[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 41 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3485-S3489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, over the last several days, the Senate has
been engaged in a debate over the balanced budget amendment. It was
during that period of time that those opposed to it chose to use the
argument of Social Security, as somehow the amendment would throw in
jeopardy that system of funding supplemental retirement for the elderly
and the old age of our country, and the other benefits that go along
with the system. They argued loudly that changes should be made, but
most assuredly that the amendment ought to take Social Security out of
the current budget process.
There were several of us who at that time argued that the Social
Security receipts were now a part of the unified Federal budget. They
had been since 1969. They were part of what we budget today, and every
Senator on this floor, at least more than once, had voted to include
those by action of voting for the passage of a budget of our Federal
Government.
While it was argued loudly--and loudly ignored by the opposition--
that that was part of what we do today and it was clear that that is
what we do, it was part of that effort to try to bring Members of the
other side aboard in support of that amendment that an offer of good
faith was made as a phasing out of the use of those funds as we moved
toward a balanced budget beyond the year 2002. That offer was rejected.
What I thought was interesting over the weekend and why I bring this
issue once again before the Senate is that as many of our leaders are
on talk shows during the weekends, I thought one that is worth
mentioning appeared in an article in the Washington Times this morning
which came from the White House itself. Let me read from that article.
It said:
[[Page S3486]] Meanwhile, the White House conceded
yesterday that Social Security trust fund surpluses currently
mask the size of the deficit, undermining the argument Senate
Democrats had used to defend their opposition to the balanced
budget amendment. White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta
said the 1996 deficit is actually $50 billion higher than
reported because the administration uses Social Security
trust fund surpluses to reduce the deficit. Previous
administrations used the same accounting technique.
And, of course, that is exactly what we referred to on the floor on
the Senate time after time over the debate of the last several weeks
when we talked about the unified budget and the need to correct that
and the ability to correct that through the authorizing legislation and
the implementing legislation that would occur following the passage of
a balanced budget amendment.
The article went on to say:
Six Senate Democrats who voted for the amendment in 1994
reversed themselves last week saying they feared Republicans
would use the trust fund to balance the budget.
Many of us argued at that time that that argument was false and that,
of course, those Democrats knew that they were now using the trust
funds, like every other person serving in the U.S. Congress, to deal
with the current budget because it was part of the unified budget.
Mr. Panetta said on the ABC-TV show ``This Week'' that
funds for the Social Security trust fund are
indistinguishable from other revenues because funds flow into
the same general Government account.
``When you look at the Federal budget, and even when you
look at Social security, the reality is that those are funds
that flow into a central trust for Social Security,'' Mr.
Panetta said. ``Government basically operates that program,
even though it flows into that trust. So it really ought to
be considered part and parcel of the overall as we consider
the budget.''
That is what Mr. Panetta said. That is what many of us have attempted
to argue, and yet last week, for some reason, those who chose to be in
opposition to the balanced budget amendment grabbed onto this very thin
thread and, in my opinion, the thread broke when the White House agreed
with us that current unified budgets use Social Security trust funds,
and it was Republicans who had offered in good faith an alternative
that would move us away from that process as we moved toward a balanced
budget, and it was that offer that was rejected.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right
Mr. REID. Mr. President, when I came to the floor this morning, the
last thing I wanted to talk about was balanced budgets and Social
Security. But my friend from Idaho, in effect, made the argument that I
made 4 weeks ago when I offered the amendment on Social Security, and
that argument is--I guess it could be summed up best as my mother told
me on numerous occasions: Two wrongs do not make a right.
It is not right that we have, contrary to law, since 1990 raided the
Social Security trust fund. It is against the law to do that. We have
gone ahead and done it anyway and, as my friend from Idaho stated, we
are still doing it. We should stop doing it, and that is the whole
point of the debate on Social Security.
Social Security has not contributed 1 cent to the deficit, not a
penny. What right do we then have to take 6.2 percent out of the check
of any of the personnel around here, any of the people in the audience,
6.2 percent of their paycheck, of their money and then the employer
matches it 6.2 percent. So 12.4 percent of every person's paycheck is
put into a trust fund. For what? For retirement so that when they
retire, they will have Social Security benefits. That is a program we
have had for 60 years.
