[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 162 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15326-S15327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION

  Mr. DORGAN. Thank you, Mr. President. It is a timely opportunity to 
take the floor to follow my friend from Mississippi.
  My friend from Mississippi was quoting from a letter dated October 18 
from the CBO signed by Director June O'Neill. It is a letter that says 
that based on those estimates--referring to estimates in the letter--
using the economic and technical assumptions underlying the budget 
resolution and assuming--this is the way economists talk--the level of 
discretionary spending specified in that resolution, the CBO projects 
that enactment of the reconciliation legislation submitted to the 
Budget Committee would produce a small budget surplus in the year 2002.
  The Senator is quite correct about what this letter said. That is 
dated yesterday.
  Let me, however, read a letter dated today signed by the same person, 
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, June O'Neill. This is 
in response to a letter that Senator Conrad and I wrote to her 
yesterday saying:

       This is a curious letter you have sent to Congress, saying 
     it is going to produce a surplus. Would you please tell us 
     what the impact of the reconciliation bill will be on this 
     country's fiscal policy? In other words, what kind of surplus 
     or deficit will we have if you follow the law that exists in 
     this country, in fact, the law written by the Senator from 
     South Carolina, Senator Hollings, that says you cannot use 
     Social Security trust funds as revenues to balance the 
     budget?

  So we sent the letter to Director O'Neill of the Congressional Budget 
Office, and here is the letter we received today from the Congressional 
Budget Office, this afternoon. The letter says in the first paragraph--
the same kind of language from economists--``Excluding an estimated 
off-budget surplus of $108 billion''--translated, it means by and large 
excluding the Social Security trust fund surplus in 2001 from the 
calculation--``the CBO would project an on-budget deficit of $98 
billion in the year 2002.''
  Now, I have an 8-year-old son who, when we last went to Toys 'R Us, 
was fascinated by vanishing ink. We passed this little thing. They sell 
vanishing ink. He said, ``Daddy, how do they do that?'' I said

       I do not really know. I know it is simple. It does not cost 
     very much. We could buy it and take it home. But I do not 
     know how they do vanishing ink.

  I could tell my son that we do not have to stop at Toys 'R Us. We 
have folks who have Ph.D.'s that know how to deal with vanishing ink.
  Here we have an October 18 letter that says: ``You Republicans have 
asked me, an appointee of the Republicans, how has our plan fared in 
your eyes?'' And you said, ``Well, we think you are doing real good. In 
fact, you have produced a surplus.''
  We sent a letter to the same person who said:

       But if you do this the right way, if you calculate this the 
     right way and do not take the Social Security trust funds, 
     because you cannot misuse those, those are Social Security 
     trust funds, do not bring them over here in the operating 
     budget, that that is the way you do it, that is the way the 
     law requires that you do it.

  Then what happens is the same person 1 day later says, ``By the way, 
in the year 2002 there is not a balanced budget. There is a $98 billion 
deficit.''
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The thing even more perplexing on the point which the 
Senator from North Dakota raises is this. This is the conference report 
of the budget bill. Let me read it. It says:

       Section 205 of the conference agreement requires the 
     chairman of the Budget Committee to submit the committee's 
     responses to the first reconciliation instruction to the 
     Congressional Budget Office.

  So the committee has to send all of these things to the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  Next sentence, if the Congressional Budget Office ``certifies''--this 
is the operative word--if the Congressional Budget Office certifies 
that these legislative recommendations will reduce spending by an 
amount that will lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002, the second 
reconciliation instruction is triggered.
  If you read the letter from the Congressional Budget Office, she does 
not certify anything; she projects a balanced budget.
  Mr. DORGAN. Only yesterday. Today, there is a deficit.
  Mr. BUMPERS. But the point is, certification is a certification. You 
look in the dictionary. It says: ``certifies: to be accurate.'' I could 
project a balanced budget. But certification and projection are two 
entirely different words. 

[[Page S 15327]]

  I wrote her a letter, and I think the Senator from North Dakota, my 
colleague, and several others of us sent a letter to her saying:

       When you send this letter over, you should be very careful 
     to make sure that you are absolutely certain that all of this 
     is going to lead to a balanced budget, because you have been 
     instructed not to project but to certify.

  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator might let me reclaim my time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would be happy to.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is a great point.
  I want to say Harry Truman--you know, a fine-spoken guy from 
Independence, MO, could not always follow all of the logic, or at least 
the presumed logic, by the Congress. He finally says in exasperation

       For God's sake, give me a one-armed economist. I am so 
     tired of hearing economists saying ``on the one hand'' and 
     ``on the other hand.'' Give me a one-armed economist.

  Here it is. If Harry Truman were here, he would say, This is, on the 
one hand, yesterday. This plan produces a surplus. But, on the other 
hand, today, when asked by Senator Conrad and myself, if you really do 
it right, the way the law requires, then how does it add up?
  Well, on the other hand, this produces a $98 billion deficit in the 
year 2002.
  My son tonight is going to be real excited to hear that you can get 
this right in the Senate without paying for it--vanishing ink, 24 
hours, a new letter, a new projection. This is not a balanced budget. 
It is a $100 billion deficit in the year 2002.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. CONRAD. Is it not amazing what a day makes?
  Yesterday, the American people were told, you enact the Republican 
plan, you have a balanced budget. You even have a little bit of a 
surplus. But when we asked the question, yes, but what if you obey the 
law of the United States, which says you cannot count Social Security 
surpluses--and, of course, the reason you cannot count Social Security 
surpluses is because no accountant anywhere would allow you to take the 
reserve funds, the retirement funds of your people, and throw those 
into the pot and call it a balanced budget. That is why we have a law 
that says you cannot count the Social Security surplus. And when you 
ask the question, what do you do if you obey the law? then the head of 
the Budget Office comes back and says, including an estimated off-
budget surplus of $180 billion, which is the Social Security surpluses, 
CBO would project an on-budget deficit of $98 billion in 2002--$98 
billion. In fact, the Republican plan, in order to balance, takes every 
penny of Social Security surpluses over the next 7 years--$650 billion. 
It takes all those Social Security surpluses, throws those into the pot 
and says, hallelujah, we have a balanced budget.
  Well, of course, they do not have a balanced budget. They do not have 
a balanced budget by the law of the United States. They do not have a 
balanced budget that any accountant would anywhere certify to in 
America.
  I say to my colleague, is it not interesting the difference a day 
makes, from a surplus to a massive deficit in the year 2002 under the 
Republican plan? There is no balanced budget here, just a big fraud.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me just make one additional comment 
and yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am sorry.
  Mr. DORGAN. We will talk a little bit more about this next week. The 
only reason we bothered to do this is because some of us yesterday 
found it not believable, those who held up with great pride this 
missive from the CBO. We felt if you are going to misuse the Social 
Security trust funds to the tune of $100 billion in the year 2002, 
there is a law on the books--and the law was written, incidentally, by 
the Senator who will speak now, the Senator who is now standing--which 
says you cannot use the Social Security trust fund.
  Why would we do that? Because Social Security trust funds come out of 
people's paychecks and they are dedicated to go into a trust fund to be 
used only for one purpose and no other purpose, Social Security. We are 
creating a surplus because we need it for the future. It is one of the 
few responsible things we have done in the last 15 years. That surplus 
under today's budget scheme is now being used as revenue in the 
operating budget, and that is the basis on which yesterday's letter was 
issued improperly. Today we say issue it properly and then tell us what 
the impact is.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from North Dakota has 
expired.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________