[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 75 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5635-S5637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, WELFARE REFORM, AND THE MINIMUM WAGE

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, since the American people put the 
Republicans in control of Congress, I think there has been a 
consensus--Democrats, Independents, Republicans--that we should balance 
the budget. We have succeeded now in making a balanced budget, which is 
supported by 80-some percent of the American people, a national 
priority. Perhaps no policy is more important than the personal 
economic future of Americans, the future of our children and the future 
of our Nation.
  Last year, under Republican leadership, Congress did pass a budget 
that would be in balance by the year 2002. President Clinton vetoed 
that budget and denied America the brighter future that would have 
resulted in higher standards of living, more real economic growth, 
lower interest rates, reducing what Americans will pay for home 
mortgages, car loans, and student loans, and an increase in the savings 
rates, higher productivity, and relief from the crushing burden of 
debt.
  But notwithstanding that, the President and his allies in and out of 
Congress who talk about a balanced budget say we ought to have a 
balanced budget. They may have a different way to arrive at one. So I 
think there is a fairly strong consensus at least that we should 
balance the budget. We just have not been able to come together on how 
we do that. We have tried private negotiations at the White House with 
myself and the Speaker and the majority leader in the House. They went 
on

[[Page S5636]]

day after day, week after week, 55 hours of face-to-face meetings. We 
could not come together.
  So my view is that since almost everyone agrees we should balance the 
budget at least by the year 2002, we should take the next logical step 
and do what it takes to make certain that we fulfill our commitment to 
pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  Last year, we had a month-long debate. We talked about all the pros 
and cons of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The final 
vote was 65-35. It was actually 66-34. Then I changed my vote to ``no'' 
so that I could use the parliamentary procedure to have a 
reconsideration of this vote, and I said sometime this year.
  All we were doing, if you recall, was sending this to the States 
where three-fourths of the States would have to ratify the amendment 
before it became part of the Constitution. So we were, in effect, 
leaving it to up to the people or leaving it up to the legislative body 
closer to the people whether or not this particular balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution should be ratified and be made a part of 
the Constitution.

