[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 83 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5968-S5970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT VOTE

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am glad the junior Senator from Oklahoma 
is on the floor. I regret, once again, the junior Senator from Oklahoma 
has resorted to a personal attack and distortion of my record on the 
balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FORD. Senator, I did not come over here and bother you. I will be 
glad----
  Mr. INHOFE. You suggested I impugned your integrity.
  Mr. FORD. You certainly have, and I will explain it.
  Mr. President, I do not yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky does not yield.
  Mr. FORD. Just a little while ago, the junior Senator from Oklahoma 
quoted from a floor statement I made on March 1, 1994. He represented, 
by holding up two copies of the legislation--you do not understand that 
or see that in black and white, but you watch it on television--that I 
was speaking in favor of an identical version of the balanced budget 
amendment which was defeated yesterday.
  Mr. President, I want to give you and the Chamber a page number. I 
see the staff. They can go back and go through it. It was page S2058 of 
the March 1, 1994, Congressional Record. I wish the Senator from 
Oklahoma would have actually read my full statement. He would have 
found out that I was not speaking about the underlying constitutional 
amendment from which he quoted me, but rather about something called 
the Reid-Ford-Feinstein amendment.
  Guess what that amendment did? It created a firewall so that the 
Social Security trust fund could not be counted to balance the budget. 
That was my position. It was the Reid-Ford-Feinstein amendment.
  The junior Senator has misrepresented my record by quoting from that 
statement in support of an amendment in the form of a substitute and 
acting as if I was speaking about a constitutional amendment which does 
not protect Social Security.
  On March 7, 1994----
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. FORD. I guess it is all right.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask the distinguished and honorable Senator from 
Kentucky if he did, in fact, vote for Senate Joint Resolution 41 in 
1994?
  Mr. FORD. You have my record there. Tell the public.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, you did. It is identically the same. You voted----
  Mr. FORD. And it is the same question you asked the Senator from 
North Dakota. The reason we did, they were excluding Social Security. 
We had a firm commitment they were excluding Social Security.
  Now we have a guarantee that you are going to use Social Security.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is an identical resolution.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, if he is going to talk, I want it on his 
time, not on mine.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me respond. The Senator is under a 
misimpression, I am sure. He does not understand this. You are asking 
if this is identical, and the answer is, no, it is not identical. I 
believe it is not identical. Let me ask you this. As an example, does 
the latest resolution referred to include the Nunn amendment, and if it 
does----
  Mr. INHOFE. I have the two resolutions right here. They are exactly 
the same. I ask the Senator to show me or read to me where they are 
different.
  Mr. DORGAN. I believe the Senator is absolutely wrong, demonstrably 
wrong. As an example, does the Senator recall that Senator Nunn 
required an addition to the amendment to be made, during the latest go-
around, before he would vote for it and that there was an addition made 
by Senator Nunn? Do you recall that?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two 
resolutions that we voted on--Senate Joint Resolution 41, in 1994, and 
House Joint Resolution 1, in 1996--be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 41

                            (103d Congress)

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall 
     be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
     Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-
     fourths of the several States within seven years after the 
     date of its submission to the States for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law 
     for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year, in which total 
     outlays do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year 1999 or with the second fiscal year beginning 
     after its ratification, whichever is later.''.
                                                                    ____


                              H.J. Res. 1

                            (104th Congress)

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission to the States for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.

[[Page S5969]]

