[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2583-S2592]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A House joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing a balanced 
     budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution.

       Pending:
       Reid amendment No. 236, to protect the Social Security 
     system by excluding the receipts and outlays of Social 
     Security from balanced budget calculations.

  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that--the Senator 
from Utah will soon be here, is that right?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah and the 
Senator from Nevada each have 7\1/2\ minutes. That was the original 
agreement, and it will put off the vote for approximately 3 or 4 
minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that is my understanding. I think we can go 
ahead and begin. Perhaps the Senator can take his time and Senator 
Hatch will be here momentarily.
  Mr. REID. I am going to reserve the final 2\1/2\ minutes because it 
is my amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If the Senator will yield, is he saying the vote will 
not occur until when?
  Mr. REID. Within 3 or 4 minutes of 9:30.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield 1 second more, I understand that 
the majority leader, Senator Dole, wants 2 minutes at the very end.
  Mr. REID. I forgot to mention that Senator Daschle is also going to 
speak for a brief time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I wanted to point out, Mr. President, that if I do not 
leave here at 9:30, I am not going to get to make a speech. Obviously, 
I am not going to be able to make that speech.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me when I have 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. President, Social Security is presently running huge surpluses. 
This year, $70 billion; in 2002 over $700 billion, and a few years 
after that, it will be $3 trillion.
  It now appears that there are people who want to tap into that 
surplus in an effort to balance the budget. My amendment draws a line 
in the sand that says you cannot tap Social Security to balance the 
budget. Those Social Security trust funds which have been set aside for 
some 60-odd years, should be kept in the trust fund and they should not 
be looted. It should not become a Social Security slush fund. It is 
unfair to seniors, unfair to the baby boomers, and certainly unfair to 
today's youth, to raid the Social Security trust fund.
  This Congress realizes this. This Senate realized this when, in 1990, 
by a vote of 98 to 2, we set up Social Security as a separate part of 
our revenues. It was no longer part of the general revenues of this 
country. A vote to kill my amendment will mark the death knell, I 
predict, of Social Security.
  Everybody in this Chamber has made public pronouncements that they 
want to protect Social Security. The only way to protect Social 
Security is by voting for my amendment.
  Mr. President, if you try to do it by implementing legislation, it is 
unconstitutional once the underlying amendment passes. Anything less 
than my amendment would be an express statement that you are willing to 
have the 
 [[Page S2584]] fox guard the henhouse or allow Willie Sutton to guard 
the bank.
  Those watching this debate should not be fooled by transparent 
arguments being put forth as to why my amendment will not work. The 
amendment simply says Social Security shall not be used to balance the 
budget. That is all it says.
  No one watching this debate should be under any illusions about what 
this vote is about. A vote to kill this amendment means that Social 
Security will be used to balance the budget of this country. That would 
be unfair.
  There have been advertisements in the State of Nevada and around the 
country by the Republican National Committee to try to get me to back 
off this amendment. I am not going to. There is not enough money in the 
world to stop me from doing that, because I am obligated not only to 
protect today's senior citizens but my children's vested interest in 
Social Security, and my children's children.
  They have a right, of course, to put out these advertisements. I 
recognize that. But rights carry responsibilities. And it is simply 
irresponsible to jeopardize the viability of Social Security. The 
reason they are after Social Security is because that is where the 
money is. As we all know, you cannot balance the budget with ease 
unless you use Social Security moneys. They are wanting to say: ``OK, I 
did what I could to protect Social Security. I am sorry the amendment 
passed and now we must use Social Security to balance the budget.'' 
That is wrong. They want to be able to take the billions and billions 
and even trillions of dollars out of the Social Security trust funds to 
balance this budget. A vote to kill or defeat my amendment will allow 
them to do just that. It is not right, it is not fair, and it is not 
equitable.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we approach the vote to table the Reid 
amendment, which would carve out a constitutional exemption for Social 
Security from the balanced budget amendment, let me just express a few 
last thoughts.
  First, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada and those 
on both sides of this debate for comporting themselves with dignity 
throughout this debate. There are differences of opinion, but there has 
not been any rancor in this debate. I attribute that to my friend and 
colleague from Nevada, and we can all been proud of that.
  Now, let me just point out why the Senate should reject the Reid 
amendment, in addition to the fact that writing a statute into the 
Constitution really should not be done. That is why we have 
implementing legislation. And this amendment provides that we shall 
have implementing legislation to do exactly what the distinguished 
Senator says.
  Mr. President, let us just be honest about it. The Social Security 
trust fund is off budget, but the Federal Government is borrowing from 
it daily and giving a piece of paper, an IOU, for the repayment. If we 
do not do something to straighten out the budgetary problems of this 
country and do something about the deficit, those IOU's are going to be 
worthless pieces of paper, no matter what this amendment seems to say.
  The fact of the matter is that not only will they be worthless pieces 
of paper, but this country is not going to be able to pay for Social 
Security or any other programs in the future if we do not get spending 
under control, especially deficit spending which drives up our interest 
costs and crowds out our ability to spend on anything else. The only 
way we are going to get spending under control is if we put a fiscal 
mechanism into the Constitution that requires us to do so.
  Also, if you refer to a statute, as my good friend and colleague 
would like us to do here, if you write a statute into the Constitution, 
as it were by reference, you are talking about putting in tremendously 
convoluted and technical language and giving quasi-constitutional 
effect to language like this here on this poster. We would not know 
from week to week what the Constitution means as long as Congress can 
amend the underlying language of the statute referred to. That is just 
one illustration.
  Let me give you another illustration on this next poster. It is a 
technical amendment to the Social Security Act in the sections 
referenced by the pending amendment. This is not constitutional 
language. But all of these details would have some type of 
constitutional significance under the pending amendment.
  Let me further illustrate the complexity involved in referring to a 
statute in the Constitution. This poster shows just one of the 
definitions in the statute as referred to by the amendment. Is this 
constitutional language? It covers pages in the United States Code. 
And, Congress could make whatever changes it wants to in the 
Constitution any time it wants to by a mere 51-percent vote by merely 
changing the underlying statute. Or perhaps the opposite is true: 
Perhaps we could only amend the underlying statute through the process 
of a constitutional amendment. My sense is that the former is the more 
likely, that the meaning of the Constitution could be altered by 
altering the referenced statute.
  Mr. President, look at this statutory language on disability 
insurance benefit payments in the statutory definitions of 
``disability'' and ``benefit payments'' on this poster. And this is 
just one set of definitions in the United States Code, covering a 
number of pages. There are thousands of pages on the subject of the 
pending amendment and thousands of regulations, all of which would be 
written into the Constitution by reference. It would become the biggest 
loophole we could imagine. It would make the balanced budget amendment 
a totally worthless piece of paper and it would denigrate the 
Constitution.
  Last week, we voted 87 to 10 to direct the Budget Committee to come 
up, at its earliest convenience, with a way of balancing the budget 
without touching Social Security, either from a revenue or from a 
spending standpoint. It will show that we can do what we said we could 
without taking the unprecedented and unjustifiable step of placing a 
mere statute into the text of the Constitution.
