Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this debate has now continued for more than a month. There have been many conflicting statements and some misunderstandings, but no one should misinterpret this vote. It is not a vote on balancing the budget or reducing the deficit. Democrats have been committed to that for a long time, and our record is very, very clear. We demonstrated that in 1990 on a very tough vote. And, without any help from Republicans, we again demonstrated that in 1993; $600 billion of deficit reduction later, we find ourselves here this afternoon. We are prepared to continue that commitment for as long as it takes to put this debt behind us for good. So no one should be misled by the political rhetoric about our position. We will do what we have already done. We will work to bring down the debt with or without a constitutional amendment. This debate really should not even have to be about the need for a constitutional amendment. By my count, there are over 70 Senators who favor one. More than two-thirds of this body favor writing a balanced budget requirement into the U.S. Constitution, and I am one of them. What this debate is all about is what that amendment should say. And what our Republican colleagues have said is that it has to be this version, this amendment, or no amendment at all. That is what this debate has been about. Can we improve upon this amendment? Can we make sure that it is our best effort? We have made a number of suggestions that, in our view, would have vastly improved the language that we are about to vote on today. We proposed that we lay out just how we achieve our goal before we begin doing so, as any other undertaking of this importance and magnitude would require. The majority said, ``No, we'll do that later. Trust us. Somehow it will all work out.'' We proposed changes that deal with national emergencies. The majority said, ``No, we'll do that later.'' We proposed changes to put the Federal Government on the same level as other governments as we make important budgetary decisions. The majority said, ``No. We'll probably have to do that later.'' We proposed changes to give the Federal Government the ability to deal with recessions. The majority said, ``No.'' Most importantly, we proposed that Social Security not be used to pay off the debt. We have argued that we have not solved anything if we create one debt to erase another. If we go further into debt to senior citizens, even more than we have already, to bring down the debt to all taxpayers, then what have we accomplished? And, more importantly, perhaps, what have we lost? I believe we will have lost our credibility. We will have lost our commitment to working people who are counting on us this afternoon. We will have lost our only real hope of balancing the budget correctly. So let me make it very clear. The vast majority of Democrats support a balanced budget. Many support a constitutional amendment to require one. But virtually no Democrat supports so. It is wrong. We all know it is wrong. Republicans know it, and Democrats know it. Originally, Republicans said it was wrong, but they just did not want to put it in writing. They wanted the certainty of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but they were unwilling to provide the same constitutional certainty for Social Security. Given that unwillingness, a significant number of my colleagues were left with no choice. In spite of our best efforts to find a provision that Republicans could accept, we were left with no choice but to vote against this version of an amendment. So this was their choice. This amendment could have passed by more than 70 votes. All we ask is that we not rob the bank to pay the debt; that we not take Social Security funds away to do something that we know we must do. Too many people have put too much money into the bank for anyone to do that now. That has been our message--protect current and future Americans who are dependent upon Social Security, and we will find the votes to pass this amendment. We will do it today. The Republicans said, ``No. No, it is this amendment or no amendment at all.'' Already there is talk about using this amendment for political purposes. Frankly, I am disappointed to hear that. It makes me wonder whether this was just another political ploy, another bumper sticker creation, courtesy of the Republican National Committee, or something real, something which merits being added to the Constitution of the United States. If it is politics--as I suspect this threat to bring the amendment back right before the next election may be--then I say, let us do it, let us have it out then, too. The one thing the American people really understand when they see it is politics. And they do not like it, not when it comes to amending our Constitution, not when it is something this important. And they will not want to see us rob Social Security then any more than they do right now. So, Mr. President, let me emphasize, let me make sure no one misunderstands, Democrats want to work to find a meaningful way to reduce the deficit. We all understand the critical nature of this vote, no matter how many times we will be called upon to cast it. We stand ready to work to reduce the debt to zero, just as we have already done. We have done it before. We will do it again. But we also stand ready to keep our commitments to all working Americans. We will do that today, too, and we will do it again. As we cast our vote, future generations are counting upon all of us to do no less. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday, in a speech before the Nixon Center For Peace and Freedom's policy conference held here in Washington, President Clinton spoke eloquently about America's leadership role in the post-cold war era and the importance of America remaining engaged in world affairs. The President placed particular and appropriate emphasis on the need to continue to make strong efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. The President's remarks regarding his concerns over the new isolationism creeping into the debate over American foreign policy and the outline of his ambitious agenda to reduce the international nuclear threat are especially significant for members of the Senate. In the coming weeks we will be beginning debate on major foreign policy issues and may vote this year on ratification of the START II treaty as well as consider the Chemical Weapons Convention. As President Clinton has rightly pointed out, American leadership is vital to continued international efforts to promote peace and reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. Since the days when President Truman began American efforts to curtail the threat of nuclear war, every American President has worked to reduce that threat to world peace. President Clinton has sought to advance that goal and exploit the additional possibilities for peace and prosperity provided by