That money, contrary to what my friend from Idaho said, is not to be
used for foreign aid. It is not a tax to pay for the peacekeeping
mission in Haiti. It is not money to pay for farm subsidies. It is not
taxes paying for B-2 bombers. It is money that is set aside not for a
welfare program but a retirement program.
I hope this budget that will be reported out by the Budget Committee,
by my friend from New Mexico and my friend from Nebraska, both renowned
deficit hawks, people who believe in having a frugal, fiscally
responsible budget, deletes Social Security, that no longer masks the
deficit.
I think we should be honest about it. I hope they will do that.
Otherwise, Mr. President, we are going to get into another debate on
the budget resolution, because the time has come to start following the
law. We do not need to phase it out. This is the first admission we had
they wanted to use Social Security moneys. Remember, all the statements
in the past from the House and Senate were that we are going to protect
Social Security.
Some way to protect it, just take the money and spend it. We should
not do that.
So, Mr. President, the debate on the balanced budget amendment was a
good debate. It proved to me that we have a problem with the deficit;
it proved to me that we must do something about that deficit; and,
third, it proved to me we should do it without Social Security.
I am willing to stand up on this floor and walk down in the well, or
from my chair, whatever we are directed to do, and cast votes to do
just that.
Now, Mr. President, I came here today not to speak about this. I came
to speak about another issue.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Nevada will
yield for a question.
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
Misuse of Social Security Trust Funds
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was listening to the discussion in the
Chamber and heard once again an attempt to create a misimpression about
the debate last week on the constitutional amendment to balance the
budget. The argument has been made, ``Gee, the trust funds in the
Social Security system are being misused now, so I do not know what
anybody was concerned about, and the notion of the trust funds being in
jeopardy was all a lot of nonsense.''
We heard a lot of that last week, but I also want to correct the
record here, and the record is this. No matter how often someone stands
and makes this argument, it is not true. If they say the balanced
budget amendment has nothing to do with the Social Security trust
funds, in my judgment, they are simply overlooking the facts.
The fact is that as the constitutional amendment to balance the
budget was written, the Social Security trust funds would have been
used to reduce the Federal budget deficit. The fact is while people
were saying in public ``We have no intention of using the Social
Security trust funds,'' in private they were in effect saying, ``Look,
fellows, let us be honest. We cannot balance the budget without using
the Social Security trust funds.'' They were saying one thing in
public, another thing in private.
Now, I helped write the 1983 bill called the Social Security Reform
Act. When we wrote it, we decided to impose payroll taxes in a way to
raise more money than was necessary on a yearly basis to be put into
the Social Security system to save for the future.
In 1983, in the markup, I raised the question about whether, in fact,
the money would be saved and, of course, since that time it has been
historically used by Republicans to offset the budget deficit balance
in this country.
The proposal last week would have made that misuse of the trust funds
constitutional. It would have redefined receipts and expenditures in
the constitutional amendment in a manner that guarantees you will use
all of those so-called forced savings in the Social Security system to
offset the Federal budget deficit, the operating budget deficit of the
United States.
Frankly, that is not an honest thing to do. Either we are not going
to balance the Federal budget or we are going to save Social Security
trust funds and balance the Federal budget. But last week, the proposal
was to let us use the Social Security trust funds to balance the
Federal budget.
That is bad public policy no matter how you slice it or how you
describe it. It does not matter what is said in the coming days; it
does not alter the facts. The facts are we are talking about $1.3
trillion in the next 12 years of dedicated taxes to be paid into a
trust fund that will not be there under
[[Page S3487]] the circumstances of that constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. Some things are worth standing and fighting for--
$1.3 trillion and the future of the Social Security system, it seems to
me, is worth standing and fighting for.
Mr. REID. If I could direct--the Senator from North Dakota now has
the floor--a question to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
Mr. REID. I would say, one of the misunderstandings also has been
that we, those of us who supported the exemption of Social Security
from the balanced budget amendment, there is a misapprehension that we
did not want Social Security ever touched again. I ask my friend from
North Dakota, was it not our intention clearly--we made statements in
the Chamber and to the press--that Social Security should rise or fall
on its own merits; if we had to tinker with it on the edges to make
sure that it was actuarially sound, we could do this, did we not?
