[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2592-S2595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:
                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on House Joint 
     Resolution 1, the constitutional balanced budget amendment:
         Bob Dole, Orrin G. Hatch, Larry Craig, Trent Lott, Bill 
           Frist, R.F. Bennett, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse 
           D'Amato, Jon Kyl, Fred Thompson, Ted Stevens, Olympia 
           J. Snowe, John Ashcroft, Craig Thomas, Conrad Burns, 
           Mike DeWine, Judd Gregg, Rick Santorum, Rod Grams, 
           Lauch Faircloth.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have had, I think, now 10 or 11 days of 
debate. Nobody has been crowded. Everybody has been given all the time 
they need.
  It seems to me, if we are going to continue with our work in the 
Senate--we have a number of matters we would like to bring up--we need 
to come to a vote one way or the other, a final vote on the balanced 
budget amendment. Knowing it takes 67 votes, and knowing there is 
bipartisan support, we have tried to approach it on that basis. I 
congratulate the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, and others, Senator 
Simon and others who have been debating some of the very important 
issues--including Senator Reid who has just completed I think 3 days of 
debate on an amendment.
  What we would like to do--obviously we want to finish action on this 
measure by Thursday evening, this Thursday evening, if at all possible. 
That will be our intent. If not, we will come back on next Wednesday 
and finish it next week. I do not believe anybody--there was some 
misunderstanding on unfunded mandates. We thought we understood what 
was happening but then there was this big flap about there was not any 
committee report, even though 
 [[Page S2593]] we thought we had it understood if it would be printed 
in the Record that would satisfy concerns. So in this case it was the 
intention of the leadership on this side to make certain that would not 
happen. We did not want any misunderstanding. We wanted to protect 
every Member's rights.
  Hopefully we have done that. Some just do not want the balanced 
budget to ever pass. They could care less if we ever vote on anything 
as long as we are eating up time. But we have the line-item veto, we 
have other measures that we would like to take up. So I hope, if the 
Senator from California intends to offer an amendment, we can get a 
time agreement. If not, we will have no recourse but to move to table 
amendments from here on to try to bring this matter to a conclusion. I 
think we have spent ample time. Some people have criticized us for 
spending too much time. I hope we could have some agreement to bring 
this matter to a conclusion by Thursday evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader is certainly within 
his rights to offer the cloture motion. We understand his reasons for 
doing so. But I must say I am disappointed that he has seen the need to 
do so this soon. This is not just another bill. This is not just 
another amendment. This is a proposal to amend the Constitution of the 
United States for the first time in 200 years to directly affect the 
fiscal policy of this country.
  We have only had the opportunity thus far to offer two amendments. As 
I have watched the debate I have been very pleased with the 
extraordinary participation on both sides on both issues. We debated 
the right to know for several days. We had a good vote. Unfortunately 
we did not get any Republican support for the effort to propose the 
right to know.
  We then had a very good debate on the Social Security amendment that 
has just been completed. Again we had very little Republican support. 
But we have only had those two amendments, two very significant 
amendments. We have amendments relating to capital budgeting, 
additional amendments relating to natural disasters--issues that have a 
very consequential effect on how ultimately this amendment may be 
proposed to the Constitution. I certainly hope we could hold off on 
cloture votes and some effort to curtail debate, given the consequence 
of this amendment, given the legitimate concerns expressed, I think, by 
people on this side of the aisle with regard to just what ought to be a 
constitutional amendment on balancing the budget.
  So I urge the leader, with all of the concerns he has with 
scheduling--legitimate as they are--to give us an opportunity to have 
the debate that this amendment deserves. As I say, we will debate a lot 
of issues in this session of Congress relating to virtually everything. 
But to have a debate longer on unfunded mandates or on congressional 
coverage than we have on a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget would certainly not serve the country and not serve this body.
  I certainly hope we can continue to have the kind of debate we have 
had, now, for several good days on issues that are of direct concern to 
the American people and certainly affecting the people in this body as 
we continue to come to some conclusion on this amendment itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am advised this is the 12th day, not the 
11th day. I stand corrected. It will be 3 weeks Thursday we have been 
on this. I think we have spent far too much time on congressional 
coverage and unfunded mandates. It took 1 hour and 20 minutes in the 
House, we spent at least a week on congressional coverage. Unfunded 
mandates, we had people extending debate when they were for unfunded 
mandates. It passed 86 to 10. You kind of wonder what all the fuss was 
about. That took a couple of weeks. Now we are in almost 3 weeks on the 
balanced budget amendment.