the end of the cold war. There have been some notable successes. For the first time in a generation, no Russian missiles are targeted on American cities. Under the START I treaty negotiated by President Bush and placed into force by President Clinton, the United States and Russia are dismantling thousands of nuclear weapons. Former Soviet republics that were potential nuclear powers have now pledged to rid their countries of nuclear weapons. This year President Clinton has started a vigorous program to reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. He has called for an indefinite world-wide extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And he has urged the Senate to quickly ratify the START II treaty, and the Chemical Weapons Convention to ban poison gas. He has promised to push for conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to fight for a global ban on the production of nuclear material for weapons. The President's efforts to keep America engaged as the world's leader in the pursuit of peace and in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons are of vital importance to the national security of the United States and deserve the support of every American. I commend his remarks to my colleagues' attention, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a number of people have spoken, and I know others are waiting to speak. I do not want to be long. Let me just say what I have said on several occasions, that we owe the American people our best effort. Before this amendment was to go out to be voted upon by the American people, we owed it our best effort. The amendment that was pending prior to the last vote is not our best effort. Accordingly, the Senate has acted wisely in refusing to endorse this particular proposal to amend our Constitution. Those who stood against it did so for good reasons. Supporters refused to guarantee that Social Security would be protected. The prospects for this amendment were entirely in the hands of the majority. It was their choice. Until 2 days ago, Senators were asked to bet on the chance that a new and different Senate 7 years from now would honor promises made by Members of this Senate. Two days ago, for the first time, the majority conceded that they indeed intend to do exactly what we and seniors feared--use the Social Security trust funds to balance the budget. In a last-minute attempt to secure one more vote for this proposal, they offered to stop raiding the trust funds in 2012. The offer was later modified to 2010 and, finally, to 2008. They missed the point. Those of us fighting to protect Social Security believe the retirement funds Americans have paid into the Social Security trust funds should be left untouched, period. Every American who has paid into the system has a right to expect those funds to stay there and be available to them when it is their turn to collect them. For the majority to agree to stop using those funds to buy down the debt after virtually all those funds are gone reflects a cynicism that is solely disappointing. As the Senator from north Dakota has stated so well, balancing the budget by depleting the Social Security trust funds is not balancing the budget at all. During this debate, 43 motions and amendments were offered, many of which would have substantially improved the proposals. Forty-two were rejected, essentially along partisan lines. We offered language to guarantee the future of the Social Security System. Several Democratic Senators stated explicitly they would support the amendment if Social Security were protected. We offered language to protect against unconstitutional Presidential impoundments; language to give States language to protect veterans' health and pension benefits; language to preserve our ability to respond to economic and national security emergencies. All of those proposals were rejected. This is no ordinary debate because it is our Constitution we are being asked to amend. When the stakes are so high, the substance so serious, the proposed changes well-tested, the out-of-hand rejection of those amendments is extremely disappointing. That is the reason the amendment failed. Finally, supporters of this amendment refused, for the full 4 weeks that it has been debated, to come forward and offer any realistic outline of a plan by which a balanced budget could be credibly produced in 2002. Yet, outside this Chamber, supporters of the balanced budget amendment have been willing to say that passing the balanced budget amendment will not balance the budget at all. That is right. It will not. Recently, when he was asked whether the Congress would approve the balanced budget amendment, Speaker Gingrich said, ``For as long as I'm allowed to serve as Speaker, whether we do or not, the House will make decisions based on achieving a balanced budget in 2002 with or without the balanced budget amendment.'' The majority leader restated his intention to do that today. The Speaker's words reflect the fact that the ability to balance or unbalance the budget remains unchanged: it is in the hands of the majority in the Congress. Indeed, a failure to act as he has promised will serve to confirm that the purpose of this debate was to create a rationale for not moving to balance the budget any time soon; that the debate's purpose was to be able to say, we're waiting for the States to ratify. One month from today, on April 1, the Budget Committee is required by law to report a budget resolution to the Senate. Two weeks later, by April 15, the Congress is required, by law, to give final approval to a budget resolution for the coming year. In 44 days, Congress must have debated, conferenced, and given final approval to a budget for fiscal year 1996. That is an obligation of this Congress, not the 107th. That is a responsibility for all of us serving now, not people who will serve in the year 2002. It is what our job is this year, not some other person's job in some future time. Nothing has changed the magnitude of the job ahead of us. I have said consistently since the beginning of this debate and the beginning of this session that it is our desire to work cooperatively, particularly in getting the deficit under control. The Republican majority is in control of the Congress. I hope the Republican majority will adhere to the time requirements of the Budget Act, which are a matter of law. The budget resolution must be written, and action completed soon. Committees need to know their authorized allocations for programs. We should be getting down to work on the budget now, because we do not have much time. We have 44 days. The budget is not going to be balanced in 2002 unless the responsible people in 1995 start to focus on their share of the work. It is time we stopped worrying about the responsibilities of future Congresses and started to discharge the responsibilities that belong to each of us as Members of this Congress this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have