=============================================================================== (D) = Democrat; (I) = Independent; (R) = Republican; [[Page Hxxxx]] = Congressional Record Page # =============================================================================== Mr. DASCHLE (D) Mr. WYDEN (D) Mr. NICKLES (R) Mr. HATCH (R) Mr. WARNER (R) Mr. DOLE (R) The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Democratic leader is recognized. Mr. DASCHLE (D). Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have a chart here that shows, as graphically as anything can, the number of times that our Republican colleagues have proposed in this Congress to change the U.S. Constitution. Not since the Bill of Rights have so many amendments been proposed all at once. No wonder the rumors of rumblings from gravesites from Monticello to Mount Vernon have been heard during this Congress. There are those who appear to believe that they know better than our Founding Fathers how our Constitution should be structured. They now advocate altering the U.S. Constitution not once or twice, but, as this chart shows, in 83 different ways. There were 83 amendments proposed by our Republican colleagues in this Congress to the U.S. Constitution. One has to wonder, Mr. President, whether or not there are those in this body, and in the other body, who believe they know better, and that somehow they are in a better position than our Founding Fathers to determine the advisability of changes in the Constitution to this degree. I am not averse to constitutional amendments. I have supported some in the past. But before we do so, the first question we must ask is, is it necessary? We have had debates on the Senate floor in this Congress on whether or not to amend the Constitution to provide for protection of a flag. There are those who propose amendments that would somehow require the ability for public prayer in schools. In those cases, and in many others, I, as well as many of my colleagues, have concluded that indeed it is not in our best interest, that the Founding Fathers were correct that the first amendment rights need to be protected. We have shown the wisdom on those occasions to defeat proposals to amend the Constitution, as our forefathers would have. We did not need a constitutional amendment 4 years ago, Mr. President, when this administration came to Washington, and the President decided--rather than talking about it, rather than constitutional amendments, rather than more proposals to modify the budget and bring this Government into balance--``I am going to do something about it.'' Indeed, he saw the need to do something about it. Everyone recalls that, in 1992, the deficit was $290 billion. In the first year in office in 1993, this administration, working with the Democratic Congress, Mr. President, reduced that deficit to $255 billion. In 1993, how well [[Page S5899]] I remember the vote taken on this floor with virtually everybody in their chair, one-by-one, standing up, in one of the most courageous acts of deficit reduction since I have been here, and voting for a plan cut the deficit. That plan covered not just 1 year or 2 years, but 5 years of massive deficit reduction. And it passed by one vote. As a result, the deficit in 1994 then fell to $203 billion. Last year, in 1995, we did some more, and the deficits fell, not surprisingly, as a result of that action, to $164 billion. Now, this year, we mark 4 years in a row of meaningful deficit reduction. With some courageous votes and real determination, the deficit is expected to fall to $130 billion. That is the record over the last 4 years--from $292 billion to $130 billion. For the first time since Harry Truman sat in the White House, the deficit has declined for 4 years in a row. The deficit has been cut in less than half since President Clinton took office. That is the difference, Mr. President, between rhetoric and results. The only way that these results can continue, the only real way in the short-term that we can build on that record is with an negotiated agreement that balanced the budget by 2002. A constitutional amendment, under the best of circumstances, is going to take several years to ratify. Who in this body would argue today that we ought to wait that long before we continue further efforts at deficit reduction? We all know we cannot afford to wait. The President realizes that and, for that reason, has held out an open invitation for Republican leadership to join with Democratic leadership and this White House to build on the record of the last 4 years, to take that $130 billion down to zero, and to do it now. We can do it. We need to do it. But if that is going to happen, we must, in a bipartisan way, come together, resolve our differences, and put this country on the track to ultimate success. Not only are we not negotiating, Mr. President, not only may we miss that opportunity to balance the budget, but the very same threats that we faced in the early eighties are back with us again. I can hear them now. The political rhetoric is there. The same threats to the budget are as evident now as they were back then, 15 years ago. In the 1980's, proposals for dramatic increases in star wars spending and dramatic cuts in taxes became more than just political rhetoric. They became reality. We were told we could do all of that without exploding the deficit. I remember how clearly, how persuasively the President at the time indicated that it indeed was possible. Well, now the reality is here. We are faced with the consequences. And $5 trillion in debt later, some of us have learned, as we should have known back then, that if we follow that path, it will not be $5 trillion in debt. Heavens knows, it could go $10, $15, or $20 trillion. How ironic that similar proposals to those that created massive deficits in the 1980's are now again dominating the Republican rhetoric--the $60 billion Defend America Act, and tax cuts ranging from $600 billion to $700 billion. The supply-side experiments of 1981 that created massive deficits