Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 78, a resolution designating Haleyville, AL, Emergency 911 Day, submitted earlier today by Senator Heflin; that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements appear in the Record, as if read.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] and the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Don Neel of Owensboro, who was honored last week with the 1994 Physician's Award for Best Notifiable Disease Reporter by the Kentucky Department of Health Services. The department recognized Dr. Neel for his longstanding support of community health, particularly his efforts to contain the outbreak of an acute infectious disease last fall. Reginald Finger, M.D., chief epidemiologist for the department of health services, presented the award at Dr. Neel's Owensboro office. ``Dr. Neel represents the very essence of public health in his efforts to detect potential health hazards and then prevent the spread of these diseases to others,'' Finger said in his presentation. He noted that without Dr. Neel's early actions last fall, many more children would have come down with shigellosis. ``Dr. Neel is being honored for that and more--throughout his career, he has been a strong supporter and partner of the local health department in Owensboro. Dr. Neel's career has been characterized by an unending zeal to improve the health and well being of children--all children,'' he said. This award from the department of health services recognizes someone who has made outstanding contributions in public health, specifically reporting diagnosed diseases to the local health department. Last October, Daviess County experienced an unusual outbreak of shigellosis, which is an acute infection of the intestine. This disease can be particularly dangerous for small children. To date, 74 cases have been diagnosed. Upon identifying the first few cases of shigellosis, Dr. Neel immediately contacted the health department to alert public health officials of a possible community outbreak. Working with the health department and the Owensboro-Daviess County Hospital, he coordinated efforts to have people tested and treated for the disease. Education sessions were held at several schools, preschools, and day care centers to help prevent the disease through thorough hand washing. Lenna Elder, R.N., of the Daviess County Health Center, attributed Dr. Neel's early action to his sincere interest in the community and well-being of children. ``The health department's goal is to help maintain a healthy community so that everybody is well,'' Elder said. ``Dr. Neel has always been cooperative and very helpful in helping us meet that goal. He has always asked, `How can I help you?' We know that he is truly only a phone call away.'' Long active in Owensboro's community life, Dr. Neel is a graduate of Owensboro High School and received his medical degree from the University of Kentucky. He has had a private pediatric practice in Owensboro since 1970 and is chief of pediatrics at the Owensboro- Daviess County Hospital. He served on the Daviess County board of health from 1980 to 1991, the Green River district board of health from 1980 to 1986 and was part-time health officer for the Daviess County Health Center. He lives with his wife, Faye, in Owensboro. He is the father of two and has three grandchildren.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, as my good friend from Alaska, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has stated, before the Senate this afternoon is Senate Resolution 73. It is the 2-year budget authorization for Senate committees for the years 1995 and 1996. It continues the policy of biennial budgets established in the Rules Committee in 1989. We have 2- year budgets and we cannot get the Federal Government on 2-year budgets, which I think would save money. It would not balance the budget but it certainly would help us, give us some time for oversight. But in the Rules Committee, and the committee chairmen have accepted it, where the money would lapse at the end of the first year, it would carry over into the second year of the biennium. The committees were not anxious then to spend the money, come back to us prove they needed it, and then prove they need more. So at the end of this year we had a considerable surplus as a result of the 2-year budget. That was returned. I think the proof is in the pudding and I am very pleased the 2-year budget authorization has worked so well. The Rules Committee's job in markup was to find the minimum figure-- and I underscore minimum figure--that will permit the committees to function effectively and efficiently. The committee conducted a review on a committee-by-committee basis. It was not all thrown in a pot and stirred up and figures pulled out. But my good friend from Alaska went committee by committee, colleague by colleague, and reviewed each committee's request with those chairmen and ranking members very closely. Reaching a satisfactory compromise on the level of Senate committee funding is never easy. This year the problem was compounded, as my friend has said, by the overall goal of a 15 percent reduction coming on top of a 10 percent reduction last Congress. So, in essence, there was some shock as it related to the two cuts. Senate Resolution 73 does not cover printing, but the report notes that the various Senate committees cut the cost of printing during the 103d Congress. In the last 10 years, expenses for That is a giant step. Expenses for detailed printers were reduced almost 35 percent. We saved, in those two reductions, $5 million. The Rules Committee reduced committee funding 10 percent in 1993, another 15 percent under this resolution, and $5 million was saved in printing