BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION; Congressional Record Vol. 141, No. 26
(Senate - February 09, 1995)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S2394-S2398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.


                           Amendment No. 236

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to the 
resolution offered by Senator Reid which would protect the Social 
Security system. I am a cosponsor of the amendment to balance the 
budget and a strong believer in it. But I feel the Social Security 
program is such that it ought to be off budget and that we ought to 
have truth in regard to budgeting.
  I am a cosponsor of the Reid amendment, which is designed to ensure 
that the budget is not balanced on the backs of hard-working Americans 
who have contributed toward their retirement with a portion of each 
paycheck. This is not only a protection for retirees but also a 
protection for all Americans who pay into the program.
  The amendment is simple. It protects the Social Security system by 
excluding the receipts and the outlays of the Social Security program 
from the budget. The present system of collecting FICA payments from 
employees' paychecks, as well as a matching contribution from 
employers, is used to fund a Social Security trust fund. Currently, the 
payments to the Social Security recipients out of this trust fund are 
less than the amount taken in through the FICA payments. This surplus 
in contributions to the fund was created by Congress in the early 
1980's to account for the increase in the payout which will occur in 
the future as the baby boomers begin to retire and draw upon Social 
Security, and was also done for the purpose of making the Social 
Security system at that particular time stable, and to try to make it 
actuarially sound for a great number of years.
  We can liken the Social Security trust fund to the traditional 
savings account most Americans have in the bank. By putting a little 
money into a savings account each month, and forgetting it is there, it 
will eventually build up and become substantial by the time it is 
needed. We do not include the savings account in our monthly operating 
budget in our checking account, which is used to pay monthly bills and 
expenses. As I read it, under the language in the balanced budget 
resolution now pending here in the Senate, this Social Security savings 
account would no longer be completely safe to build up the surplus 
which will be needed to pay retiring baby boomers in the 21st century.
  Next, I will turn to what are potential problems, which may arise 
under the current language of the balanced budget resolution.
  If at some time the payments to Social Security beneficiaries should 
be greater than the receipts from the FICA tax revenues, a deficit 
would occur. According to figures supplied by the Social Security 
Administration this should occur starting in the year 2013. At this 
point it is not clear what effect this deficit would have on Social 
Security payments. As part of a unified budget, would the deficit which 
would begin to occur with respect to Social Security tax funds require 
a drastic cut in other non-Social Security programs to make up the 
trust fund deficit? Or would Congress change the formula for benefits 
and thus reduce those benefits?
  A scenario, which could occur under the balanced budget amendment as 
currently drafted, concerns the ability of the Government to repay to 
Social Security trust fund the interest owed from its Government 
investments. It seems that the intent of section 7 of the amendment is 
to exempt from total outlays the repayment of debt principal.
 Those words seem to be carefully chosen of ``debt principal.'' The 
unintended consequence--I hope it is unintended; it may not be 
unintended--to Social Security may be that should outlays exceed 
receipts from the general Treasury funds then, according to section 7, 
no interest payments would be made to the Social Security trust fund.

  What happens is that under the Social Security trust fund, we invest 
in Government securities. Those Government securities are not 
transferable. Those Government securities are particularly Social 
Security trust fund investments. They draw interest. That is part of 
the effort that was made to make the Social Security fund actuarially 
sound. But pursuant to the definitions under section 7 of outlays and 
of receipts, the definition of receipts, includes all receipts except 
those obtained from borrowing.
  The Social Security funds are in effect invested in Government 
securities and, therefore, they are borrowed money.
  Then we find that in the outlays, the definition is that it includes 
all outlays that the Government is obligated to pay with the exception 
of the payments to the debt principal. Therefore, it does not include 
the payments which we classify as interest. Since interest payments 
will be on budget, that causes a problem relative to whether or not 
interest payments will be paid back.
  The result of this nonpayment of interest due on principal debt could 
substantially affect the stability of the bonds, which secure the debt 
and the trust fund. If this should happen the bonds would probably go 
into default and thus have little value. This would cause a 
destabilization in the funds invested with Social Security trust fund 
dollars, and a loss of faith by the American people.
  To show what could happen, we look ahead and see what is the amount 
of money we are referring to and what could possibly be involved with 
this amendment. According to the Social Security Administration, they 
anticipate that by the year 2003 there will be $1,151,300,000,000 in 
assets of the Social Security fund. And, under the law, those assets, a 
surplus, will be invested in Government securities. If the interest 
could not be paid on those because of the operation of on-budget 
activity, then you would have $1 trillion that is in some bonds in 
which the Government has invested with no interest paid, and therefore 
causing serious problems, and certainly this would deprive the Social 
Security funds of the interest that has been accrued in the event that 
the on-budget does not pay them back.
  This could be averted through challenges in courts, but that raises 
questions of interpretation under the principles of constitutional 
construction.

