[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT--UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Reid now be recognized to offer a substitute amendment to Senate Joint
Resolution 41; that the time for debate between now and 3 p.m. on
Tuesday, March 1, be divided between Senators Reid, Byrd, Simon, and
Hatch, or their designees; that no other amendments or motions be in
order with respect to Senate Joint Resolution 41; that at 3 p.m. on
Tuesday, March 1, the Senate, without any intervening action or debate,
vote on Senator Reid's substitute amendment; that if two-thirds of the
Senators present and voting do not vote for Senator Reid's substitute
amendment, then the amendment shall not pass; that if Senator Reid's
amendment is defeated, Senator Simon then be recognized to modify
Senate Joint Resolution 41, the modification changing the effective
date from 1999 to 2001 and incorporating the language of Senator
Danforth's judicial restriction amendment, which is attached to this
agreement; that there then be 4 hours for debate on Senate Joint
Resolution 41, equally divided between the proponents and the
opponents, with Senators Simon and Hatch, or their designees,
controlling time for the proponents and Senator Byrd, or his designee,
controlling time for the opponents, with 25 additional minutes under
the control of Senator Gramm of Texas; that at the conclusion or
yielding back of time, the Senate, without any intervening action, vote
on passage of Senate Joint Resolution 41; that if Senator Reid's
amendment is agreed to, then the Senate, without any intervening action
or debate, vote on passage of Senate Joint Resolution 41, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The text of the agreement is as follows:
Ordered, That during the further consideration of S.J. Res.
41, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to require a balanced
budget, no other amendments or motions be in order with
respect to S.J. Res. 41, and that all time for debate on this
measure until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, March 1, 1994, shall be
divided between the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), the
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Simon), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch),
or their designees.
Ordered further, That at 10 a.m. on Friday, February 25,
1994, the Senate resume consideration of S.J. Res. 41, with
the time for debate on Friday to extend until 6 p.m. and to
be controlled under the provisions above.
Ordered further, That at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, March 1, 1994,
the Senate, without any intervening action or debate, vote on
the Reid substitute amendment, and that if two-thirds of the
Senators present and voting do not vote for the Reid
substitute amendment, then the amendment shall not pass.
Ordered further, That if the Reid amendment is defeated,
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Simon) be recognized to modify
S.J. Res. 41, which modification shall change the effective
date from 1999 to 2001, and incorporate the language of the
Danforth judicial restriction amendment.
Ordered further, That there then be 4 hours for debate on
S.J. Res. 41, to be equally divided between the proponents
and the opponents, with the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Simon)
and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), or their designees,
controlling time for the proponents, and the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), or his designee, controlling time
for the opponents, with 25 additional minutes under the
control of the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm).
Ordered further, That at the conclusion, or yielding back,
of time, the Senate, without any intervening action, vote on
passage of S.J. Res. 41.
Ordered further, That if the Reid amendment is agreed to,
the Senate, without any intervening action or debate, vote on
passage of S.J. Res. 41, as amended.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, and Members of the Senate, I thank my
colleagues for their cooperation.
This agreement is the culmination of many long hours of discussion
involving several Senators, those mentioned in the agreement and
others. I thank each of them for their courtesy and cooperation in this
process, as well as all of the other Senators who have agreed by
unanimous consent to permit this agreement to be entered.
Mr. President, under this agreement, Senator Reid will now be
recognized to offer a substitute amendment. There will be no amendments
to that amendment in order or motions with respect to that amendment.
Debate will continue today, tomorrow, and Monday. It is agreed among
all of the principals that the time will be equally divided by
agreement among the proponents and opponents, with the time to be
controlled by Senators Reid and Byrd and Hatch and Simon.
There will be no rollcall votes on this or any other matter until 3
p.m. on next Tuesday. At 3 p.m., a vote will occur on the Reid
substitute amendment.
Under the agreement, in order for that substitute amendment to pass,
two-thirds of the Senators present and voting will have to vote for it.
If it does pass, meeting that two-thirds requirement, then, without any
intervening action or debate, the Senate would vote on passage of the
underlying resolution which will then have been amended by the adoption
of the Reid substitute. In that event, disposition of this matter will
then be concluded.
In the event that Senator Reid's amendment fails to obtain the votes
of two-thirds or more of the Senators present and voting, the Reid
substitute amendment shall have been defeated and, pursuant to this
agreement, the Senate will debate for up to an additional 4 hours, with
that time to be divided between Senator Byrd in behalf of the opponents
and Senators Hatch and Simon in behalf of the proponents of the
underlying Simon resolution.
There will be an additional 25 minutes under the control of Senator
Gramm of Texas. And then, we will vote on the Simon amendment, which,
pursuant to this agreement, will be in the form now pending, with the
exception of two modifications agreed to and specifically identified in
the agreement.
