[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 164 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15441-S15442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            RECONCILIATION AND BALANCING THE FEDERAL BUDGET

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are going to be taking up later on this 
week what we call in the Senate the reconciliation bill. Some of the 
Members from the other side have been talking about that bill this 
morning as it pertains to balancing the Federal budget. I would like to 
speak to some of the things that Senators addressed this morning, and 
also to the President's plans for dealing with our budget deficit over 
the course of the next 7 years.
  Mr. President, Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad were just on the 
floor, and I think Senator Hollings spoke earlier to this problem of 
the Federal budget deficit as it pertains to the Social Security 
surplus. They objected to the fact that the Republican balanced budget 
did not account for the fact that the Federal Government is spending 
that Social Security surplus and, therefore, makes it more like we are 
in balance when, in fact, we are spending money that does not really 
belong to the general Government; it belongs to the Social Security 
surplus. If you exclude that surplus, then, in fact, they charge that 
we would be running a deficit of about $100 billion in the year 2002.
  Of course, it is true, that if the U.S. Government were not spending 
the Social Security surplus funds, then those funds would not be 
reflected in the budget and, obviously, there would be a deficit beyond 
that which has been calculated by the CBO.
  But, Mr. President, the Senators that I just mentioned, the Senators 
from North Dakota and the Senator from South Carolina, while they have 
been consistent in speaking out in support of segregating those Social 
Security trust funds, I note have, with most of the other Members of 
both Houses of the legislative branch of Government, failed to refrain 
from voting for budgets that use those Social Security funds. My point 
is that everybody likes to talk about not spending those Social 
Security funds, but the fact is they vote for budgets that use the 
Social Security funds.
  In 1993, all three of the Senators aforementioned voted for the 
budget resolution and, by the way, the reference is rollcall vote 94, 
April 1, 1993. Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, and Senator Hollings--
all three--voted for the budget resolution that spent every dime of the 
Social Security surplus and, by its own admission, left a projected 
deficit of about $200 billion, even taking into account the Social 
Security surplus at the end of its 5 year period.
  They all voted for the 1993 budget reconciliation bill, on August 6, 
1993, that relied on the use of the Social Security surplus. Senator 
Dorgan, speaking on behalf of the budget reconciliation bill, said on 
the floor on August 6:

       The fact is, we are going to decide today whether we do 
     something about this crippling deficit or whether we continue 
     to do nothing.

  And then he voted for the budget resolution that spent every dime of 
the Social Security surplus. They all voted for the budget resolution 
in 1994, that is May 12, 1994, that spent every dime of the Social 
Security surplus and, again, by its own admission, left a projected 
deficit of about $200 billion, even taking into account the Social 
Security surplus at the end of its 5 year period.
  Excluding the Social Security surplus, the budget resolution in 1994 
provided for deficits of $239 billion in 1995, rising to $300 billion 
in 1999. Yet, Senators Dorgan, Conrad, and Hollings all voted for it, 
and I note, by the way, Mr. President, that that compares with our 
budget which, excluding Social Security, would go from $245 billion in 
1996 to about a $100 billion deficit in the year 2002 and, of course, 
if you do not count Social Security, according to CBO we would be in 
balance by then with a zero deficit.
  These three Senators are claiming that the Republican budget is a 
phony budget because it counts Social Security, the same as it has 
always done. But our budget, as I said, leaves a deficit of zero at the 
end of the 5-year period--zero--and that is certified by the bipartisan 
Congressional Budget Office.
  If you excluded the surplus, the question is, what would you do with 
it? And I ask the question of those three Senators, because I think it 
is odd, it is strange that they come here today criticizing the 
Republican budget because it allows the expenditure of those funds 
when, in fact, all three of them have supported the same practice over 
and over and over again. So what would they do with those funds?
  The surplus, of course, is invested in U.S. Government securities. By 
definition, it is borrowed by the Treasury. We do not put our money 
under a mattress any more than anybody else does. So do these three 
Senators all contend that we should borrow the money, pay interest to 
the trust funds, and then let the money sit idle, not do anything? That 
is a poor use of the funds.
  Perhaps they would be willing to join us in finding a way to allow 
people to invest that in the private sector as a way of creating a 
surplus to Social Security earnings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will conclude by making this point. If we 
can invest that money in the private sector, it would both return a 
supplement to the people who are receiving Social Security in the 
future and prevent the general Government from expending the funds so 
that it would truly be used for Social Security purposes.
  I hope that our colleagues' ultimate purpose is not to support what 
President Clinton has suggested, using pension funds for ``economically 
targeted investments.'' In other words, pension funds would not be 
invested soundly for the benefit of retirees or, in this case, Social 
Security recipients, but used to advance social programs that benefit 
third parties.
  I hope that is not what they are talking about. I hope it is more a 
political point they are making. Again, Mr. President, I point out that 
we would all like not to use those funds for general expenditure 
purposes, and we will be talking in the future about how we can assure 
those funds are used strictly for the benefit of Social Security 
retirees. I believe we should be supporting the Republican budget which 
the CBO confirms gets us to a zero deficit by the year 2002.

[[Page S 15442]]

  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Are we in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business. Senators are 
authorized to speak up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed 
for up to 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________