[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3570-S3574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, in the 21 years I have served in this body, 
I have never seen the level of partisanship that we are seeing on the 
balanced budget amendment. So maybe I should not have been shocked last 
Friday to see my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, blatantly 
misrepresent my words of 1994. Clearly, his only purpose was to further 
divide the American public and to tarnish the reputation of Senators 
who have only sought to pass the best amendment possible.
  Senator Lott quoted me as saying, Mr. President, and I will quote it 
verbatim from the Record; this is what Senator Lott said I said:

       I hear so much about ``if 40-some-odd Governors can operate 
     a balanced budget, why can't the Federal Government.''
       * * * I operated under it.

  When I said ``I,'' Mr. President, as Governor:

       It worked.
       * * * I think implementation of this amendment will work. I 
     think we can make it work.
       * * * I do not understand why it takes a brain surgeon to 
     understand how you operate a budget the way the States do.
       * * * this is an opportunity to pass a balanced budget 
     amendment that will work and will give us a financially sound 
     future, not only for ourselves but for our children and our 
     grandchildren.

  End of the quote that Senator Lott put in the Record.
  To that I say, Mr. President, read the full statement, and the 
fallacy will become clear.
  I ask unanimous consent that both of my floor statements from last 
year be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:
             [From the Congressional Record, Feb. 25, 1994]