[[Page S2395]]

  Generally, constitutional provisions have received a broader and more 
liberal construction than statutes. The Supreme Court in Kansas v. 
Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 88 (1906), upheld this general rule stating 
``the Constitution is not to be construed technically and narrowly, 
like an indictment, * * *, but as [a document that creates] a system of 
government whose provisions are designed to make effective and 
operative all the governmental powers granted.'' The balanced budget 
amendment presently contains exceptions which raise issues as to how 
broadly it should be interpreted.
  Section 7 of the balanced budget resolution contains language which 
creates exceptions to what shall be counted as receipts and outlays of 
the U.S. Government. The provision which pertains to outlays, 
specifically excepts from the calculation of outlays the repayment of 
debt principal. How broadly this exception may be interpreted raises 
great concern. The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of statutory 
exceptions and has held that ``in construing provisions * * *, in which 
a general statement of policy is qualified by an exception, we usually 
read the exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation 
of the provision.'' Commissioner v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989); 
``where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general 
prohibition, additional exceptions are not implied.''
 The Supreme Court in a 1991 case of United States versus Smith, and 
then in the case of Citicorp Industrial Credit, Inc. versus Brock, a 
1987 case--held similarly to the previous courts, although this case 
dealt particularly with the Fair Labor Standards Act, it follows the 
statutory interpretation principle for a narrow interpretation of 
statutory exemptions. This textual principle of construction regarding 
the narrow construction of exceptions is included in the Canons of 
Construction, which are now followed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which 
we generally refer to as the Rehnquist court.

  We need to make sure that the scenarios that I have described do not 
happen.
 To do so will require an amendment to the present balanced budget 
resolution being offered. We should keep in mind that Social Security 
is a program self-financed from contributions by employees and 
employers, which does not contribute 1 penny to the deficit. In fact, 
Congress, realizing this fact, included in the 1990 Budget Enforcement 
Act, a provision that declared that the funds were off budget. 
Unfortunately, the current resolution would clearly put Social Security 
on budget and thus overturn our recent decision to affirm the off-
budget status of Social Security.

  I have supported a balanced budget amendment since my first days in 
the Senate. There have been several times in the past where the passage 
of an amendment was close but failed for one reason or another. But now 
that the amendment has passed the House, there is renewed momentum 
which I believe will carry the amendment successfully through the 
Senate. But as we debate and develop the balanced budget amendment, we 
need to be sure that we also protect the integrity of the Social 
Security System and maintain truth in budgeting. The protection of the 
self-funded system can be maintained by keeping it off budget and out 
of the balanced budget process.
  Mr. President, there has been raised the issue of whether or not the 
Reid amendment is proper in that it contains language which, in effect, 
refers to existing statutes. Some say this should not be included in 
the Constitution. However, it has been done before, in the 21st 
amendment. It was the 21st amendment that repealed the 18th amendment. 
The 18th amendment, as you remember, dealt with intoxicating liquors, 
and the 21st amendment repealed it. But in section 2 of the 21st 
amendment, it has this language:

       The transportation or importation into any State, 
     territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or 
     use therein of intoxicating liquors in violation of the laws 
     thereof is hereby prohibited.

  What we were stating in that amendment was a reference to laws of 
States--not just the United States, but the laws of the States in its 
reference, and that, in my judgment, is a precedent for including the 
language that is included in the Reid amendment.
  Another source for precedent is in the 14th amendment--the 14th 
amendment, of course, is one of the amendments that was adopted 
following the War Between the States. In section 4 of that amendment, 
it makes reference to existing statutes. In that section it states:

       The validity of the public debt of the United States 
     authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payment 
     of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing 
     insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned.