had 4 weeks of hard-fought and very earnest debate. The issues are serious and the stakes are high. We are proposing to amend our Constitution for only the 28th time now in more than two centuries. The debate has been vigorous. Virtually every Senator has spoken from virtually every perspective. Persuasive arguments have been made by both Democratic and Republican Senators, and I respect the positions which my colleagues have adopted even in those cases where I do not share their position. I recognize that each Senator has reached his or her position with thought and care and the best of motives. There is something upon which we all agree, and upon which we have agreed since the debate began; that is, the underlying need to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. We need to put the budget on a glidepath to balance, and we are agreed that for the sake of working families and the future economic strength of the Nation we must move toward a balanced budget. One thing we should all agree upon is that regardless of the outcome of the final vote, we will work together to develop a deficit-reduction package that will put the budget on a glidepath to balance. I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to achieve that goal. Now, the question is how best to continue the effort that we have begun throughout this decade, an effort begun in 1991 with a significant deficit reduction proposal, and again in 1993 with $600 billion of additional deficit reduction. The question is can we achieve what we all say we want with the balanced budget proposal before us? The question is how best to achieve a balanced budget using the methods that we have available to us. And where we differ is whether the amendment that is now pending reflects our best effort to amend the Constitution and achieve our goal of a balanced Federal budget. Amending the Constitution is not a frivolous undertaking. We will not be able to come back next year and fix our drafting mistakes. Many of us have concluded, regretfully, that this is not our best effort. In fact, in our view, our best efforts were rejected. To strengthen the amendment, we offered amendments, but they were defeated essentially along partisan lines, amendments that we felt ought to have been considered more carefully by our colleagues on the other side, amendments like the right-to-know proposal which if, indeed, we are serious about reaching our goal in a short period of time. In a matter of 7 years, we proclaim today, if we pass this amendment, we will have a balanced Federal budget. But we all recognize privately that, unless we have a blueprint, we simply cannot achieve that goal in any meaningful way without using smoke and mirrors, without a blueprint. The American people have stated very clearly their desire to see a blueprint, and indeed that is what we tried to offer as we considered this amendment many weeks ago. Some of us suggested that we provide for a capital budget so the Federal budget would work like the budgets of virtually every business, every State, every family in this country. We wanted to preserve the ability to respond to national security or economic emergencies, something that we have attempted to address in amendments as well. We tried to protect against unconstitutional Presidential impoundments and preserve the integrity of Congress' power of the purse. We tried to protect veterans' health programs and pensions. Finally, we tried to protect Social Security, to make certain that all those commitments we made verbally on the Senate floor and in the media about protecting Social Security would in fact be kept when the amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution. On Social Security alone we had a number of different votes, different ways to make certain that the solemn commitment to protect the money in the trust fund would not be broken by a future Congress. We ran into a stone wall and, as a result, Social Security, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is legally and realistically available for cuts. We know that. And the Social Security trust funds are completely vulnerable to being raided. Those who support the idea of a balanced budget amendment worked to improve this proposal so that it would be balanced and that we could in conscience vote for it without relying upon those trust funds for the next 7 years. But those efforts, too, were rejected. We are still committed to balancing the budget. As supporters of this proposal have told television reporters outside the Senate Chamber, passage in this Chamber will not bring the budget one penny closer to real balance. Only we can do that. There is no machine that ultimately is incorporated in this Constitution that will force us to do what we are unable to do today. That is up to us. It is important that we understand that. It is we who must take that responsibility and no one else. Some will attempt to characterize a vote against this flawed amendment as a vote against balancing the budget, but that is not what this vote is about. As I said, we all agree on the importance of balancing the budget. But this amendment simply does not do the job. For the past month the Republican majority has been trying to pass their balanced budget amendment and claim a political victory. They have refused to listen to those of us who support an amendment but have had concerns about the language, rejecting our proposals time after time after time. They have refused to listen to the people of this country who have a right to know about how we are going to balance the budget. And, most important, they have refused to join us as we insist on real protection for Social Security, putting their political contract ahead of a solemn contract with the American people. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object. minority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I only object so as to respond, if I could, using the remainder of my leader time. How much time do I have available?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President let me respond to the distinguished minority leader. I do not know that I have learned all the rules of this place as well as he has, but I thought that a deal was a deal. I thought in good faith that when we negotiated an agreement which required unanimous consent that a deal was a deal and that our word was our bond. The word that I was given over a week ago was that we would have a vote last night. The vote was not going to be if we had so many votes we keep the deal. The vote was we are going to keep our deal. We will have a vote, and that will be the end of it. I recognize the right of any Senator to change his vote and make a motion to reconsider. That is always within the prerogative of any Senator. And the majority leader is certainly within his rights to do that. But to say today that we are going to change the rules and that we are going to nullify an agreement that we had in good faith last week makes me wonder whether or not we will ever get another agreement during this Congress. It makes me wonder whether in good faith we can negotiate and come to some arrangement with regard to the consideration of any bill in the future. So this portends some very serious ramifications, and I hope that we all recognize it. I thought we had a deal. I thought we had an agreement. I thought we were going to go to a vote. If we are not going to go to a vote, if we are going to delay that vote and bring it up some other time, I think it is imperative that we have the notice of the majority leader in advance so all Members can be forewarned. But I must say that I am deeply disappointed and that this kind of instant rulemaking is unacceptable. I yield the floor and reserve my right to consider the proposal by the majority leader again.