       Mr. Ford. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada 
     for allowing me this time.
       I support a balanced budget amendment and always have. The 
     borrow and spend policies of the past must not continue. We 
     all know that. The ability to expand our economy and provide 
     job opportunities for this and future generations, much less 
     provide for a nation that can function beyond simply 
     servicing its debt, absolutely depends upon bringing the 
     deficit under control. I think that my friend from Illinois 
     would agree with this sentiment and I agree in principle with 
     his amendment. I think that the Senator has done the Nation a 
     great service by his tireless work on behalf of this serious 
     matter. However, there is room for improvement in most things 
     including, the original language of Senate Joint Resolution 
     41.
       It is the job and the responsibility of the Congress to 
     control the spending of our Nation. Unfortunately, we have 
     abandoned this role, to a large degree, by running large 
     budget deficits during normal times. By normal times I mean 
     not during war, or recessions. This practice is not only 
     fiscally irresponsible, but with the huge debt we are now 
     passing along to our children, it has become morally 
     irresponsible as well. We as a congress and, being the 
     representatives of the people, as a nation must begin to 
     regain control of our spending policies. We need something 
     that forces us to do this. An amendment to the Constitution 
     would do just that. While one law can be changed by passing 
     another law, this legislation would make fiscal discipline 
     mandatory.
       However, the Congress must not pass the buck once again by 
     relinquishing control of the budget all together. 
     Congressional control must be maintained and our amendment 
     does just that. Deficit spending by itself is not the 
     problem. The problem is chronic deficit spending in good 
     times not just bad ones. Furthermore, we are not borrowing at 
     the present time to rebuild infrastructure by building roads, 
     airports, or an information super highway. Nor have we been 
     borrowing for the last 30 years to bring a faltering economy 
     out of recession or prepare for war. We have had the need 
     from time to time during that period and during these 
     periods, borrowing represents sound fiscal policy. During 
     times of war or economic downturn, these policies help the 
     economy and help our Nation as a whole. But this is not what 
     we have been doing at all. What we have been doing is 
     borrowing to pay the interest on previous debt.
       Let me put this in terms that every American can 
     understand. When a company decides to expand or buy more 
     efficient equipment, it generally borrows the money, knowing 
     that this investment will more than pay for itself in the 
     future. The profit earned is used first to pay off the loan 
     and the extra is kept as income. The key word in all of this 
     is invest. Investment as our President has been saying for 
     some time is good, it provides benefits in years to come. We 
     invest a great deal of money on the Federal level, upwards of 
     $200 billion. This money is well spent and will pay dividends 
     to our children and their children. When we build a highway, 
     it increases economic efficiency and activity, real dividends 
     that pay off in real jobs and increased incomes. Congress 
     should not cut off its nose to spite its face. Our amendment 
     protects this vital investment portion of spending. It keeps 
     responsibility with the Congress and gives us the flexibility 
     that we need during hard times and the discipline we need 
     during the good ones to manage the budget in a responsible 
     manner.
       Let me get back to my example of a business borrowing to 
     expand or upgrade its facilities. Bad fiscal policy is when 
     all of the profits earned from the improvements are frittered 
     away on other expenses, and the loan is never repaid. When 
     this happens, the situation goes downhill fast. If the belt 
     is not tightened and the loan is not paid off, the company, 
     no matter what, will go bankrupt. It can borrow more money 
     for a time but eventually it must pay off its loans or the 
     banks will eventually turn that company down. We are a nation 
     that is getting perilously close to that last loan. We are 
     borrowing not to invest for growth, but instead simply and 
     irresponsibly to pay off interest on past loans. All the 
     while our debt continues to mount and we have nothing to show 
     for it. This is the type of behavior that must be stopped and 
     our amendment is the prescription for this sickness. It stops 
     the bad borrowing but keeps the Congress in control of 
     investing in our Nation's future.
       Our Founding Fathers placed the country's purse strings 
     under the explicit control of the Congress. Our amendment 
     keeps the control here. The judicial branch of Government has 
     no business deciding on what program should be cut or what 
     revenue should be raised. That is our responsibility. Our 
     amendment keeps that responsibility right where it belongs. I 
     won't talk on this point too long because, I think there is 
     complete agreement among us on this point. However, I cannot 
     stress enough that we in the Congress must make the hard 
     choices, and if we do not our amendment calls for an internal 
     solution. Should this happen, this legislation calls for 
     uniform cuts; with everyone and every program paying equally. 
     That is fair and just and it would be a congressional action.
       Let me speak on another matter of grave concern to many of 
     our citizens. That is the sanctity of the Social Security 
     system. Many years ago, our Nation made a pact with its 
     people to help them in retirement, whether that be in old age 
     or by disability. Our amendment respects that agreement, in 
     fact it reinforces it, makes it stronger, safer and more 
     secure. This amendment has a lot to do with responsible 
     action and nowhere is that needed more than on dealing with 
     Social Security. It is exempt from our amendment, thus 
     securing and fortifying its position as a separate trust 
     fund. Neither receipts nor outlays will be counted as part of 
     the budget under this provision. As my friend, and colleague 
     from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] has pointed out, ``the Social 
     Security system is not causing the deficit.'' Its revenues 
     and surpluses should not be used to mask the deficit nor 
     should its outlays be counted as part of expenditures. Our 
     proposal protects the sanctity of this most vital program.
       In closing, I would like to stress just how strongly I 
     favor a balanced budget amendment, but it must be the right 
     amendment and our amendment is it. I have supported and 
     continue to support my colleague from Illinois in his efforts 
     to control Federal spending, however, our proposed changes 
     make this a more honest and more workable amendment. 
     Surpluses in trust funds whether it be for airports, Social 
     Security or highways, will not be used to mask the true size 
     of the deficit. And, equally important, it will allow 