       ``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law 
     for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays 
     do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal.
       ``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning 
     after its ratification, whichever is later.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we never got an answer from the junior 
Senator from Oklahoma as to whether Senator Nunn's amendment was in the 
last one. He says they are identical, and they cannot be identical if 
Senator Nunn's amendment was included. It would not have gotten Senator 
Nunn's vote had that not been included.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield----
  Mr. FORD. I am not going to yield for anything, Mr. President. I am 
not going to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kentucky yield so I 
can make my point?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota briefly.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator may not be putting in the documents that 
relate to his question. The Senator's question was, were these not 
identical amendments, the 1994 and 1995. I think the Senator put 
something in the Record that does not relate to the information that 
shows you were wrong.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have printed in the Record the first 
vote on the constitutional amendment, and that, I believe, was in 1994, 
and the actual amendment voted on and the subsequent amendments, and 
the Record will show that the Senator is incorrect in saying that they 
are identical.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object to the unanimous consent 
request. The two resolutions that I asked to be inserted into the 
Record are Senate Joint Resolution 41, which was in the 103d Congress, 
first session, and Senate Joint Resolution 1, which is what we voted on 
yesterday, which are identically the same. I do not want the ones from 
1993, 1989, or any other time. I want these two.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator wishes, we can ask unanimous consent to 
put anything we want to the Record. Does the Senator object to allowing 
us to put something in the Record, or not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I want the Record to be 
clear that these are the----
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has the floor. I 
withdraw the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is what has been going on in this 
Senate Chamber for some time now. You attempt to put in certain things 
to substantiate your position, but you do not tell it all. You put in a 
piece of legislation that was printed, but you never put in the piece 
of legislation as it was amended.
  When I was brought up, Dad told me that ``the devil was in the fine 
print.'' So let us get to the fine print. You just cannot continue to 
condemn people around here because they do not agree with you. I wish 
you would read Warren Rudman's book on why he left the U.S. Senate. He 
said he could sit down with Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden--and he named a list 
of Senators. He would say, ``Let us compromise and work this thing 
out.'' He said, ``I never did question their morality or their 
patriotism. But we could sit down and work things out.'' We no longer 
do that in the Senate, so Warren Rudman is no longer a major voice in 
the consideration of legislation in the Senate. So you have driven from 
this body one of the sharpest, one of the most dedicated individuals, I 
think, that has served here.
  Now, I will go back to where I was interrupted. On March 7, 1994, the 
distinguished majority whip made a similar mistake, quoting me out of 
context. I will say one thing for him. He later came to the floor and 
apologized. But here we go again, misquoting my record.
  Mr. President, we have made some tough votes around here, which 
actually were about deficit reduction, not just talk, not just an 
issue. We had a deficit reduction package in 1990. We had one in 1993. 
Yes, Senator, I voted for both of them, and you voted against both of 
them. They were not perfect packages, that is true. If they were 
perfect, we would not be here. Those of us who voted for them took a 
lot of political heat--a lot of political heat. But, guess what? The 
deficit is coming down for the fourth consecutive year. The deficit is 
being reduced. One pledge that was made in 1992 was that the deficit 
would be reduced by half. It is better than half. There was not a vote 
from the Republican side for that package. I note that the junior 
Senator from Oklahoma is as tough as his rhetoric is about balancing 
the budget. He voted against both deficit reduction packages.

  Let me talk about one other item included in the 1990 deficit 
reduction package. It is section 13301. I am sure the Senator is 
familiar with that, because Senator Hollings, if you have been 
listening to the debate on the floor, described it in such detail 
during our debate on the balanced budget amendment. It says, you cannot 
count Social Security trust funds when balancing the budget. You cannot 
do that. That is the reason you are $108 billion short. You have not 
presented a balanced budget. If you balance the budget, why is it $108 
billion short? It is in the Record. CBO is what Speaker Gingrich said 
we had to go by, and the President agreed. CBO says you are $108 
billion short. There is no balancing the budget. You can beat your 
chest all you want to, but there is no balancing the budget.
  It is more than $100 billion short in the year 2002. All you have to 
do is read the bill, because you cannot count Social Security under 
current law. But the balanced budget amendment--the senior Senator from 
Oklahoma, yesterday, objected to the Senator from Oregon asking 
unanimous consent to offer that amendment for the firewall on Social 
Security. The senior Senator from Oklahoma said it is taxes and 
expenditures, and it ought to be in the budget. Now, look that one up.
  So here we are offering to protect Social Security with a firewall, 
which is now law, and we get an objection from the senior Senator from 
Oklahoma, who said, ``It is a tax and expenditure, and it ought to be 
in the budget, so, therefore, I object.'' They would not let us bring 
that amendment up to even vote on it. They would not even let us bring 
it up to even vote on it. If you want to pass a balanced budget 
amendment, put a firewall in, protect Social Security, and get 70-some 
votes in this Chamber. But, no, you want to use it. We have it in 
handwriting. The leadership on the Republican side said how many 
hundreds of billions of dollars they will take from Social 
Security. Now they are talking about a little gimmick that after 2002 
we will take 4 years and pay it back. If you want to balance the 
budget, let us balance the budget.

