Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 26 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 26 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2394-S2398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.

Amendment No. 236

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to the
resolution offered by Senator Reid which would protect the Social
Security system. I am a cosponsor of the amendment to balance the
budget and a strong believer in it. But I feel the Social Security
program is such that it ought to be off budget and that we ought to
have truth in regard to budgeting.
I am a cosponsor of the Reid amendment, which is designed to ensure
that the budget is not balanced on the backs of hard-working Americans
who have contributed toward their retirement with a portion of each
paycheck. This is not only a protection for retirees but also a
protection for all Americans who pay into the program.
The amendment is simple. It protects the Social Security system by
excluding the receipts and the outlays of the Social Security program
from the budget. The present system of collecting FICA payments from
employees' paychecks, as well as a matching contribution from
employers, is used to fund a Social Security trust fund. Currently, the
payments to the Social Security recipients out of this trust fund are
less than the amount taken in through the FICA payments. This surplus
in contributions to the fund was created by Congress in the early
1980's to account for the increase in the payout which will occur in
the future as the baby boomers begin to retire and draw upon Social
Security, and was also done for the purpose of making the Social
Security system at that particular time stable, and to try to make it
actuarially sound for a great number of years.
We can liken the Social Security trust fund to the traditional
savings account most Americans have in the bank. By putting a little
money into a savings account each month, and forgetting it is there, it
will eventually build up and become substantial by the time it is
needed. We do not include the savings account in our monthly operating
budget in our checking account, which is used to pay monthly bills and
expenses. As I read it, under the language in the balanced budget
resolution now pending here in the Senate, this Social Security savings
account would no longer be completely safe to build up the surplus
which will be needed to pay retiring baby boomers in the 21st century.
Next, I will turn to what are potential problems, which may arise
under the current language of the balanced budget resolution.
If at some time the payments to Social Security beneficiaries should
be greater than the receipts from the FICA tax revenues, a deficit
would occur. According to figures supplied by the Social Security
Administration this should occur starting in the year 2013. At this
point it is not clear what effect this deficit would have on Social
Security payments. As part of a unified budget, would the deficit which
would begin to occur with respect to Social Security tax funds require
a drastic cut in other non-Social Security programs to make up the
trust fund deficit? Or would Congress change the formula for benefits
and thus reduce those benefits?
A scenario, which could occur under the balanced budget amendment as
currently drafted, concerns the ability of the Government to repay to
Social Security trust fund the interest owed from its Government
investments. It seems that the intent of section 7 of the amendment is
to exempt from total outlays the repayment of debt principal.
Those words seem to be carefully chosen of ``debt principal.'' The
unintended consequence--I hope it is unintended; it may not be
unintended--to Social Security may be that should outlays exceed
receipts from the general Treasury funds then, according to section 7,
no interest payments would be made to the Social Security trust fund.

What happens is that under the Social Security trust fund, we invest
in Government securities. Those Government securities are not
transferable. Those Government securities are particularly Social
Security trust fund investments. They draw interest. That is part of
the effort that was made to make the Social Security fund actuarially
sound. But pursuant to the definitions under section 7 of outlays and
of receipts, the definition of receipts, includes all receipts except
those obtained from borrowing.
The Social Security funds are in effect invested in Government
securities and, therefore, they are borrowed money.
Then we find that in the outlays, the definition is that it includes
all outlays that the Government is obligated to pay with the exception
of the payments to the debt principal. Therefore, it does not include
the payments which we classify as interest. Since interest payments
will be on budget, that causes a problem relative to whether or not
interest payments will be paid back.
The result of this nonpayment of interest due on principal debt could
substantially affect the stability of the bonds, which secure the debt
and the trust fund. If this should happen the bonds would probably go
into default and thus have little value. This would cause a
destabilization in the funds invested with Social Security trust fund
dollars, and a loss of faith by the American people.
To show what could happen, we look ahead and see what is the amount
of money we are referring to and what could possibly be involved with
this amendment. According to the Social Security Administration, they
anticipate that by the year 2003 there will be $1,151,300,000,000 in
assets of the Social Security fund. And, under the law, those assets, a
surplus, will be invested in Government securities. If the interest
could not be paid on those because of the operation of on-budget
activity, then you would have $1 trillion that is in some bonds in
which the Government has invested with no interest paid, and therefore
causing serious problems, and certainly this would deprive the Social
Security funds of the interest that has been accrued in the event that
the on-budget does not pay them back.
This could be averted through challenges in courts, but that raises
questions of interpretation under the principles of constitutional
construction.