     Congress to maintain the flexibility 
      [[Page S3571]] needed during wars or recessions while 
     protecting our capital investments and curtailing our 
     practice of borrowing to pay interest on past loans.
       Mr. President, I do not think anyone in this body with 
     certainty can tell us what will happen in the future if we 
     have a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. I do 
     not think we can say with certainty. And so with uncertainty, 
     we get all the horror stories. And all the horror stories if 
     this does not pass; something is going to happen. If it does 
     pass, some other things are going to happen.
       The implementing legislation that is required, if and when 
     a balanced budget amendment passes, will give us some idea 
     and eliminate some of the uncertainties, but that will be the 
     legislative branch prerogative to pass the implementing 
     legislation. So I wish to kind of put a little oil on the 
     water if I can as to all the uncertainties we have been 
     hearing about in the last few days.
       We also hear the horror stories that if the Simon amendment 
     passes, the courts will become the legislative body. Well, we 
     scurried around and I guess now you have the Danforth 
     amendment included in the Simon amendment, because the horror 
     story was that the courts would then become the legislative 
     body of this land. They would tell us what new taxes to 
     impose and what programs to cut or what all new taxes and no 
     programs cut or programs cut and no new taxes. So under the 
     Simon original amendment the courts would have had 
     jurisdiction over the legislative body. So we scurry around 
     and find an amendment that will basically eliminate it. Not 
     good enough. Not good enough because the Reid amendment says 
     only the legislative body.
       Well, then we hear we have no way to say to those of us who 
     will make a vote, have discipline because the courts will 
     not. So whichever way you go, you can find somebody on the 
     other side.
       It reminds me when I was president of a civic organization, 
     and we had a question that was bothersome to me. I turned to 
     the legal counsel for the civic organization, and I said, 
     ``Which way should we go on this?'' He said, ``Mr. President, 
     go either way and we will make a heck of a case out of it.'' 
     And so that is what I think we find here. Go either way and 
     we will make a case on it.
       We eliminate the worry of the courts telling the 
     legislative body that is elected by the people what to do and 
     what not to do, and that was our idea which was finally 
     accepted by the so-called Simon amendment.
       In 1983, the Social Security Program was in horrible shape. 
     Everyone in this body understands that we were in real 
     trouble with Social Security. But we all came together in a 
     bipartisan way and corrected the problem with Social Security 
     in outyears. Now they say the only way that you can save 
     Social Security is a balanced budget.
       Well, we are still collecting out of my check every month, 
     and I suggest my distinguished colleague from Illinois is 
     having his taken out every month. I do not know what that has 
     to do with a balanced budget except if it is out there you 
     can use it to help balance the budget.
       So what the Reid amendment says is that after we have gone 
     through the 1983 labor to fix the Social Security question, 
     we have included in this amendment that we would not touch 
     Social Security. On this floor you hear it. ``Don't touch 
     Social Security.'' Now we are trying to say a balanced budget 
     saves it. That is the only way because they do not have this 
     exclusion in this amendment. In the cloakrooms you hear talk, 
     ``We have to save Social Security.'' And over the lunch table 
     we hear it, ``We should not destroy Social Security.'' So the 
     Reid amendment or resolution has taken care of that problem.
       Do you know something, Mr. President? You can sympathize 
     with me over this a little bit. I have heard for days now, 
     and really for years: If 40-some-odd Governors can operate 
     under a balanced budget, why cannot Federal Government? Well, 
     Mr. President, I had the privilege, as you did, given me by 
     the people of my State to serve as Governor. I even had the 
     line-item veto. And the Kentucky Constitution states that the 
     Governor--nobody else--the Governor must reduce expenditures 
     if it is determined that the State would have a shortfall. 
     But if you want to raise taxes, you have to call a special 
     session for the purpose of raising taxes.
       Now we hear that we do not want to operate like Governors. 
     We just want to use them as operating under a balanced 
     budget. We are going to give you an opportunity to say that 
     you do not want to operate like Governors. You just want to 
     use them as an image out there that operates under a balanced 
     budget because Governors must operate under a balanced 
     budget. Then we think that is good. But we do not want the 
     Federal Government to do that.
       Let us follow the State procedure, if it works. And it is 
     simple. I operated, as I said earlier, under this procedure. 
     We had an operating account and a capital account. I never 
     vetoed a budget. I never exercised the line-item veto in 4 
     years. And I left $300 million in surplus. Pretty good, I 
     thought, a lot better than we are doing here. We had the 
     operating account and we had the bond issue. We have T bills 
     here. Whatever the legislative process is, after the 
     amendment is approved or disapproved, if it is, right now 
     they are a little bit light. They call our amendment light. 
     But they are light in votes, and they are struggling now to 
     try to figure out a way to get some more. They are condemning 
     our proposal because it has, in my opinion, more common sense 
     in it than theirs.
       So we had our operating account. We had our bond issue. We 
     had the payments to be made out of the operating account. We 
     paid it. We had a balanced budget. We had a surplus. Our 
     estimates were pretty good.
       If we had not gotten the agreement, as we now have, to vote 
     next Tuesday at 3 o'clock, and then 4 hours later on the 
     second amendment, we would have had the opportunity to vote 
     on each one of those amendments to the Simon amendment, 
     because many in this Chamber felt the Simon amendment did not 
     include the exclusion of the courts. That is one. Social 
     Security is another. You would have the operating and capital 
     construction accounts to vote on up or down. And we would 
     have had to vote on each one of those separately. We would 
     delay moving towards a balanced budget, and the delays would 
     have been, I think, helpful to those that oppose a balanced 
     budget.
       Mr. President, I interrupted the distinguished Senator from 
     Illinois [Mr. Simon], awhile ago when he was reading from the 
     newspaper that this amendment is just a stalking horse to 
     give cover to those who want to vote for a constitutional 
     amendment that probably will not pass, and then that gives 
     them a reason to vote against Senator Simon.
       Let me clear everybody's mind. I am for a balanced budget 