are once again the centerpiece of the Republican agenda. To contend with such budget-busting proposals while debating the balanced budget amendment makes one wonder if we are facing historical blindness or gross hypocrisy. So let us recognize, if their fiscally irresponsible proposals come to fruition, we will be right back here all over again with yet more need for courageous action, to take this into our hands and to resolve it once and for all. We cannot afford that kind of rhetoric. We cannot afford those starry- eyed proposals if we are serious about accomplishing what we are debating today, balancing the budget. Mr. President, having the realization that indeed building upon our 4-year record of deficit reduction is so important, it still begs the question, is an amendment necessary? Do we see it in our long-term best interests to amend the Constitution, to recognize that somewhere on this list may be an amendment that warrants our support? My answer to that question is yes. Beyond building upon the record that we have achieved, beyond the courageous work we have already done, my view is if the amendment is written properly, I support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. In fact, I voted for such a properly crafted amendment last year during the previous debate on the balanced budget amendment, and I hope to vote for it again today. But we must also realize that once it is part of the Constitution, there is no going back. We are not likely to change a clause or a phrase next year or the year after. That is not going to happen. Many Senate Democrats have offered a proposal which, in our view, does it right. Our alternative recognizes very important principles of constitutional law, but also recognizes the commitments on Social Security that we have made in statute and to the American people for generations. Doing it right in this case recognizes the importance of protecting Social Security. Our amendment, which has been introduced this year by the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, proposes a firewall between Social Security and the rest of the budget. It is identical to an amendment crafted last year by the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, and the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid. Were it to be considered today, more than enough Senators would support it in order for it to pass. In 1990, Mr. President, we made ourselves very clear on this issue by a vote of 98 to 2. This body voted for an amendment by Senator Hollings to take Social Security off budget. Why did we do that? We did it because we realized that Social Security has become a sacred trust; that that trust fund is going to be drawn down in the not too distant future, and we are going to need every dollar of it. We recognize that. So we said we are going to build a firewall. We are going to make absolutely certain that when we need that money, it is going to there. The program is financed by dedicated payroll taxes that were not to be raided to pay for general Government expenditures. Mr. President, the pending version of the constitutional amendment breaks that promise. It breaks it. According to CBO's December baseline, the pending amendment anticipates using $603 billion in Social Security trust fund dollars over the next 7 years to reach balance. This year alone, it anticipates $71 billion borrowed from the trust fund. In the year 2002, as we proclaim a balanced budget, the fact remains that there will be $103 billion anticipated in Social Security trust fund surpluses that will be counted toward that balance, so we will actually be $103 billion in debt to future retirees. So, Mr. President, we are violating public trust, and, in my view, we are actually overturning the law laid out on a 98 to 2 vote on the amendment passed in the Senate offered by Senator Hollings. This means continued reliance on payroll taxes to fund the Government, as well. Social Security, as everyone knows, is funded by a 12.4-percent payroll tax. It only applies to the first $62,700 of income. As a result, this tax can be seen as regressive since it falls heavily on lower- and middle-income taxpayers. In fact, 58 percent of our taxpayers pay more in payroll tax than they do in income tax. We cannot allow funding of our Government by these working people, and we cannot allow the continued abuse of the Social Security payroll taxes. We should not fund the Government in large measure by a payroll tax which is regressive, the revenues from which are intended to be set aside in the Social Security trust funds for the needs of all beneficiaries. Mr. President, we have a choice this morning. We have a real choice. We have the opportunity to build on the record of the last 4 years, to resolve to deal directly with our differences on budget priorities, and to build a balanced budget agreement in a way that will achieve a balanced budget by 2002. We can do that. We also have an opportunity to build the next step, to pass an amendment that allows us to do it right, to pass an amendment that maintains a firewall between Social Security and the rest of the budget. The Constitution must recognize the critical, absolute dependence that we will have on Social Security trust funds in the future, and must recognize the meaning of a real balanced budget without the use of Social Security trust funds. It must recognize, too, our appreciation of the trust [[Page S5900]] of the American people. That is our choice. We can do it right or, once again, we can violate that trust. We can do it in a way that I believe undermines the credibility of this Constitution and what it was meant to do when our Founding Fathers wrote it 200 years ago. We are not going to pass 83 constitutional amendments. We should not pass even one if it is not written correctly. We have the opportunity this morning, Mr. President, to approve an amendment that is properly crafted. The Senator from Oregon will seek unanimous consent that the Senate today vote upon his thoughtful alternative