[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3456-S3459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SOCIAL SECURITY AND BALANCING THE BUDGET

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just want to make a couple of comments 
about the arguments that are being made with respect to Social 
Security, not just by the Senator from North Dakota but many others, 
not just today but for the last several days.
  First, we should not use the Social Security trust fund for balancing 
the budget. What does that mean? We should not use the Social Security 
trust fund to balance the budget. Are we taking money out of the Social 
Security trust fund and spending it directly on other programs? No. No, 
we do not take money out of the Social Security trust fund to spend it 
on other programs.
  Money in the Social Security trust fund is borrowed, for which we pay 
interest on the money back to the Social 
[[Page S3457]] Security Administration, as we would with any fund that 
runs a surplus in the Federal Government.
  We have surpluses in the highway trust fund. What do we do with the 
highway trust fund money? Do we spend it on other programs? No, that 
money is in there. It is earning interest. We are investing it in 
Government bonds, just like we do the Social Security trust fund, just 
like we do the aviation trust fund, just like we do with any other 
trust fund that we have in the Federal Government that happens for a 
period of time to be running a surplus.
  So to use the argument that we are using the Social Security trust 
fund to balance the budget is as fallacious an argument as it is to say 
we are using the highway trust fund to balance the budget. The highway 
trust fund has a couple billion dollars surplus in it. I did not see 
anybody run to the floor to protect our roads and bridges. They did not 
come to the floor and say, ``We can't use the highway trust fund. That 
is not fair. It hid the deficit.''
  It is not true. Let us be honest. Let us not hide it from the people.
  Where were the highway trust fund advocates? Where were the aviation 
trust fund advocates?
  We were saying let us be truthful and honest in not hiding this from 
the American people.
  What is going on is in the fine spirit of hiding behind the apron of 
Social Security when you cannot define your program in other ways. That 
is what is going on here. I had it happened to me in my election. Many 
of us have had it happen to us in our elections. When you are losing, 
when you know you cannot defend your record, when you know you cannot 
defend your vote, you bring up the old red herring: Let us run behind 
Social Security. Let us scare the public that we are going to get 
Social Security and we will be OK. They will believe it.
  We will never change this place, we will never change this place, 
until the American public has enough realization to know that there is 
not any program that could ever compete in popularity and support--not 
one program that can compete in popularity and support--with the Social 
Security program. If the Federal Government continues on its way and we 
continue to have to eliminate programs as the debt gets to be a bigger 
and bigger and bigger part of our Federal Government, the only program, 
if we have one program left, I will assure you, will be the Social 
Security program. Everything else will be gone. That will win. That 
will always be maintained.
  The American public has to stop being afraid that someone is going to 
come in and raid their Social Security plan. It is not going to happen. 
We promised it was not going to happen. Unfortunately, I guess the 
promise of the majority leader of the U.S. Senate is not enough; the 
promise of the Speaker of the House that we are not going to touch 
Social Security is not enough. A vote of something like 90 to 10 in 
this body that we will not cut Social Security or touch Social Security 
over the next 7 years is not enough. Because people are always afraid.
  Is it not sad? Is it not sad what we have done to the people of this 
country? We have gotten them so addicted to Government that every time 
we talk about changing it, they run. They get scared. They get scared. 
We have made them dependent. We have succeeded here in Washington in 
the first step to really control what goes on in America by having 
people dependent upon us.
  No one in this Chamber is going to take $1 of benefits away from any 
Social Security recipients in this country to balance the budget. And 
everyone in this Chamber knows it. Everyone in this Chamber knows it.
  This was partisanship. This was political. It is a lot of things. The 
reason six Members who voted for this exact amendment voted the other 
way and hid behind Social Security was one reason, and it was not 
Social Security--partisan advantage. Stop the Contract With America, 
let us not move things too fast now, let us not change the status quo 
in Washington.
  We have a great opportunity before us in Washington today. We have a 
House of Representatives that continues to crank out and pass 
legislation that was called for in their Contract With America that has 
the support of the American public. And it is sitting over here in the 
Senate and it will continue to pile up and pile up until the people of 
America send a message to their Senators that they want something done.
