[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1512-S1516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.


                            Amendment No. 8

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on the 
amendment before us. We are expecting two more speakers for the 
remainder of our time. What we may do is yield some time to Senator 
Chafee to speak on another topic until those speakers arrive.
  I just want to make a final point with respect to the amendment 
before us, that I do believe, as I have said twice now in speaking on 
this amendment, that there are still many unanswered questions, ones 
which at least I would need to hear answers to before I could feel 
comfortable voting in support of it. I have raised some of these 
questions already.
  How would we address the $706 billion shortfall that this would 
produce in 2002 to 2007? This $706 billion is more than the total 
amount of dollars that were involved in the 1993 tax hike and in the 
budget proposals passed last year by this Congress in terms of reducing 
the growth of Medicare and discretionary spending. $706 billion is more 
than all of that put together. No one has come forward and explained 
where those dollars would come from to effectuate this amendment.
  The second issue I have asked questions about is why is it just this 
trust fund? There are others in the Federal Government. We are told the 
trust fund should be taken off budget, yet the amendment only addresses 
one of them. If, in fact, we are debating the definition of a balanced 
budget, we can't have some trust funds qualifying and some trust funds 
not qualifying.
  In addition, we haven't had any explanation of what happens if Social 
Security is cut loose in the process through this amendment, and if it 
were cut loose and runs out of money, what would be the consequences 
and how would we address such shortfall if it was not part of a unified 
budget?
  There are all of these questions and others before us, Mr. President. 
As I say, I have listened this morning and have not heard answers to 
them. There are others I will be raising later in the day. In the 
absence of those answers, it is clear to me that trying to effectuate 
this amendment would be a very high-risk proposal, as I said from the 
outset, with no evidence in the amendment of protecting the benefits of 
Social Security any more than they are protected if they are part of 
the unified budget.

[[Page S1513]]

  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the next few days, we have an 
opportunity that we want to take advantage of to correct the course of 
years of unrestrained Government spending. Just like a consumer who has 
too many credit cards, barely keeping his head above water, 
particularly because he is paying big interest on his balance, so, too, 
is the Federal Government sinking under an ocean of debt. This 
deplorable state of affairs will force the Federal Government to make 
an annual payment of $248 billion this year alone.