     amendment. And I intend to vote for a balanced budget 
     amendment, and maybe two before next week is over. But some 
     ideas around here might just be worth looking at for a 
     moment. There might be a moment. If you look into the future 
     and how we are going to operate, this may be a pretty decent 
     idea to try.
       I hear that, ``Oh, well, if we are going to vote for this, 
     we will not have to do anything for 7 years.'' I thought we 
     were under a budget constraint now. I thought we had caps on 
     our budget now. I thought this was the third straight year of 
     deficit decline, unprecedented in the last 31 years since 
     Harry Truman. I thought we would have to continue to do that 
     even though we required 2001 to have the budget balanced or 
     begin that process.
       I think this is a way we can do this to accommodate most 
     people, rather than take the position that it is this way or 
     nothing. I come from the State of Henry Clay. Henry Clay was 
     a great compromiser. Henry Clay described compromise as 
     ``negotiating hurt''--negotiating hurt. You had to give up 
     something most of the time that you really did not want to, 
     and it hurt to give it up. But for the sake of progress, for 
     the sake of bringing a consensus together, compromise is a 
     pretty good thing.
       So, we offer to the colleagues in the Senate the ability to 
     say, we are not going to disturb Social Security. I do not 
     care what you say about a balanced budget as long as you take 
     it out of your paycheck and put it into a Social Security 
     account. That is where it belongs.
       We talk about capital construction of the highways. We are 
     taxing now and not spending it. We are not spending it. We 
     have billions; a $15-, $17-, $18-billion surplus in the 
     highway account. We are not spending it.
       Talk about airports capital construction; 10 percent of 
     every ticket that is purchased goes into the airport 
     improvement trust fund. There is $7, $8 billion in there not 
     building airports. What is a balanced budget going to do for 
     that? We are already charging the tax.
       We can have our operating account. We can have our capital 
     account. Some say that we ought to balance the Federal budget 
     like we do our house account or our budget at home. We have 
     an operating account at home. That operating account is the 
     amount of income we have. We buy a car.
       We can buy a car, maybe not a luxury car, but one within 
     our means and what we can pay for. We decide we want to buy a 
     house, and it may not be a mansion, but it is what we can pay 
     for. What we should have in an operating account is our 
     income. We make those payments on those capital investments 
     that we have, and we keep our operating account balanced. I 
     do not see anything wrong with it. If Governors operate that 
     way--and some are beating their chests saying if Governors 
     can do it, we can do it--here is how Governors do it. I 
     operated under it. I understand it. I had a veto of the 
     budget; I had the line-item veto; all of those, when I was 
     Governor. We operated out of an operating account and out of 
     a capital account. It was in the budget. We made our payments 
     and we had a surplus.
       I do not understand why that is not at least tickling the 
     interest of some folks. But we are rigid right now. ``It is 
     ours or nothing.'' Well, you may just get nothing, with a 
     capital ``N.'' And you are light right now on votes. If you 
     are light on votes, why not look at something that will be 
     workable, because you will get some votes for this one. With 
     the others, you might just pass this amendment. But the way 
     you are going now, you are light by several votes.
       My colleague keeps talking about taxes. I do not know that 
     this brings new taxes. That one does. That is all I have 
     heard is ``the courts imposing taxes.'' Yes; we will have to 
     pay taxes. For the Simons resolution, the report was $570 in 
     new taxes per individual in my State. If you want it, I will 
     get it and give it to you. Everybody quotes the paper around 
     here. I will give you an article out of the paper. They do 
     not necessarily have to be true, but we sure do quote them. 
     So all of this propaganda is being put out.
        [[Page S3572]] So I hope that those who are so rigidly 
     stuck to one amendment could at least give this one a little 
     read; look at it a little bit. We take care of depression; we 
     take care of war; we take care of those things. I think it is 
     important that we have the opportunity to put something in 
     place. If you are going to tinker with the Constitution now, 
     give the Constitution something that will work. Give it 
     something that you think would have a chance of working. And 
     then the implementing legislation will set up the procedure 
     whereby we use the operating account, and what is the capital 
     construction, and how do we pay for it? Do we use T-bills for 
     capital and pay the bills off?
       We heard the Senator from Illinois say that it was Albert 
     Gore, Sr. that said pay as you go and put on new taxes, and 
     President Eisenhower was saying let us bond it and pay the 
     bonds off. That was a difference of opinion then. So we taxed 
     the payoff; rather than having an operating fund to pay off 
     capital construction, pay off the bond issue.
       So I hope that we will give this very serious 
     consideration. I will have other things to say before the 
     vote comes next Tuesday, and I welcome any cosponsors. We 
     have had many come to us this morning to talk about it. We 
     have picked up a good many votes today. We are further away 
     from passing this amendment than Senator Simon is, but if we 
     combined our efforts, we would pass it.
       You say I am a stalking-horse? No; I am not a stalking-
     horse. You say I am trying to give people cover. No; they are 
     not getting cover from this one. We have a legitimate 
     proposal to be given to the colleagues in the U.S. Senate, 
     that they can go back home and say: I voted for a 
     Constitutional amendment to balance the budget that is 
     doable.
       The other one is, you either eliminate or increase taxes, 
     or both. I do not think this one puts you in the posture of 
     raising taxes. That is a great, great difference, in my 
     opinion. I have been listening very carefully as to raising 
     taxes and how much new tax it is going to cost to pay for the 
     Simon resolution, and I think it is time we take a step back 
     and look at an opportunity now to have a balanced budget 
     amendment. I do not have the words to get you out on the edge 
     of the seat or the ability to say, boy, that is it. I just do 
     not have that ability.
       I do believe sincerely that we have an amendment that is 
     important, an amendment that should be considered, and maybe, 
     just maybe, we can put our two groups together and say that 
     we have a resolution here that could be doable; it is 
     workable, and we could vote for a balanced budget, and the 
     future of Senator Simon's unborn grandchildren will be saved.
       I yield the floor.
                                                                    ____

