[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 31 (Thursday, February 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2773-S2774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the 
distinguished Democratic leader's remarks. I know he is very serious 
about the issue of debts and the deficit that we have each year. I know 
he is serious about a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget 
because he voted for it just 1 year ago. And I believe and certainly 
hope that in the end, he will vote for the balanced budget amendment 
this year.
  I believe this has been a very serious, principled debate. This 
legislation, which is identical to the balanced budget amendment the 
Democratic leader voted for last year, has been carefully drafted. I 
remind my colleagues that it passed the other body by a vote of 300 to 
132--an overwhelming bipartisan vote after serious consideration in the 
debate before the House of Representatives. Our own Senate Judiciary 
Committee reported it out after careful consideration on a bipartisan 
vote.
  A number of amendments have been offered, considered, debated, and 
voted on, and all of them have been defeated by bipartisan votes. On 
one of the votes yesterday, there were actually nine Democrats who 
voted to table it, while eight Republicans voted against tabling it. So 
we are having a very serious debate here with Members voting their 
conscience.
  We are now in the 18th day of debate on this constitutional amendment 
for a balanced budget. Last year, we had an extended floor debate and a 
vote on this exact amendment. I think the high water mark, up until 
this year, for debate on a constitutional amendment for a balanced 
budget has been about 11 days. So we certainly are giving it plenty of 
time for thoughtful consideration. And because of delays in getting an 
agreement when we might bring this to a conclusion, we apparently will 
still be on this amendment next week. It will have been a full month 
that we have taken to consider this legislation. That is fine because, 
in the end, I believe we are going to pass it with a good, strong 
bipartisan vote.
  Let me quote some very strong words in support of the balanced budget 
amendment:

       To remedy our fiscal situation, we must stop spending 
     beyond our means. This will not require the emasculation of 
     important domestic priorities as some suggest.
       In this debate on a balanced budget amendment, we are being 
     forced to face the consequences of our inaction. Quite 
     simply, we are building a legacy of debt for our children and 
     grandchildren and hamstringing our ability to address 
     pressing national priorities.

  Those are the words of the distinguished Democratic leader just last 
year, February 28, 1994, in support of a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution.
  With regard to the right to know, we need to work together on this. 
We cannot say today everything that we are going to do in a budget 
resolution this year or next year or in 5 or 7 years. It will depend on 
the Budget Committee, the vote and actions on the floor of the Senate. 
It will take all of us working together, no matter where we are from, 
what party or what philosophy.
  With regard to the right to know, this is what the distinguished 
Democratic leader said just last year:

       Congress and the President will have 7 years to address the 
     current deficit and reach a consensus on our Nation's budget 
     priorities. We will have time to find ways to live within our 
     means and still meet existing obligations to our citizens, 
     particularly the elderly.

  I agree.
  But this year, we debated the right-to-know amendment, and it was 
rejected with 56 votes against it--again a bipartisan vote.
  With regard to protecting our seniors, minority leader Daschle last 
year said:

       Requiring the Government to operate within its budget does 
     not mean * * *  we would be forced to renege on our current 
     obligations to America's seniors. For my part, such a 
     requirement would not lessen our commitment to * * * 
     protecting Social Security.

  I agree. Last year, the minority leader also said:

       By the year 2020, most of the baby boom generation will 
     have retired, and those retirees will be supported by a 
     smaller working population. In order to ensure that we can 
     meet our commitments to future retirees without jeopardizing 
     the standard of living of working men and women, we must seek 
     to maximize economic growth during the early 21st century. 
     Our current budget deficit is eating away at that growth and 
     undermining our economic potential.