that accomplishes all of the goals of the amendment before us, without enshrining abuse of the Social Security trust funds in the Constitution. I now yield to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon. Mr. WYDEN (D). Mr. President, I thank the minority leader for yielding me this time. I take this time to say that I think this is an historic opportunity for the Senate to get this job done right, to get this job done on a bipartisan basis. I do not think anyone doubts how this vote on the majority leader's proposal is going to turn out, today. I believe we could have an alternative ending, however, that would benefit the American people, that would ensure that we get real fiscal discipline, and at the same time provide long-term security for generations of Americans to come. That is why I am hopeful that today we will have an opportunity to vote on a measure that is identical to that offered by the majority leader save for one difference. The alternative constitutional amendment to balance the budget would simply bar the use of the Social Security surplus or Social Security taxes for balancing the Federal budget. Mr. President, and colleagues, it is clear that both political parties--let me emphasize--both political parties have in the past used that Social Security surplus to mask the overall Federal deficit. I think that has to end. I think that the amendment, the alternative described today, would give us an opportunity on a bipartisan basis to tackle this issue responsibly and end it once and for all. It is time to close this road show and give the people what they want. Our proposal would provide that opportunity. Some of my colleagues apparently believe that you cannot balance the Federal budget without cooking the books. They have been trying to highlight various kinds of defects that they allege exist in our measure. I do not think the American people benefit from all of this. I do not think that the country benefits from this. The country benefits from an approach that forces both political parties to keep straight books, to get rid of the accounting fiction, and to make the tough calls with respect to both the Federal budget and the Social Security program. Therefore, Mr. President, I rise now to ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote on House Joint Resolution 1, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 54, a balanced budget constitutional amendment that protects Social Security, and that the joint resolution be read a third time, and at the end of that the Senate proceed without any intervening action or debate on passage of that joint resolution. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. NICKLES (R). Mr. President, I object--at least I reserve the right to object. I will make a comment to my friend and colleague from Oregon. Let me ask a question. The essence of the unanimous-consent request is that he wants to have placed before the Senate by unanimous consent a constitutional amendment to balance the budget with an exception saying we are not going to count Social Security--Social Security taxes do not count, Social Security spending does not count, Social Security balances do not count--and the Senator wants to have that placed before the Senate without amendment, without discussion, and for a vote. Is that correct? Mr. WYDEN. If the Senator will yield, the Senate prior to my coming here has debated and voted on this proposition, last year. In fact, in 1995, there were more than 80 votes on a motion asking the Budget Committee to refashion the leader's amendment to include Social Security protection. This is not a new issue to the U.S. Senate. More than 80 Members of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, have voted for the alternative that I would like to offer in the form of a constitutional amendment, today. Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am not sure I got an answer, but I think I was correct in stating that the Senator's request--he would like to offer that. I object. I object on the grounds--because Social Security taxes are taxes. Social Security outlays are spending. Constitutionality, in my opinion, should not be confused by what I would say is maybe an attempt to obstruct or maybe give political coverage for people who are not supporting a real constitutional amendment which says all revenues and all expenditures, and you cannot spend more than is received. I object. I respectfully object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 1 minute remaining. Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will only say that the Senate on a bipartisan basis is formally on record with more than 80 Senators in support of this proposition. We have a choice, as the minority leader has said. We can let this go down once more or we can have a vote on a proposal that I offer to my colleagues that will impose real fiscal discipline and at the same time assure that Social Security is protected for both workers and retirees in the days ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH (R) addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. President, we have never had a balanced budget amendment up where 80 percent of the Senators voted for this type of amendment. At the last minute to have an amendment like that literally creates a complete dislocation in the whole budget process. It would be highly unusual and we believe improper. Mr. WARNER (R) addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have participated before in these amendments, and have supported them throughout my career in the Senate. A balanced budget is essential for the United States. And each time I go back and bring to the attention of the Senate a resolution--this one is Senate Resolution 38--by my distinguished former colleague and senior Senator from Virginia, Harry F. Byrd. Each year he would bring before this body, and we would pass, a resolution which said, in effect, Congress shall assure that the total outlays of the Government during any fiscal year do