  What it will mean is we will not have any recesses this year. I can 
say very clearly, we can eat up all the time we want but it is going to 
come out of the calendar. It is not going to come out of anything else. 
If that is the wish of the membership--my view is we get paid for being 
here every day and we will be here every day. You can count on that, as 
I think one ad used to say, if we cannot move this legislation.
  People are opposed to this amendment. They do not care if they talk 
for a week. They do not care how long they talk if they think they can 
kill the amendment and frustrate those who are for it on both sides of 
the aisle.
  This is a bipartisan effort. I have not gone back to check to see the 
length of debates we have had in previous years on this amendment, but 
I doubt it has taken any more time or as much time as we have spent 
now.
  So I would just say to the Democratic leader, I certainly understand 
the need for full debate. But I am prepared now to have a time 
agreement, if there is going to be an amendment by the Senator from 
California, for 2 hours for the Senator from California, 30 minutes on 
this side, and then have the vote.
  If not, we will just have to move to table at the earliest possible 
time and that time will come sometime today or sometime during the 
night. So I hope we can work it out. Those who are opposed to the 
balanced budget amendment, we know they do not want to do anything but 
to frustrate the efforts of a clear majority in this body, hopefully 67 
or more, who support the amendment.
  So I ask the Senator from California if she intends to offer an 
amendment, and if so, if she is prepared to enter into a time 
agreement?
  Mrs. BOXER. If we could have a quorum call then perhaps we can 
discuss it?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my 
colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Boxer, for agreeing to a brief 
comment by me and also a brief discussion with the manager of the bill, 
the senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch.
  I favor the balanced budget amendment and have on three votes since I 
have been in the U.S. Senate in the past 14 years. I think it is very 
important that the Government of the United States live within its 
means, just as every other government has to--the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania and every county in my State, every city and every other 
State in the Union, just as we must all do so as individual citizens. 
But I have a considerable problem with the amendment which we just 
voted on where I voted in favor of excluding Social Security from the 
computation.
  Although I know my vote was on the losing side I wanted to express 
myself briefly on the subject and perhaps have a comment or two with 
Senator Hatch.
  I have consistently voted to exclude Social Security from a 
constitutional amendment, going back to a vote on July 29, 1982, August 
4, 1982, March 12, 1986, and March 1, 1994. I have also voted to keep 
Social Security off budget, a subject which was explained by my late 
colleague, the distinguished Senator John Heinz.
  The concerns that I have are when we have a trust fund established 
for a specific purpose and specific contributions as a very basic 
principle of law, those funds ought to be used for no other purpose. 
And when the Secretary of the Treasury, James Baker, invaded the trust 
fund, I took the floor and said that, if this were a matter within the 
jurisdiction of the district attorney's office when I was district 
attorney of Philadelphia, this would be an appropriate matter for 
criminal prosecution because it is fraudulent conversion. You have a 
trust fund established for a specific purpose and when that purpose is 
violated by having the funds used for something else it is in fact a 
fraudulent conversion.
  When we have a balanced budget amendment, I think it is very 
important that we not spend more than we take in. It is not truth in 
accounting where you have other funds, a trust fund like Social 
Security, figured into the accounting process, or we have the 
accounting processes on other trust funds, such as the airport trust 
fund 
 [[Page S2594]] and the highway trust fund where again, in my judgment, 
they ought not to be used in the computation of the balancing of our 
budget. Those are not funds for general revenue purposes. They ought 
not to be taken into consideration because they are set up for a 
specific purpose, like Social Security, the highway trust fund or the 
airport trust fund. I believe there is a very, very basic fundamental 
principle of law of such a nature that I would put it in the 
constitutional amendment recognizing the very high level of legal 
procedure which is embodied in a constitutional amendment.