  Again, it is referring to existing debts that were created under laws 
of the United States for the payment of pensions and bounties for 
services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion. And then it goes 
forward in that section,

       * * * but neither the United States or any State shall 
     assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of 
     insurrection or rebellion against the United States or any 
     claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, but all such 
     debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and 
     void.

  So we have seen reference to statutory language in the Constitution 
on at least two occasions.
  I think others are seeking the floor. I am glad to yield if the 
Senator from South Carolina wishes to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] 
is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. It 
should be noted that the law in the Constitution is being cited not 
only by the distinguished Senator, but by a former Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, Senator Heflin. He has studied 
the law and legal precedence--particularly constitutional provisions. I 
compliment him for speaking out on this particular occasion.
  It is not my intent to belabor the point, but I certainly want to 
emphasize that there is no alternative other than including the Reid 
amendment. Why do I say that? Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement 
Act, says, thou shalt not use Social Security funds with respect to 
receipts, outlays, or concerning the deficit.
  That law passed this particular body on a vote of 98-2, in 1990, and 
was signed into law by President George Walker Herbert Bush on November 
5, 1990. It is the law, and it has been reiterated again and again. On 
Monday of this week, Mr. President, it was cited by the distinguished 
majority whip--the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. When asked 
about specific cuts, he said:

       Nobody--Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, 
     moderate--is even thinking about using Social Security to 
     balance the budget, to pass the joint resolution for the 
     balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

  They are not thinking about it, they are doing it. You actually 
repeal section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act that says: Thou 
shalt not use Social Security trust funds for deficit purposes.
  Why is that, Mr. President? It clearly states in section 7 of the 
resolution:

       Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United 
     States Government, except those derived from borrowing.

  The Social Security receipts in the Social Security trust fund is 
included in deficit calculations under this definition. Some on the 
other side have said, ``Do not worry, we will legislate later.''
  But I recall that none other than President George Washington, in his 
Farewell Address, said:

       If in the opinion of the people the distribution or 
     modification of the Constitutional powers be in any 
     particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the 
     way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no 
     change by usurpation; for though this is one instance of 
     good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments 
     are destroyed.

  The Father of this Country knew that you could not change the 
Constitution by statute.
  I have been in favor of balancing the budget. I helped the 
distinguished Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] in 1982 when the balanced 
budget amendment received the two-thirds required, the 67 votes.
  We tried again with my distinguished senior colleague, Senator 
Thurmond, in 1986 but we did not get two-thirds required.
  [[Page S2396]] We tried last year under the distinguished leadership 
of the Senator from Illinois [Senator Simon] but again failed.
  We have been in the vineyards working on this particular problem, but 
part and parcel of the problem is another contract with America--the 
contract we made with the senior citizens of America back in 1935.
  We felt so keenly about honoring that contract, that we raised taxes 
in 1983, under the Greenspan commission, to keep the program fiscally 
sound and to maintain that solemn trust. To maintain that contract with 
our senior citizens--not for defense, not for welfare, not for foreign 
aid, not for other Government programs--but for the Social Security 
trust fund.
  If you had said at that time that we were raising taxes for welfare, 
foreign aid, defense or other spending, I would have voted no and other 
Senators would have voted no. But instead, we said, ``This is a trust 
fund and we must continue to keep that trust.''
  Like the Senator from Mississippi has said, no one is thinking about 
violating that trust, but yet we are constitutionally dissolving it by 
including revenues from the Social Security trust in the definition of 
total receipts. Legislative fixes will not work. As George Washington 
said, you cannot amend the Constitution except as the Constitution 
itself designates.
  I am a reasonable man--as Rex Harrison said in ``My Fair Lady,'' an 
ordinary man--just trying to get along on the floor of the Senate, 
certainly supporting a balanced budget, but feeling compelled to take 
issue here having established a record in protecting Social Security.
  In the Budget Committee in 1990, I proposed the Social Security 
Preservation Act. It stipulated that Social Security trust funds should 
not be used in calculating the deficit. It was reported out 20 to 1, 
and on the Senate floor passed by a vote of 98 to 2. And still, I see 
administrations, Republican and Democrat; I see Congresses, Republican 
and Democrat, violating the law.
  Unfortunately, it does not surprise me. Former Senator Harry Byrd 
shepherded his own statute through the Congress which said, in essence, 
``Thou budget shall be balanced.'' It was the law, and yet we never 
adhered to it. I do not know how we get away with this thievery. But I 
know that something is amiss when honest public servants say that no 
one is considering using Social Security to balance the budget when, on 
the face of the legislation, it would require it. At that point, I have 
to speak out.
  As a result, I have written a letter to all the Senators to put to 
rest ideas about changing it by legislation later on. You cannot amend 
the Constitution by legislation. You have to get a joint resolution, 
have three readings in the Senate, and have an affirmation of 37, or 
two-thirds, of the sovereign States of America. So even if I wanted to 
protect Social Security by statute, I could not do what they say can be 
done.
  I will read the letter. This is to every one of my colleagues in the 
Senate.