[[Page S2395]]

Generally, constitutional provisions have received a broader and more
liberal construction than statutes. The Supreme Court in Kansas v.
Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 88 (1906), upheld this general rule stating
``the Constitution is not to be construed technically and narrowly,
like an indictment, * * *, but as [a document that creates] a system of
government whose provisions are designed to make effective and
operative all the governmental powers granted.'' The balanced budget
amendment presently contains exceptions which raise issues as to how
broadly it should be interpreted.
Section 7 of the balanced budget resolution contains language which
creates exceptions to what shall be counted as receipts and outlays of
the U.S. Government. The provision which pertains to outlays,
specifically excepts from the calculation of outlays the repayment of
debt principal. How broadly this exception may be interpreted raises
great concern. The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of statutory
exceptions and has held that ``in construing provisions * * *, in which
a general statement of policy is qualified by an exception, we usually
read the exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation
of the provision.'' Commissioner v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989);
``where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general
prohibition, additional exceptions are not implied.''
The Supreme Court in a 1991 case of United States versus Smith, and
then in the case of Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. versus Brock, a
1987 case--held similarly to the previous courts, although this case
dealt particularly with the Fair Labor Standards Act, it follows the
statutory interpretation principle for a narrow interpretation of
statutory exemptions. This textual principle of construction regarding
the narrow construction of exceptions is included in the Canons of
Construction, which are now followed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which
we generally refer to as the Rehnquist court.

We need to make sure that the scenarios that I have described do not
happen.
To do so will require an amendment to the present balanced budget
resolution being offered. We should keep in mind that Social Security
is a program self-financed from contributions by employees and
employers, which does not contribute 1 penny to the deficit. In fact,
Congress, realizing this fact, included in the 1990 Budget Enforcement
Act, a provision that declared that the funds were off budget.
Unfortunately, the current resolution would clearly put Social Security
on budget and thus overturn our recent decision to affirm the off-
budget status of Social Security.

I have supported a balanced budget amendment since my first days in
the Senate. There have been several times in the past where the passage
of an amendment was close but failed for one reason or another. But now
that the amendment has passed the House, there is renewed momentum
which I believe will carry the amendment successfully through the
Senate. But as we debate and develop the balanced budget amendment, we
need to be sure that we also protect the integrity of the Social
Security System and maintain truth in budgeting. The protection of the
self-funded system can be maintained by keeping it off budget and out
of the balanced budget process.
Mr. President, there has been raised the issue of whether or not the
Reid amendment is proper in that it contains language which, in effect,
refers to existing statutes. Some say this should not be included in
the Constitution. However, it has been done before, in the 21st
amendment. It was the 21st amendment that repealed the 18th amendment.
The 18th amendment, as you remember, dealt with intoxicating liquors,
and the 21st amendment repealed it. But in section 2 of the 21st
amendment, it has this language:

The transportation or importation into any State,
territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or
use therein of intoxicating liquors in violation of the laws
thereof is hereby prohibited.

What we were stating in that amendment was a reference to laws of
States--not just the United States, but the laws of the States in its
reference, and that, in my judgment, is a precedent for including the
language that is included in the Reid amendment.
Another source for precedent is in the 14th amendment--the 14th
amendment, of course, is one of the amendments that was adopted
following the War Between the States. In section 4 of that amendment,
it makes reference to existing statutes. In that section it states:

The validity of the public debt of the United States
authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payment
of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned.