  The real threat to Social Security is our staggering national debt 
and the high interest costs it drives. High Government debt and yearly 
deficits slow economic growth, make wages stagnant, increase interest 
costs, and can lead to inflation. All of these things hurt Social 
Security recipients by decreasing the amount of trust fund revenues and 
decreasing the real value of the benefits paid from the fund. As the 
mammoth pile of debt increases, the Government comes under increasing 
pressure and is less able to repay its debt to retirees unless it 
prints more money, which would drive inflation higher.
  Balancing the budget is not a threat to Social Security, but a 
protection of Social Security for our current retirees and future ones, 
and is a protection against economic chaos and Government disaster. Any 
exemption in the balanced budget amendment can and would be used to 
avoid the strictures of the amendment and would be used to continue 
business as usual with ever-spiraling debt.
  As I have pointed out here in this debate, this exemption would take 
the unprecedented step of writing a mere statute into the text of the 
Constitution and exempting that statute from the operation of the 
balanced budget amendment. Such a step opens a loophole that Congress 
can redefine in any way it wishes in the future. All the pressure of 
balancing the budget would be focused on adding popular spending 
programs into the Social Security system, endangering the primary 
purpose of Social Security and evading the balanced budget amendment. 
This course risks devastating both Social Security and our Nation's 
economy by allowing the dangerous spending spree to continue as it has 
in the past. Our growing national debt threatens the strength of our 
Government, our economy, and our Nation for future generations.
  As we have pointed out in our balanced budget debt tracker, every day 
that we have debated our budgetary deficit has grown from the $4.8 
trillion that we started with, at a rate of over $829 million a day. We 
are now on our 16th day since we started this particular debate, and we 
now have a national debt that has increased $13,271,040,000 
 [[Page S2585]] just in the 16 days that have expired since we started 
this debate.
  Mr. President, the debt is the threat to Social Security. We need to 
enact a rule into the Constitution to end this process of spending our 
children's legacy and threatening our ability to meet our commitments 
to retirees by running up a mountain of debt that we may not be able to 
service much longer. Let us reject all loopholes like this one offered 
by the Senator from Nevada, one which ironically could endanger the 
very program the exemption proponents are attempting to save, and which 
could gut the balanced budget amendment, our last best hope for setting 
the Nation's fiscal house in order. Let us table the Reid amendment 
now, and any others like it that may be offered hereafter.
  Mr. President, may I ask the Chair how much time we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 45 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I spent a lot of time yesterday talking 
about honoring honesty. It occurred to me, as I was driving home last 
night, that no group better exemplifies those virtues than the 
generation now most dependent on the solvency of Social Security--that 
is, the Social Security trust fund--and that is the generation that 
fought and won World War II.
  There are now events honoring those that fought and died and survived 
places like Iwo Jima. Yesterday, there were events that signified the 
fact that 50 years ago there were 2 days of intensive bombing in 
Germany. These grizzled veterans had a clear notion of right and wrong. 
They were fighting to protect future generations against the tyranny 
over the minds and souls of man so dark and so bloody that it had to be 
eradicated. They were fighting, Mr. President, for decency and for 
honesty, for dignity and even honor. They were fighting not only for 
themselves, but for their children and for unnumbered generations yet 
unborn.
  Though there are a sprinkling yet of these heroes still serving, even 
in this Chamber, those victors of World War II have largely passed the 
torch to new hands.
  Are we, Mr. President, to let its light go dim when we pass it on to 
the next generation? We bear--we Members of the U.S. Senate--the same 
responsibility to those generations yet to come as we did and do to the 
heroes of that great conflict.
  We are faced today with a decision of whether to abrogate moral 
responsibility or to face it squarely and honor a promise we have made 
to the American people. If we fail to keep that promise, if we break 
our word, we have twice failed that generation of giants. We have 
threatened their security in the years when the old soldier should be 
warmed by the fireside and his widow comforted.
  Even worse, I think, in the eyes of those heroes is we have also 
failed to keep the commitment they made to those generations yet 
unborn: The promise of security for the old, the orphaned, and the 
infirm.
  If we fail to keep that promise, may we be forgiven, for I daresay 
the American people have a very long memory. May we honor their 
memories by our vote today, by protecting the Social Security trust 
funds.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I sympathize with the amendment offered 
by Senator Reid. But, for several reasons, I am not going to support 
it.
  Mr. President, I do not believe that the benefits of current Social 
Security retirees are threatened by this amendment. For several very 
good reasons, those benefits will be protected as we begin to move 
toward a balanced budget.
  It is important to remember that a balanced budget amendment will 
have to be implemented by enabling legislation which specifies what 
spending reductions and revenue increases are to be made.
  In developing such enabling legislation Social Security is certain to 
fare well. This is true for several reasons. The Social Security 
Program has always enjoyed strong support in the Congress. The 
political power of increasing numbers of older people dependent on 
Social Security will certainly help to protect the program.
  It is also important to remember that the Social Security system is 
currently running large surpluses. I believe that the income to the 
retirement fund from the FICA taxes will exceed the amount needed to 
pay beneficiaries this year by around $69 billion. So the Social 
Security Retirement Program is not part of our deficit problem.
  Several existing statutory provisions also protect the Social 
Security Program. They establish a firewall around the program. They do 
so in the following ways:
  Any legislation which worsens the actuarial balance of the Social 
Security trust funds is subject to a point of order requiring a three-
fifths vote of the Senate to waive.
  Section 310(g) of the Budget Control and Impoundment Act stipulates 
that a point of order, requiring 60 votes to override, may be brought 
against any provision in a budget reconciliation bill pertaining to the 
Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program established under 
title II of the Social Security Act.
  This provision of the Budget Act makes it very difficult to alter the 
benefit and tax structure of the Social Security Program. Essentially, 
it requires 60 votes, rather than a simple majority, to pass changes in 
the Social Security Act program through reconciliation legislation.
  Finally, the leadership of the House of Representatives and of the 
Senate has promised not to touch the Social Security Retirement Program 
for at least 5 years.
  Mr. President, I said that I did not believe that Social Security 
would be the target of deficit reduction efforts and I said also that I 
do think that that is necessary.
  In the long run, however, the Social Security Retirement Program 
faces a major imbalance between its own income and expenditures. And in 
the long run, therefore, there will have to be changes made in Social 
Security. I think everyone understands that. A number of Senators who 
have spoken in this debate in favor of the amendment to take Social 
Security out of the balanced budget amendment have acknowledged this 
point.
  The most recent reports of the board of trustees of the Social 
Security trust funds, released in April 1994, concluded that the trust 
fund faces longer range funding problems.
  The trustees predicted that the disability part of the system would 
become insolvent in 1995. They expected the buildup in the retirement 
part of the system to peak in the year 2020, and then be drawn down as 
the number of baby boomers drawing Social Security retirement increases 
rapidly after they begin to retire in the year 2010. The trustees 
estimated that the retirement fund would be exhausted by the year 2036.
  Legislation enacted late last year will keep the disability trust 
fund solvent until the year 2015. With the enactment of that 
legislation, the retirement fund begins to spend out more than it takes 
in in approximately 2013. According to recent estimates, that 
retirement fund will be completely exhausted in approximately 2030.