The first is a modification that changes the effective date from the
year 1999 to the year 2001; and the second incorporates the language of
Senator Danforth's judicial restriction amendment in precisely the
language contained in a document which will be attached to this
agreement and be incorporated by reference into this agreement.
Mr. President, I believe I have stated accurately the process by
which we have agreed but I invite Senator Simon and other Senators
present, first to correct me if I have in any way misstated the
agreement, or if they wish to make any other comment.
Mr. SIMON. If the majority leader will yield?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, he has stated it properly and I commend him
for pulling very disparate forces together here. We do need, as I
understand what we have agreed to--we need some kind of an
understanding of how long we are going to go today, how many hours, as
well as tomorrow and Monday, so we can somewhat plan our schedules. I
assume the leader will be suggesting something before too long about
that?
Mr. MITCHELL. My suggestion is that the Senate remain in session so
long as there are Senators wishing to debate on this subject. This is a
very important matter. This is a grave matter. This involves amending
the Constitution of the United States, an event which has occurred only
a few times in our Nation's history. I do not want any Senator to in
fact or in perception have been shut out or not have had full
opportunity to debate. When we get to this vote on 3 p.m., no Senator
will be able to say, I have not had a chance to get up and speak my
piece.
I am saying right now we will stay in session this evening for as
long as any Senator wants to speak. We will be in session tomorrow for
as long as any Senator wants to speak. We will be in session Monday for
as long as any Senator wants to speak. So that there will be full and
ample opportunity for every Senator to express himself or herself on
this very important matter.
I cannot predict what that timing will be and I recognize that
imposes somewhat of a burden on the managers. But I hope they will
agree, in view of the importance of this matter, we must be prepared to
debate for so long as Senators wish to do so.
Mr. SIMON. I agree. If the majority leader will yield again?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
Mr. SIMON. I agree with that. But practically, in order to work out
the time, it seems to me we ought to agree tentatively on 2 hours today
and 7 hours tomorrow--whatever it may be--and 4 hours or 5 hours before
the vote on Monday. And then if others want to speak, it is with the
understanding that we will extend additional time so long as both sides
can be heard equally.
So, if it is possible for the leader or his staff to kind of pull
together a rough outline along that line, I think it is desirable.
Mr. MITCHELL. I will be pleased to do that, but I am going to
instruct the staff to err on the side of accommodating any Senator who
wants to speak and not shutting anyone off or cutting anyone off in
fact or in perception. But I will ask the staff to do that and to be of
assistance to the managers as the debate proceeds.
Mr. SIMON. I thank the majority leader.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
Mr. MITCHELL. I certainly will, yes.
Mr. BYRD. I congratulate the majority leader on this agreement. I
should state that those of us who oppose the Simon amendment gave up
some of our rights, as did those who support it, but I think that this
is the best conclusion. I think it will bring us to an earlier
conclusion. I think that conclusion under the parameters of the
agreement will certainly be protective of all concerned.
I would only ask, may I say to the leader, that before he sits down
or immediately after he does sit down--or immediately after he gives up
the floor--I would like to hear the Danforth amendment read. I would
ask that the clerk read the Danforth amendment.
Intended Amendment No. 1470
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). Without objection the clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Amendment numbered 1470 intended to be proposed by Mr.
Danforth:
On page 3, at the end of section 6 add the following:
``The power of any court to order relief pursuant to any
case or controversy arising under this article shall not
extend to ordering any remedies other than a declaratory
judgment or such remedies as are specifically authorized in
implementing legislation pursuant to this section.''
Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority leader. I thank him for the fairness
to all concerned and I thank him for the efforts he has put in to
bringing this matter to this conclusion.
Let me say just parenthetically, I have often wondered how
Shakespeare could have come to know and understand human nature as well
as he obviously did, probably more so than any other man--any man other
than Jesus Christ--who ever walked this planet; and how he came to
understand human nature so comprehensively without having been first
majority leader of the U.S. Senate. I am at a loss to explain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we now have gotten the agreement. I want
to make a comment on the substance of the matter and I ask Senator Byrd
if I could have some time off his time to make comment on this
agreement?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the majority leader yield briefly for a comment?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
Mr. CRAIG. Let me say for those of us on this side of the aisle, we
appreciate the effort the majority leader has put into this and the
accommodation. I think we have had a very productive debate thus far
and this now gives us an opportunity to continue, but I think in a very
defined way, which I think is for both sides very important since it
gives us the time to effectively argue it. This Senator is prepared to
stay on the floor for the balance of the day and Friday and Monday, as
I think others should be. It is very important, I think, to have this
debate in this time frame.
Having said that, there is no objection on this side. I am glad we
were able to work out those matters and to give other Members who had
other amendments the opportunity to consider them in a constructive
fashion. The Reid amendment--certainly those concerns we had--and we
were led to believe it would refine the Simon amendment--have now been
accommodated and we appreciate that accommodation.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I will have much more to say on the
substance of this amendment which I strongly oppose. But I want now to
comment specifically on the changes that the sponsors have insisted on
making to their amendment, and what I believe this means in terms of
the amendment itself.