  I thank my colleague from Utah for being willing to have a brief 
discussion. The essence of my question to Senator Hatch is, is it not 
true that under the law the Social Security trust fund is set up for a 
specific purpose, to receive revenues, contributions made by citizens, 
contributions made by employees and employers for the specific purpose 
of paying benefits to those employees when they have reached the 
eligibility status at age 62 or 65, or whenever?
  Mr. HATCH. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Utah agree with me that the truth 
in accounting to have a balanced budget would be that we ought to 
calculate the revenues, the taxes which the U.S. Government receives 
and deduct from that the expenses of the U.S. Government without 
including the artificial raising of the revenues which are Social 
Security revenues, or for that matter even the highway trust fund or 
the airport trust fund?
  Mr. HATCH. I would agree with the Senator--certainly as to the Social 
Security trust fund--as does the Senate. We voted last week 87 to 10 to 
direct the Budget Committee to find ways of balancing the budget 
without touching Social Security.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for that answer. I appreciate the 
vote we had last week. I supported the amendment by the distinguished 
majority leader, Senator Dole, to have that direction. But my followup 
question is: Is there any assurance that that direction will be carried 
out?
  Mr. HATCH. There is assurance by the vote on the unfunded mandates 
bill concerning a resolution to this effect, which Members are on 
record as favoring overwhelmingly; and, the vote last week on the Dole 
motion to refer to the Budget Committee which was also overwhelmingly 
supported by both sides of the aisle; and the assurance that has been 
made on the floor by many that the implementing legislation will also 
work to establish what the distinguished Senator would like to have 
established, which is the protection of the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague for that answer. When it comes to 
the unfunded mandates, I would suggest that is a significantly 
different category.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield so I may add a little bit more.
  Mr. SPECTER. I so yield.
  Mr. HATCH. Nothing under the balanced budget amendment will keep us 
from segregating accounts or running a surplus equal to or exceeding 
the value of the trust fund surplus. We have other trust funds like the 
crime trust fund, the highway trust fund, as the Senator has mentioned, 
and things can and will continue on as they have in the past; that is, 
we protect Social Security as we have always wanted to do, and I 
believe will do. So the amendment does not stop us from doing it as we 
have done in the past.
  Mr. SPECTER. I agree with my colleague that it does not stop us from 
doing that, but the concern I have is that it does not tell us to do 
that.
  Mr. HATCH. It does not; it does not require us to make any changes in 
the protections Social Security now enjoys.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask the distinguished Senator from Utah one other 
question about a field that I have had perhaps more experience than 
some, having been a district attorney for Philadelphia for 8 years.
  Would my colleague agree with me that on the general principle of law 
where you have a trust fund set up for a specific purpose, such as 
contributions and specific beneficiaries, that if someone takes money 
from that trust fund for a purpose other than specified it is in fact a 
fraudulent conversion?
  Mr. HATCH. I agree generally, except the Government is doing that 
every day as they give IOU's to the Social Security trust fund and take 
the money and use it for other expenditures in the Government; that is 
the law, and that is how the trust funds are dealt with under current 
law: the trust fund loans money to the Treasury in return for Treasury 
bonds. But I think the Senator makes a good point. I do not know 
whether we should call it fraudulent conversion as such. But I think we 
can certainly call it a fraud on the taxpayers to take moneys out of 
the Social Security trust fund that are dedicated to those who have 
paid into the trust fund on a monthly basis, and dedicated to those who 
deserve those funds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I would accept my colleague's statement that it is a 
fraud on the taxpayers which is about the same thing as a fraudulent 
conversion, which I think is the technical term.
  Mr. HATCH. The technical term would be a fraudulent conversion.
  Mr. SPECTER. That would be a fraudulent conversion.
  I find it is of great interest that my friend from Utah said except 
that Government does it every day, a multitime offender. It is not a 3-
time loser or 33-time loser. It is a 33,000-time loser, maybe a 33 
million-time loser, or 33 billion-time loser. That is the concern I 
have.
  I have a very deep concern that there is not truth in accounting 
when, instead of taking our revenues and expenditures to balance the 
budget, we add other funds which are set up as a trust fund. It seems 
to me that this is such a very basic principle of law, trust law, 
criminal law, that it is worth embodying in the Constitution.