Again, it is referring to existing debts that were created under laws
of the United States for the payment of pensions and bounties for
services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion. And then it goes
forward in that section,

* * * but neither the United States or any State shall
assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of
insurrection or rebellion against the United States or any
claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, but all such
debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and
void.

So we have seen reference to statutory language in the Constitution
on at least two occasions.
I think others are seeking the floor. I am glad to yield if the
Senator from South Carolina wishes to speak.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings]
is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. It
should be noted that the law in the Constitution is being cited not
only by the distinguished Senator, but by a former Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, Senator Heflin. He has studied
the law and legal precedence--particularly constitutional provisions. I
compliment him for speaking out on this particular occasion.
It is not my intent to belabor the point, but I certainly want to
emphasize that there is no alternative other than including the Reid
amendment. Why do I say that? Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement
Act, says, thou shalt not use Social Security funds with respect to
receipts, outlays, or concerning the deficit.
That law passed this particular body on a vote of 98-2, in 1990, and
was signed into law by President George Walker Herbert Bush on November
5, 1990. It is the law, and it has been reiterated again and again. On
Monday of this week, Mr. President, it was cited by the distinguished
majority whip--the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. When asked
about specific cuts, he said:

Nobody--Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal,
moderate--is even thinking about using Social Security to
balance the budget, to pass the joint resolution for the
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

They are not thinking about it, they are doing it. You actually
repeal section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act that says: Thou
shalt not use Social Security trust funds for deficit purposes.
Why is that, Mr. President? It clearly states in section 7 of the
resolution:

Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United
States Government, except those derived from borrowing.

The Social Security receipts in the Social Security trust fund is
included in deficit calculations under this definition. Some on the
other side have said, ``Do not worry, we will legislate later.''
But I recall that none other than President George Washington, in his
Farewell Address, said:

If in the opinion of the people the distribution or
modification of the Constitutional powers be in any
particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the
way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no
change by usurpation; for though this is one instance of
good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments
are destroyed.

The Father of this Country knew that you could not change the
Constitution by statute.
I have been in favor of balancing the budget. I helped the
distinguished Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] in 1982 when the balanced
budget amendment received the two-thirds required, the 67 votes.
We tried again with my distinguished senior colleague, Senator
Thurmond, in 1986 but we did not get two-thirds required.
[[Page S2396]] We tried last year under the distinguished leadership
of the Senator from Illinois [Senator Simon] but again failed.
We have been in the vineyards working on this particular problem, but
part and parcel of the problem is another contract with America--the
contract we made with the senior citizens of America back in 1935.
We felt so keenly about honoring that contract, that we raised taxes
in 1983, under the Greenspan commission, to keep the program fiscally
sound and to maintain that solemn trust. To maintain that contract with
our senior citizens--not for defense, not for welfare, not for foreign
aid, not for other Government programs--but for the Social Security
trust fund.
If you had said at that time that we were raising taxes for welfare,
foreign aid, defense or other spending, I would have voted no and other
Senators would have voted no. But instead, we said, ``This is a trust
fund and we must continue to keep that trust.''
Like the Senator from Mississippi has said, no one is thinking about
violating that trust, but yet we are constitutionally dissolving it by
including revenues from the Social Security trust in the definition of
total receipts. Legislative fixes will not work. As George Washington
said, you cannot amend the Constitution except as the Constitution
itself designates.
I am a reasonable man--as Rex Harrison said in ``My Fair Lady,'' an
ordinary man--just trying to get along on the floor of the Senate,
certainly supporting a balanced budget, but feeling compelled to take
issue here having established a record in protecting Social Security.
In the Budget Committee in 1990, I proposed the Social Security
Preservation Act. It stipulated that Social Security trust funds should
not be used in calculating the deficit. It was reported out 20 to 1,
and on the Senate floor passed by a vote of 98 to 2. And still, I see
administrations, Republican and Democrat; I see Congresses, Republican
and Democrat, violating the law.
Unfortunately, it does not surprise me. Former Senator Harry Byrd
shepherded his own statute through the Congress which said, in essence,
``Thou budget shall be balanced.'' It was the law, and yet we never
adhered to it. I do not know how we get away with this thievery. But I
know that something is amiss when honest public servants say that no
one is considering using Social Security to balance the budget when, on
the face of the legislation, it would require it. At that point, I have
to speak out.
As a result, I have written a letter to all the Senators to put to
rest ideas about changing it by legislation later on. You cannot amend
the Constitution by legislation. You have to get a joint resolution,
have three readings in the Senate, and have an affirmation of 37, or
two-thirds, of the sovereign States of America. So even if I wanted to
protect Social Security by statute, I could not do what they say can be
done.
I will read the letter. This is to every one of my colleagues in the
Senate.

