[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 41 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3514-S3516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have just returned from California, 
where there was obviously great interest in the vote on the balanced 
budget amendment. I have to say that the response to my vote, in 
general, was one that greatly encourages me. I have to say, however, 
that what is of greater interest to my constituency, the people of 
California, the largest State in the Nation--31 million people--is that 
we get down to working on the actual budget.
  It is one thing to debate a balanced budget amendment that would not 
take effect until 2002 or later. Depending on if and when the States 
ratify it, it could be the year 3000, for all we know. It is another 
thing to actually sit down at the table and work together, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, and bring back a budget that we can all be proud 
of. Since I am on the Senate Budget Committee, I truly look forward to 
that exercise. I hope we can come back here with a bipartisan product 
that cuts into that deficit and gets us on that glidepath toward a 
balanced budget that we have been talking about.
  Mr. President, there is no question that the vote last week on the 
balanced budget amendment was clearly one of the most important votes 
in this Congress. There is talk among some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle that there could be retribution against those 
who voted no, including punishing the senior Senator from Oregon who, 
in my view, simply did what we are supposed to do around here--listen 
to our conscience, adhere to our principles, and vote those principles 
and vote that conscience. We only have that chance here once in awhile, 
that these issues of principle and conscience come before us.
  To hear some of my colleagues tell it, the voters will be raging 
against any one of us who voted against this part of the Contract With 
America. Well, I have to say to you that threats and political 
maneuvering have no place in this debate, particularly when we are 
talking about amending the Constitution of the United States of 
America. When we do that, every Member of Congress should have the 
right to vote in the best interest of his or her constituency, as that 
Senator sees it, without fear of political retribution from his or her 
party. The stakes are too great and they are too long lasting.
  This is not some bill that can be overturned easily. We are talking 
about the Constitution of the United States of America, the most long-
lasting symbol of our freedom.
  In the case of the balanced budget amendment, to me, the stakes were 
enormous. First, the very viability of the Social Security system and, 
second, the real fear that the amendment, as drafted, would have 
rendered the Federal Government helpless to respond in cases of 
economic recession or natural disaster. I have talked about that on the 
Senate floor.
  I showed the pictures of disaster emergencies that have been visited 
upon States over the recent years, and how terrible it would be if we 
had to go and look at the faces of our constituency at the very moment 
of their need and say: We cannot do anything about it because this 
amendment says you cannot really do it unless you get a supermajority 
vote, and we simply cannot get those 60 votes.
  I think back to my father telling me about the dark days of the 
Depression. I was born after that, and my dad said, ``You cannot 
believe what it was like.'' He said, ``Until FDR came in there, you had 
Herbert Hoover saying, `Let the States take care of it.''' I went back 
and I checked some of the quotes. It is unbelievable. It is the same 
thing you hear today: ``The States can take care of all of these 
problems. You do not need the Federal Government.''
  Meanwhile, people were jumping out of windows and selling apples on 
the street. I am not going to be here and vote for an amendment that 
would cause us to make that same mistake again. If I do, in my view, I 
am not being true to my conscience nor to the people that I represent. 
When I came here, I said I was going to fight for them--not against 
them, but for them.
  I want it clear that in 1992, as a Member of the House of 
Representatives, I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget. But there was a very big difference in that amendment in 1992 
and this amendment that I opposed just last week. That amendment would 
have protected Social Security, and it was flexible enough so that a 
simple majority vote could have allowed us to act in an emergency. It 
gave the President the ability to declare an urgency--it was called a 
declaration of urgency--if in a particular budget year the country 
needed special spending to solve a crisis.
  That is an amendment I would vote for again today. But I want to make 
something perfectly clear. During this debate, Democrats offered many 
constructive changes to the Republican balanced budget amendment, which 
I felt was so inflexible. But of the many amendments offered, the 
Republicans accepted only one, which was the amendment offered by the 
senior Senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn. That clarified, somewhat, the 
role of the power of the Federal courts in balancing the budget. All of 
the other amendments--and there were many--were tabled, basically on a 
party-line vote.