The first is of course to push it into the next century, a time when
many if not most of the sponsors will not be here to face the
consequences. That is the first point.
If this was such a great idea, why do those who support it want to
push its implementation into the next century? The answer is obvious.
This amendment is a gimmick. It is an effort to suggest action when
those involved are refusing to take action. It is no coincidence that
of the 55 Senators who are sponsors of this amendment which purports to
balance the budget, 40 of them voted against the deficit reduction plan
proposed last year, the single most important and effective action in
dealing with the Federal budget deficit that this Senate has taken.
I repeat that. This amendment says we have a serious deficit problem,
so serious that we have to amend the Constitution. And yet 40 of the 55
sponsors of this amendment voted against the single most important
action to deal with the deficit ever taken by this Senate.
And the second modification says that this amendment cannot be
enforced. The sponsors of the amendment are demanding that it be
changed to make certain that it cannot ever, under any circumstances,
be enforced. If the President and the Congress fail to comply with this
amendment, then no one can do anything about it, and it is the sponsors
who are insisting that no one be able to do anything about it, to take
the only institution in our society which would otherwise have the
authority to insist on enforcing this amendment and writing them out of
the act, saying, as that amendment we just heard read up here says,
that Federal judges can do nothing--nothing--about this matter if it is
not complied with.
I can think of no single action which better characterizes what is
going on here than that those who are proposing the amendment are
insisting that before a vote occurs on it, it be modified in a way to
make certain that it can never be enforced. That is like us passing a
criminal law and saying that the district attorney has no authority to
indict anyone and the jury has no authority to convict anyone and the
judge has no authority to sentence anyone if they break this law.
I think that these actions of the supporters of the amendment, of the
sponsors of the amendment, have exposed what is going on here in a way
that no words of any opponent could have done. When the sponsors say,
``We don't want to have a vote on our amendment; we won't permit a vote
on our own amendment unless we can do two things: unless we can push it
off into the next century and unless we can make absolutely certain,
clear beyond any doubt, that if we do not comply with it, no one can
ever do anything about it.''
I ask Members of the Senate and I ask the American people to search
their memories and search the history books and find an example when
someone who proposes a law says, as an absolute requirement before they
would permit a vote on their own proposal to say we have to insist,
before you let us vote on our proposal, before we will let you vote on
our proposal, we have to insist on language that makes certain that it
cannot be enforced. And that is exactly what has happened here. The
provision providing for the modification of this amendment was insisted
upon by the supporters of this amendment.
They said, ``We won't agree; we won't agree to this, Mr. Majority
Leader, unless you let us change our amendment in a way that pushes it
off until the next century and in a way that makes it certain that it
can never be enforced.''
Those two actions, better than any words any opponent of this
amendment can utter, tell us and the American people what is going on
here.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. BYRD. The majority leader has the floor on my time. I ask, will
he yield to me briefly to comment on what he just said?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the majority leader has hit the nail right
on the head. By extending this date, no Senator in here who supports
the amendment will have the absolute assurance that he will be here to
give an accounting for what has transpired as a result, in part, of his
vote. So, it is a good way for us to vote for the amendment and never
have to worry about having to face the music.
Second, when the barons forced King John, in the year 1215, to sign
the Magna Carta, that charter said that no freeman may be disseized of
property, or banished or imprisoned except by the lawful judgment of
his peers and by the law of the land. That ``law of the land'' phrase,
as Senator Mitchell will know, he having been a Federal judge, that
``law of the land'' phrase is the mother of language from which has
derived the ``due process'' phrase in our own Constitution and in the
amendments thereto.
What is being done by the Danforth amendment is simply that it is a
taking of due process away from those persons who might have reason to
challenge this constitutional amendment in the courts to secure
remedies for perceived wrongs. They will have no way of enforcing their
due process rights under the Constitution if the Danforth proposal were
adopted.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, if I can make one more comment and I
will yield the floor. The Senator has been at it for 3 days. He has had
plenty of time to speak.
Just in case any American has missed the obvious, the terms of U.S.
Senators are for 6 years. The way this amendment was drafted, it would
have taken effect in 5 years. So what the sponsors wanted to make sure
to do was to change that to 7 years. Let us be clear about that. Under
the original amendment, the consequences would have been felt within
less than the terms of Senators. Some Senators here might actually have
had to do something about the consequences of this action. By pushing
it off into the next century, 7 years, the sponsors have guaranteed
that no Senator now serving in the Senate will still be serving that
term when the consequences descend upon this institution.
Of course, they can run if they want. Maybe some of them will seek
reelection, maybe some of them will want to come back, but what this
does, Mr. President, is makes absolutely certain that if, in fact, the
Constitution is changed, no one here will be required to confront the
consequences.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
____________________