Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I have had an interesting day listening to the comments on the Senate floor by various and sundry Senators, where some have taken a part of history, Madison, Hamilton; some on the street, grassroots, all of that. So it is a mix. I was glad to listen and to get a feel. This body, in my opinion, is blessed with some former Governors. One of those spoke today, the new Senator from Missouri. I thought he made an excellent speech. I enjoyed his comments, his delivery, and his content. But being a former Governor, he should understand that he had to work with the legislature. He had ideas and thoughts, he had programs and commitments he made in his campaign that he wanted to get through the Missouri legislature. And he found, I am sure, people on different occasions who did not agree with him. Some did not agree with him for personal reasons. Some did not agree with him for political reasons. Some did not agree with him on philosophical reasons. So that is where we find ourselves today. You know that every once in a while you have a hung jury in the court system. Eleven to one and you have a hung jury. One person believes and feels that an individual is not guilty and, therefore, that person votes that way so you have a hung jury--11 to 1. That is our system. It worked pretty well. It worked pretty well. A couple of things bother me, Mr. President. I guess you might as well get them out of your chest, out of your heart, out of your head here. There will be no trouble passing this constitutional amendment--I voted for it twice--but this is not the same amendment that I voted for. This does not have the restriction on the Federal courts which was accepted, I believe, almost unanimously the last time we had a constitutional amendment up last year. It was offered by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, by the way, Senator Danforth, and that constitutional amendment was voted on. My good friend, long-time friend, distinguished Senator--I do not think anyone doubts his integrity or his loyalty to this country--Senator Nunn from Georgia, said last night if his amendment, which is the Danforth amendment of last year, is not accepted, then he just cannot vote for the constitutional amendment when the courts will tell you whose taxes to raise, whose taxes to cut, what program to extend, what program to cut. If they have that ability he just cannot vote for this amendment. I suspect if that amendment is accepted, the constitutional amendment will pass. But if you are going to stonewall, I do not believe there has been a Republican vote for a Democratic amendment that has been proposed on this constitutional amendment. I may be wrong. Maybe on the judicial question of Senator Johnston, and that is the question that bothers my friend from Georgia, Mr. Nunn. But that is the only one. I believe that is the only one. To say that we are going to take the Social Security trust fund that so many people are depending on, and we are going to use that, put it in the general fund and help balance the budget--I do not know whether I am different or my constituents are different. I can learn a lot at the barber shop. At the barber shop 2 weeks ago, there were a lot of young fathers there bringing their sons in to have a haircut. There I sat waiting for mine. These young fathers I knew--and I probably knew them from a young age--asked me about only one thing. They said: Senator, we are for balancing the budget. We think we ought to reduce the cost of Government. We ought to reduce our taxes, if we can. We are willing to accept a freeze on our taxes. But Social Security? Mom and Dad are drawing Social Security. They have a small pension or 401-K or something from their previous employment. The check from Social Security, that they had been paying into for years and years, is now in jeopardy because of the constitutional amendment. If I do not fly, I do not pay the airport improvement trust fund tax. But that will go into the general fund, also. The highway trust fund will go into the general fund as such to be used. All of the trust funds now are going to be used in order to try to balance the budget. I get the argument. If we do not do that, Social Security is not going to mean anything, anyhow. to the Social Security. You have to pay Social Security if you work. It comes out of your pay, whether you want it or not. It is matched by your employer. If you are self-employed, you pay the whole thing. That is mandatory. We have to change the Social Security system. We need a means test. We can do that without it being in the constitutional amendment, saying we will not use that surplus. We can still change the structure of the Social Security system. I hear a lot about dropping that 85-percent tax. If you make $34,000 or $44,000, for a couple, drop it back to 50 percent, the couple says, then still charge 85 percent, but take the difference between the 50 and 85 and put it in a Social Security trust fund so it will be there in the future for others that come behind us. It makes some sense to me. All kinds of propositions are being offered, but no one on that side. The Republican side will vote to say no, we are not going to use the Social Security trust fund to balance the budget. We want them to continue to pay their taxes, continue to pay their Social Security, continue to pay their gasoline tax, continue to pay their airplane tax, continue to pay all of that to go into balancing the budget. They are designated taxes. I do not think any of us are fussing too much about the tax on your airplane ticket. Some may. We are not fussing too much about the gasoline tax. But there is something very, very personal about Social Security taxes. It is there for the future. It is there for retirement. It is there so they will not be a burden on their children. So when we refuse to do that, then some in this body have just said they refuse to support the amendment. Somehow it is hard for me to understand why that is not accepted, and we will go ahead and pass the amendment. Everyone in this body knows that it would pass this body if that was