  We have already tried to instill fiscal discipline through a lot of 
other measures that we passed in the last 10 years, including spending 
caps and deficit control mechanisms. They simply are not working 
efficiently enough to sustain the level of economic growth that we are 
now experiencing. If we had the deficit under control and interest 
rates down, we would be creating many, many more jobs than what have 
been created by this economy. Without the discipline of a 
constitutional amendment, we will see our interest payments further 
drag down the economy. By 2007, interest payments on the national debt 
will increase to $340 billion.
  Just imagine, if we were not paying the interest right now, we would 
have no budget deficit whatsoever. In fact, we would be running a 
surplus until the year 2004.
  When talking about the balanced budget amendment, one of the first 
things to do is set the record straight on the issue we have been 
talking about since last night: the issue of Social Security.
  Some of my colleagues, well-meaning but wrong, have signaled that 
they would be willing to support the balanced budget amendment if 
Social Security was exempt from the amendment. I say wrong. Why? 
Because exempting Social Security would create more problems for the 
program. They argue that a balanced budget amendment threatens the 
viability of Social Security and would harm vulnerable seniors in the 
process. If that were true, I would not be supporting this resolution. 
But that is not true, and unless we get the deficit of the Federal 
Government under control, this Government and our economy will never be 
strong enough to ever meet the needs of the baby boomers when they go 
into retirement just 13 years from now.
  Proponents of the Reid amendment apparently still believe that by 
passing Senate Joint Resolution 1, there would be some sudden 
groundswell of support for cutting Social Security benefits to reduce 
outlays. They are wrong. Given the popularity and the need of Social 
Security for our seniors, because it is part of the social fabric of 
American society, this Congress would not let that happen. Even if this 
Congress were inclined to let that happen, the American people would 
not let that happen. That just isn't going to happen.
  I am committed to the idea that balancing the budget is not about 
cutting Social Security. I voted for a resolution last year which 
promoted that view, but opponents of the amendment are not satisfied by 
words--I suppose everybody is cynical about words from Members of 
Congress--but past experience dictates otherwise. Even though we have 
submitted budget resolutions which achieve balance in the year 2002 
without harming Social Security, the opponents of the balanced budget 
amendment continue to try to derail this amendment by claiming that 
those of us who have always fought to protect Social Security will turn 
around and try to harm Social Security. How could that ever happen, 
when the experience of the last 60 years to protect Social Security has 
been just the opposite, the experience of this Congress, the track 
record of this Congress, has been just the opposite?
  Our budget proposal does take into account the Social Security 
surplus, projected to be about $465 billion cumulative by the year 
2002. Requiring a consolidated or unified budget in this constitutional 
amendment is the right thing to do. First, we must set our policy in 
accordance with the long-term health of this Nation's economy and the 
people of this country.
  By chance, there is a Social Security surplus today. If we had tried 
to pass a balanced budget amendment like this in the early 1980's, we 
would not have to worry about this argument because Social Security had 
no surplus.
  If we waited until the year 2029 to balance the budget, we would not 
be hearing this argument because there would be no surplus in Social 
Security at that time. It would be bankrupt. Social Security will be 
running a very real deficit by the year 2029. Whether Social Security 
is off or on budget, the decisions made about borrowing will have to 
take this deficit into account, even though it will look as if we are 
in full compliance with the Constitution. How can we expect the people 
to have confidence in Government if this kind of ghost accounting 
continues to go on?
  But this message does not seem to be getting through. Listen to 
comments of the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. His comments 
seem to be ignored on the issue of the unified budget. At a hearing of 
the Senate Budget Committee held 3 weeks ago, Chairman Greenspan 
testified that ``for the purposes of fiscal evaluation of the budget of 
the United States, the unified budget is the appropriate one * * *''
  Chairman Greenspan is right--financial markets take into account all 
Government activity. It is not segmented out into various trust funds 
as the sponsors of this amendment on Social Security would want us to 
believe. If we exempt Social Security we will make our job harder. That 
could have serious ramifications for the economy, and for other 
programs in the budget. If we are forced to make up the $295 billion 
lost from the Social Security surplus, we will have to find places to 
make further, unnecessary reductions.
  I see no compelling reason to exempt Social Security. It is beyond 
dispute that should Congress scrap the unified budget and exempt Social 
Security, truly draconian cuts in important social programs would be 
absolutely necessary to balance the budget.
  So, in the spirit of truth in budgeting, I challenge the supporters 
of scrapping the unified budget to identify what programs will be cut 
and how large those cuts will be. Prior to the 104th Congress, those 
who supported the balanced budget were repeatedly asked to provide 
details of how a balanced budget would be achieved. I believe the same 
standard should apply to those who propose exempting Social Security. 
Where is the beef in their proposal?
  One final reason I do not support exempting Social Security from the 
resolution is the possibility that the exemption will turn into a 
magnet for new spending that is not offset with cuts--all with a simple 
majority vote. This does not seem too far-fetched, Mr. President, at a 
time when President Clinton is proposing to shift home health care 
spending from one Medicare trust fund to a second trust fund which is 
largely funded by the general Treasury.
  I believe it is clear that the best way to protect Social Security 
now as well as in the future is to reject ill-advised efforts to exempt 
Social Security from the balanced budget amendment. In fact, the 
respected Robert Myers, a former chief actuary of the Social Security 
Administration who continues to be a strong supporter of the program of 
Social Security, is a strong supporter, as well, of this balanced 
budget amendment as it is written.
  Mr. Myers recognizes that continued fiscal irresponsibility on the 
part of the Federal Government is the greatest threat to Social 
Security, a program that is part of the social fabric of America, 
protecting America's seniors in retirement. If we continue to run up 
the deficit, interest payments will continue to rise. When the time 
comes for Social Security to start cashing in its bonds, possibly as 
soon as the year 2012, the Federal Government may find it very 
difficult to find a creditor when the debt we carry exceeds $8 
trillion.