  If you want something done in Washington, if you want a leaner, more 
efficient, smaller Government, if you want that power and freedom back 
to you, the American public, not centered here in Washington where we 
can threaten you by pulling the rug out from under a program that you 
like, but in fact to enable you and empower you to take those 
challenges and responsibilities yourselves, when you believe that can 
happen, you have to communicate that to the people here in the Senate. 
Because if you communicate that, this place will change. And if it is 
not in the next 2\1/2\ years, the 1996 election will make that change.
  The opportunity is here. It is up to the American public as to 
whether that is going to happen or not. It is up to you as to whether 
we are going to succeed as a body in the Senate.
  The rules are structured here--boy, I never knew--but the rules are 
structured here so we pretty much cannot get anything done. That is the 
way they sort of crafted this place, so things slow down, so we do not 
do a lot here.
  Now, as Senator Lott said earlier, I do not want, as a former House 
Member, I do not want the Senate to be like the House. We need more 
deliberation. We need to put the brakes on things and cool things off a 
little bit. I understand that. But, at the same time, we should not be 
obstructionists for the sake of being obstructionists.
  I have here a table, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 FIRST SESSIONS--STATISTICAL COMPARISONS                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Days in                        
                                         session      Time in    Record/
            Year/Congress                through      session     votes 
                                         February                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995/104th...........................           36     316'03''       97
1993/103d............................           19      91'51''       20
1991/102d............................           29     145'56''       20
1989/101st...........................           16      43'10''       15
1987/100th...........................           22      89'58''       29
1985/99th............................           22     105'36''       17
1983/98th............................           17      53'55''        2
1981/97th............................           24      71'18''       25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared by the Senate Daily Digest/Office of the Secretary.            

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that his time 
has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object, as long as it would not be 
extended longer than the 2-minute period. We have a problem. The 
Senator from Michigan has to assume the chair, people have to catch 
airplanes.
  In deference to the Senator, I will not object.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will take 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I just wanted to include this in the Record and comment 
that in the 104th Congress, the Congress we are in right now, we have 
been in 36 days, 316 hours and 3 minutes of debate, 97 votes.
  It is unprecedented the amount of time we have spent here in this 
body to try to move things forward. We have cooled it off, we have 
debated it, and we got two bills passed. Only one has been signed into 
law.
  If you look at other Congresses through February, in the last 
Congress they were in 19 days, compared to 36, and only had 91 hours of 
debate. In 1991, 29 days in session, 145 hours of debate; 1989, 16 days 
in session, 43 hours of debate.
  The fact of the matter is we are working hard, we are debating long, 
and we are not accomplishing a whole heck of a lot. Cooling off is one 
thing; stonewalling is another.
  What we need to do, I implore my colleagues and the American public, 
is to rally to the defense of what the voters in November asked for, 
and move some things forward.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask if I may yield to my colleague from 
Michigan for a statement, and I ask unanimous consent that I might 
yield for whatever short period he might need to my friend from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                 [[Page S3458]] IN MEMORY OF ED PRINCE
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is with great sadness and a deep sense 
of personal loss that I note the passing yesterday of a close friend, 
Mr. Ed Prince of Holland, MI, a successful businessman, family man, and 
philanthropist.
  I had the privilege of knowing Ed Prince and his family for a number 
of years. Ed was a self-made businessman who took seriously his 
Christian duty to help his neighbors and others less fortunate than 
himself.
  After quitting his job as chief engineer at the local machine works 
in Holland, MI, Ed started his own automotive components company. Now 
that company employs 4,500 people and is the Nation's largest producer 
of die cast machinery.
  But Ed did not let concern with the bottom line take him away from 
his Calvinist roots and family values. He devoted time and money to 
family causes on a local, State, and national scale. He was a major 
contributor to his church, local charitable organizations, and such 
national organizations as the Family Research Council and Focus on the 
Family.