  Republicans appeared to be under strict instructions to vote down any 
change to the amendment--even changes they supported in the past. They 
did vote for the Nunn amendment, but the basic message to the Democrats 
was: Offer all of the suggestions you like, but we are not really going 
to accept them. And then when Democrats, who had clearly laid out their 
problems with the amendment, voted against the amendment, they were 
berated for voting no, as if they were doing something that was so 
unusual, when we had spent all of that 
[[Page S3515]] time trying to offer constructive amendments.
  The majority leader even delayed the vote for one day. That is very 
unusual. He wanted to make sure the heat was put on us. He wanted to 
make sure he could get that final vote so that the Contract With 
America--that Republican Contract With America--could move forward.
  I happen to believe that move backfired, because in that 24-hour 
period, the focus was on the amendment. And, as our colleague, Senator 
Robert Byrd, who was such a leader in this debate, has said, the 
amendment could be compared to a used car--and I agree with him--a used 
car that looks great on the outside, but when the public looked under 
the hood, it did not look so good.
  Our Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, told the Social Security 
story, and that changed the public support for this amendment. Although 
70 percent support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, 
support drops to 30 percent when those questioned understand that the 
Social Security trust fund would not be protected and could be looted. 
Let me repeat that: seventy percent of the people support a balanced 
budget amendment in the abstract, but when you tell them that Social 
Security trust funds can be looted to balance the budget, it flip-flops 
completely and 70 percent then oppose it.
  By the way, that same poll was taken in my home State of California 
with exactly the same result.
  I thought Senator Kent Conrad said it best when he described the raid 
on Social Security like this. He said, if your boss came into your 
office one day and said, ``Look, I think you are doing a great job, but 
I can't meet my operating expenses this year, so I am going to take the 
money you put into your pension fund and I am going to use it to pay 
the bills. After all,'' the boss could say, ``you are a young person. 
You are not going to retire for a long time. So if I take that money, 
you don't have to worry. Someday I will put it back.''
  Well, I say if your boss does that, you ought to call the police, and 
you have a right to do it, because that is pure theft.
  But that was exactly what was going to happen to Social Security. It 
is not a matter of never touching the benefits. We have touched 
benefits before. We have changed the system before. We will probably 
have to do it again. But it is a matter of the Social Security trust 
fund itself.
  The Republican leadership refused to protect Social Security in that 
balanced budget amendment. During the debate, they said they would 
never touch it. They would never touch Social Security. They said they 
had no intention of ever using the surplus or raiding Social Security. 
They even had an amendment that said they would not do it.
  Well, that is why several of my Democratic colleagues thought, 
``Well, gee. They say they are never going to touch Social Security. 
Maybe we have a chance here to make this amendment work, to change it, 
to build the protections of Social Security into the amendment 
itself.''
  Well, in private negotiations, it went something like this, according 
to what I have been told. The Republicans said to my colleagues, 
``Look, we need your vote. We promise, we will put it in writing, we 
will stop using the surplus in Social Security by the year 2012.''
  Well, my colleagues were not happy with that.
  They said, ``What about 2008? We will stop using the surplus in the 
year 2008.''
  Well, I ask you: If someone says they will not ever touch Social 
Security in one breathe and in the next breathe they say they will stop 
touching it in 2012, what does that mean to you? It is like getting 
beaten up by a bully and all the while you are getting hit, he says, 
``I'm not hitting you.'' And then he says, ``OK, I'll stop hitting you 
in 5 minutes, but, remember, I'm not hitting you now.'' That is 
doublespeak.
  So I think it is important to remember every time you hear the 
Republicans say that they would never hurt Social Security, ask them 
why they refused to change their constitutional amendment to make it 
impossible for anyone to raid it. Keep asking them that question, 
because all the talk is simply that. They would not protect Social 
Security, period. We gave them every chance.
  I want every single person who paid a FICA tax--that is the Social 
Security payroll tax--to realize the benefits. We know now--there was a 
very recent survey--that four out of five families are not prepared 
enough for their retirement. They are going to need Social Security in 
order to survive. Let us not ruin a system that has worked so well.
  If the Republicans want an amendment to the Constitution--and I know 
they want it; they are going to bring it back up here--they can have it 
if they protect Social Security.
