[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3307-S3308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have had 4 weeks of hard-fought and 
very earnest debate. The issues are serious and the stakes are high. We 
are proposing to amend our Constitution for only the 28th time now in 
more than two centuries. The debate has been vigorous. Virtually every 
Senator has spoken from virtually every perspective. Persuasive 
arguments have been made by both Democratic and Republican Senators, 
and I respect the positions which my colleagues have adopted even in 
those cases where I do not share their position. I recognize that each 
Senator has reached his or her position with thought and care and the 
best of motives.
  There is something upon which we all agree, and upon which we have 
agreed since the debate began; that is, the underlying need to reduce 
the deficit and balance the budget. We need to put the budget on a 
glidepath to balance, and we are agreed that for the sake of working 
families and the future economic strength of the Nation we must move 
toward a balanced budget.
  One thing we should all agree upon is that regardless of the outcome 
of the final vote, we will work together to develop a deficit-reduction 
package that will put the budget on a glidepath to balance. I stand 
ready to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
achieve that goal.
  Now, the question is how best to continue the effort that we have 
begun throughout this decade, an effort begun in 1991 with a 
significant deficit reduction proposal, and again in 1993 with $600 
billion of additional deficit reduction. The question is can we achieve 
what we all say we want with the balanced budget proposal before us? 
The question is how best to achieve a balanced budget using the methods 
that we have available to us. And where we differ is whether the 
amendment that is now pending reflects our best effort to amend the 
Constitution and achieve our goal of a balanced Federal budget.
  Amending the Constitution is not a frivolous undertaking. We will not 
be able to come back next year and fix our drafting mistakes. Many of 
us have concluded, regretfully, that this is not our best effort. In 
fact, in our view, our best efforts were rejected. To strengthen the 
amendment, we offered amendments, but they were defeated essentially 
along partisan lines, amendments that we felt ought to have been 
considered more carefully by our colleagues on the other side, 
amendments like the right-to-know proposal which 
[[Page S3308]] laid out the blueprint that we all agree is necessary 
if, indeed, we are serious about reaching our goal in a short period of 
time.
  In a matter of 7 years, we proclaim today, if we pass this amendment, 
we will have a balanced Federal budget.
 But we all recognize privately that, unless we have a blueprint, we 
simply cannot achieve that goal in any meaningful way without using 
smoke and mirrors, without a blueprint.

  The American people have stated very clearly their desire to see a 
blueprint, and indeed that is what we tried to offer as we considered 
this amendment many weeks ago. Some of us suggested that we provide for 
a capital budget so the Federal budget would work like the budgets of 
virtually every business, every State, every family in this country. We 
wanted to preserve the ability to respond to national security or 
economic emergencies, something that we have attempted to address in 
amendments as well. We tried to protect against unconstitutional 
Presidential impoundments and preserve the integrity of Congress' power 
of the purse. We tried to protect veterans' health programs and 
pensions.
  Finally, we tried to protect Social Security, to make certain that 
all those commitments we made verbally on the Senate floor and in the 
media about protecting Social Security would in fact be kept when the 
amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution. On Social Security 
alone we had a number of different votes, different ways to make 
certain that the solemn commitment to protect the money in the trust 
fund would not be broken by a future Congress. We ran into a stone wall 
and, as a result, Social Security, despite Republican claims to the 
contrary, is legally and realistically available for cuts. We know 
that. And the Social Security trust funds are completely vulnerable to 
being raided.
  Those who support the idea of a balanced budget amendment worked to 
improve this proposal so that it would be balanced and that we could in 
conscience vote for it without relying upon those trust funds for the 
next 7 years. But those efforts, too, were rejected.
  We are still committed to balancing the budget. As supporters of this 
proposal have told television reporters outside the Senate Chamber, 
passage in this Chamber will not bring the budget one penny closer to 
real balance. Only we can do that. There is no machine that ultimately 
is incorporated in this Constitution that will force us to do what we 
are unable to do today. That is up to us. It is important that we 
understand that. It is we who must take that responsibility and no one 
else.
  Some will attempt to characterize a vote against this flawed 
amendment as a vote against balancing the budget, but that is not what 
this vote is about. As I said, we all agree on the importance of 
balancing the budget. But this amendment simply does not do the job.
  For the past month the Republican majority has been trying to pass 
their balanced budget amendment and claim a political victory. They 
have refused to listen to those of us who support an amendment but have 
had concerns about the language, rejecting our proposals time after 
time after time. They have refused to listen to the people of this 
country who have a right to know about how we are going to balance the 
budget. And, most important, they have refused to join us as we insist 
on real protection for Social Security, putting their political 
contract ahead of a solemn contract with the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, leaders' time was reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

                          ____________________