[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.

                          ____________________