             [From the Congressional Record, Mar. 1, 1994]

       The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] 
     is recognized for 10 minutes.
       Mr. Ford. Mr. President, I have but a few minutes to speak 
     this morning on behalf of the Reid-Ford-Feinstein balanced 
     budget amendment. So I will concentrate my remarks this 
     morning on trust.
       The public trusts the Congress to keep the Nation's 
     finances in order. Nowhere is that agreement and that trust 
     more evident or more important than in governing the Social 
     Security trust fund.
       In the debate over our amendment and the Simon amendment, 
     honesty and protection of the trust fund have played a very 
     big role. Right now, surpluses in the trust funds are being 
     used to hide the true amount of the deficit. The biggest 
     example of this is in Social Security, but it is by no means 
     alone in this distinction.
       During the 1980's, we allowed the Federal trust funds to 
     run up huge surpluses. We would collect a gasoline tax to 
     fund highway construction but then not spend it all on 
     highways, thus creating an accounting surplus. The problem 
     is, we did spend money elsewhere creating masked deficit and 
     budgetary illusions.
       The Simon amendment will allow us to continue to do this. I 
     have a speech in my folder that I made back in October of 
     1987 that addressed this very issue. This particular speech 
     dealt with the Aviation trust fund. At the time, it 
     represented a $6 billion surplus.
       Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that that is only 
     peanuts when compared to Social Security. According to OMB, 
     from 1985, when the Social Security System started to run a 
     surplus, to 1993, it singlehandedly covered up $366 billion 
     in Government red ink. Social Security covered up $366 
     billion in Government red ink.
       If you think that is bad, wait until we look to the future. 
     From 1994 through the year 2001, the date that Senator 
     Simon's amendment would likely take effect, CBO projects 
     another $703 billion in budgetary chicanery, for a grand 
     total of $1.69 trillion worth of deception.
       When compared with that, the deficit hidden by the other 
     trust funds are small potatoes--only another $35 to $40 
     billion. Pretty soon though, as we have heard in the past, it 
     adds up to real money. We pat ourselves on the back and claim 
     to cut spending and do what is right for our electorate, all 
     the while our Social Security trust fund is full of IOU's.
       Well, I, and those who support our amendment, mean to do 
     something about that. Our amendment respects the pact our 
     Nation made with its people many years ago. It reinforces it, 
     makes it stronger, safer, and more secure. Social Security is 
     exempt from our amendment, thus securing and fortifying its 
     position as a separate trust fund. If you do not believe me, 
     just listen to the Gray Panthers, and they will tell you 
     themselves. I have here three letters to that effect. AARP, 
     the National Alliance for Senior Citizens, and the National 
     Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, all 
     endorse Social Security's treatment under this amendment.
       Other trust funds will be treated honestly as well. They 
     will be considered as a part of the capital budget that 
     invests in infrastructure and development. Building highways 
     and airports pays dividends in the future through higher 
     productivity and job opportunity and growth. Social Security 
     and these other trust funds did not cause the deficit, and 
     under our amendment they will not be used to hide the deficit 
     either. This is honest budgeting and a workable balanced 
     budget amendment.
       Mr. President, time is short and a vote on the Reid-Ford-
     Feinstein balanced budget amendment is near. Unfortunately, I 
     fear that it is not near passage but defeat. Standing beside 
     that defeat will be a good faith effort of those who are 
     truly concerned about the world that we leave for future 
     generations. Standing beside that defeat will be the last 
     attempt of this Congress to face reality and tackle an ever-
     crippling debt and deficit problem. Standing beside that 
     defeat will be faith in Government. I support the efforts of 
     my friend and colleague from Illinois to take on this 
     persistent fiscal dishonesty, but his version of the 
     amendment will go down to defeat as well.
       The Reid-Ford-Feinstein amendment is the only amendment 
     that could stand the chance of final passage. We all know 
     that. Yet standing by the defeat of yet another balanced 
     budget will be my colleagues from the other side of the 
     aisle. Instead of getting what they could, they will go home 
     proud of taking the supposed moral high ground. If that is 
     what they want, they can have it. What I want and what 70 
     percent of our Nation's people want is a sound financial 
     future. What they will get is more of the same under the 
     Simon amendment, for standing tall at the end of the day will 
     be disenchantment, dishonesty, and fiscal irresponsibility.
       I hear so much about ``if 40-some-odd Governors can operate 
     a balanced budget, why can't the Federal Government.''
       Well, I give them an opportunity. I operated under it. It 
     worked. We had a huge surplus when I left the Governor's 
     office. We had an operating account. We had a capital 
     account.
       They say operate like you do at home. At home you have 
     income, your salary. That is your operating account. You buy 
     a car within your means. You pay that out of your operating 
     account. You buy a home. You pay that out of your operating 
     account. But your operating account is always balanced. And 
     we have a time period in which to pay it off.
       They say, ``Oh, we will never implement that legislation.'' 
     How do you know we will not? I have seen some amazing things 
     come out of this Chamber. I have seen people work and do the 
     right thing.
       I think implementation of this amendment will work. I think 
     we can make it work. But on the other hand, if we want an 
     issue, fine. Stay with Senator Simon and Senator Hatch. Stay 
     with them and then have an issue when you go home.
       But do you want a balanced budget amendment? There are 
     enough votes with those who are supporting that amendment 
     that we can get one.
       Oh, I hear all this, ``The House is going to make us do 
     it.'' I have never seen us make the House do anything. I have 
     never seen the House make us do anything. So when they pass 
     their balanced budget amendment, what is it going to do? It 
     is going to die between here and there. That is what is going 
     to happen to it. It is going to die between here and there.
       ``Oh, we will be forced into it.'' Nope. The House will not 
     do that to us. We will not do it to the House. So if you want 
     a balanced budget amendment operated like Nebraska was 
     operated, like Kentucky was operated, I will guarantee you 
     that we can do the right thing.
       That is what it is all about here today, to do the right 
     thing. We have an operating budget. We are going to pay this 
     in 10 years. The slice is in here. We have IOU's in the 
     Social Security. We are going to buy it. It is in operating. 
     We buy it, pay it off. So Social Security is sound. I do not 
     understand why it takes a brain surgeon to understand how you 
     operate a budget the way the States do.
       And so, Mr. President, I would hope that we would 
     reconsider between now and 3 o'clock this afternoon that this 
     is an opportunity to pass a balanced budget amendment that 
     will work and will give us a financially sound future, not 
     only for ourselves but for our children and our 
     grandchildren.
       I hear my distinguished friend say he is going to do it for 
     his unborn grandchildren. I have five. The Senator is no 
     ``Lone Ranger.'' I am just as worried about my grandchildren 
     as he is. And I think I have a pretty good idea. I have had 
     to work under it. I had to operate it. I understand how it 
     works. There are few in this Chamber who do. You will find 
     that most of those will vote for this amendment because it 
     works.
       Do it like the Governors do; pass the Reid amendment. Do it 
     like you do at home and operate your own budget; pass the 
     Reid amendment. It is just that simple, Mr. President.
       [[Page S3573]] I do not know how much time I have 
     remaining, but I will reserve it.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, because of the way that the quotes were 
lifted from my speeches, this action can only be viewed as intentional. 
Senator Lott falsely states that I was talking about the balanced 
budget amendment that had been introduced by his side of the aisle 
when, in fact, I was speaking about my own substitute amendment, with 
other Senators here, one that, among other things, excluded Social 
Security. This action can only be viewed as irresponsible.
  Further reading of my original quote clearly indicates I was 
advocating the same position a year ago that I advocated on the Senate 
floor last week and that I remain committed to today: Ensuring that 
Social Security is not used to balance the budget.
  The truth of the matter is that this error has backfired. This 
attempt to discredit me and my intentions has instead shown from day 1 
that I have had serious reservations about what could happen to Social 
Security. While I was voicing my concern about Social Security, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle were putting together 
proposals to carve up the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. President, I have papers right here, drafted in the form of a 
bill, which show the amount of Social Security moneys that would be 
used from the trust fund. That was offered to me as an alternate 
proposal. They were going to use the Social Security trust fund. This 
one is for 10 years.
  Generally, something like this might be passed off as an isolated 
incident. But, unfortunately, this appears to be one segment of a large 
Republican National Committee strategy, and I submit further proof of 
the scurrilous activities RNC releases that commit the same wrongs.
  Mr. President, I submit those for the record and ask unanimous 
consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [RNC News Release, Washington, DC, Mar. 2, 1995]