costs. These facts indicate to this member of the Rules Committee that it is doing an excellent job of controlling costs, and thereby saving taxpayers' dollars. I believe the 15 percent reduction cuts most committees to the bare bone. To cut further would impede, in this Senator's opinion, them from fulfilling their responsibilities to the Senate. S. Res. 73 does not include extra funds that would permit us to add moneys to committees unless funds were reduced from one or more committees. Mr. President, I have worked with my friend from Alaska now for a good many years. I was chairman, he was ranking. Now it is reversed. I do not see much change in the committee. Our friendship is the same. Our way of working together is the same. The accommodations are the same. We have, I feel, done an excellent job of working with the members of the Rules Committee and then transferring that out to the membership of the various committees. Some did not like the cut, told us so, and asked for something less. But when all was said and done, the 15- percent criteria was adhered to, and I believe it is proper. But I want to reiterate that, if we cut much more and we have already cut to the barebone, the committees are responsible for certain reports and certain bills to report to the Senate. They have an obligation to their colleagues to do a good job, and I think if we cut more than 15 percent we would have restricted our committees in their ability to do this job as it relate to this institution. So I am very pleased where we are. I believe the Rules Committee has reached a fair balance in funding Senate committees for 1995 and 1996. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. And my chairman has asked for the yeas and nays. It is my understanding, so there will not be any misunderstanding, that under the unanimous-consent agreement yesterday there will be no votes before 5 o'clock on Monday. And, therefore, the vote on this particular resolution will be at some time after 5 o'clock on Monday next. I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend from Alaska. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield the time allotted to me.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alaska that I have no requests for statements or amendments. I believe the unanimous- consent agreement last evening prevented amendments. Therefore, I have no one seeking the floor to make a statement today. I am ready and prepared to yield the time that has been allotted to me.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. My father-in-law is a railroad retiree, and he gets his check from Social Security. Now, Mr. President, I do not know what it is, what kind of fund he has, but they did not have enough funds to take care of it and they turned it over to Social Security, and Social Security is now taking care of those retired railroad people.

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

Mr. FORD. I understand what the Senator is saying about these other contracts. But in the military, we appropriate funds every year for the retirement of the military. The airport improvement trust fund, if you fly an airplane, you pay the tax. If you do not fly, you do not. Then you are going to see that we can reduce those taxes. Therefore, you will not have a trust fund. Under the highway trust fund, you have gasoline taxes. If you reduce those taxes, you do not have a trust fund. Here it is mandatory that you pay under Social Security, and that is a trust fund with a contract. Will the Senator agree with that?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I take the floor to join my colleague from Wisconsin and my other colleagues in support of their attempt to ease our seniors' fears and to help set some parameters for the debate on the balanced budget amendment. The fact is, the Social Security system is not causing the deficit. Its revenues and surpluses should not be used to mask the deficit nor should its outlays be counted as part of expenditures. Because of these very compelling facts, it is clear to me that Social Security should be exempted from the balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out by various Senators, there is a great deal of confusion in the country over what the balanced budget amendment will mean. The Members on the other side of the aisle have recently voted down the right-to-know amendment that would have gone a long way to answer these difficult and important questions that are confusing the American people. I think this is unfortunate. Throughout the debate in the House and here in the Senate, Members from the other side of the aisle have continued to say ``everything is on the table.'' Asked if that included Social Security, most have tried to be reassuring. Well, when someone tells me that everything is under consideration and then adds that we'll protect Social Security only after being prompted, forgive me for not being too heartened by their words. I say as my father used to say, put it in writing. Put your money where your mouth is and continue to keep the Social Security system in its protected position as a trust fund, separate and distinct from the rest of the Federal budget. The many proposals to balance the budget being circulated are scaring people living on Social Security and scaring those who expect the U.S. Congress, to abide by our contract, our promise, that the funds will be there when they need them. The conflicting statements in the press and the speculation on the political talk shows is feeding the confusion about what will happen to Social Security. So, Mr. President, I believe it is high time that Senators go on record stating flatly where we stand with respect to Social Security. Oh, no, do not come up with this ``We will