  And then, of course, you have the concerns which the senior citizens 
of America talk about; whether they are being treated fairly and 
whether their trust funds are being segregated so that they will have 
funds when they seek to retire. That is an enormous concern with many, 
many of the elderly who worry about every political statement which is 
made and every 30-second campaign ad, let alone a constitutional 
amendment for a balanced budget which does not isolate and protect 
their funds.
  I thank my colleague from Utah for engaging in this discussion. I 
thank my other colleagues for interrupting the regular schedule.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada. In order to fully protect the earnings of our 
senior citizens and the generations that follow, I believe we must keep 
the Social Security trust fund set apart as it was meant to be.
  I have consistently supported the interest of older Americans and 
future generations as a U.S. Senator. In March 1994, the Senate 
considered a substitute balanced budget amendment offered by Senator 
Reid which would have, among other things, exempted Social Security 
from budget calculations. After very care consideration, I decided to 
vote for that amendment. I believe the Social Security trust fund is a 
self-financed program that must be preserved and protected. It is 
supported entirely by employer and employee-paid payroll taxes, and 
more importantly, it is a contract between Americans and their 
government. In addition, by law the fund must be self-supporting 
because it has no claim on general tax revenues.
  My Senate voting record on the Social Security issue has been 
consistent. When the Senate considered a balanced budget amendment in 
1982, I voted in favor of an amendment offered by Senator Moynihan to 
exempt Social Security. A few days later I voted for another amendment 
authored by Senators Cranston and Moynihan to exempt Social Security, 
and veterans' benefits, which our senior citizens depend upon. When the 
Senate considered a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in 
1986, I voted against tabling a Metzenbaum amendment to exempt Social 
Security. As I mentioned, in March 1994, I voted for the substitute 
amendment offered by our colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid. And most 
recently, in January of this year, when the balanced budget amendment 
was being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, I voted against 
tabling an amendment to exempt Social Security authored by Senator 
Feinstein.
  [[Page S2595]] I have voted several other times on the Senate floor 
to preserve the integrity of Social Security. In 1990, I voted in favor 
of an amendment by Senator Heinz to remove Social Security from 
inclusion in deficit calculations. In that same year, I voted for an 
amendment offered by Senator Hollings to exclude Social Security trust 
funds from inclusion in budget deficit calculations.
  I believe there is a prevailing view that we ought to leave Social 
Security alone and not subject it to budget cuts. I appreciate the need 
to reduce the Federal deficit while keeping Social Security fiscally 
sound because confidence in the stability of the program is of great 
importance to current and future retirees.
  In conclusion Mr. President, we must protect Social Security or we 
run the risk of jeopardizing the futures of young and old Americans 
alike. I believe this amendment will enable us to balance the budget in 
a way that will protect the hard earned savings Americans have set 
aside for their twilight years. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 a.m. 
Senator Boxer be recognized to offer an amendment regarding disasters 
and that the time prior to the motion to table be limited to 3 hours 15 
minutes to be divided in the following fashion, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the motion to table: 2 hours 45 minutes 
under the control of the distinguished Senator from California [Mrs. 
Boxer] and 30 minutes under the control of the Senator from Utah [Mr. 
Hatch]. I further ask that at the conclusion or yielding of time today 
the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to 
table the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I agree 
with this. I think it is an excellent time agreement. I want to clarify 
because a couple of my colleagues would like to speak as if in morning 
business. If they should go over the 10:30 time by just a few minutes--
I do not think it is their intent to speak too long--we can adjust this 
so that we still have the time. We may be starting later than 10:30.
  Mr. HATCH. I am certainly amenable to that, as long as the majority 
leader is.
  I ask unanimous consent that those who are talking in morning 
business, if they go beyond the hour of 10:30--and I hope they will 
not--that the time will be adjusted so that the distinguished Senator 
from California will still have her 2 hours 45 minutes and I will still 
have 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I want to thank the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, as I understand it, there is a 
definite time when this is to take place and that will start at 10:30 
and there will be 3 hours and 15 minutes for the debate. The definite 
time is scheduled for a 3:30 vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business for the next 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my intention to yield to my friend, 
Senator Conrad from North Dakota, when I finish speaking. But for 1 
minute, let me yield on a matter of national importance to my friend 
from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman.

                          ____________________