In 1983, the Congress made the Social Security fund
fiscally sound by programmed tax increases. Naturally, the
Congress would never have supported these tax increases if
the monies were to be used for foreign aid, defense, welfare
or the deficit costs of government. But violating the truth-
in-budgeting principle, the Administrations and Congresses
continued to use the Social Security trust fund to obscure
the size of the deficit. Annoyed with this violation, the
Budget Committee voted nearly unanimously in 1990 and the
United States Senate with a vote of 98-2 joined the House in
the now formal statutory law of the United States in section
13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act, forbidding by law the
use of the Social Security fund for the deficit. The
violation continues. Now comes the balanced budget amendment
to the Constitution requiring that, ``Total receipts shall
include all receipts of the United States Government except
those derived from borrowing.'' Left alone, this provision
would repeal Section 13301 and constitutionally endorse the
violation. The Reid amendment presently under consideration
corrects this unintended repeal by stating that the Social
Security trust fund, ``* * * should not be counted as
receipts or outlays for the purpose of this article.''
John Mitchell, the former Attorney General was known for
the axiom, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' It should
be made crystal clear that we mean what we say. If you want
to continue to use the trust fund and breach the trust, vote
against the Reid amendment. There it is clear and simple, so
everyone understands.
If you want to maintain the trust--the Contract with
America made back in 1935--then please support the Reid
amendment.