  Mr. President, I do not believe that excluding Social Security from 
the balanced budget amendment is going to protect the program from very 
difficult decisions in this longer range future I am describing.
  After 2030, the non-Social Security operating accounts of the Federal 
Government could be in perfect balance. They would be required to be in 
balance by the balanced budget amendment.
  But the Social Security deficit after 2030 could grow to huge 
proportions as the gap increases between the income to the trust funds 
from the FICA taxes, and the benefits paid out to beneficiaries.
  If those Social Security trust funds themselves face a large Social 
Security deficit, how are we going to pay the benefits due to the baby 
boomers and the generation X'ers who follow them?
  We are not going to pay those benefits from the trust fund surpluses 
shown on the books of the Social Security Administration. A number of 
Senators have already noted that, given that we have been running a 
large deficit for some years, the Social Security 
 [[Page S2586]]  surpluses have already been spent on the operating 
expenses of the
 Federal Government. The trust fund balances will continue to be spent 
for other Federal activities as long as we are running a deficit in the 
operating accounts of the Federal Government. This happens whether or 
not Social Security is an independent agency. It happens whether or not 
Social Security is displayed on-budget or off budget. It will happen 
even were we to accept this amendment to take Social Security out of 
the balanced budget amendment.

  This happens because the balances in the Social Security trust funds 
are held in the form of Treasury securities--loans to the Treasury in 
return for which the Treasury essentially issues IOU's to the Social 
Security Program. When the time comes for the Social Security 
Administration to redeem those IOU's, the Treasury will have to find 
the money to pay them.
  Achieving a balanced budget at some point in the future will help 
reduce this drain on the Social Security trust funds. But by the time 
we have arrived at that point we will already have spent on other 
Federal activities tens of billions of dollars from the Social Security 
funds. Those funds are not going to be there when the Social Security 
Administration goes to the Treasury to make good on the IOU's it holds.
  Thus, when that time comes after the baby boomers begin to retire, we 
will face some difficult choices. We will have to substantially raise 
Social Security taxes. Or we will have to float massive new debt. Or we 
will have to cut back on benefits.
  Mr. President, I am confident that the Congress will act to guarantee 
that the Social Security promise will be there for future generations. 
I am not able to say exactly how we will do that. But I remember back 
to the early 1980's when we had to form the National Commission on 
Social Security reform to figure out how to save the system from 
bankruptcy. We saved the system then, and we will do whatever we have 
to do in the future to guarantee the integrity of the system.
  When that time comes, I do not believe that having Social Security 
out of the balanced budget amendment will shield us from the need to do 
one, or some combination, or those things--raise payroll taxes, float 
more debt, or reduce benefits--in order to maintain the integrity of 
the Social Security Program.
  Mr. President, it is obvious that we cannot wait until the year 2030 
until we begin to make changes in the Social Security Retirement 
Program. The baby boomers begin to retire in the year 2010. Once they 
have entered retirement, it will be difficult to make the chances that 
will be required. It will be difficult both because it would be unfair 
to change the terms of retirement for people already retired, even 
though the last Congress did just that when it raised the percentage of 
Social Security benefit subject to the personal income tax for retirees 
above a certain income level. And it will be difficult because the big 
baby boom generation will resist changes in the program.
  So, Mr. President, certainly not later than 10 years from now the 
country, and the Congress, is going to have to face the pressing need 
to make changes in the retirement program that will go into effect not 
later than the year the baby boomers begin to retire. That is not a 
long time in the development of public policy.
  Mr. President, it is important to remember that large Federal 
deficits threaten the Social Security Program. In fact, I do not think 
it is an exaggeration to say that they are the main threat to the 
current, and especially the future, Social Security Program. Social 
Security benefits to retirees re drawn from the wealth of the society 
into which they retire. Current and future economic health and 
prosperity are thus the first line of defense for the current and 
future Social Security Program.
  Most economists believe that growing deficits result in lower 
productivity and lower living standards. As real wages decline because 
of large Federal deficits, there will be increasing resistance to 
paying the taxes necessary to support the Social Security system. 
Growing deficits also contribute to high interest rates and growing 
Federal interest payments for Federal debt. Such interest payments can 
crowd out other spending, including spending for Social Security. 
Currently, interest payments on the Federal debt are around $300 
billion per year.
  It is very important that we begin to get a grip on our deficit 
spending habits and I think that passage of this balanced budget 
amendment is the best way to do it.
  I want to make one other point, Mr. President. And that is that we 
must remember that we are considering an amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States. As a former member of the Constitution 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I had ample opportunity to 
reflect on the Constitution. That document establishes the basic 
structure of American Government. It does so with just a few thousand 
words. Those words outline fundamental principles of our governmental 
system. They outline fundamental relationships between the branches of 
Government.
  Surely it is inappropriate to include mention of any statute, even a 
statute as important as the Social Security Act, in a document such as 
the Constitution.
  This is not a precedent we should establish. Once we have added 
mention of the Social Security Act, what other statutes will future 
Congresses be tempted to add--statutes which provide veterans benefits? 
Statutes which provide medical care to the elderly?
  We should remember that a constitutional amendment should provide 
general guidance on basic principles or concepts.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by 
Senator Reid. The purpose of the amendment is basically sound--to 
protect Social Security from budget cuts. Most of us support this.
  However, in my view, the Reid amendment will likely fail to protect 
Social Security as well as the intent of the balanced budget 
amendment--to eliminate billions of dollars of annual deficits.
  Right now, we fund Social Security and run up billions of dollars of 
debt. What the American people want is to protect Social Security from 
cuts and to put an end to deficits. That is what we propose.
  The American people are saying that $1.5 trillion in taxpayer dollars 
is enough. Spending 19 percent of national income on Government is 
enough. They want us to make it work.
  But this amendment will have as its long-term effect funded Social 
Security and billions of dollars in annual budget deficits. This is 
true because although Social Security will have the political clout to 
remain a funding priority, the Social Security trust fund will begin to 
run operating deficits in the year 2013 and will be completely 
exhausted in the year 2029. Thereafter, Social Security will run large 
annual budget deficits. While I am confident the Government will 
continue to make these transfer payments, I am equally certain we will 
not pay these bills if Social Security is not contained within the 
balanced budget amendment.
  Furthermore, in the short term, this amendment will produce cuts in 
all other spending programs which will make the cuts opponents of the 
balanced budget amendment have described as draconian, seem trivial.
  For instance, many Senators who support the Reid amendment have 
warned that in order to balance the budget by 2002--hold harmless 
national defense, Social
 Security, and interest on the debt, and pay for the Contract With 
America's tax cuts, all other Government spending programs would have 
  to be cut by 30 percent across the board.The irony is that the Reid 
amendment would have the practical effect of forcing even deeper cuts 
in Government programs than those about which Senators on the other 
side have expressed concern.
  Here is how this would occur. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the accumulated Social Security trust fund surpluses will total 
$636 billion from 1996 to 2002. If we were to remove that surplus from 
the budget, the annual budget deficit will increase accordingly--and 
the required reductions in spending would be much more than 30 percent 
if we must balance that portion of the budget not included in the Reid 
amendment.