[[Page S1514]]

  We have another opportunity to rid ourselves of this unsustainable 
spending. I hope that we can, once and for all, keep our promise to 
balance the budget without hanging the Social Security noose around the 
necks of those of us supporting the balanced budget amendment. Contrary 
to the hue and cry that we hear from the other side, the balanced 
budget amendment is the best way to continue ensuring a good quality of 
life for seniors while preserving the American dream for all Americans.
  Also Mr. President, I want to correct an incorrect characterization 
of a memorandum by Congress Daily.
  The Congress Daily refers to a CRS analysis which supposedly says 
that the balanced budget amendment will hurt the Government's ability 
to pay Social Security benefits.
  Let me read from the report: ``Now, of course, this does not mean 
that Social Security benefits could not be paid.'' I don't know how 
much clearer you can be on this subject. The balanced budget amendment 
will not prevent Congress from honoring its commitments to seniors.
  Better yet, the same CRS researcher who produced the report which 
some have mischaracterized has produced yet another clarifying memo. 
Let me quote from that newest report: ``We are not concluding that the 
trust fund surpluses could not be drawn down to pay beneficiaries.'' 
That seems perfectly clear to me. Social Security will not be harmed by 
the balanced budget amendment.
  I think that it's unfortunate that those who oppose the balanced 
budget amendment are using such deceptive arguments and tactics. We are 
making important decisions for the future of this great Nation. I wish 
we could have an honest debate about the balanced budget and not resort 
to trickery.
  The Congress Daily article also quotes several of my Democratic 
colleagues referring to a report from the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities. As everyone knows, this group is a liberal interest group 
that opposes the balanced budget amendment. That's what they testified 
to earlier this year before the Judiciary Committee.
  So, in conclusion, this page and a half CRS analysis actually 
reaffirms what the supporters of the balanced budget amendment have 
always been saying: the balanced budget amendment will not harm Social 
Security.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at the hour of 12:30 
Senators John Chafee be allowed 12 minutes to speak as in morning 
business and Senator John Kerry be allowed 10 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Iowa for the 
tremendously important statement he has made. I am amazed at what I 
think many of us would call gimmickry when it comes to the legitimate 
and responsible debate over the balanced budget amendment to our 
Constitution. There is not a Senator on this floor who is not committed 
to upholding the fiscal integrity and the solvency of the Social 
Security system of our country. Many of us have voted to do that time 
and time again, and those votes have produced, in fact, a strong, 
stable, and secure system to ensure supplemental income for the senior 
community of our country. But that does not deny us the responsibility 
of being fiscally responsible.
  The amendment of my colleague from Nevada, while I believe he is 
sincere, is frustrating to me and at times angry, that it appears at 
this moment, by press conferences recently held, that there is an 
effort to game this issue, much like the administration attempted to 
game Medicare in the last election, when this Congress was legitimately 
and responsibly involved in trying to save and secure our Medicare 
system, a system that provides a critical need for the senior community 
of our country.
  There is absolutely nothing, in my opinion, in the years I have 
studied the balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, and I find 
myself reasonably knowledgeable as it relates to the budget itself, 
that you should separate any portion of the budget from its 
responsibility of being balanced under a unified budget.
  The week before last, prior to the recess, we saw many of our 
colleagues on the other side of this issue rush to the floor, claiming 
that the Congressional Research Service memo confirmed their argument 