  Perhaps Ed's greatest accomplishment, other than serving as an 
exemplary husband and father, is his commitment to his hometown of 
Holland. When downtown Holland began struggling financially, Ed and his 
wife Elsa came to the rescue. They bought a number of downtown 
buildings, refurbished them, and sold or leased them back to small 
businesses. They even put heaters under the sidewalks so folks could 
come downtown during Holland's severe winters without fear of slipping 
and falling or being disinclined because of the winter.
  I also know the residents at the Evergreen Commons Senior Center a 
facility which I have visited, will miss Edgar and his support. He gave 
$1 million to that organization so that Holland's senior citizens could 
maintain their dignity while being helped in their old age. He also has 
been a major contributor to colleges in his area--both Calvin and Hope 
colleges owe him a great debt of gratitude. As his pastor, David 
Guerrin, remarked, ``He used all of his resoruces--both personal and 
financial--not as an end in themselves, but always as a means of 
glorifying God.''
  Those words constitute a fine tribute to a great man, a man to whom I 
also owe a great debt of gratitude for the example he provided through 
his generosity, strength of character, and spirit of fellowship toward 
his community.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Chair explain to the Senator, are we in morning 
business, and are there time restraints on the amount of time that we 
are allowed to speak under the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order of business, and the time 
limit is 5 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will try to stay within that timeframe. I 
might request an additional minute or 2 if I run out of time.
  I want to start out, Mr. President, and briefly compliment my great 
friend and colleague from West Virginia. There is no Member that I have 
served more proudly with in the U.S. Senate than Robert Byrd. He is a 
very learned individual, and I listened and I have listened before to 
his great and persuasive arguments as to why the constitutional 
amendment should not be placed in the Constitution. And he has made 
some excellent points.
  He did not change my mind, but he made me quiver a few times. I 
simply say that I thought the statements, the way Senator Byrd, as 
usual, handled himself in a very professional, gentlemanly manner, made 
his points very, very well, and I am proud to serve with him. I am 
proud to serve with all of the Members of this body, even those who of 
course did not agree with my vote yesterday in support of the 
constitutional amendment.
  Nevertheless, I think it has been a very healthy debate. Basically, 
the reason this debate has been kept on track is because it has been 
the herding, keeping the locomotive of straight talk on track, by the 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Let me address some of the concerns I have. The main concern that I 
have--and I would like to say despite the fact that the balanced budget 
amendment did not pass yesterday, the world has not come to an end--I 
hope the comity and the understanding of Members on both sides of the 
aisle and on both sides of this important and contentious issue is such 
that we can move ahead in some kind of a proposition to bring our 
spiraling deficit and skyrocketing national debt under control.
  We can lament the fact that the balanced budget amendment failed by 
one vote yesterday. I think it is safe to assume that those Members who 
supported the balanced budget amendment think little is served by 
whipping or arguing at great length about maybe calling it up again 
tomorrow and turning it around. That is not going to happen. I will 
simply say that I hope we can leave politics as much as possible out of 
this debate.
  Having said that, I simply say, as a person who has always voted for 
a balanced budget amendment, I think that even with the great talents 
and arguments--many of them sound--that Senator Byrd and others 
advanced, we probably would have carried the day on the balanced budget 
amendment had it not been that politics got involved in this matter 
very early.
  Not long ago, the Republican National Committee, with their vast 
resources, decided they were going to put some pressure on Democratic 
Senators in certain States of the Union, and they went into those 
States and in some cases enlisted the Republican Governor of those 
States to attack publicly, at the expense of the Republican hierarchy, 
to bring pressure to bear.
  The facts of the matter are that that backfired. The facts of the 
matter are--and I am a pretty good vote counter in this body--I think 
that that activity, as much as anything else, was a prelude to the 
defeat of the balanced budget amendment yesterday.
  There were some talks today, unfortunately, on the floor of the 
Senate about people resigning because they changed parties and all of 
these kind of things, which brought a retort, of course, that possibly 
others who had voted for this previously and did not vote for it this 
time should resign.
