reduce the deficit. What we need is a hammer to force Congress and the President to agree on a balanced budget, not just this year, but forever. A constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget is the only hammer forceful enough to make that happen.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is very close to my heart--the Child Support Improvement Act of 2004. I want to express my appreciation for the leadership of the Senator from Connecticut on these issues, and his willingness to co-sponsor this bill.

In my career, I have had the opportunity to see the significant problems facing our child support system from several different perspectives.

As a district judge in Texas, I ruled in divorce and custody cases. I saw the powerful emotions involved in these cases, where the best interests of children are fought over even as the relationships that brought them into this world fall apart.

And I had to make judgments in a large number of child support cases before Texas implemented the system for expediting these cases by establishing the masters program.

As a Supreme Court justice, I had the opportunity to write opinions that had a real and positive affect on child support.

As Attorney General, I saw the positive effects of enforced guidelines for child support, visitation, and income withholding. I worked to implement Federal mandates. And I saw that we had a deep hole to climb out of, a child support system that was in terrible shape.

My first priority was to improve customer service. I saw that more than $16 million in child support payments were collected but undistributed due to computer errors, leaving those most in need of assistance without their child support payments merely because of computer or administrative problems.

And the vast majority of the people calling the child support offices for assistance were automatically disconnected or received a busy signal. Only one in every seven phone calls was actually answered--one in seven.

We got to work fast. We focused on both the dead beat and the dead broke parents. We fixed the customer service system, establishing eight regional call centers and an interactive web site to provide case- specific information on a secure site for parents to access. We worked with community organizations to establish a dozen fatherhood programs. We got payments out the door more quickly, and we reduced undistributed collections. And I announced a top ten list of ``Texas' Most Wanted Child Support Evaders,'' those dead beat parents who willfully evaded arrest.

In the end, we collected more than $3 billion in child support. Some folks called it a miracle. I call it a good start.

I believe that this body has the responsibility to do more to help our child support system be more efficient, more responsive, and do more to improve the lives of children and families.

The proposal that I am introducing today, along with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut--who has a deep understanding of the issue and, like me, served his State as attorney general--features several long-needed reforms of our child support provisions.

It includes new distribution options for states to get more child support to families on TANF, and to pay more child support to families who were previously on TANF.

This bill also has several provisions based on my experience as Attorney General: 1. It encourages States to do more medical support enforcement, by giving states a funding incentive that will ultimately reduce our Federal Medicaid and S-CHIP costs. 2. It promotes early monitoring of child support orders, cutting red tape so that states have greater freedom to innovate and large arrearages never occur. 3. It focuses on reducing undistributed collections by directing more Federal resources toward finding solutions to this widespread problem. 4. It gets payments to custodial parents quickly, by urging States to use electronic payment methods. 5. And it allows States the option to send all non-IV-D child support payments to the State Disbursement Unit, reducing expenses, paperwork and confusion for employers and accelerating payments to families.

I believe that all of these reforms are necessary and important steps. They will lower costs, increase efficiency, and get children more of the help they need.

Even as we strive to improve our child support system, we cannot underestimate the social importance of the family as a component of our mission. As author Maggie Gallagher once wrote: ``When men and women fail to form stable marriages, the first result is a vast expansion of government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result. There is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, and mental and physical health problems.''

I strongly believe that the family is the fundamental institution of our civilization. If fosters successful communities, happier homes, and healthier lives.

The family provides the foundation for raising each new generation of Americans. And when families are weakened, children suffer the most. Even the best child support system in the world cannot give the caring love and nurturing of family--which is why I believe we need to have a child support system that genuinely encourages parents to be an active part of their child's life.

We need a child support system that focuses on the dead beat and dead broke parents, that brings the worst evaders in, and that puts the family first. Let us in this body strive to do everything we can, as we hope for a brighter future for this nation and future generations of American children.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Feingold and Senator Lincoln to introduce the ``Bring Our Children Home Act,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by family members and taken to a foreign country each year.

Despite an increasingly high level of Congressional and public concern regarding international parental abduction and the wrongful retention of American children abroad, the situation facing American children and their left-behind parents in these cases has not improved and continues to be a serious problem.

The Bring Our Children Home Act would help prevent both domestic and international family abductions. Specifically, the bill would:

Establish a right of action in Federal court for resolution of child custody disputes;

Give law enforcement the authority to detain any child who has been entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center's database under any category of the Missing Person File for 24 hours or until a disposition can be made;

Amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require information on each country's efforts to prohibit international child abduction;

Require federally-funded supervised visitation centers to provide services in child custody cases wherein a State court finds that there is a risk of abduction and orders supervised visitation as a preventive measure; and

Most importantly, it would provide a national registry of custody orders which would allow law enforcement the confidence to intervene in situations and aid a custodial parent to be reunited with their child, or to stop an abduction in progress. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is aware of cases in which law enforcement felt unable to intervene because parents represented conflicting orders. Such conflict has lead to international abductions that could have been prevented.