take care of it in the implementing language.'' That does not buy it. Trust, but verify. We heard that. I trust, but I want to verify it in writing. I am not afraid to say where I stand. I think those who are supporting the balanced budget amendment are scared to death over this one. We have not had to have a caucus on what to do about the vote on Social Security. We have not had to have a caucus saying we want to develop a second-degree amendment or a substitute that puts Members in a position that when we get to the implementing language we cannot touch Social Security. I have an answer for that one, I think. Many years ago our Nation made a pact with its people that their payroll contributions--and we make them pay--would be available when needed, whether in old age or because of disability. When I say ``protect'' I mean protect, without a doubt. Some have advocated dealing with Social Security issues, as I say, in the implementing language of the balanced budget amendment. I say to my colleagues and the Nation that that will not cut it. Legislation can be changed at the whim of this Congress or the next Congress. Our amendment is different. By actually writing the protection into the Constitution it truly protects the Social Security contract. We have heard a lot about contracts in the last 35 to 40 days. We had heard a lot of it last year. Now we have a contract we want to break. ``Oh, we are not going to break it. We are going to take care of it in implementing language.'' Well, how are we going to take care of it? We can change it any week we want to, any month we want to, any year we want to, any Congress we want to. So we do not take care of it. We can change it. In fact, this amendment reinforces our position, makes it stronger, makes Social Security safer and more secure. Neither receipts nor outlays will be counted as part of the budget under this provision. The facts in this case bear repeating, I think. The Social Security system is not causing the deficit. Our proposal I hope and trust that most of our colleagues will join in protecting Social Security. We need to go on record--not some vague time in the future--to put our seniors' fears to rest. If we say we want to safeguard Social Security, remember that actions speak louder than words. Support the Reid-Feinstein amendment to the balanced budget amendment. Support this measure. Support for this measure is the only way to truly guard the trust fund. I hope my colleagues will support it. Opponents argue on this issue that statutes never have been incorporated in the Constitution and this would be an unprecedented constitutionalizing of a statute. The response to that is, this is the first time that we have ever tried to do an amendment to the Constitution fixing fiscal policy. So if this is the first time we have done that, we can do something else for the first time. So if we are talking about fiscal policy, should we not be concerned about one of the largest fiscal elements of our society; namely, Social Security? I know there are a lot of people here just as sincere about supporting the constitutional amendment as they can be. I support it. I voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. You are going to need my vote, but you know, they say, whichever way it goes, Democrats lose on this. If you pass a balanced budget amendment, the Republicans win. If they lose, they beat the heck out of us for the next 2 years politically, and there will be fewer Democrats here 2 years from now than there are now. I see the President smiling. He would like that. That is all right. I am going to do what I think is best whether I get to come back or not, and I will defend my position with anyone on the other side any time you want to have that debate. But there are some people around this Chamber I respect. I respect them personally and for their judgment and experience and knowledge. One of those is the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Senator Heflin. I do not think anybody in this Chamber disputes his legal and constitutional knowledge. So let us just look at this for just a moment, where he is coming from. Opponents of this amendment argue that we will use implementing legislation to exempt Social Security from the Balanced Budget Act calculations. That is what we hear. We hear it every day from my learned friend from Utah--I heard it, he just keeps repeating it, and I almost believe it he has repeated it so much. But let us listen to the distinguished Senator from Alabama. This refutes the ability to do something about Social Security in the implementing language that we hear about. Here is what Senator Heflin says: Attempts to protect Social Security through implementing language would be futile. Futile, and I underscore that. Once the Constitution is amended to require that total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, Social Security is in danger. That is what Senator Heflin says. And he goes further to say: This means that there will be a constitutional requirement that Social Security funds be considered on budget, because the language says all receipts, all revenues. All receipts, all revenues. So when that balanced budget amendment is passed, that includes Social Security, and this is by a man I believe has as good a knowledge of the Constitution as anyone in this Chamber. He goes on further to say: If the balanced budget amendment is adopted as presently worded, it would prohibit-- Let me repeat that. it would prohibit Congress from legislatively taking Social Security funds off budget Because you have included them-- and would nullify the provisions of the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act which requires Social Security funds to be considered off budget. That