Mr. DORGAN. Absolutely. And the fact is there will be adjustments
made in the Social Security system. To the extent they are made, they
ought to be made to make that system actuarially sound.
Mr. REID. As it has been in the past.
Mr. DORGAN. I do not support misusing the trust funds to balance the
Federal operating budget. That is a dishonest way of budgeting, in my
judgment.
Mr. REID. We should not be using those moneys, I say to my friend,
those tax moneys, 12.4 percent of a person's check, for foreign aid, is
that not true?
Mr. DORGAN. Absolutely.
Mr. REID. For the military or highway construction? It should be used
for retirement, is that not right?
Mr. DORGAN. Exactly. They are dedicated taxes to be put only in a
trust fund to be used only for that purpose.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
Raiding of the Social Security Trust Funds
Mr. CONRAD. I heard, as I was having lunch downstairs, the
distinguished Senator from Idaho attempt to, what I can only say is
rewrite history with respect to the debate last week.
Let me say, as one who was involved in those negotiations, I think
the record is abundantly clear. Those who were proponents of the
amendment clearly intended to raid Social Security trust funds in order
to pay for other Government expenses to reduce the budget deficit. That
is precisely what was going on last week. Any attempt to say that is
not the case is to rewrite history.
Now, as one who was involved in that negotiation, let us review what
occurred. Some have said we are raiding the trust funds now. Well, that
is absolutely correct. We are raiding the trust funds now. It does not
make it right. And to suggest we ought to enshrine that principle and
that policy in the Constitution of the United States is dead wrong. To
constitutionalize a raiding of trust funds to pay for other Government
expenses I believe is a wrong principle.
Let me just say that when I was tax commissioner of the State of
North Dakota, I opposed raiding trust funds to pay for Government
expenses. I think it is a wrong principle. We should not be doing it at
this level either.
Mr. President, the hard reality is the trust fund surpluses that we
are running now are about to explode. They are about to become much
bigger surpluses, and the reason for that is to get ready for the day
the baby boom generation retires, when the number of people eligible is
going to double in this country. But what they are going to find is the
cupboard is bare. There is no money in the trust funds. There is not a
nickel in the trust funds. All the money has been spent.
Mr. President, I want to go back to what occurred last week. I laid
out on the 28th, on the morning of the 28th the criteria that were
necessary to secure my vote. I was thought then to be a key swing vote.
I laid out very clearly in the Congressional Record what the criteria
were that I would apply in order to get my vote.
During those negotiations, Republican leaders came to me, and they
said we understand your concern about taking Social Security trust fund
money and using it for Government expenses. We will agree to stop using
Social Security trust fund surpluses by the year 2012.
Let me repeat that. After saying for weeks that they had no intention
of taking Social Security trust fund money, last week on Tuesday, the
28th, Republican leaders told me they would agree to stop using the
trust fund surpluses by the year 2012. That is about $2 trillion of
Social Security trust fund surpluses that they were saying they were
going to use.
When I said, no, that certainly was not something I could agree to,
they came back to me and said we will stop using Social Security trust
fund surpluses by the year 2008.
Again, this is after saying for weeks they had no intention of using
any of those moneys. But they came to me and said we will stop using
the Social Security trust fund surpluses by the year 2008.
What could be more clear as to what their intention was? What could
be more clear? They said to me they intended to be using the money,
first until 2012 and then until 2008. It was only then, after I had
objected to that, that they talked about a phasing out and we discussed
a formula for phasing out of the Social Security trust fund money. But
even that proposal, even that suggestion was flawed because when they
put in writing what they had in mind, it was a statute. I told them on
that night: I am not a lawyer. I am not a constitutional expert. But if
you tell me that this will protect the funds over time, I will go to
legal experts and ask them for their opinions.
The next day, they sent to me a draft of a formula that we had
discussed the night before. But again it was in statute form, which had
never been my idea. That was their idea.
Mr. REID. Will my friend from North Dakota yield?
Mr. CONRAD. If I can just complete the thought?