not exceed total receipts for the Government during such fiscal year. That is the essence of a balanced budget. Each year we passed this resolution. Each year it became law. And my distinguished colleague from South Carolina is nodding assent to that fact. And what happened? What Congress does one day it can undo the next, and this resolution became worthless each year. Mr. President, that is why we have to go to the Constitution of the United States to bring about the discipline required to compel the Congress of the United States to have a balanced budget. The laws that we pass--and we did I think eight times pass Senator Byrd's resolution--are undone the next day. So we have no other recourse than to turn to the constitutional amendment and send it to the several States and allow the people all across this Nation to support the concept of amending the Constitution of the United States to bring about fiscal discipline which this body requires. [[Page S5901]] Mr. President today we are on the floor of the U.S. Senate with an opportunity to perform an historical act before the 104th Congress concludes later this year. Today, we are on the verge of ensuring that our Nation will have a balanced budget, free of any sleight of hand, as our majority leader prepares to depart. The Republicans have been working toward this end for years, and we must continue to stay firm on our mission. As we have seen over the past 6 months, America's financial markets are showing their support for the Republican effort toward a balanced budget. If we are successful on this vote today, there will be another strong reaction on Wall Street. Wall Street reflects the views of millions of investors in America's future. It is not only the investors in America's future that are behind us, but also Americans--in every walk of life--throughout this Nation. My phone lines have been busy, and in my State of Virginia, the calls have been overwhelmingly in support of our staying the course and finally balancing our Federal budget. The balanced budget constitutional amendment is supported by 83 percent of Americans, according to a poll published in a recent edition of USA Today. This proposed constitutional amendment, which passed the House by a 300-132 vote in January 1995, will enable all Americans, through their State legislature, to participate in the most important long-term decision facing us today. Anything less than 67 votes would be failure, and an abdication of our responsibilities to those voters who gave this Congress a mandate to clean up our fiscal house. This is not a political issue, although there are those who would make it so. This is for our children, grandchildren and their heirs. When the Senate voted March, 1995, and fell only one vote short, the majority leader said, at that time, that we would have another chance to give the American people what they want. Now is the opportunity for which we have been waiting. This Congress has a remarkable opportunity. We can take action that will benefit generations to come with the balanced budget amendment. It is our mission today, and it will become our legacy tomorrow. When the final balanced budget constitutional amendment is passed, both Republicans and Democrats will have participated in the reaffirmation of the future of America. I am confident that today will prove to be that reaffirmation and I wholeheartedly support this resolution. : : : Mr. DOLE (R) March 2, 1995 was the last time we were all here talking about the balanced budget amendment. It was a very historic vote. We fell one vote short. And so we might reconsider that vote I changed my vote to ``no'' and entered a motion to reconsider. That is what we are now doing. And I might confess that I thought-- when I first thought about bringing this vote up, I thought I had to be here to do that; that when I left, it could not be brought up again. But the Parliamentarian properly advised me that once the motion is entered anybody can call it up. So I can say to my colleagues when I made my resignation statement, I was under some little misapprehension about whether or not we could do this. But in any event, the point is I think it is the appropriate thing to do. There are fundamental differences. I know some are all over the lot on why they cannot vote for this. And some just do not believe it is the right thing to do. I understand that, and I do not question anybody's motives. We have all talked about a balanced budget, and everybody has one in their hip pocket. But we have not passed any. We have passed ours and I believe we voted on the Democrats. The President vetoed a balanced budget--another reason we need an amendment. We are working on a balanced budget through the legislative process now. In fact, I hope we can come to some conclusion on that and get it done before the week is out. There is a lot of talk in politics about children. There should be. They are the future. And what we do here will have a direct impact on children, on their hopes and their aspirations. I think today's vote certainly, talking about children, talking about their future, talking about the opportunities they may have, ties it all together. Just mentioning children does not do much for children. Passing a balanced budget amendment would. We would have a balanced budget. We would see interest rates drop. We would see Government responding not to every special interest group but to the balanced budget amendment where we would have to say, no, we cannot do it. And we would reorder some priorities around here. For all those who make speeches about the children and their future and crime and drugs and all the problems and all the temptations they have, here is an opportunity to stand up for children. I have believed in this for a long time. Back in 1971 I started to talk about a balanced budget amendment. And they are very difficult to put together. You can always find some reason to oppose it--do not include this, do not include that. So we will have this vote. We will lose, but we will have