acceptable. Second, to keep the courts out--several Senators in this body are swallowing awfully hard to cast every vote against Social Security, against the proposition that we do not want the courts telling us what to do. They are swallowing awfully hard. That vote is coming back. We will have it. The votes on Tuesday about Social Security and about the courts will tell you whether this amendment is going to pass or not. I want to vote for it. I want to vote for it. But you are stopping me from voting for it because of two little items. I am getting a little bit harassed, I guess--or worried--because very time a good amendment comes up, the floor manager says, ``Senator, you have a good idea. I wish we could put it in this amendment. But we do not want to send it back to the House. The House has steamrolled everything they brought up over there.'' Why are you afraid to send it back? What is the reason that you will not send it back? I believe with all my heart that if you send the Social Security portion back and take the courts out of telling us what to do, the House will pass it in the flick of an eye. So why will you not include it? I do not know. They just do not want to send it back to the House. ``Senator, we will work with you after we pass this amendment. You have a good idea. We will try to get it done. I look forward to working with you, trying to solve this,'' when you know the implementing language can be changed every day. And the statements by the leadership on these sense of the Senate, or whatever it might be, sounds good; votes, in order to take care of it. You have a judicial resolution out here now or a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to try to salve the pain. I think we have had enough of that. They do not want to send it back to the House. I hear a lot about we do not have the intestinal fortitude to make the decisions to balance the budget. My friend from Iowa, who just spoke before me, mentioned the Clinton budget of 1993. I want to tell you, there was not much intestinal fortitude that came across that aisle right there. We raised taxes on the top 2 percent. We cut them on others. We cut programs and reduced the deficit by $700 billion over 5 years. That is about the round figure. But we did not get a Republican vote, and even lost a Democrat or two. But we did not get a Republican vote. Are the Republicans trying to tell this Senator that we have to have a constitutional amendment that forces us to balance the budget? We have had one experience already during this administration. That experience was a hard-fought experience. Sure, we raised taxes. That is what everybody said we are going to have to do. Sure, we cut programs. That is what everybody said we had to do. And we are going to reduce the employment of the Federal Government by 272,000 people. We have already reduced over 100,000 employees of the Federal Government. We are reducing Government. So it is very difficult for me to see why you will not accept at least two proposals. I think that the supermajority, three-fifths, for deficit spending in a time of emergency is trying to go against what the framers of the Constitution have said. It has been good for a long time, a simple majority. The Vice President has a right to break the tie, and then we can go on about our business. But, no, we have to have three-fifths in order to deficit spend, and we have to have 51 Senators. We exclude the Vice President from his constitutional position of breaking ties in the Senate under this constitutional amendment. We have to have 51 Senators. I thought it was a good debate when we said that the 51 votes then could be used to take money from other programs and put it into the defense of this country. I do not know how long it would take us to do that, going through the House and the Senate, arguing over whether we are going to take money from nutrition programs, WIC programs, housing programs, whatever, and put it into defense. But you need 51 Senators and, I guess, 218 Members of the House to do that. In that debate, it was brought up that it has to be done every fiscal year. So that is from October 1 to September 30. What if it came up on September 1 and we had less than 30 days left and 11 months of the money had been spent for that fiscal year? There would be no more money left. You can take all the money for Government use for other programs and try to put it into the defense of this country. So they say if we have a problem with the defense of this country and if we were being attacked, there would not be any trouble getting the money. We have to be prepared sometimes to prevent it from happening. We have to make that decision. I have tried my best to stay out of the partisan political position that this is obviously trying to put people in. I understand what is happening here. I have tried to approach this question as best I could as a Kentuckian and as an American. I only ask two questions: Why can we not accede to exempting the Social Security trust fund? Why can we not allow an amendment to go on this constitutional amendment to keep the courts out of telling us who to tax and who not to tax and who to increase and who to decrease, and what programs to cut and what programs not to cut? I hear people say that is not what this thing does. Why is there all this nervousness? You can feel it around this Chamber when you start talking about the courts. It was a close, hard vote, 51 to 47, I think was the vote. This amendment would sail through here--sail through--and we are only asking two questions. Is that so hard to accept? Is that so hard to accede to? Is it too hard for some of those that apparently want to harm people, unless they are rich--the rich will not care too much about Social Security. But the average American out there, particularly those who have retired or are about to retire, are certainly worried about having their Social Security. Their families are worried about their mothers and fathers having Social Security. I had a Sunday school teacher, one of the best Christians I guess I have ever known, outside of my wife and family, Beryl Brown. He was