[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.
____________________