       In 1983, the Congress made the Social Security fund 
     fiscally sound by programmed tax increases. Naturally, the 
     Congress would never have supported these tax increases if 
     the monies were to be used for foreign aid, defense, welfare 
     or the deficit costs of government. But violating the truth-
     in-budgeting principle, the Administrations and Congresses 
     continued to use the Social Security trust fund to obscure 
     the size of the deficit. Annoyed with this violation, the 
     Budget Committee voted nearly unanimously in 1990 and the 
     United States Senate with a vote of 98-2 joined the House in 
     the now formal statutory law of the United States in section 
     13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act, forbidding by law the 
     use of the Social Security fund for the deficit. The 
     violation continues. Now comes the balanced budget amendment 
     to the Constitution requiring that, ``Total receipts shall 
     include all receipts of the United States Government except 
     those derived from borrowing.'' Left alone, this provision 
     would repeal Section 13301 and constitutionally endorse the 
     violation. The Reid amendment presently under consideration 
     corrects this unintended repeal by stating that the Social 
     Security trust fund, ``* * * should not be counted as 
     receipts or outlays for the purpose of this article.''
       John Mitchell, the former Attorney General was known for 
     the axiom, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' It should 
     be made crystal clear that we mean what we say. If you want 
     to continue to use the trust fund and breach the trust, vote 
     against the Reid amendment. There it is clear and simple, so 
     everyone understands.
       If you want to maintain the trust--the Contract with 
     America made back in 1935--then please support the Reid 
     amendment.