Then I got the document the next morning. I got the document the next
morning. It was their draft of how they said they could protect Social
Security funds. I met with legal experts from the Budget Committee,
from the Congressional Research Service, and they said this is not
going to protect anything because a constitutional amendment supersedes
any statute.
So when we hear the other side here today say they had a plan to
phase out using Social Security trust funds, it was not an effective
plan. It was not a plan that had legal force and effect --at least
according to the constitutional experts that I talked to. They told me
very clearly that what they were offering was eyewash. It made it look
like they were going to do something or were willing to do something,
but it would not have legal force and effect.
That is, I believe, the review of what happened last week. For the
other side to now say they had no intention of using Social Security
funds--please, that is just not the case. It is clearly not the case.
They had every intention of using $1.3 trillion of Social Security
trust fund surpluses by the year 2008. It would have been about $2
trillion if we had taken their first offer to stop using the funds by
2012. And to say their final offer was to phase out the use of the
funds overlooks the point that they were suggesting that a statute
would provide that protection when the legal experts I consulted said
in fact that would have no legal force and effect.
I want to thank my colleague. I just felt the need to set the record
straight here, at least with respect to my belief of what happened last
week.
The Balanced Budget Amendment
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wanted to say to my friend, he was
present, is it not true, one day last week prior to the vote when we
were in an office in the Dirksen Building and we called in a
constitutional law expert to go over once again the fact that section 7
of the underlying constitutional amendment said that all revenues must
be included? The report language and everything else pointed to the
fact that that includes Social Security revenues. Then we asked him,
going over the argument again, would a speech, a letter, or a statute
in effect do away with section 7 of the constitutional amendment?
It is true, is it not, that the scholar said it would not? Once a
constitutional amendment passed, Social Security would be there, it
would be used
[[Page S3488]] for balancing the budget, unless you again amended the
Constitution? Is that not true?
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is exactly right. We met with a legal expert,
a constitutional law expert from the Congressional Research Service,
who told us that the statute that had been proposed by the other side
to protect Social Security over time, phasing out the using of Social
Security surplus funds by the year 2012, would not work.
I had been advised earlier in the day by a budget expert from the
Budget Committee itself, a constitutional law expert from the Budget
Committee itself, that it would not work. We were advised later on that
day that, in fact, that was the case.
The Balanced Budget Amendment
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a couple
of minutes, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership and
particularly both Senators from North Dakota for their leadership on
this issue.
We are talking about truth in budgeting. I know the distinguished
Presiding Officer believes in the truth. And the truth is, that when
Republicans point fingers and talk in terms of a flip-flop, they should
examine their own records and realize that many on there side who
previously voted to protect Social Security have now flip-flopped to
voting against it.
The Record will show that the Senator from South Carolina voted for
practically the same language in voting for the constitutional
amendment in 1993. As I stated long before the vote, at that particular
time I had not carefully focused on the details of the Simon amendment.
I was told: Fritz, this is the same balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution. It is not going anywhere. They talked about protecting
Social Security, and I thought, frankly, it did.
When I saw the House of Representatives pass this legislation for the
first time this year, I began to study in detail whether or not the
language complied with the 1990 Hollings-Heinz law, section 13301 of
the Budget Enforcement Act, that we struggled to put on the books.
Why the struggle? Because I have been down this road before. I
remember Arthur Burns, who was then Director of the Federal Reserve
back in the 1970's, talked the need for a unified budget. I went along
with the unified budget in 1983 because there were not any surpluses.
That was the problem, the dilemma that the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota is pointing out. We were trying to make up, with a tax on
payrolls, not only the short-term deficit in Social Security, but also
to protect the fiscal soundness of Social Security into the middle of
the next century.
But then, during the late 1980's, a funny thing happened on the way
to the forum--the Federal deficit exploded. The Social Security
surpluses were growing as a result of the increased payroll tax. But to
hide our fiscal profligacy Congress, Republican and Democrat, used
those funds to mask the true size of the problem. Rather than changing
course and taking steps to reduce our spending habits, we were content
to move the deficit from the Federal Government over to the Social
Security trust.
That bothered Senator Heinz, the late Senator from Pennsylvania, and
this Senator. Senator Heinz was not on the Budget Committee, but I was.