   [[Page S2587]] At last Wednesday's Budget Committee hearing, I asked 
Office of Management and Budget Director Alice Rivlin to give me a 
rough estimate about how much more spending would have to be cut in all 
other areas of the budget if we totally remove Social Security from the 
rest of the budget as this amendment suggests.
  Dr. Rivlin told the committee that all other Government programs 
would have to be reduced by 40 percent. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office and the Senate Budget Committee staff, spending would 
have to be reduced across-the-board spending cuts between 40 and 50 
percent.
  In other words, the amendment will produce massive short-term budget 
dislocations and no long-term end to the red ink. Accordingly, I will 
oppose it.
  Mr. President, the simple fact is that today Social Security will be 
protected from budget cuts because an overwhelming number of 
Congressmen and Senators will vote to protect it. It will be protected 
after the balanced budget amendment is passed because that same group 
of Congressmen and Senators will vote to protect Social Security in the 
balanced budget enabling legislation. And in the future, it will be 
protected. This is because Social Security will always be able to 
compete effectively as a budget priority, especially as the number of 
recipients increases as a percentage of the electorate.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Reid amendment 
because it fails to protect both Social Security and the intent of the 
balanced budget amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, Social Security is without a doubt 
the most important and the most successful program Government has 
created in the entire 20th century. We hear a great deal these days 
about the Contract With America. With all due respect to the drafters 
of that document, I agree with Senator Byrd--the only contract I have 
with America is the Constitution of the United States.
  However, a close second to the Constitution is the Social Security 
contract. Social Security represents a real contract with the American 
people. It represents an almost sacred trust; and our job, as 
fiduciaries of that trust, is to act with prudence and responsibility, 
so that Social Security will be there when Americans need it.
  The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In 1934, in a speech outlining the 
objectives of his administration, President Roosevelt stated that,

       Our task of reconstruction does not require the creation of 
     new and strange values. It is rather the finding of the way 
     once more to known, but to some degree forgotten, ideals and 
     values. If the means and details are in some instances new, 
     the objectives are as permanent as human nature. Among our 
     objectives, I place the security of the men, women and 
     children of the Nation first.

  Accordingly, President Roosevelt announced that he would be sending 
to Congress a proposal to ``Provide security against several of the 
great disturbing factors in life--especially those which relate to 
unemployment and old age.'' That proposal, of course, became what is 
now our Social Security system. When signing the legislation into law, 
President Roosevelt noted:

       We can never insure 100 percent of the population against 
     100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we 
     have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of 
     protection to the average citizen and to his family against 
     the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.

  Sixty years after President Roosevelt uttered those words, his vision 
has become reality. Social Security has helped millons of Americans 
avoid living out their final years in destitution. In fact, there is 
probably no other Federal program that has made such an extraordinary 
difference in the lives of so many Americans.
  As a result, Americans view Social Security as a binding commitment, 
valid, and enforceable against the Federal Government. It has achieved 
a special status, and is viewed with reverence by current 
beneficiaries--and even by many baby boomers, who will be collecting 
Social Security benefits much sooner than we like to think.
  But the same is not true for those in our younger generations. As 
many of you in this body know, I have a 17-year-old son, Matthew. I 
have mentioned him often during the course of this debate, because the 
most fundamental issue at stake in the balanced budget amendment 
debate--whether the American dream will be alive and well for the next 
generation and beyond--is so critically important to Matt, and to the 
rest of his generation.
  When you speak to people who are Matthew's age, one thing becomes 
clear. Young people today--members of the so-called generation X--have 
absolutely no faith that Government will be there for them when they 
need it, that it will help them enjoy retirement security, or 
affordable health care, or the opportunity to enjoy a higher standard 
of living than their parents had.
  And why should they, Mr. President? Since my son was born in 1977, he 
has never seen a balanced budget. He has no idea what it means to live 
under a Federal Government that spends within its means. He has heard 
politician after politician promise to balance the budget, yet has only 
seen the deficit skyrocket.
  Our children have been told, time and time again, that a brighter day 
is just around the corner. They have been told that the Government will 
provide for people--including them--in their old age. The Federal 
Government has told them, time and time again, to trust me. But our 
children are not stupid. They are every bit as informed and aware of 
the political system, and how that system impacts on their lives, as we 
were at their age. And the failure of politicians to face the facts and 
acknowledge the difficult choices we face--politicians who would prefer 
to sweep our fiscal problems under the rug to score points with current 
voters, at the expense of future generations--has fueled a cynicism 
about Government that grows deeper and deeper every day, 
notwithstanding all our efforts to convince people that a brighter day 
is just around the corner.
  The current debate surrounding Social Security--whether it should be 
on or off budget; whether proposals to keep it off budget should be 
included in the text of the constitutional amendment itself, or instead 
be dealt with in implementing legislation--only feeds public 
skepticism. I spoke the other day of my work on the Entitlement 
Commission. I believe that one of the most important messages delivered 
by that body was the warning that, if Social Security is to remain 
viable well into the next century--allowing it to ensure retirement 
security for my son Matthew and beyond--there must be reform, Congress 
must act. Indeed, according to the Social Security trustees, reform is 
the only way to ensure that Social Security will be there for my son.
  I realize that, anytime you mention Social Security reform, people 
get scared. But there is no reason to fear Social Security reform. 
Reform will not lower, by even 1 penny, the amount of benefits 
collected by any current Social Security recipients, or of anyone old 
enough to be thinking seriously about retirement. Indeed, if the 
changes are to be viewed as legitimate, they must be known well in 
advance. They must be long term ones, phased in gradually over time, 
when an opportunity for all Americans to fully participate in the 
dialog and debate over what form those changes should take. There are 
numerous options for reform, but it would be wrong for this Congress to 
choose any of them in advance of expensive
 consultation with the American people as to why reform is necessary, 
  and what the merits and problems each option for reform presents.Howev
er, the bottom line is that this debate must take place, a bottom line 
that is in no way affected by whether Social Security is kept on or off 
budget. In the long run, it makes no difference. Without reform, we 
will not be able to keep Social Security's promise to Matt and millions 
of other Americans.
  We need to tell the American people the truth, Mr. President, about 
our budget problems generally, and about the need for long-term reform 
of Social Security specifically. The American people don't fear the 
truth. Far from it. They want to know the truth, and I am confident, 
that once they have it, they will want Congress and the President to do 
what the facts require--to act to keep Social Security secure for 
future generations and to restore real 
 [[Page S2588]] budget discipline to the Federal Government.
  Among the truths Americans have a right to know is this one: America 
is graying, due both to longer life expectancies and the aging of the 
baby boomers. When the Social Security system was established, the 
average life expectancy was 61 years; now, it is 76. This simple truth 
has numerous implications. Social Security benefits are funded 
primarily from payroll taxes on current workers. As our population 
ages, and as the baby boom generation retires, there will be fewer 
workers to support more retirees. While in 1990 there were almost five 
workers for each retiree, in 2030, there will be less than three. What 
that means is that, if current trends remain unchanged, the Social 
Security trust fund will begin to pay out more than it takes in by 
2012. By 2029, the fund will have exhausted all of its previously 
accumulated surpluses. In other words, without long-term reform, Social 
Security will not be able to fully meet the promises it has made.