 Statement by RNC Chairman Haley Barbour Following the Senate Balanced 
                         Budget Amendment Vote

       By blocking passage of the balanced budget amendment, Bill 
     Clinton and the Democrats who voted against it in the Senate 
     today made the difference between Republican leadership and 
     Democrat retrenchment more crystal clear than ever. While 
     Republicans are keeping our promise to end business-as-usual 
     in Washington, Clinton and his Clinton Corps in the Senate 
     banded together in a blatant exercise of politics-as-usual.
       Tom Daschle, Jeff Bingaman, Dianne Feinstein, Wendell Ford, 
     Byron Dorgan, and Fritz Hollings have become apprentices in 
     The Clinton School, where the fine art of saying one thing, 
     but doing another is taught. They told the people of their 
     states they were for a balanced budget amendment. They voted 
     for a balanced budget amendment in the past, some of them 
     more than once. But when Clinton and the Democrats needed 
     them, they switched their votes and defeated the balanced 
     budget amendment. They put party above the interests of the 
     children of their state.
       Their hypocrisy extends even to the excuses they're 
     scrambling for. The six Democrats who today defeated the 
     balanced budget amendment are trying to use Social Security 
     as a cover for their flip-flop, but in 1993 the same six 
     voted to cut Social Security income by raising taxes on 
     beneficiaries. They voted for a virtually identical balanced 
     budget amendment last year without any mention of Social 
     Security. The fig leaf they`re trying to hide behind wouldn't 
     hide a gnat.
       Clinton, the liberal Democrats in the Senate and the big-
     spending special interests might have succeeded in stopping 
     passage of the balanced budget amendment today, but the 
     voters will have the last word.
                                                                    ____


Haley's Comment by Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour

       A lot of Americans are very mad tonight . . . very mad at 
     Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress who defeated the 
     balanced budget amendment by a single vote this afternoon.
       According to a CBS/New York Times poll, 79% of Americans 
     support passage of the balanced budget amendment, and no 
     wonder. The budget has been balanced only one year since 
     1960. Under Bill Clinton's new budget the deficit goes up, 
     and it stays at the $200 billion level for the rest of the 
     century. In 2002, the year this amendment would have required 
     a balanced budget, Clinton's budget deficit will be $320 
     billion.
       The voters know the only way to stop the spending spree is 
     through the constitutional discipline of this amendment. The 
     big-spending liberals know that too, so they joined Bill 
     Clinton in pulling out all stops to kill the amendment.
       In the end, the left focused on six Democrat senators, who 
     had voted for the virtually identical amendment just last 
     year. Clinton and company needed all six. If any one voted 
     for the amendment, it would pass.
       Last year Fritz Hollings of South Carolina said on the 
     Senate floor, in support of the balanced budget amendment, 
     ``No more weaseling, no more excuses, just make the hard 
     choices and balance the budget.'' Today Hollings weaseled; he 
     voted no.
       Wendell Ford of Kentucky voted for the amendment in 1986 
     and 1994, when he said we needed a constitutional amendment 
     to regain control of spending. In his speech in support of 
     the constitutional amendment, he referred to Congress as 
     representatives of the people. Today Ford decided he'd be a 
     representative of the Democrat Party instead. So he turned 
     his back on the people of Kentucky, and voted no.
       Tonight you've seen the Daschle, Dorgan and Feinstein 
     campaign ads, extolling their support of the balanced budget 
     amendment.
       No wonder people are cynical. Voters have grown accustomed 
     to Bill Clinton promising one thing but doing just the 
     opposite; saying what you want to hear during the election, 
     but never intending to do it. Now we've learned this tactic 
     is contagious in the Democrat Party. All six of these 
     senators--Dorgan, Daschle, Hollings, Feinstein, Ford and 
     Bingaman voted no today, despite what they had said in the 
     past. They formed the hypocritical Clinton Corps, who told 
     their constituents they're for the balanced budget amendment 
     but voted against it today.
       It is not lost on the voters that at the same time 
     Republicans are keeping our word by fulfilling the mandate 
     given us by the American people last November, it was 
     Democrats, breaking their promises, that caused the balanced 
     budget amendment to lose today.
       But today won't be the last day. Senator Bob Dole has said 
     he will bring it up to vote on again. Between now and then I 
     hope you and every other outraged American let these senators 
     hear from you.
                                                                    ____