  I do not think that kind of debate contributes much to the basic 
understanding, to advise the people on what the situation is. Let me 
say in the first place that I believe that there were mistakes made on 
both sides. I have cited what I think was a critical mistake when 
obviously the hierarchy of the Republican Party decided to politicize 
this debate, and if we look at the States where they advertised, we 
will see what I think is proof positive that their actions were ill 
advised, bad politics, and certainly bad strategy from the standpoint 
of passing the constitutional amendment.
  Everywhere they tried, they failed. In fact, I happen to feel, in 
conversations I have had with several of my colleagues that were caught 
in that attack, that it probably caused them to swing against the 
amendment, among other reasons. So it was counterproductive.
  I will also say that one of the problems I had with the 
constitutional amendment that I voted for was the fact that the hope 
was held out--in fact, it was almost a promise--that if we passed the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we would do so by the 
year 2002. Well, the facts of the matter are that had we passed that 
constitutional amendment yesterday, and had we not had a war between 
now and the year 2002, or a serious downturn in the economy, if 
everything went according to schedule, we still would not have balanced 
the budget the way most people think the balanced budget would have 
worked.
  I simply say it would have been far better, it seems to me, had my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, with whom I worked closely on 
this, been more upfront and said, ``Yes, we would not have actually 
balanced the budget by the year 2002 because we intend to use the 
amount of money that we protect and are going to continue to protect 
that is called the Social Security trust fund.''
  So, therefore, it should have been said up front that if this 
constitutional amendment passes, we will balance the budget of the 
Federal Government by the year 2002, except for counting 
[[Page S3459]] the surplus in the Social Security trust fund. I think 
that is evident, and it is evident by the fact that it came up in 
discussion but has not been, I think, fully understood.
  Having said that, I do not agree. I did not agree and I disagree with 
those on this side of the aisle who, I think, made some very good 
political points by talking about the looting and the raiding of Social 
Security. Certainly, I think that was not the intent of all but one of 
the Members on that side of the aisle who voted for the amendment. It 
certainly was not the intent of this Senator. But I recognize that it 
was a good political argument to make.
  I do not believe that any of us who were supporting a constitutional 
amendment--I can only speak for myself, but I have some knowledge of 
the thinking that went on of others who were supporting this--that we 
were simply saying we were not raiding anything. We were simply 
recognizing the fact that some people do not understand; and that is 
that the Social Security trust fund is presently invested in T bills, 
securities of the United States of America fully backed with the faith 
and credit of the United States of America, and there is no way that we 
could or should raid those funds to balance a budget.
  Another way of saying that is a bookkeeping procedure, because 
clearly the law says that we cannot invest trust funds, especially 
Social Security trust funds, but all trust funds, we cannot invest them 
in the stock market or other speculative propositions, only in 
Government securities, basically T bills. So there was no raid on 
Social Security in the actual sense of the word.
  Let me simply ask, where do we go from here? It seems to me, although 
the balanced budget amendment would have given us the discipline that I 
think is necessary--it is not there for many and varied reasons--
therefore, that we should press on very aggressively to begin to 
balance a budget now without the constitutional amendment, as most of 
us said we hope we could do.
  I probably think the best way out of this is simply pass a resolution 
that the Budget Committee should report out, according to present law, 
by April 1, a budget that will balance the budget by the year 2002, or 
whenever. I will simply point out that the present law clearly states 
that you cannot use the Social Security trust fund to balance a budget. 
So I hope that possibly we could pass a resolution directing the Budget 
Committee to come out with a balanced budget amendment, notwithstanding 
the fact at least of now we are not going to put it in the 
Constitution, there is no reason why we should not press forward.
  I simply say I think people of good will should put politics aside 
now and try to work toward balancing the budget the only way we have 
available to us at the present time, and that is the will, the good 
fellowship and support of the men and women who serve on the Budget 
Committee; direct them to come forth with a balanced budget amendment 
by some period of year, hopefully 2002, that could balance a budget the 
way we have to balance a budget in the absence of a constitutional 
amendment to do so.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________