  Now, it is true that the long-term Social Security imbalance doesn't 
have to be fixed today. But it is also true that the longer we wait, 
the more unnecessary risk for future Social Security recipients we 
create. So we should act--now.
  What we have before the Senate today, however, are not proposals for 
reform that will guarantee Social Security's long-term solvency. 
Instead, what we have is a proposal to constitutionally reform Social 
Security from the budget. Frankly, Mr. President, if I thought this 
proposal would make any difference at all to the long-term prospect for 
Social Security--if it would make Social Security's future any more 
secure at all--I would oppose any balanced budget constitutional 
amendment that did not include it. More than that, I would filibuster 
around the clock to prevent the passage of any constitutional amendment 
that did not contain the Social Security proposal now before us.
  And I have to say that I strongly support the idea of taking Social 
Security out of the budget for purposes of helping the American people 
understand what our real budget problems are--and what it will take to 
solve them.
  The truth is, however, that this proposal has a short-term focus when 
our budget problems, and protecting Social Security's future, demand a 
long-term solution. And the truth is that even adding a provision to 
the Constitution to take Social Security out of the budget will not be 
able to accomplish that goal in anything other than in an accounting 
sense.
  I share the view that decisions involving Social Security should be 
made only for Social Security-related reasons. I do not think Congress 
should ever make changes in Social Security to solve problems in other 
areas of the budget. Unfortunately, taking Social Security out of the 
budget, even via constitutional amendment, cannot guarantee that. Only 
the continued active involvement of the American people, only their 
continuing interest in keeping the Social Security compact intact, can 
guarantee that.
  It is true that for the next 15 to 17 years, Social Security will be 
running a surplus--it will be taking in more than it spends. I agree 
that the existence of these annual surpluses does make the consolidated 
budget deficit look smaller in the relatively short-run. But that 
surplus is a temporary phenomenon. After about 2012, Social Security 
will be paying out more than it takes in. After that point, Social 
Security will be consuming its accumulated surplus.
  The temporary or permanent nature of the surpluses perhaps would not 
be important if it were actually possible to take Social Security 
completely out of the rest of the Federal Government. However, as long 
as the Social Security system buys Treasury bonds, it is not. The 
simple truth is that taking Social Security off-budget won't raise or 
lower the amount of bonds the Treasury Department will have to issue 
between now and the year 2002--the date the balanced budget is supposed 
to be achieved--by even $1.
  Right now, the Treasury Department is selling bonds to the public, 
both here and abroad, and to the Social Security system.
Whether Social Security is part of the budget or not, it will buy 
exactly the same amount of bonds. And that means that, whether Social 
Security is part of the budget or not, the Treasury Department will be 
selling exactly the same amount of bonds to the public--and it is the 
amount of bond sales to the public that is the real measure of Federal 
  deficits in any given year.On the other hand, if by the year 2012, 
when the Social Security trust fund ceases to take in more money than 
it pays out, the Government will be required to pay off those Treasury 
bonds. Whether Social Security is part of the budget or not is 
irrelevant to the fact that the Treasury Department will have to find 
the cash to pay off those bonds. And there are only three basic ways to 
do that: issue new bonds to the public, thereby increasing Federal 
deficits in those years, raising taxes by the amount necessary, or 
cutting spending on other programs by the amounts needed.
  Talking Social Security out of the budget, therefore, does nothing to 
make our long-term budget problems either better or worse. It does 
nothing to protect Social Security from the rest of the budget, because 
Treasury bond purchases and sales continue to bind Social Security 
tightly to the rest of the budget. And perhaps most importantly, it 
does nothing to protect the long-term future of Social Security.
  After all, as we vote on the balanced budget amendment, we have to 
keep our eyes on the prize. The point of this exercise is not simply to 
balance the budget by the year 2002. The point is to ensure that the 
budget stays balanced, not merely in 2002, but in each year thereafter. 
Without taking the steps necessary to reform the Social Security 
system, it will be impossible to ensure the budget stays balanced.
  Mr. President, I know it is not popular to talk about reforming the 
Social Security system. But the people back in Illinois who sent me to 
the Senate told me that it was important for politicians to level with 
the American people. They told me it was important to stand up for what 
is right, to end the conspiracy of silence surrounding our Nation's 
fiscal programs--including long-term problems facing Social Security--
and to end the practice of ignoring the facts that are staring us in 
the face.
  As I have said before, the American people are tired of the cynical 
manipulations, the smoke and mirrors, that have been used to obscure 
our budget problems in the past. The people know that getting our 
fiscal house in order will not be easy, and certainly will not be 
painless, but the long-term consequences of not acting are far worse 
than any short-term pain.
  We have to take actions that will actually make a difference, instead 
of just making us feel good. We need to define the objectives that are 
important to us as a nation, then work to see how we can most 
effectively accomplish those objectives. On the issue of retirement 
security, the American people have spoken loud and clear: there are 
few, if any, goals as important to Americans. But deciding that the 
Government should provide old age security is only half the battle; in 
order to succeed, we need to continuously keep our eyes firmly fixed on 
the future.
  Mr. President, the other day when I spoke of why it was so important 
that Congress act now on the balanced budget amendment, I pointed out 
that the Federal deficit for the current fiscal year--estimated at $193 
billion--would not exist if the huge increases in our national debt run 
up during the 1980's had not occurred. This year, and next year, the 
budget would be balanced if not for the reckless supply-side economics 
that caused the deficit to balloon from its 1980 level of about $1 
trillion to its current level or more than $4.7 trillion. If we had 
acted in 1980 to tackle the deficit, rather than adopting programs that 
merely fed its rapid growth, the problems we face today--in terms of 
demographics, and the aging of the baby boomers--would seem much more 
manageable.
  We, therefore, need to acknowledge that not acting will not make our 
problems go away. Our ability to guarantee retirement security for all 
Americans will be much greater if we begin reform of the system now. We 
need to face Social Security's long-term future not for any reason 
connected to the rest of the budget, but to meet our responsibility to 
future generations of Social Security recipients. We cannot afford to 
let 
 [[Page S2589]] any distractions related to budgetary accounting keep 
us from acting on what is really important--keeping Social Security 
viable.
  Because taking Social Security off budget does not help us keep the 
promise of Social Security alive for future generations, including my 
own son, I cannot support it. What I do support is keeping Social 
Security's contract with the American people. And keeping that 
contract, by acting to protect the long-term integrity of the Social 
Security system, will help bring greater integrity to the Federal 
budget generally--and that is a fringe benefit that will help every 
American.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
respond to the amendment introduced by my friend, the Senator from 
Nevada, [Mr. Reid] and my other distinguished colleagues on this side.
  Social Security, as well as Medicare, has been one of the more 
successful government-run programs in the history of this country. 
Every hard-working, taxpaying American participates in these programs--
we all have a vested interest in the Social Security program whether we 
are present or future beneficiaries.
