[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.

                          ____________________