[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 39 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3318-S3320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a number of people have spoken, and I
know others are waiting to speak. I do not want to be long.
Let me just say what I have said on several occasions, that we owe
the American people our best effort. Before this amendment was to go
out to be voted upon by the American people, we owed it our best
effort. The amendment that was pending prior to the last vote is not
our best effort. Accordingly, the Senate has acted wisely in refusing
to endorse this particular proposal to amend our Constitution.
Those who stood against it did so for good reasons. Supporters
refused to guarantee that Social Security would be protected.
The prospects for this amendment were entirely in the hands of the
majority. It was their choice.
Until 2 days ago, Senators were asked to bet on the chance that a new
and different Senate 7 years from now would honor promises made by
Members of this Senate.
Two days ago, for the first time, the majority conceded that they
indeed intend to do exactly what we and seniors feared--use the Social
Security trust funds to balance the budget. In a last-minute attempt to
secure one more vote for this proposal, they offered to stop raiding
the trust funds in 2012. The offer was later modified to 2010 and,
finally, to 2008.
They missed the point. Those of us fighting to protect Social
Security believe the retirement funds Americans have paid into the
Social Security trust funds should be left untouched, period. Every
American who has paid into the system has a right to expect those funds
to stay there and be available to them when it is their turn to collect
them.
For the majority to agree to stop using those funds to buy down the
debt after virtually all those funds are gone reflects a cynicism that
is solely disappointing. As the Senator from north Dakota has stated so
well, balancing the budget by depleting the Social Security trust funds
is not balancing the budget at all.
During this debate, 43 motions and amendments were offered, many of
which would have substantially improved the proposals. Forty-two were
rejected, essentially along partisan lines.
We offered language to guarantee the future of the Social Security
System. Several Democratic Senators stated explicitly they would
support the amendment if Social Security were protected.
We offered language to protect against unconstitutional Presidential
impoundments; language to give States
[[Page S3319]] a right to know what this amendment would mean to them;
language to protect veterans' health and pension benefits; language to
preserve our ability to respond to economic and national security
emergencies. All of those proposals were rejected.
This is no ordinary debate because it is our Constitution we are
being asked to amend. When the stakes are so high, the substance so
serious, the proposed changes well-tested, the out-of-hand rejection of
those amendments is extremely disappointing. That is the reason the
amendment failed.
Finally, supporters of this amendment refused, for the full 4 weeks
that it has been debated, to come forward and offer any realistic
outline of a plan by which a balanced budget could be credibly produced
in 2002.
Yet, outside this Chamber, supporters of the balanced budget
amendment have been willing to say that passing the balanced budget
amendment will not balance the budget at all.
That is right. It will not.
Recently, when he was asked whether the Congress would approve the
balanced budget amendment, Speaker Gingrich said, ``For as long as I'm
allowed to serve as Speaker, whether we do or not, the House will make
decisions based on achieving a balanced budget in 2002 with or without
the balanced budget amendment.''
The majority leader restated his intention to do that today.
The Speaker's words reflect the fact that the ability to balance or
unbalance the budget remains unchanged: it is in the hands of the
majority in the Congress.
Indeed, a failure to act as he has promised will serve to confirm
that the purpose of this debate was to create a rationale for not
moving to balance the budget any time soon; that the debate's purpose
was to be able to say, we're waiting for the States to ratify.
One month from today, on April 1, the Budget Committee is required by
law to report a budget resolution to the Senate. Two weeks later, by
April 15, the Congress is required, by law, to give final approval to a
budget resolution for the coming year.
In 44 days, Congress must have debated, conferenced, and given final
approval to a budget for fiscal year 1996. That is an obligation of
this Congress, not the 107th.
That is a responsibility for all of us serving now, not people who
will serve in the year 2002. It is what our job is this year, not some
other person's job in some future time.
Nothing has changed the magnitude of the job ahead of us.
I have said consistently since the beginning of this debate and the
beginning of this session that it is our desire to work cooperatively,
particularly in getting the deficit under control.
The Republican majority is in control of the Congress. I hope the
Republican majority will adhere to the time requirements of the Budget
Act, which are a matter of law. The budget resolution must be written,
and action completed soon. Committees need to know their authorized
allocations for programs. We should be getting down to work on the
budget now, because we do not have much time.
We have 44 days.
The budget is not going to be balanced in 2002 unless the responsible
people in 1995 start to focus on their share of the work.
It is time we stopped worrying about the responsibilities of future
Congresses and started to discharge the responsibilities that belong to
each of us as Members of this Congress this year.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask that I have 2 minutes following the
distinguished Democratic leader to respond to a number of things that
have been put in the Record in the last few minutes that should not be
left unanswered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I beg the indulgence of my colleagues who
have been here on the floor waiting to speak. I would like to take this
opportunity to respond, for just a few minutes, to a few things that
have been said.