  As it stands now, Social Security is set up to go bankrupt in 2029. 
Only a few years ago, the Social Security program was projected to go 
broke in 2036.
  I acknowledge the fact that Social Security may be on the caboose of 
this balanced budget train because of its current surplus versus other 
more problematic programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but this program 
is still connected to the budget as a whole.
  This Senator believes Social Security is vital to a high quality of 
life for all Americans. It is my belief that the Senators who are 
offering this amendment are doing so because they, too, believe Social 
Security is vital to our Nation.
  There are indications that an exemption for Social Security is the 
only way to get the balanced budget amendment through the Senate. As a 
supporter of the balanced budget amendment, I hope that is not the 
case. Even so, to keep one of the largest programs in the country out 
of the balanced budget discussion is fiscally irresponsible and wrong.
  It is wrong because it would provide constitutional protection to a 
single statutory program--Social Security. The Constitution should not 
be used for this purpose. There are sound reasons to consider ways to 
keep Social Security solvent beyond 2029 in the coming years. Codifying 
Social Security in the U.S. Constitution prevents Congress from 
considering anything that may in fact be intended to preserve Social 
Security for the future.
  The Constitution is not the place to set budget priorities, nor to 
enshrine statutes passed by Congress. Congress can exempt Social 
Security through statute.
  I would also ask why not, if Social Security, any other worthy 
program? The argument that Americans have paid into Social Security and 
should not be denied getting those benefits rings hollow when we all 
know for a fact that a majority of current and past retirees are 
receiving or will receive far more in benefits than what they paid into 
Social Security plus interest.
  Americans also pay into a variety of very good and worthy programs as 
well, in the form of taxes. Should those worthy programs also be 
exempted using that kind of argument?
  Keep in mind that the balanced budget amendment does not specify 
where the cuts will take place. This language only forces Congress to 
balance the budget by the year 2002. Year after year, Congress will 
have the authority, should this measure pass, to choose what cuts will 
come from what programs.
  Social Security would not necessarily have to be cut. This hype we 
are getting about how necessary it is to have a Social Security 
exemption in order to preserve benefits is driven by powerful lobbying 
groups and is unjustified. You and I know that Congress will not vote 
to cut Social Security benefits to those who need those benefits.
  There may be trimmings of benefits for the wealthiest of Americans, 
but we are not about to vote to deny benefits to the millions of 
Americans who rely on Social Security as their only source of 
retirement income. So a constitutional exemption is not necessary.
  To prioritize which program or programs are worthy of exemption in 
the balanced budget amendment will only chip away, piece by piece, the 
value of a balanced budget amendment and pit one program against 
another.
  Let me take just a few more minutes and read to you a couple letters 
I have received this month from Coloradoans regarding the treatment of 
Social Security and Medicare, the two largest entitlement programs in 
our Federal budget. Take for example, Donald Kynion, from Walsenburg, 
CO, who says:

       I feel you should do what is best for the country. If 
     changes in Social Security and Medicare are necessary then 
     make them. Cut spending and too much government!

  Or listen to 72-year-old Edith Seppi from Leadville, CO, who says:

       I hope you will be fair to all Americans and pass 
     legislation that will cut the debt, even if we all must be a 
     part of the cuts. I hope interest groups will not control the 
     decisions you make. I hope you do what you believe is best 
     for our country. So, count me in on the side that says do the 
     best that you can.

  Doing the best that we can, is not allowing certain privileged 
programs to be exempt from this difficult task of balancing our budget.
  If a family was forced to balance their budget for the month, could 
they be successful by omitting their mortgage payments? Where should 
this family then get the money to make this payment?
Where then should Congress find the funds to pay the baby boomers when 
  they retire?I beg my colleagues not to exempt any program, no matter 
how successful or useful it is to us, from the balanced budget 
amendment. If we are forced to balance the budget, all programs on this 
train, whether they are Medicare, veteran's pensions, unemployment 
compensation, SSI, and Social Security, will have a chance for a better 
tomorrow if we balance our budget today.
  The balanced budget amendment gives this country hope for a better 
quality of life further down the tracks. Let us not derail this effort.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for years now, from the first time this 
amendment to balance the budget came before us, several of its features 
have caused me concern.
  In addition to the constitutional issues involved in how we will 
enforce a balanced budget, and the lack of any provision for long-term 
investments, I have been most concerned by the inclusion of the social 
security trust fund in the budget that House Joint Resolution 1 
requires to be in balance each year.
  Those concerns have been the grounds not only for my statements here 
on the Senate floor, in the Judiciary Committee, and elsewhere, but 
also for my votes in the last two sessions of Congress.
  Last year, I voted for a constitutional balanced budget amendment, 
one that excluded Social Security from budget calculations.
  Back in my State of Delaware, my constituents share my concern about 
the Social Security trust fund, so when I raise that issue here I am 
speaking about their worries as well as my own.
  Social Security is a unique program with a unique impact on our 
budget. That is why we voted, 98 to 2, to take it offbudget in 1990.
  Here on the Senator floor, Senator Reid and Senator Feinstein have 
shown us the exact language with which we took Social Security 
offbudget in the 1990 budget agreement.
  By the way, Mr. President, we all owe them our gratitude for raising 
this issue, and for leading the defense of Social Security here on the 
floor.
  That 1990 agreement was made between the bipartisan leadership of 
Congress and President Bush.
  We took that step for a very good reason, Mr. President. We were 
undertaking significant budget reforms and deficit reduction, and 
concluded that the most honest bookkeeping procedure would be to keep 
the Social Security trust fund out of the calculations of the annual 
budget.
  I see no reason to reverse that decision now, particularly in light 
of its effects on future deficits, and certainly not in the 
Constitution.
  [[Page S2590]] The Social Security trust fund holds a unique position 
in our political system, and it deserves special consideration as we 
set a course for the Federal budget that could last for the next 200 
years.
  The Social Security system has been the very symbol of the National 
Government's promise to provide a safety net under those who 
contributed to the trust fund, and by, extension, to this country's 
prosperity.
  Ironically, that same system that has been for so many years a symbol 
of a promise made and a promise kept is now seen by the generation just 
moving into the work force--the generation of my sons and, in a few 
years, my daughter--as a symbol of the Federal Government's duplicity 
and irresponsibility.
  We have all heard that humorous opinion poll finding, that more young 
people today believe in UFO's than believe that the Social Security 
system will be there for them when they need it.
  That might be funny, Mr. President, if it were not such a sad 
commentary on the attitude of our young people about our Government 
more generally.
  Of all the harm our inability to manage our finances has caused, that 
may be the most damaging--the declining faith in our Government's 
ability, even willingness, to keep its word.
  There are of course many reasons for the cynicism of our young 
people, which is just part of a wider national disaffection.
  But at the top of anyone's list of reasons must be the perception 
that Social Security--the symbol of a responsive Government for my 
parents' generation--has become for my children's generation the symbol 
of a Government that takes from the unorganized and gives to the people 
with the best lobbyists.
  For my parents' generation, Social Security is symbol of a Government 
guarantee of a secure future; for my children's generation, it is a 
symbol of why they are increasingly insecure about the future.
