[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, after all of the smoke and hot air 
clears from the debate on the balanced budget amendment, what is the 
difference between the two parties on this issue?
  First, we Democrats support a balanced budget, many of us a 
constitutional amendment, but unlike the Republicans, we want to 
specify where the cuts are so that the American people know and the 
States can plan adequately.
  We Democrats support the Constitution and will oppose a supermajority 
that is clearly unconstitutional. The Republicans do not.
  We Democrats believe Social Security should be excluded, and have an 
amendment clearly stating that. Republicans have an innocuous amendment 
that better should be known as the ``Endangered Chicago Seat Protection 
Act.''
  Mr. Speaker, the President last night was bipartisan. He was 
positive, and we should do the same in this body.


                          ____________________