First, the Senator from Delaware raised some concerns about the
distinguished majority leader's intention for the motion to reconsider.
He said he would be inclined to support that, but it was essential
that there be notice given before that vote could occur. Frankly, I
think it is out of order to even imply that the majority leader would
do anything other than give ample notice. That is just what he did
today. We had the vote shortly after 2 o'clock. It was agreed to.
Notification was given.
I want to assure my colleagues that the distinguished majority leader
does not participate in sneak tactics. He will notify the Chamber when
there will be a vote on a motion to reconsider the balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution.
But I do warn my colleagues, that vote will come again. Today the
American people lost. The liberals who want to keep on spending just
the way they have for the 22 years I have been watching them here in
the Congress, the same old tax-and-spend liberals, won today. But there
will be another day for the people to try again with the balanced
budget amendment. Under this motion to reconsider, they will have that
opportunity sometime during the remainder of this 104th Congress.
Now, with regard to what the distinguished Democratic leader just had
to say, some Senators continue to imply that there is some difference
between this year's balanced budget amendment and the one we voted on
last year. They are the same. Some Senators now say they opposed the
amendment because they were worried about Social Security. Where were
they last year? They supported the same amendment.
So I would like to ask unanimous consent that the statements of
Senator Daschle, Senator Ford, Senator Hollings, Senator Dorgan, and
Senator Feinstein from last year--what they had to say last year about
this very same language--be placed into the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows:
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 * * * 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.--Senator Thomas Daschle, (D-SD),
Cong. Rec., S-1981, February 28, 1994.
I hear so much about if 40-some-odd Governors can operate a
balanced budget, why can't the Federal Government * * * I
operated under it. It worked * * * I think implementation of
this amendment will work. I think we can make it work * * * I
do not understand why it takes a brain surgeon to understand
how you operate a budget the way the States do * * * This is
an opportunity to pass a balanced budget amendment that will
work and will give us a financially sound future, not only
for ourselves but for our children and our grandchildren.--
Senator Wendell Ford, D-KY, Cong. Rec., S-2058, March 1,
1994.
I could offer my colleagues 3.5 trillion reasons for a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution; that is the
number of deficit dollars added to the national debt since
1981. But I will rest my case with one simple reason: It
ought to be a minimal moral obligation of our national
government to match its income with its expenditures on an
annual basis * * * so that additional debt is not passed on
to future generations.--Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC, Cong.
Rec., S-2075, March 1, 1994.
This deficit is not about some unusual investment that is
going to yield enormous potential rewards. This is a
structural operating budget deficit that represents a
permanent, continual imbalance between what we raise and what
we spend, and the Congress and the American people have
conspired together in a way in our political system that
prevents us from dealing with it. This constitutional
amendment, no matter what one thinks of it, will add to the
pressure that we reconcile what we spend with what we raise,
and that we begin to assure a better economic future with
economic growth and hope and opportunity for our children
once again.--Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Cong. Rec., S-2068,
March 1, 1994.
If in their heart of hearts they believe we are not going
to be able to balance the budget under the current process,
then I believe they should support the balanced budget
amendment. At least that is the conclusion to which I have
come. Without a constitutional amendment, a balanced budget
just is not going to be achieved.--Senator Dianne Feinstein,
D-CA, Cong. Rec., S-1831, February 24, 1994.
Mr. LOTT. Yet those Senators today voted against the balanced budget
amendment.
Now, Mr. President, what has happened during this debate? What will
[[Page S3320]] happen when we get to the serious budget votes? Will
some Senators say, ``Oh, yes, we want a balanced budget, but we have a
right to know what will happen for years into the future,'' which is
what they said a week ago. Will they say again, ``We must have some
further guarantees on Social Security,'' or else they won't even vote
for deficit reduction now.
I will venture a prediction. I predict that they will say, ``Exempt
this group from any cuts, and exempt that group.'' And when we get to
the budget resolution, they will say, ``Oh, yes, by all means cut
spending, but not here. Not there. Somewhere else.''
Where will their votes be when we get to the real deficit reduction
effort? Will they be saying, ``Exempt my State, or exempt my region, or
exempt this special interest''? Or will they be willing to cast the
tough votes so that we can stop the $200 billion-a-year deficits that
President Clinton has proposed, not just for this year, but for as far
as the eye can see?
Today advocates of the balanced budget amendment lost. But within 2
months, the Senate will have to face tough choices about spending,
tough choices about specific programs. The Nation will be watching to
see the votes that will then be cast by those who today profess
devotion to a balanced budget, while voting against the amendment that
would have achieved it.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Jeffords and Mr. Leahy pertaining to the
introduction of S. J. Res. 28 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________