[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.
____________________