and confirmed their logic that somehow Social Security had to be 
removed from this amendment, or this proposed amendment. The 
Congressional Research Service came back with these words: ``We have 
been and are being misrepresented in what we believe to be our findings 
of the facts and our interpretation.''
  If this is so, then there is reason to be frustrated and there is 
reason to be a little angry that some would game the system, actually 
attempting, in my opinion, to distort what is, in fact, the 
representation of the Congressional Research Service. While I at times 
have taken legitimate criticism directed toward the Congressional 
Research Service, I have not tried to say what they said is not what 
they said that somebody else said. That, of course, is part of the 
argument that some are using now with the issue of Social Security.
  Oh, it is a way out and it is a way to hide. It is a way to hide from 
the legitimate vote, up or down, on a constitutional amendment for a 
balanced budget. Why should you be frightened of it? If you are not for 
a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, vote no. If you really 
do not believe in it, vote no.
  If you believe in deficit spending, vote no. But don't try the 
gimmickry that we have seen. I will repeat the use of that word. We 
have seen a multitude of amendments come to the floor, and if each one 
of them had been attached to the constitutional amendment, three-
quarters of the Federal budget would be off-budget again, outside of a 
balanced budget amendment, and able to run free and in deficit for any 
length of time the Congress so chose. I don't believe that is the 
intent of the Congress itself.
  I do believe we are listening to the American people at this moment. 
And, again, the President eloquently, and I believe 12 or 13 times, in 
his State of the Union Address, said he was sending up a balanced 
budget. We all, quietly, appropriately, and respectfully, waited for 
his budget to come to the Hill. We got it, but I must say that it is 
not in balance. It is a $120 billion deficit across the board. Yet, he 
calls that balanced.
  Mr. President, get a new set of glasses. I know you are getting to be 
middle-aged. You better get bifocals because the fine print says that 
isn't what you are saying. Of course, after he leaves office, then the 
tough cuts are made to argue his point of a balanced budget, or the tax 
relief he has proposed would simply be taken away.
  Social Security deserves to be a legitimate and responsible part of 
the total budget. This job I hold, to which I have sworn an oath of 
office, also makes me a member of the board of directors of the Social 
Security system, in essence. The Senator from Nevada and I are 
dedicated to the long-term stability of the Social Security system. 
Taking it off budget, allowing it to run deficits, disallowing its 
responsible and reasonable management through the budget process, does 
not make a lot of sense. I don't argue separate accounting, I don't 
argue the legitimate approach that shows or demonstrates to the Social 
Security recipients what is legitimately his or hers. That is all right 
and responsible, and we can agree on that. But I suggest that the 
amendment before us is subterfuge, that it does not resolve the 
problem.
  Social Security officials have continually said, ``How do you save 
Social Security?'' You balance the budget. A bankrupt Government is not 
going to write a check to anybody in any way. It is a Government who is 
fiscally responsible, a Government whose budgets are balanced, that can 
write Social Security checks. It is not independent of any portion of 
the Federal Government, and it must be taken in the whole of the 
context of that Government.
  I am disappointed to have to address what are blatant scare tactics 
that some groups are using on the balanced budget amendment and Social 
Security.
  Recently, we were hit with a press item that claimed the 
Congressional Research Service had issued a memo confirming a so-called 
study by an outside advocacy group--the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities--concerning Social Security and the balanced budget 
amendment.