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would ask that I use part of the leader time accorded to me this morning to make a statement as if in morning business.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I was anticipating others who may ask for time, but if there is no other request for time, I yield it back.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, this has been a good debate. It has been a long and historic debate. But it has not been a debate about a balanced budget. No one supports the current debt or deficit. Every Senator believes, as I believe, that deficit spending must end. We heard the figures. We have debated how we got to this point. We have noted all of our efforts so far. I have not heard anyone argue for doing nothing. The debate has been about how we achieve what we all say we want, and over what time period, and whether or not to accomplish what we say we all want, we amend the Constitution for the 28th time. During this debate, we have heard many who have argued eloquently that there is no purpose in amending the Constitution for this reason. Our colleague, the senior Senator from New York, emphasizes over and over again that while 1 machine can do the work of 100 men and women, no machine can replace the need to take fundamental responsibility. No provision in the Constitution can create a formula for automatic deficit reduction. Nothing we do here will embolden Senators to make decisions which we are otherwise unable to make for ourselves. This debate has also underscored the role the Federal Government plays within our economy. No one can deny that fiscal policy has moderated the extraordinary consequences of a deep recession. This countercyclical strategy employed since World War II has had profoundly positive consequences for the economy during our lifetimes. We have seen them. We have seen the charts. We have seen all of the arguments made on the other side, and nothing will dissuade me that the fiscal policy initiated since World War II has had the desired result. Many who will vote no today will do so out of legitimate fear that our ability to counter economic downturns will be severely jeopardized--severely jeopardized--with the passage of this amendment. There are also many who believe that fiscal policy should never be written into the Constitution because it does not belong there. They have argued that, like the thousands of other amendments proposed in 200 years, this, too, should be defeated. Many Members have listened to the logic of many of these arguments and appreciate each and every one. Many Members have also decided that the time has come for a balanced budget amendment--that the question of a constitutional amendment is before Members for a good reason. But we also question the wisdom of the amendment that is now presented to the Senate, and we are deeply troubled by the attitude of many of our Republican colleagues that we take this amendment or there will be no amendment at all. We are troubled, really, for three reasons: First, it is our belief that this ought to be our very best effort. We cannot come back later as we can with statutes. We cannot come back later and say, if we could only change that phrase or that paragraph or even that word. That is not something we can do with the Constitution. We will have to admit that we made mistakes in drafting, and, if we have, we will have to live with them for all time. This is going to be with us a long, long time. Even the prohibition amendment was with us for 13 years, long after we came to the conclusion that it, too, was a mistake. Second, this debate has been politicized, unfortunately. The RNC has used this debate as a membership drive. In fact, in my State of South Dakota, they are interrupting ads with programs, there are so many these days. The practical ramifications of this amendment, as well, as currently drafted, are profound, and we ought to realize that. We ought to understand the ramifications of this particular language, regardless of how we view the constitutional amendment itself. Let Members look at this language. Let Members examine this draft, and let each and every one ask, are we prepared, tonight, to put it into the United States Constitution? This amendment could pass by 70 votes, yet it will fail perhaps by two tonight. Why? Not because two-thirds of a majority opposes the concept of a balanced budget amendment--I am sure that two-thirds and more support it--but because some of us have a grave concern about the specific draft our Republican colleagues tonight insist upon, a draft which is filled with promise but devoid of details. That was the reason I offered, many weeks ago, the Right to Know amendment requiring that we spell out the details, insisting that we know how we get from here to there, recognizing the importance of a blueprint, of a glidepath, knowing that, as you cannot build a house without a blueprint, you cannot balance the budget without one, either. Today the chairman of the Finance Committee indicated that Medicare and Medicaid may be cut by $400 billion over the course of the next several years. This is a detail that happens to be very important, that we recognize may be part of the mix. If we are not willing to spell it out, if we are not willing to put on paper the details, then, indeed, I think we are asking for a pig in the poke, and we are asking for it in the U.S. Constitution. The Republicans promise, even though they are unwilling to spell it out, to leave Social Security untouched. But while they argue we need to put a balanced budget requirement into the Constitution for purposes of certainty, they are unwilling to do so for Social Security. Without the promise in writing, we cannot require future Congresses to comply with our expectations. I will predict tonight, if this amendment passes, that the Social Security trust fund will be used, and that is wrong. The American people oppose it. We have made a commitment to them now for over 60 years. We compound the deficit reduction problem, and we mask the