If this Reid amendment is allowed, there is no misunderstanding that
we will maintain the trust.
If the Reid amendment is defeated, we will be taking $636 billion
away from the trust fund in order to obscure the size of the deficit.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. President, is it not true--and I am not being solicitous. No one
knows more about the budget process on this floor than the
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, and no one has more
credentials for making the tough decisions about what we should do to
cut the budget than the Senator from South Carolina. He has always put
his vote where his mouth is on this issue which, I might say, very few
Members of either party have done in the past.
The Senator just pointed out that we are talking about the difference
between, for this next year, $600-some billion--not this year--$600-
some billion, between now and the time it comes time to balance the
budget, additional, we have to find, if the Reid amendment passes.
Is it not true that in addition to that, what is likely to happen is
that our friends, who are going to find increasing pressure to balance
the budget and who have never been great friends of the trust fund to
begin with, are going to, in the next year or 2 or 3, as we move toward
the year 2003, since most young people the age of your children and
mine believe they are not going to get Social Security, anyway, is it
not likely that we will see a movement that we will cut Social Security
benefits; that we will either raise the retirement age or cut benefits,
further increasing the surplus that Social Security will generate
between now and the year 2014, and further making the deficit look
smaller, so that it is easier to meet the balanced budget requirement
by the year 2003?
Does the Senator think that is as likely a scenario as any other we
are likely to see?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Delaware
and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee knows it well. He is a
constitutional expert, and is right on target as to the practical
result.
We see several Senators trying to avoid the problem and not engage in
truth in budgeting. We have truth in packaging and truth in lending,
but we do not have truth in budgeting. It was not in the Contract With
America and it is not in the current version of this balanced budget
amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield for an additional question, as I
understand it, the distinguished majority leader is going to come to
the floor at some point and offer a legislative fix for this
constitutional dilemma, to try to convince all the American people that
the Republicans or those who are for the balanced budget do not want to
cut Social Security and are not going to be using Social Security trust
fund moneys to reduce the deficit.
Now, we both know that we cannot alter--the Senator said it more
eloquently than anyone thus far--we cannot alter the Constitution other
than by the rules the Constitution sets out.
We will assume for just a moment the distinguished Senator from
Kansas, if that is what he decides to do, comes along and says we will
pass a resolution promising we will not do that. Is it the
understanding of my friend from South Carolina that means, for
calculation purposes of what constitutes the deficit, that between now
and the year 2000, we will not count the $60 billion surplus this year
and the $100 billion surplus in the year 2000, toward reducing the
deficit?
Is that what he is going to do?
Mr. HOLLINGS. There can be no legislative fix. Constitutionally you
are mandating Social Security receipts as part of total receipts. If
the distinguished majority leader wants to put in a separate
constitutional amendment, that may be different. I am not trying to
tear down House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment to
the Constitution. I voted for it three times. I would like to vote for
it a fourth time, but I cannot in good conscience repeal my own
statute.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
[[Page S2397]] Mr. BIDEN. When we debated this in the Judiciary
Committee, and this legislation came out of the committee, I, along
with Senator Feinstein and others, argued for this amendment in the
committee. One of our senior Republican colleagues was very blunt about
this issue. He said, along with former Senator Tsongas of the Concord
Coalition, who came in to testify, the following:
That if you take Social Security out of the mix here and set it aside
so it is not covered by a constitutional amendment, we are not likely
to do anything to fix it.
What they mean by ``fix it'' is change Social Security; that is,
either raise the retirement age, cut the benefits or increase the
taxes, because everybody knows that by the time--I am 52--by the time
it comes time for me to collect Social Security, there are not going to
be enough of your children and my children to pay for my Social
Security benefits. So something is going to have to be done.
Unrelated to the balanced budget amendment and the impact of the Reid
amendment on the balanced budget amendment or the impact of the
balanced budget amendment on Social Security, unrelated to the balanced
budget amendment, just Social Security all by itself, does the Senator
from South Carolina see any way in which Social Security can be
protected from significant change if, in fact, it is included as part
of the balanced budget amendment?
Mr. HOLLINGS. No, taking it off-budget is the only way to protect it.
That is the only way that we can be sure that Social Security funds are
not being used to mask the size of the deficit.
Mr. BIDEN. Right.
Mr. HOLLINGS. You can still go in and change the age if you wanted to
or raise the FICA tax. I do not want to.
Mr. BIDEN. Absolutely.
Mr. HOLLINGS. But I think the Reid amendment is very clear. It states
that the receipts, ``including attributable interests and outlays of
the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund used to provide old age survivors and
disability benefits shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for the
purpose of this article.''
It does not say that you have to have a trust fund. They can go in
and repeal the 1935 Roosevelt Social Security if they wanted to.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds more?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
Mr. BIDEN. I want to thank the Senator for allowing me to interrupt
him with all these questions. It seems pretty clear to me this is about
two things: One, they need the Social Security dollars to make the
deficit look like it is less than it is, and then the next step is they
are going to need to try to deal with changing it to increase the
amount of money they get in the trust funds to make the deficit look
even less, which means that Social Security is going to get hit.
But I will withhold my statement on this until tomorrow. I thank my
colleague for letting me interrupt.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I
yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I cannot emphasize enough, that the surest
way to harm Social Security, the surest way to deplete the trust fund,
the surest way to open a loophole which will swallow the balanced
budget amendment is to pass this exemption.
If we open up this loophole it will be big enough to drive a truck
through, and it will not be long before the convoy starts rolling.
If we keep the balanced budget amendment whole, however, we will
protect Social Security. Several of my colleagues appear to
misunderstand how the trust fund works. The extra money in the trust
fund is borrowed by the Treasury, not stolen but borrowed. And just
like any other loan in the country, it must be repaid. The trust fund
loses nothing. In fact, it gains the interest which the Treasury has to
pay on the loan. That will not change under the balanced budget
amendment.
The integrity of the trust fund is furthered by the balanced budget
amendment. Any money the Treasury may borrow, must be repaid. Just
because a balanced budget rule is adopted, there is no reason to think
the status of the trust fund will change. It is a complete non
sequitur, Mr. President. There is absolutely nothing in the balanced
budget amendment which says the funds designated for the Social
Security trust fund will not remain so dedicated. They will. So let me
say it again, as clearly and concisely as I possibly can--the trust
fund is not harmed in any way, shape, or form by the balanced budget
amendment.
Unfortunately, the trust fund will not fare so well under the Reid
exemption. If the loophole goes into effect, all kinds of unrelated
spending programs will suddenly be redesignated as Social Security and
will soak up the Social Security surplus. That means the Treasury will
not have to borrow money from Social Security because the new programs
will be Social Security. What an insidious turn of events. Under the
proposed exemption, the trust fund will actually be depleted years
before it would without the exemption.
I want to respond briefly to the notion that we cannot protect Social
Security through the implementing legislation. The balanced budget
amendment requires that the whole budget be balanced. Surpluses are
certainly permitted, and nothing in the balanced budget amendment
discourages us saving for a rainy day, as the Social Security system
now does. None of the statutory protections that are now enacted will
be brushed aside, and nothing keeps us from keeping the accounts
segregated and accounting in a way that shows what is dedicated to
Social Security. Nothing will change in the way we segregate Social
Security if the balanced budget amendment is adopted.
It is true that the budget must be balanced. But this will help
protect Social Security recipients who rely on those moneys after 2029,
when the trust funds are projected to be insolvent. At that point, the
balanced budget amendment will require that there be sufficient money
to pay those benefits. And a balanced budget rule will help those who
rely on Social Security after 2019, when the trust fund will begin to
redeem its loan to the Federal Government. To the extent that the
Federal Government is in a better position to repay this debt, the
Social Security recipients are more strongly protected. And to the
extent that the Government continues its profligate ways, it will be
less, not more, able to repay the debt to the trust fund.
So the best way to protect Social Security recipients in the long run
is to adopt a balanced budget amendment so that the Government will be
able to pay its debt to retirees.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. I will take a moment and then be happy to yield the floor.