So I brought it up and on July 10, 1990, we had, by a vote of 20 to 1--
where the distinguished Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] was the lone
vote against. Thereafter, by a vote of 98 to 2 on the floor of this
body, we passed my amendment and saw it signed into law by President
Bush on November 5, 1990.
So comes this particular amendment. I checked closely, and I read and
reread it. As I said, we went to better constitutional experts than
myself, but everybody knows that you cannot amend the Constitution by
statute. As President Washington said in his Farewell Address:
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or
modification under the constitutional powers be in any
particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the
way in which the constitution designates--But let there be no
change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may
be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by
which free governments are destroyed.
So I knew it. I had been into this court before.
I said, ``Wait a minute. When it says that all receipts and all
outlays will be included in this deficit, that means that all Social
Security receipts and all Social Security outlays will be included in
calculating the deficit, thereby repealing section 13301.''
Now that got my attention. If I am flipping and flopping, at least,
as Adlai Stevenson said years ago, it is not a question of whether I am
conservative or I am liberal. The question is whether I am headed in
the right direction. I am headed in the direction of complying with the
law. I will yield, because I did not intend to speak until I had my
lunch, but I was disturbed by this nonsense that I heard a little while
ago.
I will ask our distinguished friends, at least in The Washington
Post, to report that five Democratic Senators are ready, willing, and
able to vote for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget if
they protect Social Security. The majority leader said they are going
to protect it. I heard him yesterday on ``Face the Nation''. He said,
``We are going to protect Social Security.'' All I am saying is that
they need to put it in black and white. They need to put it in writing
for the American people.
We wrote a formal letter so there would be no misunderstanding. We
said that you can pass a constitutional amendment with 70 votes if you
only protect Social Security.
I honor the representations made by the distinguished Senator from
Nevada and the distinguished Senator from North Dakota today on the
floor about the need for truth in budgeting. The five votes were there
that could have easily passed the amendment. They acted like the offer
was never made. It was formally made.
I am still prepared, and make the same offer, as one of the
particular five. You could get one vote and pass it right now. It is
1:30 now. You could do it at 1:35 p.m., in the next 5 minutes; anytime.
But that is not the position they take. The Record is clear. If they
wanted to pass it, they could have passed it in a flash.
I thank the distinguished Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous-
consent request?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the
morning business of the Senate, Larry Ferderfer, a congressional
fellow, be allowed privileges of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. If I may further ask unanimous consent, Mr. President. I
can see the time is running. I know Senator Bryan is here to give a
statement and Senator Bingaman is here to give a statement. I wanted to
give a statement on something other than Social Security and the
balanced budget.
I am wondering if we could have the permission of the Chair, and I
ask unanimous consent to extend morning business also for Senator
Bryan, Senator Bingaman, myself, and Senator Dorgan until 2:15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. Regular order will be enforced with Senators allowed to
speak for up to 10 minutes of morning business. Under the order,
morning business is allowed for up to 10 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me add a final comment about this, and
to say that in the coming days, if and when Senators come to the floor
to try to revise history or describe what happened in a manner that
does not comport with what I think happened last week, others of us
will come to the floor to correct it. We will not let stand assertions
by some who say ``Gee, the only reason we lost this vote on the
constitutional amendment to balance the budget was because some people
did not understand what we were trying to do. We had no intention of
using the Social Security trust funds.''
Well, in private conversations, we were told, ``Look, fellows; in
this language, we all understand you cannot balance the budget without
using the Social Security trust funds.''
[[Page S3489]] I wish we had heard that in public, as well, and
maybe the American people would understand more clearly what was behind
the political circumstances last week.
In fact, a lot of this was just politics, as all of us know. Twenty-
four hours after the vote, the Republican National Committee already
had their advertisements on the air, paid for and running. They knew
what they were doing. The slash and burn attack of politics is fine.
They can do that. They have the money. But it is all about politics.
The fact is, we have a serious budget deficit problem in this country.
We ought to fix it. We ought not raid the Social Security trust fund to
do it.
When Abraham Lincoln was debating Stephen Douglas, he was apparently
exasperated. He could not get Douglas to understand a point he was
trying to make. Finally, he stopped and looked at him. ``Tell me, sir.