size of the deficit, but we invite the cynicism of the American people all over again. If we are prepared to reduce the deficit using Social Security trust funds, what confidence should they have in us with any future decision, after we have made the commitment that has stood for this long? In my view, the amendment is also especially lacking when it comes to enforcement and the role of the courts. Something this important should not be unresolved. In spite of the best efforts of the senior Senator from Georgia, as written, it is very likely we will see a constitutional crisis as Congress and the courts face off on the very question of jurisdiction in the years ahead. It is also unfortunate that the Federal Government cannot be allowed to function budgetarily like virtually everyone else does. We should not treat investment and operating costs alike, and yet that is exactly what we will require as a result of the actions taken in this body now for the last several weeks. No one does that at any level of Government, no one does that in business, no one does that in their family budgeting. We should not do it either. And yet tonight, by the action taken on this amendment, we will be, if indeed the amendment passes, requiring the Federal Government to do something no one else does. Madam President, the bottom line, regardless of whether we are talking about Social Security, a capital budget, the right to know, enforcement, or any one of a number of the issues that we have raised for the last several weeks, the bottom line is this: We can do better. This is not the best we can do. This is a shoot-now-ask-later approach, and we will regret it. That could destroy the very fabric upon which this Nation was built. And I hope--I just hope--that we all come to the realization of what the stakes are as we cast our vote tonight. It is, as others have said, one of the most critical votes we will cast, a vote which could change not only the budget but the economy and the perception of the very Constitution itself. Let us take care to do it right. Let us defeat this amendment and go back to the drawing counting upon us tonight to do just that. I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad]. (Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators who have expressed concerns about a voice vote on this amendment. Given the fact that it has been the subject of debate and people are on record on this amendment during the course of the last several weeks of debate, I suggest that we have a rollcall, just to provide Senators the opportunity to express themselves on this amendment. request. I urge we do that. At this time I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his eloquent remarks just now and identify with them. The Senator from North Dakota commented about the Contract With America and its ramifications on school children. What I think some of our colleagues forget is that we have had a contract in this country for a long time with our school children. At the heart of that contract is an understanding about the important role that nutrition plays in educating children today. Our contract with school children grew out of our experience in World War II, when large numbers of young men were unable to serve in the military because of nutrition-related childhood illnesses. At the same time, many children were coming to school malnourished, and because of that, they were unable to learn; and because they were unable to learn, they were unable to become productive citizens. So even back in the 1940's, Americans recognized the direct relationship between nutrition and healthy development and learning. We also recognized that what happens in the lunchroom affects what happens in the classroom. In 1946 President Truman signed the National School Lunch Act--not as a matter of charity but as a matter of national security. What an cruel irony it would be, Mr. President, if in order to prevent our children from inheriting a huge debt tomorrow, we would take away their meals today. Yet that is exactly what some of our colleagues would now have us do. We cannot allow that to happen. Either way, whether we saddle our children with debt tomorrow or rob them of their lunch today, we are jeopardizing their future, and that is wrong. Let us learn from history. The strength of our Nation is not measured only by armaments. It is also measured by the health and education of our children. Talk to the teachers who teach our children. Talk to the men and women who run the school cafeterias and make their lunches. Talk to the parents who depend on those lunches to make sure their children are adequately nourished. They will tell you. The reality is that a lot of kids, even today, come to school hungry. The reality is that many of them don't get enough to eat at home and, if it weren't for the School Lunch Program, they would be too malnourished to learn. So, Mr. President, this goes beyond simply a matter of nutrition. If we deprive children of a balanced meal, we risk depriving them of their ability to learn and become productive citizens. What a terrible mistake it would be if, in our attempts to reduce the national debt, we increased our nutritional debt to our children. What a terrible mistake it would be if, in attempting to brighten our future, we forgot our past. We understood in Harry Truman's time the critical role nutrition plays in children's physical and intellectual development. For nearly 50 years, we have acknowledged the direct link between nutrition and education, and between education and the ability to be productive citizens. When Americans think about cutting government and redtape, taking food out of the mouths of children is not what they have in mind. This is a provision of the Contract With America, Mr. President, that I hope will be short-lived. It denigrates the commitment we have made to children, to their education and to their future. As the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has indicated, I hope that we will recognize the fallacies of this shortsighted proposal and retain in this Congress and in Congresses to come a genuine commitment to America's children and their well-being. