[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.
____________________