How many legs does a cow have?'' Douglas said, ``Four.'' ``Well, sir.
Now, if you called the tail a leg, how many legs would the cow have?''
Douglas said, ``Five.'' Lincoln said, ``That is where you are wrong.
Just because you call a tail a leg does not at all make it a leg.''
The folks come here and say they want a balanced budget at the end of
7 years, and at the end of the 7 years, they have taken the trust fund
to balance the budget. They do not have a balanced budget. They might
call it that. But they have raided the Social Security trust funds to
do it. I do not know what arithmetic books they studied to give them
this sort of advice on how to achieve these things.
The people who spoke the loudest about changing the American
Constitution on the deficit are the same ones who, through polling,
have devised this Contract With America that would also have us enact a
very big tax cut right now. They would cut three-quarters of a trillion
dollars from revenue with a big tax cut because that is popular. So
they say, ``Let us have a big tax cut. Let us have a defense increase,
one of the biggest areas of public spending. Let us increase defense
spending. Let us cut taxes. And let us change the Constitution to
require a balanced budget.'' And while they change the Constitution,
they would define revenues and expenditures in a way that would raid
the Social Security trust funds to balance the budget.
Some of us say, ``No. It does not make any sense.'' They say: ``It
does not make sense to you? Then we attack you back home with paid
ads.'' That is fine. They have a right to do that in this country. But
the American people deserve to know the truth, as well.
There is an old virtue in this country about saving. One of the
sobering things we did in the 1980's was to decide in 1983 that we
would save for the future in the Social Security trust funds. I was
part of that. I helped write it. Unfortunately, in these circumstances,
in recent years, and also, if we passed a constitutional amendment
enshrining in that language forever in the future, we would have
misspent the Social Security trust funds. At least, I am not willing to
be a part of that. Others can describe it the way they see it, or the
way they want to. But I would simply leave it at this: We were told in
private, by the same people who said in public, ``We have no intention
of using the Social Security trust funds,'' we were told in private,
``Look, fellows. The only way we can balance the budget is by using the
Social Security trust funds.''
If I told the folks in my hometown that the only way you can balance
the budget is by raiding the Social Security trust funds, they would
then say you need to take a new course in budget balancing. Of course,
you need to balance the Federal budget. You can, and you should. But at
the same time, you can, should, and must save the money you promised
the workers in this country and the retired people in this country that
you would have in the Social Security trust funds.
You promised them you would do that. You owe it to them to do that.
It is not a case where you do one or the other. You do both--balance
the Federal budget and be honest with the trust funds. And, if someone
tries to do it differently, tries to shortcut by saying let us use the
trust funds to balance the budget, I think a lot of people would
appreciate somebody who says, ``No, it does not make any sense.''
This is not about politics. It is about principle. If you are not
willing to stand for principle from time to time, then you should not
be here. I am not complaining about the political pressure. They can
attack forever. But when they come to the floor to revise the story of
what happened last week, then I intend to be on the floor, and I hope
the Senator from Nevada and others will be prepared to correct the
Record every single day they do it.
The American people need to understand what happened. And we have an
obligation to tell them the truth about what went on in the Senate last
week.
We did not start this. I heard this discussion and felt the need to
come over and respond to it. I prefer that we not have these
discussions. I prefer instead that we decide that what happened last
week happened last week. Let us try to work this week on what benefits
this country.
But to forever, today, every day, and every way, bring this up is
just politics. It is just: ``How do we win and how do we force the
others to lose?'' I know I am representing myself in an assertive way
because of what I just heard. I say that the Presiding Officer at this
point is someone who I know believes the less politics the better. We
are all elected through the political system, and I am proud of the
system. I support the system.
John F. Kennedy used to say, ``Every mother hopes their child can
grow up to be President as long as they do not get involved in
politics.'' But we must make public decisions and it is a necessary
system. Party politics, it seems to me, ought to play a lesser role
than public principle on important public issues.
I hope we can put all that aside and decide to march in unison toward
the goals of the people. They want a better economy and more
opportunity in the future. Both political parties have an obligation to
join hands and see if we can find ways to try to bring that about and
give to the American people an economy that is growing and provides
more opportunity.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan] is
recognized.
____________________