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and thank him for the leadership he has exhibited on this issue. I rise in support of his amendment and urge my colleagues to support it when it comes up for a vote later this evening. Mr. President, earlier in this debate on the balanced budget amendment, I offered a proposal called the right-to-know amendment. That measure would have required Congress to spell out how it would get to a balanced budget before sending the amendment to the States for ratification. I offered my proposal so that the American people would understand the kinds of cuts in Federal spending that will be needed to zero out the deficit. But the Republican majority rejected my proposal. In doing so, they indicated that everything except Social Security would be on the table. Let us be clear: Everything except Social Security includes the benefits that are paid to veterans who were disabled as a result of their military service. There are currently 2.2 million American veterans with service- connected disabilities. They are men and women from all walks of life with all kinds of injuries. But they all have one thing in common--they were injured while serving our Nation in the Armed Forces. When they joined the service, they made a simple pact with the Federal Government. Their part of the bargain was to defend this Nation and protect its national interests. In return, the Government promised to care for them should they be injured during their military service-- or for their survivors should they be killed. This commitment to our veterans is one which our Nation must uphold. It is a commitment that we have upheld for decades. It is a commitment that goes back virtually to the very foundation of this country. And we have renewed this commitment after each conflict, to each new group of veterans. This commitment has withstood the test of time, and it has withstood the many forces that have sought to erode our firm promise to those who have defended this Nation so gallantly on so many occasions throughout our history. The amendment offered by my friend Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, is simple and straightforward. It says that Congress cannot cut the order to balance the budget. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that this amendment is not necessary. They will say that Congress would never cut these benefits, and indeed I hope that is true. But I say to the American people--and to our veterans--how can we be so sure? How can we be sure that these benefits will be protected if we do not spell it out in the amendment itself? How can we be sure if we are not willing to put our intentions in writing? The only way we can be sure is if we are willing to put in writing, in the amendment itself, our determination to protect service-connected veterans from the budget axe. We must spell out that we will honor the commitment we made to the men and women who risked and gave their lives for this Nation. The disability compensation payments and the health care we provide to these veterans can never make them whole again. But it can help take care of them in their time of need, just as they answered the call when this Nation needed them. Veterans should not be asked to give up the benefits they so rightly deserve in the name of deficit reduction. They have sacrificed enough for this Nation already. I certainly hope that my colleagues will appreciate this commitment to our veterans and will agree to put into writing what we all say we want: protection for disabled veterans at a time when they need it the most. We need to support the Rockfeller amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That would be my expectation, that I will yield 6 minutes I have available on the cloture vote to the Senator from Alabama to speak on an issue of his choosing.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at 10:30, in less than 25 minutes, there will be a vote on the majority leader's cloture motion. I want to take a couple of minutes to comment on that prior to the time we vote. I regret we have to take a vote at this time. I believe, frankly, as I said the other day, it is unnecessary. I am concerned that it sends the wrong message to the American people about how seriously we consider the process of amending the U.S. Constitution. The implicit suggestion behind the motion is that shutting off debate on this very serious and complicated issue is necessary because Democratic Senators are filibustering the balanced budget amendment and obstructing the debate, when the truth is just the opposite. There is no filibuster here. There have been very few quorum calls over the last several days. The Senate floor has been busy, virtually every minute. Senators have been on the floor. They have been here offering amendments, debating the issues. They have been busy doing exactly what we are all elected to do, to consider carefully some of the most far- reaching issues that they and the American people face. Democratic Senators have not employed dilatory tactics. To the contrary, we have offered legitimate and very serious amendments that ought to be given serious consideration by all Senators--several amendments that, in my view, as I said just a moment ago, would have made this particular balanced budget amendment much stronger. Unfortunately, the obstruction has come from the other side. Every Democratic amendment has been tabled--virtually along party lines. Anyone who has been on or watched this debate over the last several days knows very well that the substance of these amendments has been seemingly of little concern. They have been tabled, not because of their content, but simply because they were offered. This issue is far too serious to simply step aside and avoid the stampede. Amending the Constitution is just about the most serious step the Congress and States can take. It should not be taken lightly. And it should reflect the most thoughtful and inclusive debate that we have to offer. It should reflect the best ideas we have to offer. A vote to cut off this debate artificially is a vote to obstruct that thoughtful and inclusive process. It is premature, it is unnecessary, and, under these circumstances, I view it as a disservice to the American people. It is also a direct threat to the rights of all Democratic Senators, each of whom have a right to offer amendments. As I said, there have been virtually no quorum calls; virtually every amendment has been relevant. In recent days nearly every Democratic Senator has agreed to a time limit on the debate on his or her amendment. And these have been important amendments. We debated, as we again talked this morning, about the right to know, and spelling out to the American people how we are going to accomplish a balanced Federal budget--what kind of blueprint we are going to use, what kind of tools we will acquire and utilize to accomplish a balanced budget in just 7 years. We talked about Social Security and the need to protect it, to take it off the table to ensure that we are not going to mask the size of the debt with the size of the Social Security trust fund. We talked about enforcement. Simply saying we are going to balance the budget with no legal mechanism in place to ensure that we are going to enforce what we say we are going to do makes anyone wonder just how serious we are about doing it in the first place. We talked about the need to separate operating capital from investments in the future--how we do that in business, how we do that in State governments, how we need to compare apples and apples when we compare the Federal Government to the State government and how a capital budget would allow us to do that. We talked