Motion to Refer

Mr. President, I send a motion to refer to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] moves to refer H.J. Res.
1 to the Budget Committee with instructions to report back
forthwith H.J. Res. 1 in status quo, and at the earliest date
possible report to the Senate how to achieve a balanced
budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the
disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund to
achieve that goal.

Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to refer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 237

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the
motion to refer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment
numbered 237 to the instructions of the motion to refer H.J.
Res. 1 to the Budget Committee.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
[[Page S2398]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

In lieu of the instructions, and after the words ``Budget
Committee'' on page 1, lines 1 and 2 insert: ``that for the
purpose of any constitutional amendment requiring a balanced
budget, the Budget Committee shall report back forthwith H.J.
Res. 1 in status quo, and at the earliest date practicable
they shall report to the Senate how to achieve a balanced
budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the
disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund to
achieve that goal.''

Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

amendment No. 238 to amendment No. 237

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the
second degree to my amendment and ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

THe Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment
numbered 238 to amendment No. 237.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
THe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
``, for the purpose of any constitutional amendment requiring
a balanced budget, the Budget Committee of the Senate shall
report forthwith H.J. Res. 1 in status quo and at the
earliest date practicable after February 8, 1995, they shall
report to the Senate how to achieve a balanced budget without
increasing the receipts or reducing the disbursements of the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund to achieve that
goal.''

Mr. DOLE. I thank my colleague from South Caroline and other
colleagues for yielding to me.

____________________