[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6077-S6079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEBATE ON BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
Mr. FORD. Madam President, on Friday the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr.
Inhofe] and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and I had an
exchange about the inaccuracy of certain statements made by the Senator
from Oklahoma regarding the debate over the balanced budget amendment.
During that exchange, the Senator from Oklahoma inserted into the
Record copies of the original versions of Senate Joint Resolution 41
from the 103d Congress, and House Joint Resolution 1 from the 104th
Congress. The Senator from Oklahoma represented that these were the two
resolutions that we voted on--Senate Joint Resolution 41, in 1994, and
House Joint Resolution 1, in 1996.
The distinguished Senator from North Dakota indicated that the two
resolutions we voted on were not identical, since language known as the
Nunn amendment was added to House Joint Resolution 1 regarding judicial
review, and that this was new language from the resolution voted upon
in 1994. The Senator from North Dakota asked unanimous consent to
insert into the Record the language which was actually voted on by the
Senate. After the Senator from Oklahoma twice reserved the right to
object, the Senator from North Dakota withdrew his request.
I have since had time to review the Record, and found that Both
resolutions inserted into the Record by the Senator from Oklahoma were
incorrect. In other words, neither of the resolutions which he put into
the Record were actually voted upon by the Senate. The Senator form
Oklahoma put into the Record the balanced budget amendment proposals as
introduced, in order to claim the Senate voted on identical proposals.
However, both resolutions were subsequently amended in different ways.
The 1994 resolution was modified to limit judicial remedies to
declaratory judgments and other remedies authorized by Congress. This
modification was dropped altogether in House Joint Resolution 1, as
introduced in 1995. However, this resolution was then also amended by
the Senate through the Nunn amendment, which prohibited judicial review
entirely.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions which were actually
voted upon by the Senate in 1994 and 1996--neither of which were
inserted into the Record by the Senator from Oklahoma--be inserted 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--Final Version on Which Senate Voted
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. The power of any court to
order relief pursuant to any case or controversy arising
under this Article shall not extend to ordering any remedies
other than a declaratory judgment or such remedies as are
specifically authorized in implementing legislation pursuant
to this section.
``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.
[[Page S6078]]
``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with
fiscal year 2001 or with the second fiscal year beginning
after its ratification, whichever is later.''
____
House Joint Resolution 1, 104th Congress--Final Version on Which Senate
Voted
Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution as Amended by Senator
Nunn
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 phone 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. The judicial power of the
United States shall not extend to any case of controversy
arising under this Article except as may be specifically
authorized by legislation adopted pursuant to this section.
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.
Mr. FORD. Second, Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma and I
had an exchange on the Senate floor because after I heard him quote
from my 1994 floor statement, I believe he was quoting my statement in
an inaccurate and distorting manner. The Senator from Oklahoma was
quoting my statement in support of the Reid-Ford-Feinstein amendment
which protected the Social Security trust funds, and making it sound
like I was speaking in support of the underlying Simon-Hatch version of
the legislation, which does not protect Social Security.
Madam President, after reading Friday's Record, I found that the
Senator from Oklahoma's quoting of my 1994 statement was even more
selective and misleading than I had first realized. I ask unanimous
consent that my actual full statement, as reproduced in the
Congressional Record on March 1, 1994, and the version quoted by the
Senator from Oklahoma be printed in the Record.
Those who wish to read these can draw their own conclusions about
whether I was quoted accurately.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senator Wendell Ford, Actual Floor Statement, March 1, 1994
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.
[[Page S6079]]
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 away 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.
I do not know how much time I have remaining, but I will
reserve it.
____
Senator Inhofe: Quotation of March 1, 1994 Statement of Senator Ford,
June 7, 1996
So when the Senator from Kentucky came in--I had not quoted
him, but I will now. He said this back on March 1, 1994. He
said, ``I support the efforts of my friend and colleague from
Illinois''--talking about Senator Simon, who is a very
courageous guy, and one I complimented probably more than I
have ever complimented anyone else on the floor yesterday.
Senator Ford said, ``I support the efforts of my friend and
colleague from Illinois to take on this persistent fiscal
dishonesty. 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''--this is Senator Ford, who was a
Governor of Kentucky--``and 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.''
Mr. FORD. Lastly, Madam President, let me just note that every
provision of the Constitution is subject to interpretation. I am sure
that the Senator from Oklahoma does not agree with every Supreme Court
decision interpreting the words of the Constitution--even though it may
involve different interpretations of the same language.
In 1994, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, gave
specific assurances that he would work in support of, and even
cosponsor, implementing legislation to require Congress to balance the
budget without counting the annual Social Security surplus. He even
submitted a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service with the
opinion that it would be legal and appropriate for Congress to pass
such legislation. This memorandum is reprinted in the March 1, 1994,
Congressional Record along with the debate
By contrast, in 1995 we saw proposals from leading proponents of the
balanced budget amendment spelling out how much of the Social Security
surplus they would count year by year.
As I stated last year and again last week, this was an enormous shift
in the interpretation of the resolution and a major factor in my
decision to not support the balanced budget amendment without further
assurances about Social Security.
It is my hope that debate on the Senate floor in the future will be
conducted at a level which respects the opinions of fellow Senators on
all issues. It is the least that our constituents expect of us.
____________________