about circumstances relating to natural disasters. The Senator from California raised a very difficult issue. How do we address serious problems relating to the disasters that occur in every part of the country all too frequently once we have a balanced Federal budget? It is very disconcerting that virtually every amendment was defeated on a near party-line vote. Regardless of the vote, there are many more very important, relevant amendments that deserve our careful consideration. Not all amendments that are pending will be offered. I know that mention was made yesterday about how many amendments are still pending. Some of those amendments were offered just to protect Democratic Senators in case there is a cloture vote and it passes. We know what happens when cloture votes are filed. Amendments are also filed simply to ensure that every Senator has a right to protect himself or herself. That is really what has gone on in the last couple of days. Senators want to know that they have the opportunity to be involved in this debate and to commit to a process by which these issues can be raised. That is what filing amendments is all about in situations as we have this morning. We may be able to come to some agreement. In fact, I would almost ensure, to our colleagues on the other side, that we will come to some agreement with regard to a finite list of amendments and some way with which to work through them as we have done in several of our bills already this year. The point is no one is trying to delay a final vote. We know that the final absolutely critical, especially on an issue of this importance, that all Members have a right to be heard. So this cloture vote is not necessarily reflective of how one will ultimately vote on the balanced budget amendment. This vote is about whether Democratic Senators have a right to raise legitimate issues that they believe would improve the amendment before us. So I certainly urge my colleagues to reject the motion to invoke cloture at this time. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the first legislative action I took when I came to Congress in 1979 was to introduce a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. I believed 16 years ago, as I believe today, that Government must learn to live within its means. I believed then, as I believe now, that we must trim the fat, cut the waste, and make the tough choices necessary to control spending. I supported a balanced budget amendment then and I remain committed to an honest, fair, and forthright amendment now. However, I have concluded I cannot support the one which is now being pushed through the body, without amendment or compromise. The magnitude of the decision about how we propose to amend the Constitution should not be lost on anyone. A balanced budget amendment, if passed and ratified, will have a dramatic effect on the very nature of government and its relationship to the American people in all perpetuity. We cannot come back next year or next Congress and clean up our mistakes. When we embark on such a path--to amend the Constitution--we must know that it is the best amendment we can write, that it incorporates the best ideas and the most carefully written words we have to offer. It is critical now, as we contemplate amending the Constitution for only the 28th time, that we refuse to succumb to the notion that what we do is, as the old adage goes, ``good enough for Government work.'' This effort had a noble beginning. It was the result of the tireless work of the Senator from Illinois, the Senator enforce fiscal discipline, something we all recognize is necessary. The refusal to consider legitimate amendments, amendments that would make this constitutional amendment even stronger, has reduced this effort to something far less than our best. When this debate began I expressed my concerns about the balanced budget amendment proposal before Members. I expressed a sincere hope that we could work together to address them and craft the best constitutional amendment this Senate could write on behalf of all the American people. First, as many argued last year, Social Security should be viewed as an indelible contract between the Government and the American people, funded by a dedicated trust fund that should be left out of budgetary calculations. As written, it is clear that the current proposal uses the Social Security trust fund to mask the true size of the deficit, something that is patently inconsistent with our goal to balance the budget. As a result it is estimated that $705 billion of Social Security trust fund revenue will be used to mask the real size of the national deficit between now and the year 2002. In fact, that very issue was confirmed again this morning in the Wall Street Journal. A speech that the majority leader gave yesterday to a group indicated that he saw the size of the deficit over the course of the next 7 years to be somewhere in the vicinity of $685 billion, which would require some form of health care reductions to reduce that deficit to below the $685 billion mark he suggests. Mr. President, $685 billion, if that is the size of the deficit as my Republican colleagues would see it, clearly implies that the $705 billion for Social Security is still on the table in spite of all of the best efforts made by many Members on the other side to indicate the contrary. Second, I believe that budgetary discipline, common sense, and our long-term investment goals warrant the establishment of a budget that distinguishes between investment and consumption. We ought to use this opportunity once and for all to establish the same budgetary principles used by businesses and by most State governments. Finally, as we have argued at some length during this debate, the American people have an absolute right to know how we plan to fulfill the promise of a balanced budget before they are called upon to ratify it. Working with my Democratic colleagues, we have proposed three balanced budget constitutional amendment approaches in a good-faith attempt to address those concerns and make the underlying amendment more sound. Unfortunately, each of those amendments has been rejected essentially along party lines. The only way I can interpret those votes is that the majority is saying, ``We want our balanced budget amendment or no amendment at all.'' They are telling the American people to put their trust in good intentions and to live with consequences that are yet unknown. We should support a balanced budget amendment. But we should never violate America's contract with its senior citizens merely because we are unwilling to make the tough choices now. Balancing the budget by cutting Social Security is no balanced budget at all. Making tough choices is also an important part of what every family and every business must do. When a family balances its budget, we separate investments in our future, our home, our savings for our children's education, from the