  If this Reid amendment is allowed, there is no misunderstanding that 
we will maintain the trust.
  If the Reid amendment is defeated, we will be taking $636 billion 
away from the trust fund in order to obscure the size of the deficit.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. President, is it not true--and I am not being solicitous. No one 
knows more about the budget process on this floor than the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, and no one has more 
credentials for making the tough decisions about what we should do to 
cut the budget than the Senator from South Carolina. He has always put 
his vote where his mouth is on this issue which, I might say, very few 
Members of either party have done in the past.
  The Senator just pointed out that we are talking about the difference 
between, for this next year, $600-some billion--not this year--$600-
some billion, between now and the time it comes time to balance the 
budget, additional, we have to find, if the Reid amendment passes.
  Is it not true that in addition to that, what is likely to happen is 
that our friends, who are going to find increasing pressure to balance 
the budget and who have never been great friends of the trust fund to 
begin with, are going to, in the next year or 2 or 3, as we move toward 
the year 2003, since most young people the age of your children and 
mine believe they are not going to get Social Security, anyway, is it 
not likely that we will see a movement that we will cut Social Security 
benefits; that we will either raise the retirement age or cut benefits, 
further increasing the surplus that Social Security will generate 
between now and the year 2014, and further making the deficit look 
smaller, so that it is easier to meet the balanced budget requirement 
by the year 2003?
  Does the Senator think that is as likely a scenario as any other we 
are likely to see?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Delaware 
and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee knows it well. He is a 
constitutional expert, and is right on target as to the practical 
result.
  We see several Senators trying to avoid the problem and not engage in 
truth in budgeting. We have truth in packaging and truth in lending, 
but we do not have truth in budgeting. It was not in the Contract With 
America and it is not in the current version of this balanced budget 
amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield for an additional question, as I 
understand it, the distinguished majority leader is going to come to 
the floor at some point and offer a legislative fix for this 
constitutional dilemma, to try to convince all the American people that 
the Republicans or those who are for the balanced budget do not want to 
cut Social Security and are not going to be using Social Security trust 
fund moneys to reduce the deficit.
  Now, we both know that we cannot alter--the Senator said it more 
eloquently than anyone thus far--we cannot alter the Constitution other 
than by the rules the Constitution sets out.
  We will assume for just a moment the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas, if that is what he decides to do, comes along and says we will 
pass a resolution promising we will not do that. Is it the 
understanding of my friend from South Carolina that means, for 
calculation purposes of what constitutes the deficit, that between now 
and the year 2000, we will not count the $60 billion surplus this year 
and the $100 billion surplus in the year 2000, toward reducing the 
deficit?
  Is that what he is going to do?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. There can be no legislative fix. Constitutionally you 
are mandating Social Security receipts as part of total receipts. If 
the distinguished majority leader wants to put in a separate 
constitutional amendment, that may be different. I am not trying to 
tear down House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution. I voted for it three times. I would like to vote for 
it a fourth time, but I cannot in good conscience repeal my own 
statute.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
   [[Page S2397]] Mr. BIDEN. When we debated this in the Judiciary 
Committee, and this legislation came out of the committee, I, along 
with Senator Feinstein and others, argued for this amendment in the 
committee. One of our senior Republican colleagues was very blunt about 
this issue. He said, along with former Senator Tsongas of the Concord 
Coalition, who came in to testify, the following:
  That if you take Social Security out of the mix here and set it aside 
so it is not covered by a constitutional amendment, we are not likely 
to do anything to fix it.
  What they mean by ``fix it'' is change Social Security; that is, 
either raise the retirement age, cut the benefits or increase the 
taxes, because everybody knows that by the time--I am 52--by the time 
it comes time for me to collect Social Security, there are not going to 
be enough of your children and my children to pay for my Social 
Security benefits. So something is going to have to be done.
  Unrelated to the balanced budget amendment and the impact of the Reid 
amendment on the balanced budget amendment or the impact of the 
balanced budget amendment on Social Security, unrelated to the balanced 
budget amendment, just Social Security all by itself, does the Senator 
from South Carolina see any way in which Social Security can be 
protected from significant change if, in fact, it is included as part 
of the balanced budget amendment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No, taking it off-budget is the only way to protect it. 
That is the only way that we can be sure that Social Security funds are 
not being used to mask the size of the deficit.
  Mr. BIDEN. Right.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You can still go in and change the age if you wanted to 
or raise the FICA tax. I do not want to.
  Mr. BIDEN. Absolutely.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. But I think the Reid amendment is very clear. It states 
that the receipts, ``including attributable interests and outlays of 
the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
Disability Insurance Trust Fund used to provide old age survivors and 
disability benefits shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for the 
purpose of this article.''
  It does not say that you have to have a trust fund. They can go in 
and repeal the 1935 Roosevelt Social Security if they wanted to.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for 30 seconds more?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I want to thank the Senator for allowing me to interrupt 
him with all these questions. It seems pretty clear to me this is about 
two things: One, they need the Social Security dollars to make the 
deficit look like it is less than it is, and then the next step is they 
are going to need to try to deal with changing it to increase the 
amount of money they get in the trust funds to make the deficit look 
even less, which means that Social Security is going to get hit.
  But I will withhold my statement on this until tomorrow. I thank my 
colleague for letting me interrupt.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I cannot emphasize enough, that the surest 
way to harm Social Security, the surest way to deplete the trust fund, 
the surest way to open a loophole which will swallow the balanced 
budget amendment is to pass this exemption.
  If we open up this loophole it will be big enough to drive a truck 
through, and it will not be long before the convoy starts rolling.
  If we keep the balanced budget amendment whole, however, we will 
protect Social Security. Several of my colleagues appear to 
misunderstand how the trust fund works. The extra money in the trust 
fund is borrowed by the Treasury, not stolen but borrowed. And just 
like any other loan in the country, it must be repaid. The trust fund 
loses nothing. In fact, it gains the interest which the Treasury has to 
pay on the loan. That will not change under the balanced budget 
amendment.
  The integrity of the trust fund is furthered by the balanced budget 
amendment. Any money the Treasury may borrow, must be repaid. Just 
because a balanced budget rule is adopted, there is no reason to think 
the status of the trust fund will change. It is a complete non 
sequitur, Mr. President. There is absolutely nothing in the balanced 
budget amendment which says the funds designated for the Social 
Security trust fund will not remain so dedicated. They will. So let me 
say it again, as clearly and concisely as I possibly can--the trust 
fund is not harmed in any way, shape, or form by the balanced budget 
amendment.
  Unfortunately, the trust fund will not fare so well under the Reid 
exemption. If the loophole goes into effect, all kinds of unrelated 
spending programs will suddenly be redesignated as Social Security and 
will soak up the Social Security surplus. That means the Treasury will 
not have to borrow money from Social Security because the new programs 
will be Social Security. What an insidious turn of events. Under the 
proposed exemption, the trust fund will actually be depleted years 
before it would without the exemption.
  I want to respond briefly to the notion that we cannot protect Social 
Security through the implementing legislation. The balanced budget 
amendment requires that the whole budget be balanced. Surpluses are 
certainly permitted, and nothing in the balanced budget amendment 
discourages us saving for a rainy day, as the Social Security system 
now does. None of the statutory protections that are now enacted will 
be brushed aside, and nothing keeps us from keeping the accounts 
segregated and accounting in a way that shows what is dedicated to 
Social Security. Nothing will change in the way we segregate Social 
Security if the balanced budget amendment is adopted.
  It is true that the budget must be balanced. But this will help 
protect Social Security recipients who rely on those moneys after 2029, 
when the trust funds are projected to be insolvent. At that point, the 
balanced budget amendment will require that there be sufficient money 
to pay those benefits. And a balanced budget rule will help those who 
rely on Social Security after 2019, when the trust fund will begin to 
redeem its loan to the Federal Government. To the extent that the 
Federal Government is in a better position to repay this debt, the 
Social Security recipients are more strongly protected. And to the 
extent that the Government continues its profligate ways, it will be 
less, not more, able to repay the debt to the trust fund.
  So the best way to protect Social Security recipients in the long run 
is to adopt a balanced budget amendment so that the Government will be 
able to pay its debt to retirees.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I will take a moment and then be happy to yield the floor.


