[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3311-S3314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Democratic
leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this debate has now continued for more
than a month. There have been many conflicting statements and some
misunderstandings, but no one should misinterpret this vote. It is not
a vote on balancing the budget or reducing the deficit. Democrats have
been committed to that for a long time, and our record is very, very
clear. We demonstrated that in 1990 on a very tough vote. And, without
any help from Republicans, we again demonstrated that in 1993; $600
billion of deficit reduction later, we find ourselves here this
afternoon. We are prepared to continue that commitment for as long as
it takes to put this debt behind us for good.
So no one should be misled by the political rhetoric about our
position. We will do what we have already done. We will work to bring
down the debt with or without a constitutional amendment.
This debate really should not even have to be about the need for a
constitutional amendment. By my count, there are over 70 Senators who
favor one. More than two-thirds of this body favor writing a balanced
budget requirement into the U.S. Constitution, and I am one of them.
What this debate is all about is what that amendment should say. And
what our Republican colleagues have said is that it has to be this
version, this amendment, or no amendment at all. That is what this
debate has been about.
Can we improve upon this amendment? Can we make sure that it is our
best effort? We have made a number of suggestions that, in our view,
would have vastly improved the language that we are about to vote on
today. We proposed that we lay out just how we achieve our goal before
we begin doing so, as any other undertaking of this importance and
magnitude would require. The majority said, ``No, we'll do that later.
Trust us. Somehow it will all work out.''
We proposed changes that deal with national emergencies. The majority
said, ``No, we'll do that later.''
We proposed changes to put the Federal Government on the same level
as other governments as we make important budgetary decisions. The
majority said, ``No. We'll probably have to do that later.''
We proposed changes to give the Federal Government the ability to
deal with recessions. The majority said, ``No.''
Most importantly, we proposed that Social Security not be used to pay
off the debt. We have argued that we have not solved anything if we
create one debt to erase another. If we go further into debt to senior
citizens, even more than we have already, to bring down the debt to all
taxpayers, then what have we accomplished? And, more importantly,
perhaps, what have we lost?
I believe we will have lost our credibility. We will have lost our
commitment to working people who are counting on us this afternoon. We
will have lost our only real hope of balancing the budget correctly.
So let me make it very clear. The vast majority of Democrats support
a balanced budget. Many support a constitutional amendment to require
one. But virtually no Democrat supports
[[Page S3312]] using the Social Security funds that we now have to do
so. It is wrong. We all know it is wrong. Republicans know it, and
Democrats know it.
Originally, Republicans said it was wrong, but they just did not want
to put it in writing. They wanted the certainty of a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget, but they were unwilling to provide the
same constitutional certainty for Social Security. Given that
unwillingness, a significant number of my colleagues were left with no
choice. In spite of our best efforts to find a provision that
Republicans could accept, we were left with no choice but to vote
against this version of an amendment. So this was their choice. This
amendment could have passed by more than 70 votes.
All we ask is that we not rob the bank to pay the debt; that we not
take Social Security funds away to do something that we know we must
do. Too many people have put too much money into the bank for anyone to
do that now. That has been our message--protect current and future
Americans who are dependent upon Social Security, and we will find the
votes to pass this amendment. We will do it today. The Republicans
said, ``No. No, it is this amendment or no amendment at all.''
Already there is talk about using this amendment for political
purposes. Frankly, I am disappointed to hear that. It makes me wonder
whether this was just another political ploy, another bumper sticker
creation, courtesy of the Republican National Committee, or something
real, something which merits being added to the Constitution of the
United States.
If it is politics--as I suspect this threat to bring the amendment
back right before the next election may be--then I say, let us do it,
let us have it out then, too.
The one thing the American people really understand when they see it
is politics. And they do not like it, not when it comes to amending our
Constitution, not when it is something this important. And they will
not want to see us rob Social Security then any more than they do right
now.
So, Mr. President, let me emphasize, let me make sure no one
misunderstands, Democrats want to work to find a meaningful way to
reduce the deficit. We all understand the critical nature of this vote,
no matter how many times we will be called upon to cast it. We stand
ready to work to reduce the debt to zero, just as we have already done.
We have done it before. We will do it again.
But we also stand ready to keep our commitments to all working
Americans. We will do that today, too, and we will do it again. As we
cast our vote, future generations are counting upon all of us to do no
less.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. First, let me announce that, after the vote, the Armed
Services Committee will meet in the President's room to report out some
nominations.
Mr. President, let me just be brief, because I think we have said
about all we can say about the balanced budget amendment. We will vote
today. There have been a couple of matters arise since Tuesday and I
think a few points bear repeating.