  I'm afraid, Mr. President, that keeping Social Security in the 
budget--by constitutional mandate, no less--we may well prove those 
skeptics right.
  Let there be no mistake, Mr. President, the money in the Social 
Security surplus--$69 billion this year alone, and it will accumulate 
to nearly $3 trillion by the year 2020--will be far too tempting for us 
if we are to be bound by the Constitution to balance our budgets.
  Those funds could be used to ease a lot of short-term pain as we face 
the major budget choices needed to lower our deficits.
  It is precisely because we do not trust ourselves or future 
Congresses to write responsible budgets that we are considering this 
balanced budget amendment right now.
  If we leave an extra $3 trillion on the table do we really expect 
that we will leave Social Security alone?
  This fiscal year, we will have the benefit of a $69 billion Social 
Security surplus, that under the terms of the balanced budget 
amendment, we would be constitutionally allowed to use to make the 
deficit in the rest of the Government's operations look smaller.
  By the year 2002, that Social Security surplus will be $111 billion. 
Every year thereafter, the annual surplus will grow, as it should, to 
cover the future obligations of the Federal Government to Social 
Security beneficiaries.
  And therefore, every year the task of balancing the budget to meet 
the requirements of the balanced budget amendment will be that much 
easier. At least, Mr. President, for the short term.
  Mr. President, by the very logic that led to this debate today, we 
will use that money to delay those tough choices for future decades.
  If we lack the will to do the right thing about our deficits without 
a constitutional requirement, why should we be trusted to leave Social 
Security alone if its surpluses will help us avoid some of the 
political pain of complying with the Constitution?
  The Social Security system is not the cause of today's deficit 
problem; it should not be made the short-term solution for those 
problems, either.
  That is why we should protect Social Security by accepting the Reid 
amendment.
  To be sure, the system faces its own imbalances--even monumental 
deficits--all too soon, when the baby boomers retire.
  At that time, the Social Security system will begin a freefall into 
deficits that will eventually swamp the rest of the Federal budget in 
red ink.
  At that time, our problem will be the reverse of the short-term 
temptation to use the current surplus to mask the cuts needed to get 
the rest of the budget into balance.
  When the Social Security trust fund heads south, when its surplus 
becomes an increasing deficit, we will then be scrambling to find ways 
to cut the rest of the budget to accommodate the requirements of the 
Constitution.
  The Social Security balances will accumulate surpluses up to roughly 
2020, when the whole system just falls right off the table, as we spend 
out at a rapid rate to meet obligations to an increasing number of 
retiring baby boomers who will be supported by a declining number of 
workers.
  The Social Security system's financial problems are driven by a 
number of factors, some of which we can control. But there is one 
factor that will always be beyond our control.
  Demographic trends--the most famous of which we call the baby boom--
will determine how many beneficiaries will be receiving benefits from 
the system and how many workers will be paying their payroll taxes into 
the system.
  The Social Security system--no matter how well our policies are 
designed--cannot be balanced on an annual basis but must be balanced 
over decades, even over generations.
  Therefore, unless we do away with Social Security all together, the 
balanced budget amendment will mix--in the constitutional definition of 
the budget--programs with very different balances.
  I might add that is the same problem we will have if we neglect to 
provide for a capital budget, a way of carrying the cost of long-term 
assets on our books without having to count them as a current expense.
  By attempting to lump every kind of activity into a single definition 
of the budget, the balanced budget amendment ignores the kinds of 
distinctions we all make in our daily lives.
  Mr. President, we all distinguish between our savings accounts, our 
mortgage payments, and our monthly checkbook balances.
  We do not count our savings account balances--or the balances in our 
retirement accounts--when we balance our checkbooks every month. In the 
real world, it wouldn't do us any good anyway--we would still have to 
pay our bills.
  Unless we intend to use that retirement account to pay our current 
monthly bills, that retirement account should not even be considered 
when we balance our checkbooks.
  Unless we intend to use the Social Security surplus to cover annual 
operating expenses, Mr. President, there is no reason to keep the 
Social Security trust funds in the constitutional definition of our 
annual budget.
  No one here would deny that Social Security needs fixing on its own 
terms. And, Mr. President, we all know that we will never give it the 
attention it needs if we are able to hide behind a constitutional 
definition of the budget that uses the surplus to mask the true extent 
of the deficit in the rest of the Government's operations.
  I for one don't for a minute think that those choices--how to cut the 
deficit--will be made easier if we hold the system apart from the rest 
of the Federal budget.
  They will not be made more easily if we accept this amendment, Mr. 
President, but they will be made more honestly.
  Those tough choices should not be tangled up with the solution for 
other budget issues not caused by the Social Security system.
  The Reid amendment will preserve the Social Security system's unique 
place in our laws, and will permit us to address its very real problems 
on their own merits.
  That is, after all, only what the opponents of the Reid amendment say 
they want, too--to keep Social Security off the table when we start the 
cutting that will be required to comply with the balanced budget 
amendment.
  If that's what they want, then let them join us in taking it off the 
table now.
  [[Page S2591]] Surely, they cannot argue that Senator Dole's 
amendment that we accepted earlier provides the protection that Social 
Security needs and deserves.
  As Senators Hollings and Heflin have conclusively argued, once the 
Social Security system is included in the constitutional definition of 
the Federal budget, no mere statute or statement of this Congress' 
intention will prevent future Congresses from using the Social Security 
surpluses to comply with the balanced budget requirement.
  So we can talk all we want about what we would do, or what we expect 
future Congresses to do. The Reid amendment takes care of this problem 
at its roots, in the Constitution.
  Even with Senator Dole's amendment, the temptation to use these 
funds--and the equally distressing prospect of saddling ourselves with 
those future deficits--will always be there.
  Even now, Mr. President, despite the apparently bipartisan chant that 
we should keep our hands off of Social Security, there are other voices 
out there that we should be aware of, too.
  The new Speaker of the House, in his opening address on January 4, 
referring to the balanced budget amendment, said, and I quote, ``I 
think Social Security should be off limits, at least for the first 4 to 
6 years, because I think it will just destroy us if we bring it into 
the game.''
  And the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, during hearings on 
the balanced budget amendment, said that failure to include the assets 
of the Social Security system ``would require us to make spending cuts 
more sweeping than currently contemplated.''
  In other words, the House chairman intends that those funds be 
available to make the transition to a balanced budget easier--to cover 
the deficit in the rest of the budget with the assets set aside for 
future Social Security beneficiaries.
  It is statements like that, Mr. President, that make me more than a 
little concerned about the future of Social Security, especially now 
that the majority has rejected our call for a specific plan to bring 
our budget into balance.
  Having failed to get any specifics about a plan to get us to a 
balanced budget, we are now asking a much narrower, more focused, and 
easier question: ``Will you leave Social Security out of the 
constitutional definition of a balanced budget?''
  Mr. President, that is all that Senator Reid's amendment calls for--
an honest accounting of one very important program. It calls for an 
honest accounting of how we will deal with the Social Security system.