[[Page S1515]]

  This group has always opposed the balanced budget amendment and 
consistently opposed reducing the deficit with meaningful domestic 
spending restraint.
  I say I am disappointed, but I am also angry. I hate to say it, but 
what CRS actually said has been misrepresented. I have not read 
everyone's press releases, so I simply assume it was that outside group 
that was overreaching.
  CRS did not endorse any study or paper by the Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities. CRS did not reach the same conclusion that the 
balanced budget amendment would in any way impair drawing down the 
Social Security trust fund surpluses to pay promised benefits when the 
time came.
  We've all heard the term ``G-I-G-O--garbage in, garbage out.'' CRS 
apparently was handed a narrowly written request. They responded, 
appropriately, with a technically precise memo on February 5. Others 
released that memo to the press on February 12.
  Part of what CFR said was misrepresented and part was left out.
  The CRS memo was about accounting. It was about what would and would 
not be included in the calculations of a budget deficit, surplus, or 
balance under Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution.
  But the spin from opponents of the balanced budget amendment was that 
the amendment might cause some Social Security checks to be held up.
  The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But the 
original CRS memo was written in technical language. That made it easy 
for someone to fabricate a scare story about what it meant.
  On February 12, CRS issued a clarifying memo, also technically 
precise. They told my staff that, clearly, there was what they 
charitably called ``a misunderstanding.''
  First of all, let's be clear: The first CRS memo talks about the year 
2019 and after. Curiously, I have not seen much about that date, 22 
years from now, in press reports. We might be tempted to think the 
intent was to scare today's senior citizens about their Social 
Security.
  Now, what happens in the year 2019? Social Security outlays are 
projected to start exceeding receipts. Under the balanced budget 
amendment, the rest of the Government would have to run a surplus to 
make sure the overall budget is balanced.
  That is good--it means that, in the long run, assuming for the moment 
no other reforms are made in the meantime, the balanced budget 
amendment would make sure we do not abandon our commitment to Social 
Security beneficiaries.
  The real balanced budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 1, 
requires us to make sure that a non-Social Security surplus covers any 
Social Security deficit in the future. That is good for seniors, good 
for Social Security, and good for the economy.
  So, it all sounds like scare tactics to me. When you are losing on 
substance, terrorize the senior citizens.
  Let us look at what CRS really said: In its original February 5 memo, 
CRS said, ``(T)his does not mean that Social Security benefits could 
not be paid, if the rest of receipts into the Treasury for a particular 
year exceed outlays, this amount could be used to offset the Social 
Security deficit.''
  Well, this is exactly what our balanced budget amendment requires--
that those other, non-Social Security accounts run a surplus. That 
would protect seniors.
  The February 5, CRS memo continues, ``And of course, tax or 
expenditure provisions, or both, could be altered to create a new 
balance.'' Well, that's exactly what the President's Advisory Council, 
and the minority leader, and others have talked about.
  Those are the parts of the original CRS memo that get left out when 
balanced budget amendment opponents quote that memo.
  Now, let us look at the February 12, CRS memo:

       We are not (CRS emphasizes ``not'') concluding that the 
     Trust Funds surpluses could not be drawn down to pay 
     beneficiaries. The BBA would not require that result. . . .
       Only if no other receipts in any particular year could be 
     found would the possibility of a limitation on drawing down 
     the Trust Funds arise.

