[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.'')

                          ____________________