I have said many times before that the Senate cannot operate if there
is any lack of trust between the majority and minority leaders. And I
have had such relationships with Senator Mitchell, Senator Byrd, and
with Senator Daschle.
The distinguished Democratic leader did say, however, that he thought
maybe not having the vote on Tuesday may have damaged that
relationship. I believe that is not the case. As the Democratic leader
knows, Senator Hatch and Senator Simon spent much of Tuesday in
discussions, which ultimately led to the amendment by the Senator from
Georgia, Senator Nunn. And we even had discussions since that time. In
fact, as late as 5 o'clock last night, there was some kind of a
suggestion put forward by a number of Democrats who had voted for a
balanced budget amendment before and now are in opposition.
So I think the point is that we did use that time and did try to come
together, as the Democratic leader has just suggested. But I think now
we have reached a firm decision and it is time for a vote. The time for
a vote has arrived.
I must say, I have been a little bit amused, I guess you would say,
about all this talk on the other side about Social Security,
particularly after most every Democrat in 1993 voted to increase taxes
on Social Security recipients to the tune of about $25 billion,
affecting millions and millions of retired people. So I must say I was
a bit amused when I saw all the gnashing of the teeth.
I also would put in the Record at this point this year's budget
resolution, the one that many of my colleagues voted for and are now
voting against. The only difference is we changed the date of 2001 that
Senators voted for last year. It is now 2002. And we also added the
Nunn language.
I ask unanimous consent that both of these resolutions be made a part
of the Record. If anybody wants the facts, the facts are there.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senate Joint Resolution 41, Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution
as Voted on by the U.S. Senate, March 1, 1994
Section 1: Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
fifths of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a
specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.
Section 2: The limit on the debt of the United States held
by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of
the number of each House shall provide by law for such an
increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3: Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United
States Government for that fiscal year, in which total
outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4: No bill to increase revenue shall become law
unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each
House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5: The Congress may waive the provisions of this
article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is
in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in
military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
military threat to national security and is so declared by a
joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number
of each House, which becomes law.
Section 6: The Congress shall enforce and implement this
article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on
estimates of outlays and receipts. The power of any court to
order relief pursuant to any case or controversy arising
under this Article shall not extend to ordering any remedies
other than a declaratory judgment or such remedies as
specifically authorized in implementing legislation pursuant
to this section.
Section 7: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the
United States Government except those derived from borrowing.
Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
Government except those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8: This article shall take effect beginning with
fiscal year 2001 or with the second fiscal year beginning
after its ratification, whichever is later.
____
Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution as Amended by Senator
Nunn
Article --
Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall
provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts
by a rollcall vote.
Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held
by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of
the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such
an increase by a rollcall vote.
Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall
transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United
States Government for that fiscal year, in which total
outlays do not exceed total receipts.
Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law
unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each
House by a rollcall vote.
Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this
article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is
in effect. the provisions of this article may be waived for
any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in
military conflict which causes an imminent and serious
military threat to national security and is so declared by a
joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number
of each house, which becomes law.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this
article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on
estimates of outlays and receipts. The judicial power of the
United States shall not extend to any case of controversy
arising under this Article except as may be specifically
authorized by legislation adopted pursuant to this section.
[[Page S3313]]
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the
United States Government except those derived from borrowing.
Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States
Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.
Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with
fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning
after its ratification, whichever is later.
Mr. DOLE. And there was nothing in the resolution last year that
protected Social Security. All this talk about protecting Social
Security is a cover for the taxes that were increased on Social
Security benefits by the very people who are announcing, ``Oh, no; we
cannot touch Social Security.'' We want the record to be clear on that
issue, as people look at it in the next few months. There will be ample
time to look at it in the next few months.
On January 26, the Senate voted 83 to 16 to adopt a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment stating we should not raise Social Security taxes or
cut Social Security benefits in order to balance the budget. On
February 9, the Senate adopted a motion reaffirming that commitment by
a vote of 87 to 10. The House had done the same by a vote of 412 to 8.
No doubt about it, there is clearly strong, bipartisan support to
protect Social Security.
So all these other machinations and all the games that have been
played in the last few days was an effort. I do not know what the
effort was all about. I guess maybe to tell people, ``Well, I voted one
way last year, but this is a different year, and things have changed.''
Well, nothing has changed in the amendment. That is why I want the
amendments put in the Record, so the American people know precisely
that some people voted for one thing, and against the same thing the
next year. That is fine. We have a right to change our mind.
It seems to me that if we increase taxes on Social Security
beneficiaries $24.6 billion that probably is a cause for some concern.