  In other words, if the Federal Government was otherwise totally broke 
would this possibility arise.
  And of course, we know the way to prevent the Government from going 
totally broke: Pass the balanced budget amendment.
  It has been said here on the floor that CRS did not change its 
original position. That is right. Its original position has been 
misunderstood and misrepresented.
  I see my colleague from Texas has arrived, and I believe he has the 
time until 12:30 under a unanimous-consent request. My guess is if his 
comments extend beyond that, he can find the cooperation of some of our 
colleagues here on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes, 10 seconds.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to make a very, very simple point, 
and I think I can do it in 6 minutes. If not, I will come back this 
afternoon. First of all, everybody knows what is happening to the 
national debt. It is exploding under both Democrats and Republicans. 
Nobody tries to argue otherwise. They suggest that we wait until 
another day to deal with it. But nobody can refute the fact that debt 
is going up.
  Now, the second thing that we have seen throughout this whole debate 
is that we have had an effort by our Democratic colleagues to exempt 
the budget from the balanced budget requirement. In fact, if you add up 
every amendment that has been offered by our Democratic colleagues to 
the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, they have now 
proposed, in terms of amendments offered and submitted on the floor and 
dealt with in committee, to exempt Social Security, college education, 
veterans, education, nutrition, health, housing, justice, capital 
projects, and emergencies, which is 77 percent of the domestic budget, 
if we are going to require a balanced budget.
  I want to talk about the exemption that is before the Senate now. 
That is exempting Social Security. Now, it is interesting that our 
colleagues say that if you want to protect Social Security, don't 
balance the budget. Well, let me first note that it is interesting 
because in committee, the Democrats propose that we count the Social 
Security surplus for the next 5 years and, then, thereafter, we exempt 
Social Security from the budget.
  Now, I have a chart here that shows what is happening to Social 
Security. What it shows, very briefly, is that for the next 20 years, 
it has a modest surplus, and then when baby boomers turn 65 and retire, 
it falls off the end of the Earth.
  Now, it is interesting to note that our Democratic colleagues say, 
while you have this surplus, let's count that for 5 years to try to 
balance the budget, but don't count any of this deficit. I ask you, how 
can you balance the budget and not count the largest program of the 
Federal budget, which is Social Security? How can it be anything but a 
fraud to talk about balancing the budget and exempt the largest program 
in the budget? But there is a more important point I want to make, and 
that point has to do with the ability to fund Social Security.
  If you get to the heart of this amendment, what our Democratic 
colleagues are saying is, if you don't balance the budget, you are in a 
stronger position to fund Social Security. Let me look at this very 
briefly. We last balanced the budget in 1969--28 years ago. The last 
day we had a balanced budget, the Federal debt was $366 billion. Today, 
the debt is $5.2 trillion, which is the gross level of Federal debt. We 
cheat a little sometimes by talking about debt held externally as if we 
don't have a debt to the Social Security trust fund.
  What has happened since the last day we had a balanced budget is the 
Federal debt has risen by $4.8 trillion. Since the last day we had a 
balanced budget, we have indebted every child in America to a debt, at 
birth, of $20,000. Every baby born in America, every day since 1969, is 
$20,000 more in debt than they were the last day we balanced the 
Federal budget. The interest on the debt that we have incurred since 
1969 is $320 billion a year, to date. The interest we are paying on the 
debt we have incurred since the last day we balanced the Federal budget 
is $320 billion a year.

[[Page S1516]]