one of the strongest Republicans and nicest fellows I have ever met. Every once in a while, he would compliment the Democrats for having Social Security. That is about the only thing he said nice about Democrats or the Democratic Party, that we started Social Security. He said, ``The reason it is good and I think it is a program that ought to stay is that Mama and I can stay home. We do not have to worry about moving in with our family. We can enjoy ourselves, have a little garden out in the Social Security. If you are rich, it does not make any difference. But if you worked hard all your life and you expect a few years of having your own way and playing with your grandchildren and doing all those things, then Social Security is important. But I see that question slammed every day in this Chamber. If you are going to be against the elderly and against the young folks, with the reduction of WIC, nutrition programs, education, Social Security, well, somehow or another I believe it will come back to haunt us, and it will not take long. But if those two items are in there, I think you can accomplish what you want. So, Mr. President, I hope that I have explained my position a little bit. There are not enough votes to pass the amendment as of this moment. I wish there were enough votes, because if there were enough votes, you would have Social Security trust fund excluded, the surplus, which the recipients are depending on, and you would say we would not be yielding what our forefathers gave to us to protect, and that is giving a piece of the legislative branch of Government to the courts; and, second, when we get to the line-item veto, we will be giving that portion of it to the Executive, and we slowly but surely erode what the forefathers said we ought to have, which is three branches of Government--executive, legislative, and judiciary. They are all there for a purpose and they have all worked very well. We are putting fiscal policy in the Constitution. I understand that there are other things that relate to the economy in the Constitution. But just two questions is all the people ask. There is a difference and there is a holdout. There is a holdout. We have 51 that are saying we want to take Social Security and put it into the trust fund and pay the budget deficit off. We have, maybe, 15 more--14 probably now--that want to agree with that, or will agree with that, for various and sundry reasons. This could be a hung jury--11 to 1--and so be it, Mr. President. So be it. I see other Senators are here wishing to speak. I will not take any more time of my colleagues. I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. I will not make a request, but try to attempt to get the floor in my own recognition. I thank the Chair.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me to ask a question?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Is the Senator aware that every amendment to the Constitution--this is not an accident--that TVA power was included; that the same statement has been in every committee report that the Judiciary Committee has issued on a balanced budget amendment in the last 10 years?

Mr. FORD. That is the question. Was he aware of the fact?

Mr. FORD. It is no caper.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the parliamentary procedure is that there is time for debate or discussion of the amendment just moved to be tabled?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask recognition then, please.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin is to be commended for his efforts on this issue. He cares about it deeply, and I understand that. Furthermore, he has used a unique parliamentary situation in an attempt to achieve the outcome that he desires. Unfortunately for him and fortunately for me and for the other supporters of the TVA exemption, he has come close but has not succeeded in his quest. For reasons that I will go into in a minute, his amendment simply will not work. The Senator from Wisconsin has proposed through four different amendments to change the legislative history on this particular matter. Because he is reasonably confident that the supporters of the balanced budget amendment will vote down the motion that he proposes, the Senate will have gone on record as being opposed to excluding TVA or like agencies from the balanced budget amendment. He has gone on record as saying he will vote to table his own amendment, from which he now has backed up and had a neutral Senator, so-called neutral Senator, come in and move to table. For an answer to why he would do such a thing, let us look at the amendments he proposes. Each amendment would add the following sentence to the end of section 7 which otherwise describes House Joint Resolution 1 as covering all receipts and all outlays of the United States except borrowings. Amendments 291 and 292 are identical and they say: The receipts and outlays of the Tennessee Valley Authority shall not be counted as receipts and outlays for the purpose of this article. Amendments 293 and 294 are identical, and I quote: The receipts and outlays of all quasi-Federal agencies created under authority of Acts of Congress shall not be counted as receipts and outlays for the purposes of this article. Each amendment would have the effect of creating an exemption to the general coverage language of House Joint Resolution 1. Nos. 291 and 292 would exempt all receipts and outlays of TVA; 293 and 294 would exempt all receipts and outlays of quasi-Federal agencies. All of the Feingold amendments are broader than the scope of the legislative history contained in the Judiciary Committee's report. Now, Mr. President, let me repeat that. We are talking about developing legislative history here. All of the Feingold amendments are broader--broader--than the scope of the legislative history contained in the Judiciary Committee's report and extend its exemption to funds for which no exemption justification has been provided. That is the fact. Amendments numbered 291 and 292 would exempt all funds of TVA. TVA operates with two distinctly different kinds of funds. Let me repeat that. TVA operates with two distinctly different kinds of funds. It receives appropriations from Congress to cover its nonpower programs. These are like funds received by all other Federal agencies and there is no reason why they should be specifically exempted. The funds of TVA's electric power program are an entirely different matter and it was only these funds to which the committee's legislative history was directed. The legislative history of the committee was directed only at the electric power program. You can hear all you want to hear and you can say all you want to say, but the committee legislative history is very, very narrow. Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 would expand the exemption to all funds. That is the Senator's amendment, now, of quasi-Federal agencies. First the term quasi-Federal agency has no meaning, absolutely no meaning. It is only a phrase, loosely used to refer to agencies which in some way or another may not fit the speaker's view of what is an ordinary Federal agency. Moreover, the term does not address the more important issue of how the agency is financed. Even an agency which might be regarded as quasi-Federal may have certain funds amendment. As noted above, TVA itself is an example of two separate funds, one from the utility, the ratepayers, and the other one that is appropriated by the Congress. Do any of the amendments have merit? Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 would have merit if their inserted sentence were modified to read as follows: The receipts and outlays of the electric power program of the Tennessee Valley Authority shall not be counted as receipts and outlays for the purpose of this article. As so modified, they would expressly state the intent of the language contained in the Judiciary Committee's report. The Feingold amendments as currently written could be defeated while still reaffirming the meaning of the legislative history in the committee report. The Feingold amendments can be defeated while still reaffirming the meaning of the legislative history in the committee report. I do not know how many judges are going to be looking at the legislative history and see the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, did not move and was not allowed to move to table these amendments. I hope I have that much authority that, boy, they will see whether Senator Ford moved to table or not. But, boy, that is great. You have a lot of influence, want to influence the court--legislative decisions in the future. It is right interesting procedure. The Feingold amendments as currently written could be defeated while still reaffirming the meaning of the legislative history in the committee report. Amendments Nos. 293 and 294 certainly should not be adopted. The term quasi-Federal agency has no clear meaning. I want to reinforce that. These amendments would make open-ended exemptions for an uncertain group of Federal agencies--an uncertain group--regardless of their budget impact on the taxpayers. Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 also should not be adopted since they would exempt all TVA programs, not just the one program, the power program, for which an exemption makes sense. Indeed, the amendments appear to be a somewhat disingenuous attempt to get supporters of the balanced budget amendment to back an exemption for ordinary appropriations-funded programs. In contrast, the language of the Judiciary Committee makes it very, very clear--a clear distinction between those two entirely different kinds of programs. Let us look at why the TVA power program should be exempted. The TVA power program is financially independent from the rest of Government. Just take that one sentence. The TVA power program is financially independent from the rest of Government. It survives only on the revenues it receives from sales of electric power. Those revenues supply the funds to pay its expenses. Those revenues are also the only security for power program borrowing. Take those two things and look at them very closely and think about them very closely. It survives only on revenue it receives, and the revenue it receives pays its expenses and is the only security for the funds it borrows. Power bonds are, by law, neither obligations of nor guaranteed by the U.S. Government. Power bonds are, by law, neither obligations of nor guaranteed by the U.S. Government. Taxpayer funds are not used for the power program. Even capital and operating expenses for TVA's multipurpose dams are allocated to power and nonpower, and the power program pays its share. TVA power program activity is not driven by Presidential or congressional policy decisions. It is driven only by the needs of the 8 million persons and businesses who rely on it as their sole source of electric power. Its annual receipts and its expenditures are governed only by what is necessary to meet their electric power needs, both today and in the future. Although the power program's annual budget is included in the President's and the congressional budgets, its inclusion is for information purposes only. It does not require congressional approval or congressional action. In other words, the TVA power program budget is a budget estimate. It is not a budget request. Another way of looking at why the TVA power program should be exempt is to examine what could happen if it were not exempt. A low tax collection year or one in which entitlements or appropriations were large could result in TVA's being unable to borrow the funds necessary to build or maintain generating plants to ensure a continued supply of electric power to a large area of this country, in spite of the fact that taxpayers are not responsible for paying off these bonds. Finally, as Congress seeks to reduce Federal mandates, should it add a new mandate for persons in one region of the country who happen to receive their electric power without a taxpayer subsidy from TVA? It makes as much sense for Congress to control Wisconsin Electric's annual budget as it does to control that of the TVA power program. Let us look at the difference now between this proposal and Social Security. The level of