  Those of us who want an honest accounting will vote for this 
amendment. I cannot understand why anyone would vote against it.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to announce my support for the 
Reid amendment to the constitutional balanced budget amendment. This 
amendment proposes to exempt explicitly Social Security from the 
constitutional balanced budget amendment.
  I support the Reid amendment for one fundamental reason. Its passage 
would promote truth in budgeting to the American people. For the past 
10 years, the surplus from the Social Security trust fund has been used 
to mask the size of the annual Federal deficit. Instead of being saved 
or invested to pay for the retirement of the baby boom generation in 
the next century, the surplus is being borrowed and used to pay for 
general fund obligations. Its use in this fashion understates the 
annual deficit by $70 billion in fiscal year 1995, and this amount will 
keep increasing each year between now and 2002, at which point the 
general fund will have borrowed $1 trillion from the Social Security 
trust fund. Over the next 7 years, the general fund will borrow and 
spend over $630 billion from the Social Security trust fund. I oppose 
the use of these surpluses in this fashion. I believe we are setting a 
fiscal time bomb for the next generation.
  I understand well why many of my colleagues oppose the Reid 
amendment. Its passage would make the job of balancing the budget, a 
goal I support with or without the constitutional balanced budget 
amendment, more difficult. Under current projections, over $1 trillion 
in deficit reduction will have to be found over the next 7 years to 
bring the budget in balance by 2002. Not being able to use the Social 
Security trust fund surplus would require an additional $110 billion in 
deficit reduction in the year 2002 in order to balance the budget that 
year.
  Budget cuts of this magnitude cannot be made painlessly, although 
there is a continuing search for such painless methods in order to 
avoid facing the tough decisions. Realistically, I think the passage of 
this amendment would mean also that the time frame for balancing the 
budget would have to be extended, probably by about 3 years.
  There are some who are promoting the Reid amendment as an effort to 
avoid all tough decisions on Social Security and to pretend that the 
system can remain unchanged. I dissent from this view. We must dispel 
the notion that everything is well with the Social Security trust fund. 
The important findings of the Kerrey-Danforth Bipartisan Commission on 
Entitlement and Tax Reform clearly spelled out the demographic and 
fiscal challenges
 which confront the Social Security system. Thirty years ago, there 
were four workers for every Social Security beneficiary. Today, there 
are only three. Thirty years from now, there will be only two. If we do 
nothing, we know what awaits us. In 2013, receipts from payroll taxes 
will no longer pay for Social Security benefits. And their news gets 
even worse--in 2029, if no changes are made, the Social Security system 
will be insolvent.

  Some who support this amendment view it as rendering Social Security 
untouchable. I not only disagree with this interpretation; I believe 
that considering Social Security untouchable will bring about the long-
term insolvency of the Social Security program.
  My reasons for voting for the Reid amendment are simple. I believe 
that we are courting fiscal disaster by continuing to use social 
Security surpluses for general funding programs--in effect putting 
IOU's from the general fund into the Social Security trust fund for 
these borrowed funds.
  According to the Social Security Board of Actuaries, by the year 
2013, when payroll tax receipts will no longer cover the cost of Social 
Security benefit payments, the general fund--the taxpayers of America--
will owe the Social Security trust fund over $2.5 trillion.
  This means that when the demographics turn around in 2013, the 
general fund will have to begin paying back the Social Security trust 
fund. At this point, the Social Security trust fund will remain 
solvent, but the general funds will be under severe pressure because of 
the debt which must be repaid each year.
  The dilemma is that for the next 18 years, based on current 
projections, excluding Social Security from the constitutional balanced 
budget requirement will require a tighter fiscal policy and more 
efforts to balance the budget. Once the Social Security trust fund 
begins running a deficit, the exclusion will make fiscal policy less 
stringent.
  I believe that we must begin to realize that we are mortgaging the 
future for the taxpayers in years ahead unless we balance the budget 
without using the Social Security trust fund surpluses. These surpluses 
should be invested in outside activities beyond the reach of the 
Federal Government, so that we will no longer borrow these surpluses 
and mask the true fiscal picture.
  One of the three central findings of the Strengthening of America 
Commission, which I cochaired with Senator Domenici, was the need to 
balance the budget by the year 2002 without using the
Social Security surplus. The Commission did not advocate a adoption of 
a balanced budget amendment, but the balanced budget amendment we have 
before us, as amended by the Reid amendment, would be consistent with 
the recommendations of our Commission: balancing the budget by the year 
2002 without using the Social Security surplus. Our Commission, 
however, believed that getting to a real balance without using the 
  Social Security surplus would require 10 years rather than 7.I 
believe solutions for Social Security's long-term problems can be found 
and enacted in a fashion which will 
 [[Page S2592]] preclude cuts in benefits for current retirees or those 
about to retire, and provide for the long-term fiscal soundness of the 
Social Security system. But if we ignore the long-term challenges 
facing the Social Security system, its future is at risk.
  I think it is important to note that the Reid amendment does not make 
Social Security a constitutionally protected benefit. It merely 
excludes it from the calculations under this amendment. The challenge 
of finding a way to keep the Social Security program solvent into the 
21st century remains, with or without the Reid amendment. Indeed, even 
a constitutional amendment that did purport to guarantee Social 
Security benefits would be futile. The only guarantee that future 
benefits can be paid is future economic growth. No amendment can 
guarantee people a slice of a pie that does not exist.
  I do not view this amendment as a vote to make a particular 
Government benefit program a constitutional right. I certainly do not 
view it as the first step in an effort to place one program after 
another outside the bounds of the budget process, exempt from scrutiny. 
Social Security is a unique program with a unique demographic and 
financial situation. It has a large surplus today, and it will have 
even larger deficits in the future. My vote for the Reid amendment is 
in recognition of the fact that we need two solutions: a long-term 
solution for Social Security, and a long-term solution for the rest of 
the Federal budget.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have had a good debate on this amendment, 
as we promised the distinguished Senator from Nevada we would have.
  I do believe now we have come to a point where we would like to 
conclude action on this very important legislation this week. We have 
been on it now, this is the 11th day, as I calculate. And I hope, I 
think, the votes are there. Or they are not there. The 67 votes are 
there or they are not there.
  I think there is broad bipartisan support for protecting Social 
Security, though I must say, personally, sometime--the Entitlements 
Commission pointed out earlier--we will have to face up to some of 
these issues. Senator Danforth and Senator Kerrey issued a report last 
December. But I think for the moment, everybody is willing to protect 
Social Security. We voted 83 to 16 to adopt a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment stating we should not raise Social Security or cut Social 
Security benefits in order to balance the budget.
  On Friday, we adopted a motion reaffirming that commitment by a vote 
of 87 to 10. We will be putting forward--and in fact, Senator Domenici 
is working on it right now--a 5-year plan to put the budget on a path 
to balance by 2002.
  Our plan will not raise taxes. Our plan will not touch Social 
Security. Everything else, every Federal program, from Amtrak to zebra 
mussel research, will be on the table, including agriculture, which 
talk show hosts always ask me about, since I am from Kansas. Everything 
will be on the table.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to table the 
Reid amendment.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Reid amendment. I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Ashcroft
     Moynihan
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 236) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. HATCH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________