  The point the minority leader made last year is that if we do not 
have a balanced budget amendment, if we do not get our fiscal house in 
order, the people who will suffer the most are our seniors. So I think 
the minority leader's comments--and I have many others--just 1 year ago 
on the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget were excellent. I 
agree with them. I voted with him then, and I hope we are going to vote 
together this time because this is exactly the same amendment we both 
voted for just last year.
  I remind my colleagues, too, that just 1 year ago when I offered an 
amendment to try to block tax increases on Social Security retirees, 
some of the same people who are now pleading their concern for our 
seniors and their Social Security benefits, where were they when we 
were trying to block on a bipartisan vote tax increases on their 
retirement benefits? Where were they last year? Why were they not 
worried about Social Security retirees, Medicare and Medicaid, then?
  Where were they last year when the President proposed billions of 
dollars in cuts in Medicare in his health care proposal? President 
Clinton proposed to cut Medicare by $124 billion over 5 years in his 
health care plan. And in 1993, the President cut $53 billion from 
Medicare as a part of his tax bill. Were they not worried about the 
seniors then? Were they not worried about Medicare then?
  Look, the issue of right-to-know is another red herring; it is simply 
an attempt to scare seniors about Social Security. It boils down to a 
very simple question: Are you for a constitutional amendment for a 
balanced budget or not? If you are, you vote yes. If you are not, vote 
no. And the people will know how you feel about this. Are you prepared 
to explain how this year you are against the balanced budget amendment 
but last year you voted for it? Why? Is it because there is a different 
majority? I cannot believe that.
  We have an opportunity here to do what is right for our country--to 
have the additional pressure on Congress to control spending, not raise 
taxes.
  Everybody keeps saying, Oh, we reduced the deficit in 1993. The so-
called 
[[Page S2774]] 1993 deficit reduction bill was attempted to reduce the 
deficit through massive tax increases. We can move this whole debate in 
a different direction. And I have been here through 22 years of trying 
to deal with the deficit--through Gramm-Rudman, through the Gang of 17, 
and through the budget negotiations at Andrews Air Force Base. Congress 
has tried time and time again to balance the budget, but we never quite 
carry through with it.
  We need this constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. The 
American people support it overwhelmingly. This is our opportunity. And 
we must, must find a way to come together to pass it. I know it is 
going to be a bipartisan vote; one of our key proponents of the 
balanced budget amendment has been the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois, Senator Simon.
  The balanced budget amendment has already passed the House. It is up 
to the Senate. If we vote now, it goes to the States. The people will 
have a chance to decide. The only thing standing between the people's 
opportunity to vote on this and its passage is how the Senate will 
vote.
  I urge my colleagues, let us begin to bring this to a conclusion. Let 
us quit talking about red herrings. Let us face up to the real issue 
and vote for a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. My friend, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, 
made reference to some comments I made last year. Let me respond 
briefly because I know there are others waiting.
  I made them in earnest last year, and I stand by them this year. 
Nothing the Senator from Mississippi said with regard to my comments 
last year are any less true this year. What I said then applies now, 
and that is my whole point. If we are going to have a balanced Federal 
budget, good intentions are not enough. It is not enough to just say we 
are going to do it. We must be serious about it, and that is the 
question.
  When I made those comments last year, we were serious, and we proved 
we were serious with a $500 billion deficit reduction plan that laid 
out with specificity exactly what we were going to do.
  Where is the plan this year? How are we going to do it this year? On 
just a hope, somehow the expectation that it is all going to magically 
come together?
  That is what we are saying. That is why this right to know amendment 
is so important.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair might intervene for a moment to say 
to the distinguished Democratic leader, his time has expired under the 
previous order, and the time is now under the control of the acting 
majority leader. If he chooses to yield time to the minority leader to 
complete his remarks, up until 10 o'clock, he may do so.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know our two leaders will be speaking at 
10 a.m. for 15 minutes each. Unless there is a problem with his other 
colleagues, I will be glad to yield the remaining 4 minutes to the 
leader to conclude his remarks.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the willingness of the whip to do 
so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader may proceed, then.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me finish very briefly.
  Mr. President, I agree with exactly what the distinguished Senator 
from Mississippi said about what the issue is, with the exception of 
one word. He said the issue is very simply do we support a balanced 
Federal budget, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  I think that is a legitimate question, and the answer should be yes. 
But it should not be are we willing to support any constitutional 
amendment to balance the Federal budget, any constitutional amendment. 
The answer is no. This is going to be with us for all perpetuity, all 
posterity, and if it is going to be with us that long and if it is that 
important and will have that far-reaching a consequence, we had better 
do it right because we will not get a second chance.
  With that, again, I thank the Senator for yielding, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Again, I refer to the distinguished Democratic leader's 
comments last year because they were so persuasive then, and I believe 
they are now. I will just quote these two paragraphs and yield the time 
for others.

       Some of my colleagues feel, as does President Clinton--
  This is Senator Daschle speaking.

     that we can make these tough budget choices without amending 
     the Constitution. I wish they were right, but history 
     indicates they are not.
       By adding a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, 
     we as a nation are embracing the principle that government 
     should not spend beyond its means. This is a principle worthy 
     of inclusion in the document that sets forth the limits of 
     governmental power and protects the rights of individual 
     citizens.

  Those are the words of Senator Daschle, the distinguished Democratic 
leader. They were only 1 year ago. They were right then, and they are 
right now. We must pass this balanced budget amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I ask the minority leader if he will yield me about 6 
minutes of time to speak on the Iwo Jima anniversary.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator 
from Alabama.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, may I inquire whether this would be from the 
15 minutes the leader has?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That would be my expectation, that I will yield 6 
minutes I have available on the cloture vote to the Senator from 
Alabama to speak on an issue of his choosing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama.
  

                          ____________________