  I, myself, felt, as I said before, that there are other crucial 
issues to address--the issue of recession, the issue of disaster--but 
clearly there are enough votes on the Democratic side of the aisle to 
get that amendment through if the Republicans agree to protect Social 
Security.
  My colleagues put it in writing and they sent the letter over to the 
other side.
  So, where are we now? The balanced budget amendment for now is off 
the table, but what is on the table is the budget itself, which takes 
me back to my opening remarks.
  I am on the Budget Committee and I am waiting to see the Republican 
budget for next year. I look forward to making progress on the deficit.
  We saw President Clinton's budget. He has deficit reduction in it. 
There are some who say it is not enough. Maybe we can do more. I look 
forward to doing more, as long as we ensure that our Nation takes care 
of its basic needs and its future. You do not want to destroy this 
country. We want to get this country on a glidepath toward a balanced 
budget; frankly, towards a surplus budget. That is what we really 
should be going for.
  I think it is important to note that, had the balanced budget 
amendment passed and were we back here today, there would have been a 
lot of hoopla, but the deficit would not have declined by one penny. 
Deficit reduction will begin in the Budget Committee with real cuts.
  Two years ago, we made real progress on the deficit by carrying out 
President Clinton's plan to cut the deficit by $500 billion. That was a 
tough deficit reduction vote. We did not get one Republican vote. So it 
was hard, but it passed.
  Again, the President has submitted a follow-up budget. He says it 
reflects his priorities, what he thinks we need to invest in--
education, technology, et cetera--and that it achieves deficit 
reduction. And he includes a middle-class tax plan in there.
  I am ready, willing, and able to look at the President's budget, look 
at my Republican friends' budget, and to work on a budget with my 
Democratic colleagues so that we can really put our best ideas together 
and start doing our work. But I want to make one thing clear tonight. I 
will not work in any way to injure the children of this country. No 
way. But if we look at the product that is coming over from the House 
of Representatives, that is exactly what is going on.
  I will never forget the new chairman of the House Appropriations 
Committee telling the press that he is having the time of his life as 
he ends the Federal school lunch program and the nutrition program for 
women, infants and children. He actually held up a knife at the opening 
session and waived it around. Even the children in the country saw it.
  In my mind, that knife is a symbol--a symbol--of what is happening 
here in Washington. It is going too far. It is slashing. It is 
injuring. It is hurting.
  What are we, as a people, if we take effective feeding programs and 
gut them? Do we want to become a nation where old people become bag 
ladies because Social Security has been looted, and little children 
have their hands out and their tummies swollen like they do in some 
faraway land? I do not think that is what the American people want.
  I do not care if it is in somebody's contract. It is not in my 
contract. Anything I can do to protect the children under the rules of 
this Senate, I will do. I am here to announce that I will do anything I 
have to do to protect the children.
  [[Page S3516]] Do the people want change? Yes. Do the people want 
deficit reduction? Yes. But do they want us to hurt the innocents in 
our country? No. And I will not and others will not.
  Often I read the Constitution. I carry it around, a little pocket-
sized version, and I say God bless this Constitution for giving us a 
bicameral legislature so that the impact of a radical revolution--and 
it has been called such--the impact of a radical revolution can be 
studied or modified or turned back.
  I have been in politics for a while. This is a time of rough rhetoric 
and threats and the worst type of politics I have ever seen. When I got 
elected to the Senate I really made a very basic promise to the people 
of California: That is, I would fight for them, for their environment, 
for their families, for their grandmas and grandpas, and for their 
jobs. I also promised to fight for what I believe in. I said I would 
never be intimidated by threats. I repeat that today.
  There are some awfully good men and women in this U.S. Senate, across 
party lines. I think it is time that we change the atmosphere of the 
Congress--we can do it here in the U.S. Senate--and that we work 
together for the people. I think if we do that we will make great 
progress on the deficit, on this economy, and on restoring the American 
dream. We can do it.
  However, we need to look at some of these proposals that truly will 
hurt our Nation, because when we wage an assault on the most vulnerable 
people in our country, we wage an assault on all of America. Thank you, 
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________