  The Defeat of the Balanced Budget Amendment: Hypocrisy on the Record

       In 1992, Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) ran a campaign ad touting 
     his support for a balanced budget amendment. In the ad, he 
     looks at the camera (as the state's voters) squarely in the 
     eye and says: ``This country's in deep trouble. Everybody 
     knows that. The question is, what can we do about it. Well, 
     we can fight to change things. I'm convinced we can put this 
     country back on track, but to do it, we've got to put an end 
     to these crippling budget deficits. So here's what I'm 
     fighting to do.'' He then unveils the ``Dorgan Plan'' and 
     describes its final, critical component: ``I'm working for a 
     constitutional amendment that forces a balanced budget.'' He 
     even voted for the balanced budget amendment--with no strings 
     attached--in the 1994 campaign year, saying ``I am convinced 
     that it is the right thing to do and the necessary thing to 
     do.'' (Congressional Record, March 1, 1994)
       Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who voted for the balanced budget 
     amendment--no strings attached--last year, had made his 
     support of the balanced budget amendment a central issue in 
     his campaign in 1986, airing an ad showing red ink pouring 
     over the Constitution as the announcer reads: ``The national 
     debt. America is awash in red ink. But in 1979, Tom Daschle 
     saw the damage these deficits could do to our country. His 
     first official act was to sponsor a constitutional amendment 
     to balance the budget. For seven years, Tom Daschle has 
     battled party leaders and special interests to cut waste and 
     close loopholes.'' Apparently, he just wasn't up to the 
     battle anymore this year, when he caved to President Clinton.
       Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) saw fit last year--when she was 
     up for reelection--to support the balanced budget amendment, 
     no strings attached. She, too, put her support for the 
     amendment on public display in a campaign ad, which touts her 
     ``courageous votes for the balanced budget amendment'' as 
     central to her fight to ``create jobs and get California's 
     economy going again.'' The tag line of the ad says, ``She's 
     our Senator, Dianne Feinstein.'' From her flip-flop today, it 
     appears she's now Bill Clinton's Senator.
       Wendell Ford (D-Ky.) voted for the balanced budget 
     amendment both in 1986 and 1994. Last year he said, ``We as a 
     Congress and, being the representatives of the people, as a 
     nation must begin to regain control of our spending policies. 
     We need something that forces us to do this. An amendment to 
     the Constitution would do just that.'' (March 1, 1994) Today, 
     as the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, he sided with 
     his party, taking the opposite position from a majority of 
     the people of his state.
       Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) voted for the balanced budget 
     amendment both in 1986 and 1994. When he voted for it last 
     year, he said: ``By writing a balanced budget amendment into 
     the basic law of the land, we will compel Washington to do 
     its job. No more weaseling. No more excuses. Just make the 
     hard choices and balance the budget. And do not be surprised 
     when a balanced U.S. budget turns out to be the best economic 
     growth program this country has ever seen.'' (Congressional 
     Record, March 1, 1994)

  Mr. FORD. I for one am fed up with this type of political 
mudslinging. It does a disservice to serious discussion 
 [[Page S3574]] of the issue, and I hope that the American people are 
tired of it, too. I hope that this incident forces my colleague and his 
associates at the RNC to actually read the full text of my speeches and 
stop the blatant misrepresentation.
  And Mr. President, from the National Journal's Congressional Daily, 
they have a quote on page 8 of March 2.

       On Wednesday, Ford's Washington office received 407 phone 
     calls supporting the balanced budget amendment and 765 
     opposing it, according to the office spokesman. The ratio has 
     remained about the same throughout the week in the Washington 
     and State offices, he said. In addition, Republican National 
     Chairman Haley Barbour shrugged off a claim by Ford that RNC 
     ads running in Ford's home State of Kentucky backfired and 
     helped solidify Ford's position on the amendment.

  And I quote Mr. Barbour. Mr. Barbour says, and I quote:

       ``I was born at night but not last night,'' Barbour said, 
     adding that he does not believe ``any member of the United 
     States Senate could vote against the wishes of his 
     constituents merely because he got his feelings hurt by a TV 
     ad.''