Social Security receipts is determined by a Congress-approved tax rate. The level of Social Security outlays are a function of a Congress-approved benefits scheme. In contrast, TVA's power program budget is provided to Congress each year for informational purposes only. It does not require congressional approval or action. So, in conclusion, I and other supporters of the TVA exemption are voting to table this amendment, not because it would reaffirm the report language, but because this amendment goes too far. It goes way beyond the scope of the Judiciary Committee statement about TVA. Some parts of TVA are like all other Federal agencies and should be included in the budget just as any other, and we do not object to that. However, as I have stated previously, the funds of TVA's electric power program are an entirely different matter, and it was only those funds to which the committee's statement was directed and that is the committee legislative language. For these reasons, and these reasons alone, I am voting to table the amendment by my colleague from Wisconsin. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing Senate Bill 460, entitled Highway Advertising Equity Act, to amend section 131 of title 23, United States Code. Enacted on August 28, 1958, 23 U.S.C. 131, Control of Outdoor Advertising, was designed to protect public investment, promote safety and recreational value, and preserve natural beauty along the interstate system. Therefore, the statute reflects a socioeconomic and demographic environment of 36 years ago. Roadways that were once rural, narrow, and sparsely populated are now multilane highways bordered with burgeoning businesses and linking the Nation in a well-traveled web. This growth in commercial and industrial use areas has increased the need to inform the motoring public of available services, food, lodging, and attractions of special interest. Current law allows only on-premises advertising by business owners whose property is adjacent to the interstate system. Restricting advertising to owners of businesses adjacent to the interstate system to advertise on-premise services discriminates against property owners in the same commercial area who wish to advertise off-premise services near the interstate system. Commercial and industrial areas have expanded beyond the properties which were once only found adjacent to interstate systems. However, the need for businesses, no matter where they are located, to advertise along the interstate system is imperative to their success. Senate bill 460 is offered to bring the law up to date with the needs of our growing business communities. I think it is fitting that we address this issue in today's environment where the Federal Government has said it intends to give more power back to the localities and stop placing mandates on middle class Americans who spend everyday honestly trying to make a decent living for their family.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have been sitting here and listening, and I think the distinguished Senator from Virginia has hit the same note that I have been feeling--a little bit emotional; rightly so; beautiful--because I could hear the ``Star Spangled Banner'' in every voice. I could hear the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in every voice. I could hear and feel the tide, why this country is so great and what this institution is. And I could hear the roll being called here in the Senate--Senator Chafee, Senator Bumpers, Senator Glenn, Senator Heflin, Senator Robb-- you go on through. They may have different opinions about the issues on the Senate floor, but none--none--of those would take a step back from the defense of this country and the attempt to do what is right. And it goes across the aisle. So I do not know. I hope there are a lot of people watching tonight so they could have heard my long and good friend from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, and listen to John Glenn and to feel it, and listen to Howell Heflin. Why was he back in the States? He was wounded. And they said those who have experienced war, as some of us in this Chamber have, are those most opposed to it. And so, I thank all of you. I hope I can get a tape of this. I want my grandkids to see it, because it has been now 50-some-odd years. I was 19. I guess you were about the same age. We were all about the same age. And we were called on. Oh, you may fuss and fume at me about my political stance. You may fuss and fume at the others about their political stance, but do not doubt their courage or their loyalty to this country. So this occasion was very beautiful. I am pleased that Senator Bumpers, my good and loyal friend, was able to get up tonight and remind us and shake us back to the very essence and roots of why we are in this Chamber and why we try our best to do what is good for the children. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me associate my remarks with the distinguished Senator from Alabama. TVA is important. TVA rests on its own bottom. TVA serves the ratepayers. The ratepayers pay TVA. It is good for the valley; it is good for economic development. It is a program that works. I am opposed to using Social Security money. That is fine, we lost that one, but we should not lose this one. This is an amendment that is out of order, in my opinion, as it relates to the budget. And the income to TVA is important. So, Mr. President, let me just say, this is quick. We did not have an opportunity. We have 10 minutes. It does not give us much time. I just hope that our colleagues will vote against this amendment; that we will have an opportunity then, if it is brought up again, to explain it in more detail. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator give me 1 minute?

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair and I thank the majority leader.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the cloture vote on tomorrow, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized to make a statement and lay down an amendment.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is necessarily absent.