balanced budget amendment says it is all receipts, all revenues, and here is a fellow I think you have to respect, a Senator, I better be careful. Senator Byrd will be up here in a minute if I call him ``fellow.'' He is a Senator. So I want to be sure I say it right. Here is a Senator we all respect. He thought about this for weeks, and he would not have made that statement publicly if he did not believe he was legally and constitutionally correct. When he makes that statement, after thoughtful consideration, I have to believe it. We have others from the American Law Division who agree with Senator Heflin. They put out their statements. Once you put ``all receipts'' in that amendment to the Constitution, you eliminate the ability under the legislative implementation of that budget of trying to exclude Social Security. If you are willing to take that chance, and if you are willing to take that chance, go ahead and vote against it. But I will tell the Senate and the American people, here is one Senator who is not going to vote to include Social Security. I have too many in my State, and you have too many in your State and there are too many across this country who have a contract with us. ``Oh, it's all right, old Ford is down there flapping his lips. It's not going to make any difference, they already have the votes.'' They at least start out with 53--maybe 52. You did lose one. One on that side is all right, up until now. But when it comes to the point of whether you want to believe the constitutional scholars that once you pass this balanced budget amendment Social Security is excluded from the implementation of that budget by this body, then you have said one thing and you are unable to do it. I do not want the courts to start telling me to cut the budget, to raise the taxes, you cannot do this and you cannot do that. And we are getting very close to saying to the courts, ``You are going to run this country.'' I am not ready for the courts to tell me how to vote in the legislature, in the Congress, and I do not think you want to vote to give that much power to the courts. We are on the verge of saying that the courts will be all powerful over our fiscal policy. Line-item veto--we are going to give that to the Executive. We can just get us a plastic card and vote from home, and a lot of people would probably like for us to do that. But we are slowly but surely saying to our forefathers that you made the best judgment of any country in the world when you put together the Constitution, but we are saying now we are going to give a piece of the legislative prerogative to the courts, we are going to give another piece of legislative prerogative to the President. I believe Senator Heflin when he says that if you say ``all receipts'' and the constitutional amendment passes, you will not be able to get Social Security and those people out there now drawing Social Security will be in deep trouble. A $702 billion surplus in 2002 in Social Security. A $780 billion surplus in Social Security in 2002 and you want to take that and reduce the deficit. Now, if I did not have to pay it, it might be a different deal, but I have to pay it. I look forward to it because it is a contract. How many people get out of paying Social Security? I do not know. Unless you do not make anything, you pay Social Security. It is planned to go up and have a surplus. That is the plan. We do not even have a means test. I have not even heard it suggested. I see a lot of people taking notes while I am talking. Maybe they want to think about this constitutional question a little bit. But I just say to my colleagues and to those who may be watching-- once they started listening to me talk, they probably turned on the local news or something--but you better be careful about allowing the Social Security amendment to fail because if that balanced budget amendment passes--and I suspect it will and the States will ratify it-- then Social Security is part of the deficit reduction, regardless of our implementing language. Oh, I will hear good legal words. I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I am not a word merchant, and I cannot take my words and make it sound good. You have both sides. You have both sides. And it is good to argue that way. But the only thing I know is I listen to people I trust, people I think are intelligent, people I think thought this part of the amendment through thoroughly and have now made their judgment. That judgment has been supported by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service. They all concur with Senator Heflin's statement. If that is true, all of us in this has taken us, particularly as it relates to Social Security. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues I hope that the 17,000 calls per minute being made around this country as it relates to Social Security begin to burn between now and the time that they have this vote, and that we can at least save Social Security in our haste to have a drag race and accomplish things and put it on the 30-second sound bite. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. At least that is better than being all wrong.

Mr. FORD. Railroad employees are under Social Security. They have been transferred to the Social Security. The railroad retirement system has been merged with Social Security, and Social Security is the railroad retirement fund.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. No.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, have up to 10 minutes and the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, Senator Murray, have up to 5 minutes of our 36 minutes.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. FORD. No, no.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.