made the statement. That is the important thing. You made the statement. It will be back next year. Mr. President, perhaps no policy is more important to the economic future of all Americans and particularly to the future of our children than a balanced budget. And that's why I believe there may be no more important issue for the U.S. Senate than whether we will finally pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We take a lot of historical votes here in the Senate, but the vote on the balanced budget amendment is one of the most important in decades. It is a question of trust. Of whether we trust the people, of whether we trust the Constitution, of whether we trust the States. And most importantly, it is a question of whether future generations of Americans can put their trust in us. Will we follow the experience of 49 States that are required by law to balance their budgets? Do we trust the people to be able to have the right to ratify this amendment through their State legislatures in the process spelled out by the Constitution? We had 67 votes then to make it a part of the Constitution, as everybody knows, it has to go to the States and be ratified by three- fourths of the States. A lot of us have talked about returning more power to the States, power to the people. Dust off the 10th amendment, which is 28 words in length, which says in effect, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution nor denied to the States belong to the States and to the people. [[Page S5902]] So I have confidence in the people of Ohio, the legislators in Kansas, Mississippi, Virginia, Utah, South Carolina, Oregon, North Dakota, wherever. I have confidence in their judgment. So why not give them an opportunity, those who are closer to the people, to make the judgment. Ultimately, this is a question of our values as a nation. Which do we value more: The fleeting interests of the moment, or our economic futures and destiny. Last year the House of Representatives passed the balanced budget amendment by a vote of 300 to 132--more than the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution. We then had several long weeks of debate here in the Senate before the amendment narrowly failed on a vote of 65 to 35 on March 2, 1995. We will shortly have our final vote on the motion to reconsider House Joint Resolution 1. The vote total may not change much today, but this vote is important to place us all on record with the American people on an issue of supreme importance to all Americans. So in a few minutes we will have one last vote--one last chance--to do what's right, and send the balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. When we debated the constitutional amendment last year, I quoted Thomas Jefferson, who was so concerned about the ability of Democratic Government to control spending, that in 1789 he wrote: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, morally bound to pay them ourselves. Jefferson's fears of 200 years ago are today's tragic reality. In 1994, the Federal Government spent $203 billion in interest on the national debt--more than it spent on education, job training, public works, and child nutrition combined. In 1994, Americans paid an average of $800 per person in taxes just to service interest on the debt--not to pay off the debt or even to reduce the debt just to pay the interest on the debt. Some say deficits don't matter. But the fact is that the Federal budget deficit is like a tax hike on working families, and one that binds future generations of Americans exactly as Jefferson had warned. The deficit drives up interest rates--and not by a little but by a lot. It is a stealth tax that every family with a home, every father and mother with a child in college, every young person who buys a car must pay, and pay, and pay. What does this stealth tax cost in dollars? Over $36,000 on a typical home mortgage. More than $1,400 on an ordinary student loan. Nearly $700 on a typical car loan. I know around this place we sometimes fail to understand there are real people out there waiting for us to make responsible decisions. I had an experience the other morning with the distinguished Senator from Virginia, in Virginia, near Richmond. Because of a lack of $65 per month, this young couple and their young daughter, a baby, could not buy the house they wanted. To us, $65 a month is $65 a month. To them, it was a matter of a home. And since the President vetoed the balanced budget, interest rates have risen about one and a quarter percentage points. So that couple and another young man--we visited his home--he did not get the home he wanted, the one for $119,000. He took the one for $109,000 because of interest rates. So we can make all these great speeches here that we want, but they are real people and they live in the District, they live in our States, where 1 percent of interest rate does make a difference. We simply cannot continue to mortgage America's future If we continue current tax and spending policies, future generations will be saddled with effective tax rates of more than 80 percent. Failure to stem the flow of red ink from Washington amounts to taxation without representation on our children and grandchildren. That's why the question before us today is, as Jefferson said, ``Of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government.'' I don't think the balanced budget amendment is a partisan issue. Many Democrats voted for the amendment last year and we'd certainly like to have a couple more today. It is not a partisan issue. I have said this publicly for a long time. The leader of the balanced budget effort that I have known for a long time is the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, who is leaving the Senate. You could vote either way if you are leaving and not worry about it, but he is sticking with principle. We are not going to change any votes because this is an election year and I happen to be the Republican candidate for President. I respect those on the other side who feel they must