  So the Senator from Oregon was refused.
  You know, in this statement I made from which I was quoted yesterday, 
it starts out: ``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 on the Social Security trust.''
  That is where you quoted me. That is where, excuse me, where the 
Senator from Oklahoma--I want to be careful of

[[Page S5970]]

my language here; we are not supposed to use ``you,'' but ``the Senator 
from Oklahoma''--that is where you quoted me from. It was a debate on 
the Ford-Reid-Feinstein balanced budget amendment to put firewall in 
for Social Security.
  So it is just be beyond me. I want to say that I hear so much about, 
``If 40-some-odd Governors can operate a balanced budget, why can't the 
Federal Government?'' We do not have a capital account. Most Governors 
have capital accounts, if you understand how Governors operate. The 
Governors have an operating account. So it is all different. Governors 
do not print money like the Federal Government. So they have to balance 
the budget. But they find ways around it.
  ``I think the implementation of this amendment will work.'' That is a 
quote from me in that statement. ``I think we can make it work.'' That 
is a quote from me in that statement. It is on page 2058 of March 1, 
1994.
  ``If we want an issue, fine.'' That is in that statement. ``Stay with 
Senator Simon and Senator Hatch. Stay with them, and then we will have 
an issue when we go home with no balanced budget amendment.''
  I said that in that part of the statement from which I was quoted 
yesterday. Also, I might say in there I said, ``I am just as worried 
about my grandchildren as anyone, and I think I have a pretty good idea 
about grandchildren.''
  That is in that statement. You did not read that. People did not read 
that out of my statement. You know, you could just lift these things 
out, hold up your hand, beat your chest, and wave the flag. But when 
you get down to it, what do you have? An issue and no amendment. Take 
the money out of Social Security.
  We have heard a lot about a contract around here in the last 18 
months. There is a contract for the seniors of this country, and that 
is Social Security. And they paint a broad brush with Medicare. 
Medicare has two parts: part A and part B. Part B has a surplus. We 
have been trying to correct part A now for 2 years. But they will not 
listen; $124 billion was the first cut from the budget that was given 
to us.
  So now we hear the objection of the senior Senator from Oklahoma 
yesterday to the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] to offer 
a substitute amendment that would put a firewall in to protect Social 
Security.
  There are other different ideas about Social Security and about 
Medicare. But no country in the world, in my judgment, takes care of 
its citizens better. We are a capitalist country. What happens when the 
capitalists no longer need us? They fire us. And when they fire us, 
somebody has to try to pick up the pieces. Because we have been a 
strong democracy, government has picked up the pieces. We have 
retrained personnel. We have helped them with health care. We have 
tried to feed them and clothe them until they could get back on their 
feet. But that is the story of democracy and government, and government 
has a part.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that in the times ahead when we start 
quoting Senators that we quote them in context instead of out of 
context, and that we remember that there is a section 13301, the off-
budget status of Social Security, the exclusion of Social Security from 
all budgets: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts 
and disbursements of the Federal old age and survivors insurance fund, 
and the federal disability insurance trust fund, shall not be counted--
shall not be counted--as new budget authority outlays, receipts, or 
deficits or surplus for the purpose of the budget of the U.S. 
Government as submitted by the President, the congressional budget, or 
the Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

  That is the law. If you put the amendment on and pass it, then the 
law falls, and the amendment to the Constitution includes Social 
Security.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Shelby). Eight and one-half minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me just conclude, and I understand the 
Senator from Wyoming is here and I will attempt to stay and listen to 
some of his discussion as well.
  Mr. President, let me also complete one portion of this discussion. I 
only responded to the Senator from Oklahoma with respect to identical 
bills because I believe they are not identical. I do not want the 
Senator to sometime come to the floor and say, ``Well, he opposed the 
Nunn amendment.'' But I actually supported the Nunn amendment. I have 
no problem with the Nunn amendment. I believe the Nunn amendment means 
those were not identical proposals. I do not want you to misunderstand 
that.
  On that, the Senator is wrong. I believe these are not identical 
proposals. I did not oppose, nor did the Senator from Kentucky oppose, 
the Nunn amendment, for that matter.

                          ____________________