  The Social Security benefits to the elderly are only $304 billion a 
year. So, by the deficits we have run every day since 1969, we have 
piled up an interest payment, per year, that is bigger than what we are 
spending on Social Security benefits for the retired every year.
  Now, does anybody believe that, by incurring $4.8 trillion of debt 
since the last day we balanced the budget, Social Security is more 
secure today than it was in 1969? Does anybody believe that, because we 
are paying $320 billion of interest on the debt that we have incurred 
since the last day we balanced the budget, Social Security is more 
secure because we are piling up this debt? A baby born in America, if 
spending continues at the current rate, will, in their working 
lifetime, if they are born today, pay $187,000 of income taxes in their 
working lifetime just to pay interest on the public debt. Are they 
going to be in a better position to provide Social Security benefits 
for their parents by paying $187,000 in their lifetime on interest? 
Would they be in a stronger position to provide Social Security if they 
weren't paying that interest? I think the answer is, clearly, yes.
  To end with a simple analogy with what our Democratic colleagues are 
saying, which could be converted into advice to a family, say that you 
have a family and they have one child 3 years old. They have one 2 
years old. They have one which is 1 year old. They have three children. 
Our Democratic colleagues are giving them advice about funding the 
college education of their children. Our Democratic colleagues say, 
``Look. Don't balance your budget. If you balance your budget, you may 
not be able to send your children to college.'' Does anybody believe, 
if for the next 17 years they run up big debts, that they are going to 
be in a better position to send those children to college than they 
would be if they were saving the money now to do it? If you care about 
your momma, if you care about Social Security, and if you want to 
balance the Federal budget to stop this debt and this interest from 
eating up every penny you earn, only then can Social Security be saved. 
That is why this amendment, if adopted, would be a nail in the coffin 
of Social Security. If you want to save Social Security, stop the 
growth in the debt. Stop the growth in interest payments.
  I yield the floor.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments 
in order to the pending balanced budget constitutional amendment be 
limited to the following, and that they be first-degree amendments:
  Senator Bumpers amendment with regard to statutory alternative;
  Senator Boxers amendment with regard to disaster exemption;
  Two relevant amendments for Senator Byrd;
  Senator Conrad, a substitute;
  Senator Daschle, relevant;
  Senator Dorgan substitute, and sense of the Senate;
  Senator Durbin, tax cuts and shutdowns; two different amendments;
  Senator Feingold, one amendment on ratification time period, one with 
regard to surplus, one with regard to enforcement, and one relevant;
  Senator Feinstein, substitute;
  Senator Graham, public debt;
  Senator Hollings, one on campaign finance and one relevant;
  Senator Kennedy, one on judicial review and one on impoundment;
  Senator Kohl, capital budget;
  Senator Lautenberg, implementation language, and one relevant;
  Senator Leahy, debt limit, and one identified as relevant;
  Senator Levin, implementing legislation;
  Senator Moynihan, debt limit;
  Senator Reid, Social Security;
  Senator Rockefeller, Medicare;
  Senator Torricelli, capital budget;
  Senator Wellstone, proportionality, children, and sense of the 
Senate, all identified as one amendment;
  Senator Lott, two relevant amendments;
  Senator Hatch, two relevant amendments; and
  Senator Kempthorne, Social Security, sense of the Senate.
  I further ask that all amendments must be offered no later than 5 
p.m. on Wednesday, February 26, and that any amendment not offered by 5 
p.m. no longer be in order to the balanced budget constitutional 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say 
first of all that I appreciate the cooperation of all Senators. This 
does not mean necessarily that every one of these amendments are going 
to be offered. In fact, I hope to the contrary that they will not.
  I would also like to add, if I could, a clause that no motion to 
recommit be in order to the unanimous-consent request, if that would be 
in keeping with the majority leader's intent.
  Mr. LOTT. That would not be my intent. I did intend to reserve the 
right to have that motion to recommit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, based upon the conversations I have had 
with the majority leader, I have no objection to the unanimous-consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for that 
cooperation. We will continue to have discussions and deal honestly and 
fairly with each other. This is a long list. But as he suggests, I hope 
they will not all be offered and that we can begin then to identify a 
time for those amendments to be considered in a regular order and move 
toward completing action on this debate on this amendment by next 
Tuesday.
  In that regard, Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, 
having had several discussions with the Democratic leader as to how to 
bring to a close this important constitutional amendment, it appears 
that it is the first step toward reaching final passage time by having 
this list offered now, which I hope would be in the late afternoon of 
Tuesday, March 4.
  All Senators who intend to offer amendments to this constitutional 
amendment must be included in the list just submitted. Also, the 
Senator on the list must then offer his or her amendment for 
consideration prior to 5 p.m. on Wednesday. Following the 5 p.m. 
deadline on Wednesday, the managers will then be able to determine how 
much work remains leading up to the final passage vote.
  We will be able to identify the amount of time and get some time 
agreements on the amendments that will be offered. And, of course, we 
will have adequate closing time for leaders. We should be able to come 
up with some time late Tuesday afternoon. But we will work through 
that, and we will keep the Senators informed as to how that will work 
through.
  At this point, until we see these amendments that are offered, we 
still can't say exactly what will be the situation on Friday or on 
Monday. It is anticipated that we will, as we have been doing, have a 
vote or votes on Monday afternoon. But we will work through that very 
carefully and will keep the Senators informed once we get the list and 
get some time agreements entered into.
  So I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation. I think we are 
making some progress by obtaining this list.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized 
for 12 minutes.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________