reflect the views of the occupant of the White House, the President, on it. We had several Senators who had voted for this before, six, in fact, who switched their votes on March 2, 1995. In fact, we were counting 70-some votes for the amendment. Several Senators who changed their votes last year talked about a Social Security firewall. We tried to reach out to those Senators to ensure that Social Security surpluses can never again be used to mask deficit spending. I believed that, after a suitable phase-in, the Federal budget could be balanced without counting the surpluses in the Social Security trust funds. I still hope that one or two of those six Senators who changed their votes last year can come home again and support the balanced budget amendment as they have in the past. As I said, the question of whether we saddle posterity with our debts does not divide us along partisan lines--some Democrats have been a part of this effort from the beginning. But the balanced budget amendment is a critical test of whether we are willing to be responsible for our debts, and to be, in Jefferson's phrase, ``Morally bound to pay them ourselves.'' And here is where the President has lacked leadership--where it matters most. Unlike his predecessors, he has opposed this amendment. The White House lobbied furiously against it and rounded up enough support to defeat the amendment last year by one vote. But we always can hope. And I am hopeful. If it does not happen today, it will happen maybe later this year. Maybe next year the White House will not lobby against it. Maybe somebody will be there to lobby for it. Maybe we can find the votes, the three or four votes that we need. It is no small accomplishment that almost all of us in this Chamber now agree that the budget should be balanced by the year 2002. That's a big change since last March. It's not just Republicans saying it now, but all of us--from Republicans to blue dog Democrats to the President. That in itself is good news for America. Since we all agree that it should be done by the year 2002, let's pass the amendment that requires that we do it by the year 2002. But talk is not enough. President Clinton had an opportunity to demonstrate serious commitment for a balanced budget by urging his Democratic colleagues to support this amendment. Make no mistake: President Clinton's opposition continues to be the single largest obstacle standing in the way of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that 83 percent of the American public want. The Federal budget has not been balanced since 1969. Since that time, Congress has passed no less than seven different laws containing balanced budget requirements. But despite all the votes, all the speeches, and all the good intentions over the past quarter of a century, the Federal debt has grown each and every year. Last year we passed the first balanced Federal budget in a generation. But President Clinton vetoed it. The record of the past 25 years is frustratingly clear: We simply cannot rely on statutory changes to get the job done. We need the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to guarantee that the job gets done. That's why I first introduced a balanced budget amendment back in 1971. And that's why I know ultimately someday this amendment will pass. Maybe not today. Today those of us who for years have been battling for a balanced budget amendment may feel all too much like that ancient Greek philosopher rolling the heavy rock up the hill just to have it roll back down again. [[Page S5903]] It is like the line-item veto. It was never going to happen, but it did, thanks to Senator McCain and Coats and others on the other side of the aisle. But this issue is the right one for America. And one day the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution will be passed in accordance with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Americans. As for today, at least every American will know exactly where each and every one of us stands on the issue, and every American will know exactly where President Clinton stands on the issue. In a few moments, Mr. President, we will have one last vote on whether we can finally pass the balanced budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification. Remember, no single action here in the U.S. Senate is the end of the line. The final decision about whether or not the balanced budget amendment will go into effect rests with those outside Washington. The Founding Fathers decided to give the ultimate authority over constitutional amendments to those who are closest to the people--the men and women who serve in State houses around the country. Let's trust the States and put our faith in the American people. Let's go through the constitutional process that our Founding Fathers so wisely set up. There's a word for that process. And that word is democracy. Passing the balanced budget amendment is the singlemost important thing we can do to ensure that Nation's economic security and to protect the American dream for our children and grandchildren. In this vote we address the fundamental principles of government, and we should, each of us, consider ourselves bound by Jefferson's admonition to be mindful of posterity, and discharge our moral debt to future generations of Americans. =============================================================================== Copyright June 1996 Congressional Observer Publications, David H. Miller 1750 Sulphur Springs Road, Corvallis, OR 97330 Phone: 541-745-7440 Email Address: cop@proaxis.com Web Address: http://www.proaxis.com/~cop Reproduction in any manner is prohibited. Educators should obtain education use permision. Contact C.O.P. for information on obtaining Votes directly. Return to C.O.P. Main Menu
Reproduction in any manner is prohibited. Educators should obtain education
use permission. Contact C.O.P. for information on obtaining Votes directly
Published by Congressional Observer Publications
Send feedback to cop@proaxis.com
Brought to you on Pro-Axis