As of May 31, 2003, the U.S. Department of State's Office of Children's Issues was aware of 1060 international abduction cases, 904 open abduction cases and 156 access cases, initiated by U.S.-based parents seeking a child's return or access to a child currently in a foreign country. The actual number of children being kept abroad is higher than this, as these are open cases, not numbers of children. And new cases are reported every week.

As international marriages have increased in recent decades, so have accusations of international child abduction according to Karolina Walkin, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman.

In a 2001 Contra Costa Times article, parents complained that the Justice Department has little interest in their international abduction cases and the State Department was unwilling to disrupt diplomatic relations over abducted children. Written policy directs consular officers to remain neutral, no matter the circumstances.

A 2000 General Accounting Office report noted that the FBI has made limited use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. Despite at least 1,000 international parental abductions from the United States annually, the Bureau has prosecuted only 62 cases in 7 years.

The Bring Our Children Home Act requires the Department of Justice and Department of State to report to Congress on International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act warrants and extradition. We must make sure that we are utilizing the tools that we have available to recover abducted children.

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international agreement among 54 nations, including the United States, that established civil procedures to follow when locating, accessing, or returning abducted children.

This legislation would provide additional support for left-behind parents and it would ease their ability to bring resolution to their case and their children home.

For countries that are not party to the Hague Convention, it is a case- and country-specific matter. For example, in Saudi Arabia, a wife or child of a Saudi man may not leave the country without his prior written permission. There have been many cases in which adult female American citizens have been unable to leave Saudi Arabia because they have not been able to obtain the written permission of their male guardian, regardless of their constitutionally guaranteed rights as a U.S. citizen.

This legislation would require that the Department of State report to Congress on their progress in negotiating with countries who are not part of the Hague Convention, such as Saudi Arabia.

The ``Bring Our Children Home Act'' would be an important step in helping these families reunite. It gives law enforcement the tools they need to identify children illegally abducted by family members and return them home.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Consolidated Student Loan Reduction Act of 2004.

A college education is becoming more and more crucial as American workers seek to compete in the global marketplace. Yet, the cost of a college education is rising each year, making it less accessible to low and moderate income individuals. While grants and scholarships are available, students have come to increasingly rely on student loans. Between 1992 and 2002, Federal student loans increased by 165 percent, and in 2003, $65 billion--or 70 percent of total Federal student aid-- was in the form of loans. The average debt for a college graduate is $17,000, and it can exceed $100,000 for a graduate student.

Under Federal law, and in order to receive longer repayment terms, individuals may consolidate their student loans into one loan. The interest rate on the consolidated loan is fixed. So while current law gives individuals a longer time to repay their student debt, it does not allow them to take advantage of the low interest rates that prevail in the marketplace today. Graduates may refinance their houses at lower rates but cannot do the same with student loans.

My bill would change that and would permit individuals to refinance their consolidated Federal loans at the same interest rate as Federal Stafford loans, which fluctuate with the market and are generally below the prevailing market rate. Individuals could refinance anytime their consolidated loan rate exceeded 1 percent of the Stafford loan rate. And under my bill the borrower is not required to pay any fee or costs when they refinance.

There are many in Congress who have introduced legislation to make a college education more accessible and affordable to American students. I support many of those efforts. My modest bill is a step in this direction, and I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to prevent chemicals that leak from underground storage tanks from causing environmental and public health damage. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion legislation.

Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and economic growth.

There are approximately 700,000 underground storage tanks in the United States, and more than 430,000 confirmed releases from these tanks as of

mid-2003. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from leaking underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies in 43 States. Twenty-nine States have drinking water contamination. Estimates indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up MTBE contamination nationwide. Currently, the leaking underground storage tanks program and other laws ensure that responsible parties pay to clean up the damage caused by these leaking spills.

However, the best solution to leaking underground storage tanks is to prevent them from leaking in the first place with the use of secondary containment, such as double walls. There is already widespread support for this throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require secondary containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in California, or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls, containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003 were double walled.

But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population relies on groundwater for their drinking water. In 2000, 42 States had MTBE detected in soil or groundwater at gasoline-contaminated leaking underground storage tank sites. The time to prevent contamination is now.

We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.