And not a single Republican in either the House or the Senate joined in
that new tax on senior citizens. Not a single Republican.
Let me again state for the Record that later this year, Republicans
will put forward a detailed 5-year plan to put the budget on the path
of balance by the year 2002. Our plan will not raise taxes and our plan
will not--will not--touch Social Security. I do not know what other
assurances some people need. Maybe they do not really want assurances.
Make no mistake about it, everything else--every other spending
program--will be on the table. If this amendment fails, you are still
going to get the tough votes. We will offer the plan that we would have
offered if this amendment had passed, and then we will see where
everybody falls out, see how strongly they feel about spending cuts--
not tax increases, but spending cuts.
When all is said and done, it all comes down to one question: Does
the Senate of the United States trust the American people? Well, 98
percent of Republicans do, and less than 30 percent of Democrats do.
That is how it adds up: 14 out of 47, and 52 out of 53. So we trust the
American people by almost 98 percent.
We are not changing the Constitution if we pass this amendment. The
Founding Fathers did not give Congress that power. Instead, they
reserved that power to the States and to the people, and by passing
this amendment, we are in effect authorizing a national debate on the
merits of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is all
we do. And, over the years, we will have the pros and cons because all
50 States chosen by people in our States are going to make that
determination--Democrats and Republicans and State legislatures in 50
States.
There is a word for that process. It is called democracy. It is
called democracy. Nobody is going to predict with any certainty what
the final outcome will be. Republicans control both Chambers in 19
States, Democrats control both Chambers in 18 States, and in 12 States
each party controls one Chamber. Nebraska has a nonpartisan
legislature.
It will be tough to get 38 out of 50 States to approve this
amendment. I will do my best if it passes to convince the Kansas
Legislature to adopt the amendment. I know the President will do his
best to sway the people the other way. Even though 80 percent of the
American people want this, President Clinton knows best. ``This is not
what you want,'' he is saying to the American people. ``You want
something else: Higher taxes, higher debt.''
Thomas Jefferson himself envisioned such a process when he wrote:
I know no safe depository of the ultimate power of society
but people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened
enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion,
the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their
discretion by education.
If there is one man who knows as much about the Constitution as
Thomas Jefferson, it is probably Senator Robert Byrd. On August 4,
1982, in announcing his support for the balanced budget amendment,
Senator Byrd said:
Under our democratic system, to put a question of this
magnitude directly to the people is a wise and proper action.
Therefore I will vote for this amendment--and thus vote to
put this question directly to the American people. I cannot
doubt that their ultimate decision will be the right one.
Nothing has changed since, except the debt has gotten bigger. We have
not exercised the will of the Congress. It has gotten bigger. I think
the American people are enlightened enough to make this decision. I
happen to believe what some still think about this revolutionary
principle--revolutionary principle--``Trust the people.'' We do not
want to trust the people--98 percent of us do. I am willing to trust
the American people to make the right decision. Those who oppose the
amendment are not.
That is what this debate is all about. Returning power to the people,
returning power to the States. That is what the American people say
they want. They want to make decisions. We are not going to give them
that opportunity. We will take that away from them if we do not adopt
this amendment. What we are saying is, in effect, if the amendment
fails, ``Washington knows best. This is business as usual; we know what
you want. Don't tell us you know what you want, because we know better.
Eighty percent of the people don't have any idea what they are talking
about.'' That is the attitude that spurred last November's revolution.
Finally, I ask my colleagues to listen to the words Thomas Jefferson
spoke in his first inaugural address:
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the
government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the
government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of
kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
Mr. President, history will remember how we respond to that question
today. As for me, and as for a lot of our colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, the answer is ``democracy, democracy.'' The answer is,
``Trust the people; trust the people.'' We trusted them when they voted
for us. But the election is over now. Promises that were made are in
the ashcan. They do not mean anything now, because I have been elected,
we have been elected.
I just suggest we ought to pass this amendment; we ought to send it
to the States. And we ought to say to the State legislatures, ``Make
the decision.'' And if 38 ratify the amendment, it becomes part of the
Constitution. If 38 do not, it fails. So I urge my colleagues, there is
still time to repent. There is still time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J.Res. 1) proposing a balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I ask that Senators remain at their desks, and vote from
their desks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading
of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the joint resolution
to be read a third time.
The joint resolution was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution, having been read the
third
[[Page S3314]] time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 65, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--35
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Hatfield
Hollings
Inouye
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Wellstone
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 65, the nays are
35. Two-thirds of the Senators voting not having voted in the
affirmative, the joint resolution is not passed.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the
constitutional amendment was defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion will be received.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________