                            Motion to Refer

    
    
  Mr. President, I send a motion to refer to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] moves to refer H.J. Res. 
     1 to the Budget Committee with instructions to report back 
     forthwith H.J. Res. 1 in status quo, and at the earliest date 
     possible report to the Senate how to achieve a balanced 
     budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund to 
     achieve that goal.

  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to refer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 237

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the 
motion to refer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 237 to the instructions of the motion to refer H.J. 
     Res. 1 to the Budget Committee.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
   [[Page S2398]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the instructions, and after the words ``Budget 
     Committee'' on page 1, lines 1 and 2 insert: ``that for the 
     purpose of any constitutional amendment requiring a balanced 
     budget, the Budget Committee shall report back forthwith H.J. 
     Res. 1 in status quo, and at the earliest date practicable 
     they shall report to the Senate how to achieve a balanced 
     budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund to 
     achieve that goal.''

  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 amendment No. 238 to amendment No. 237

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the 
second degree to my amendment and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       THe Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 238 to amendment No. 237.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  THe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following: 
     ``, for the purpose of any constitutional amendment requiring 
     a balanced budget, the Budget Committee of the Senate shall 
     report forthwith H.J. Res. 1 in status quo and at the 
     earliest date practicable after February 8, 1995, they shall 
     report to the Senate how to achieve a balanced budget without 
     increasing the receipts or reducing the disbursements of the 
     Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund to achieve that 
     goal.''

  Mr. DOLE. I thank my colleague from South Caroline and other 
colleagues for yielding to me.

                          ____________________