  Now, Mr. President, I was born at night, but I was not born last 
night. What I said was when they started running the ads against me in 
Kentucky, it stirred up a hornet's nest. It caused other groups that 
were opposed to the amendment to gear up. They put on radio ads; they 
put on TV ads, and they stirred it up. If he had left it alone--that is 
what I am saying. He stirred up the activity himself, and it did not 
hurt my feelings. I am a grown man. I have been around a long time. Dad 
told me, in politics, when they tear the hide off of you, just remember 
it grows back and you are tougher.
  You are looking at one tough son of a gun today, Mr. President. I 
just want people to understand, lest we forget, they put that out and 
misquoted us again. They misquoted us again. I think that the record 
ought to be made straight, and I have all the documentation necessary 
to prove that this statement of mine was lifted from the Record, not 
actually the statement I made. It was a statement I made as it related 
to a substitute amendment that we thought would be a better amendment 
that would work better for the American people and, yes, would help our 
children and our grandchildren.
  And so, Mr. President, I make this statement just to defend myself 
because I do not want this statement to hang out there longer because 
it would, I think, be detrimental to what I hope my constituents 
understand and what I believe to be the facts.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield 1 
minute.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to follow on those comments by 
saying that my experience with respect to information put in the 
Congressional Record about statements I made last year was similar to 
that of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford].
  Other Senators have spoken on the floor of the Senate about our 
sincerity in working to protect Social Security. They were asking--
about the Senator from Kentucky, my colleague from North Dakota, the 
Senator from California, myself and others--these other Senators were 
wondering where were we last year when we voted on the same identical 
balanced budget amendment? Senators were asking why we were not worried 
then. Why did we not, et cetera, et cetera.
  And then they put parts of our statements in the Record. The problem 
is that what they put in was not all of the statements, but simply a 
couple of paragraphs.
  Let me read, if I might, from last year's statement that I made on 
the floor of the Senate. Let us see whether the Senator who mentioned 
this statement might want to modify his remarks, because I think, if he 
had known all of what I had to say last year, he might have spoken 
differently last week. These are my words last year on the Senate 
floor. I said to Senator Simon:

       I would like to ask the Senator a question about the Social 
     Security issue.
       We are now, by design, running surpluses in the Social 
     Security system in order to prepare for the time when we will 
     need them, when the baby boomers retire. I do not want to be 
     in a situation where we use those surpluses to balance the 
     Federal budget. That would be dishonest.
       If we did that, we would, in effect, steal money from a 
     trust fund. We collect this money from the payroll taxes, out 
     of workers' paychecks and businesses, and we assure them that 
     this money will go into a trust fund. We promise people that 
     it will be used only for trust fund purposes.
       If we use that money to offset the operating budget 
     deficits, we are misusing that money. We cannot allow that to 
     happen.

  That is me speaking last year, not this year.
  Again, quoting myself, speaking last year.

       The fact is we must not count the surplus between now and 
     the year 2035. Between now and then we will have an enormous 
     bubble of surplus * * *.
       The reason we increased taxes on payrolls in this country 
     is we decided we must force national savings to meet a need 
     after the turn of the century. To fail to do so is 
     irresponsible.
       That is why I say to the Senator from Illinois (speaking to 
     Senator Simon that day) that--whether it is under the current 
     budget scheme in Congress without respect to this 
     constitutional amendment, or whether it is with respect to a 
     constitutional amendment--we must do the right thing with 
     respect to the Social Security trust funds. The right thing 
     is not to count them in the balanced budget computation.
       That is the only way to achieve national forced savings 
     that we promised the workers and businesses in this country 
     we were going to achieve.

  Now, I read that to say that is what I said in the Chamber last year, 
and yet Senators have come to the floor and wondered where I was last 
year. Senators said that we did not bring this up, that we did not talk 
about this. And they put in the Record part of the statement and left 
all of this out.
  Now, I hope it is an accident because accidents happen. But maybe we 
can be accurate with each other about what we did or did not do and 
what we said or did not say. Maybe we can decide that we respect each 
other's views. We differ. We feel strongly about things on this floor, 
and we represent the people the best we can. But I think that we ought 
to understand that what we should give each other in this Chamber is 
not just the truth but the whole truth, the whole truth. We do not need 
to in any way--and I would never, and I will not impugn motives here--
but I do not think we should ever intend, nor do I expect anyone would 
ever intend, to misrepresent.
  So believing that to be the case, I hope others who will take the 
floor in the future will not ever again say this: Where were they last 
year? Why were they not making these kinds of representations last 
year?
  I will not read this a second or third time, but anybody who heard 
what I just read could not fail to understand. If you heard, you cannot 
fail to understand I raised exactly the same points last year as I 
raised this year.
  I hope I do not hear someone again make the mistake, and I assume it 
is a mistake, not to include those statements I made in the Chamber 
last year in representations that they bring to the floor this year.
  All of us understand what a lot of this is. It is a lot of politics. 
That is fine. We operate in a political system. I am not defensive 
about it. I just believe that when we discuss things with each other, 
let us do it with all the facts, let us do it with the truth and the 
whole truth.
  That is what I hope to do with all of my colleagues in this Chamber. 
That is what I hope they would do with me as well.
  I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky yielding.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I ask the Senator from Kentucky to yield for an 
additional statement?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator can get the floor in her own 
right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky does not have the 
floor.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator can get it in her own right.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. May I speak as in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________