  I have made a number of statements both in the Chamber and in public 
that we would take up the balanced budget amendment again, and since my 
departure is imminent, I want to keep my word and keep my commitment, 
although I have no illusions about the outcome. So during the week of 
June 3, it is my intention to fulfill the commitment I made to hold 
another vote on the balanced budget amendment.
  As I said, I am not under any illusions, but I think there is a great 
deal at stake. I think we have an obligation to future generations of 
Americans to make the effort. Only one man stands between the balanced 
budget amendment and the American people, and that is President 
Clinton. I hope President Clinton will change his position on the 
balanced budget amendment. I believe the upcoming vote will give 
President Clinton the opportunity to demonstrate the kind of leadership 
the American people want, but I am certain it will succeed only if the 
President lends his support, his unqualified support to the effort. 
Only the President can help encourage Democrats who voted for it in the 
past and then voted against it last year to give us the necessary 67 
votes to send this to the States for ratification.
  Again, let me make it clear. We are not making the final judgment 
when we send an amendment to the States for ratification. It takes 
three-fourths of the States. It would not be easy, but my view is we 
can send it back to the people, back to the people's representatives, 
closer to the people, and this also, of course, will give my colleagues 
who have supported the amendment in the past but voted against it last 
year another opportunity to come home again, an opportunity to do the 
most important thing we can be asked to do, and that is to make a 
positive difference.
  So I hope that President Clinton could repair the damage. I know he 
urged and probably persuaded at least six of our colleagues to vote 
``no.'' It is not very often we get a second chance to do the right 
thing, but we are going to offer that chance to the President and to 
others. I assume the vote will be the same, or maybe even one or two 
less, but this is a bipartisan effort.
  I want to underscore that. One of the leaders in this effort has been 
Senator Paul Simon from the State of Illinois, who is retiring from the 
Senate at the end of this year. He has been working day after day, 
month after month, year after year for a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution. He did not dream it up last year or the year before. 
As long as I have known Paul Simon, he has been supporting a balanced 
budget amendment, and so has the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and 
they have worked closely together.
  At one time, we thought we had as many as 72 votes, but when the vote 
was taken, it was only 66. So my view is it is bipartisan. It comes 
down to one simple question: Do we trust the American people? Do we 
trust the State legislatures? I think if we do, then we will send this 
amendment to the States and let them take a look at it. The Founding 
Fathers did not give Congress the power. They reserved that power to 
the States and the people. For most of us who say we are for a balanced 
budget, this is an opportunity to give our States, whether it is Kansas 
or some other State, members of my legislature, an opportunity to say, 
well, it is good; it is bad; it should not be done.
  So, I will let my colleagues know, and I will advise the Democratic 
leader on the precise time. But it will be sometime, probably, I would 
guess, along about June 4. But I will let my Democratic friend, the 
leader of the Democratic Senate, Senator Daschle, know a precise time. 
As I understand, there is no debate. So any debate will happen before. 
There will not be any agreement on any debate, but bring it up, vote, 
and then move on to something else.
  Let me also say that I was prepared last night--because the President 
made a statement in Wisconsin to send him the welfare bill and he would 
sign it--and I may later today ask unanimous consent to bring up the 
welfare bill and pass it, send it to the House. This is apparently a 
bill the President wants. I do not assume there would be any objection 
on the other side. But, if the President is serious, we are serious. We 
will get serious in a hurry.
  I will ask consent, we will send it to the House, and the House, of 
course, with the Rules Committee, they do not have to wait 4, 5, 6, 10, 
12 days on an issue like this, they can do it in 3 or 4 hours.
  So, if the President is serious about this, if he will just notify my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to object, we may pass a 
welfare bill here very quickly.
  I have also been asked, and I have not discussed it with the majority 
leader--the majority whip, Senator Lott, about when we would bring the 
minimum wage vote to the floor. I do not have a problem with bringing 
it to the floor at any time. In fact, we offered my colleagues on the 
other side an agreement which, had they accepted, we would bring it up 
as soon as we came back from the Memorial Day recess, but it was 
rejected.
  It still seems to me that we ought to be able to bring it up; 
whenever they want to they bring up an amendment, we bring up what we 
want to bring up as an amendment. We do that frequently around here. We 
have two different views. I think there should be an increase in the 
minimum wage. I think we couple it with--we have talked about it some, 
about a teenage provision, where you want teenagers to work, the so-
called training wage. We might increase those who are not covered, by a 
small amount, for businesses that are small businesses.
  I have talked about this to Senator Daschle. I think there are a 
couple areas we may be able to agree on. There may be others who have 
other amendments we may not be able to agree to. But it seems to me, if 
we are serious about it, we ought to bring it up and do it very 
quickly. We have had enough debate on the action. We would be prepared 
to take care of that also on the week of June 3.
  Mr. FORD. Will the distinguished majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. FORD. When the majority leader says ``the minimum wage bill,'' 
does that mean the bill that was sent over to us from the House; that 
would be a stand-alone offer?
  Mr. DOLE. We have the right to amend.
  Mr. FORD. I understand you have the right to amend it, but it will 
stand alone, it would not be included in the package as in the debate 
we had here previously in the Senate?
  Mr. DOLE. I would be happy to work out something along that line with 
the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Rather than have four or five votes and then have a vote on 
the whole package, including the coupling as the Senator said, that we 
could have the stand-alone votes--I think we are very close to making 
some kind of agreement.
  Mr. DOLE. I would want to consult, obviously, with my colleagues. But 
my view is there will be a minimum wage increase. It will pass the 
Congress. It will have some amendments that maybe are not totally 
pleasing to everybody in the Senate on either side of the aisle. In 
fact, maybe even the minimum wage is not totally pleasing to everybody 
on either side of the aisle. But I think, given the strong bipartisan 
vote in the House, and I think there is support, bipartisan support, 
for

[[Page S5637]]

an increase on this side, the question is what do you add to it to get 
it passed?
  Mr. FORD. The only question I was concerned about is that originally 
we had four or five individual votes and then that would have been 
included in a total package, with the coupling of maybe a poison pill 
or two there, that the President may not particularly like and said he 
would have to veto that with that pill. If we get the House bill and 
then that is a stand-alone, and we get the amendments and let the 
Senate work its will, I think we are getting very close to an agreement 
on minimum wage. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to take it up with the leadership on my 
side and, hopefully, be able to go to the Democratic leader and the 
Senator from Kentucky with some proposal to be accepted.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________