day-to-day expenditures on things like food and clothing. We are willing to borrow money to buy a home or pay for college but we cannot afford to take on too much debt because the interest is part of our day-to-day expenses and cannot exceed our income. In short, we separate our capital budget from our operating budget. Nearly every State, nearly every business, small or large, does exactly the same thing. Everybody separates these two budgets except for the Federal Government. Just yesterday we proposed an amendment that said, let's be honest with the American people about the budget process. Separate investment from daily operating expenses. Do at the Federal level what has always been done in the States. But that proposal, too, was rejected. I support a balanced budget amendment, but I also share the belief that we owe it to the American people to tell them how we will do what the amendment requires. We must not substitute political slogans for straight talk. We must not cover up the reality with rhetoric. We must not ask South Dakotans, or any Americans, to trust us or future Congresses if we are not willing to give them good reason to do so. We cannot build a house of credibility if we do not produce the blueprint first. Neither can we build that house without knowing what tools to use. The American people have a right to know how we are going to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002. Two years ago when a Democratic Congress cut $500 billion from the deficit, we gave the Congress and the country a blueprint of our list of budget-cutting tools--page after page of painful cuts. Everyone recognizes what an unpopular vote that was, how difficult it was to make those choices, to lay out with specificity, line by line, item by item, exactly what we were going to do over the course of the next 5 years to reduce spending by $500 billion. And because it was tough, because it was specific, it passed by a single vote. Today the American people have the same right to know. They have a right to know what is in the plan. They have a right to know whether the majority plans to cut Medicare, student loans, or veterans benefits. Our deficit reduction target is at least $1.2 trillion--$1.2 trillion--over the course of the next 7 years. It is not going to get smaller, and with each year of delay, it is going to be exacerbated. It is a daunting goal, we all recognize that, but we all recognize, too, that it must be met. The question, frankly, is how. How are we going to do it? How are we going to do what the speech by the majority leader yesterday suggested? Are we going to keep Social Security on the table and talk about a debt that is only $685 billion? Are we going to include everything, put it on the table, recognize that if we are going to increase defense spending, if we are going to cut taxes, if we are going to protect Social Security and do all of this in the next 7 years, that we are going to do it using the tools that we have available to us? Americans have a right to know. We have a responsibility to tell them. I proposed the right-to-know amendment to the Constitution that would both require a balanced budget and require Democrats and Republicans to work together to draft a plan and make it public. But the amendment was defeated, and the result will be that this Congress will collectively say ``no'' to being honest with the American people, leaving us with only the hope--only the hope--that we can accomplish our goals. No blueprint, no mechanism in place, no real plan. Just a hope that somehow we can do something in 7 years that we have not been able to do in decades. Everyone would agree that the idea of a balanced budget in the abstract has universal support. But no budget is balanced in the abstract. Budgets are balanced in the context of existing circumstances. We have a new majority in Congress that claims it will cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget, but refuses to explain how and refuses to guarantee that it will be accomplished fairly. Last year, I supported a balanced budget amendment. This year, in this context, I cannot. Last year, a Democratic Congress was committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare. This year, the new majority has been unwilling to do so in law. Last year, Congress honored the people's right to know. Last year, Congress was committed to an open, honest debate about how to reduce Government spending. Last year, Congress leveled with the American people. This year, the majority refuses to acknowledge Americans' right to know. This country is in need of a serious, principled debate about our future and our increasing national indebtedness. It should be a debate about the generational debt that we owe our children and how best to discharge it. It should be a debate about the ways past Government commitments to Americans will always be kept. It should be a versus investment, savings over spending, and all of the elements that together make up a sound basis for future economic growth. It should be a debate about what we hold to be most important now and in the future. That debate may never come. Yet, I deeply hope it will come, and when it does, I hope we will have an opportunity to write an amendment to the Constitution that represents our best effort, one which will stand the test of time, a balanced budget amendment that honors our past commitments, protects our future investment, and tells the American people the truth. It must be a serious obligation, not merely a statement made of good intentions. Finally, while I believe we need an honest and fair balanced budget amendment, I know we need an honest and fair balanced budget even more. We can and we must get immediately to the real work of deficit reduction. I know I speak for my Democratic colleagues when I say we are ready to work with the majority right now to develop a budget resolution that cuts spending and balances the budget. It is an effort which requires bipartisan cooperation as well as concentration. So, Mr. President, whatever the fate of this amendment, it is time for us to work together to fulfill that promise and renew the hope of all American people that at long last--at long last--we can accomplish what we all want and what our children deserve. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also want to commend the majority leader for cooperation over the last several hours as we have negotiated this agreement. It is a fair agreement. It gives Senators an opportunity to present their amendments. We have two days with which to present these amendments, and I hope Senators will avail themselves of the opportunities. We will have rollcall votes throughout those two days and certainly on Tuesday. So I hope that we can maximize the use of this time, and I am sure that all Senators will take advantage of the opportunity that this accords it. I think it is a good agreement and I hope we can get to work on Wednesday.