[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.

                          ____________________