[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.

                          ____________________