[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S757-S759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 226. A bill to establish felony violations for the failure to pay 
legal child support obligations, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


              the deadbeat parents punishment act of 1997

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I introduce the Deadbeat Parents 
Punishment Act of 1997. Along with Senator Shelby and Congressmen Hyde 
and Schumer, I introduced the original Child Support Recovery Act in 
1992, and today Senator DeWine and I are pleased to introduce a measure 
that will toughen the original law to ensure that more serious crimes 
receive more serious punishment. In so doing, we can send a clear 
message to deadbeat dads and moms: ignore the law, ignore your 
responsibilities, and you will pay a high price. In other words, pay up 
or go to jail.
  Current law already makes it a Federal offense to willfully fail to 
pay child support obligations to a child in another State if the 
obligation has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater 
than $5,000. However, current law provides for a maximum of just 6 
months in prison for a first offense, and a maximum of 2 years for a 
second offense. A first offense, however--no matter how egregious--is 
not a felony under current law.
  Police officers and prosecutors have used the current law 
effectively, but they have found that current misdemeanor penalties do 
not adequately deal with more serious cases--those cases in which 
parents move from State to State to intentionally evade child support 
penalties, or fail to pay child support obligations for more than 2 
years--serious cases that deserve serious, felony punishment. In 
response to these concerns, President Clinton has drafted legislation 
that would address this problem, and we are pleased to introduce it 
today.
  This new effort builds on past successes achieved through bipartisan 
work. In the 4 years since the original deadbeat parents legislation 
was signed into law by President Bush, collections have increased by 
nearly 50 percent, from $8 to $11.8 billion, and we should be proud of 
that increase. Moreover, a new national database has helped identify 
60,000 delinquent fathers, over half of whom owed money to women on 
welfare.
  Nevertheless, there is much more we can do. It has been estimated 
that if delinquent parents fully paid up their child support, 
approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare 
rolls. So our new legislation cracks down on the worst violators, and 
makes clear that intentional or long-term evasion of child support 
responsibilities will not receive a slap on the wrist. In so doing, it 
will help us continue the fight to ensure that every child receives the 
parental support they deserve.
  Mr. President, with this bill we have a chance to make a difference 
in the lives of families across the country. So I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to give police and prosecutors the tools 
they need to effectively pursue individuals who seek to avoid their 
family obligations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 226

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Deadbeat Parents Punishment 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF FELONY VIOLATIONS.

       Section 228 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 228. Failure to pay legal child support obligations

       ``(a) Offense.--Any person who--
       ``(1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with 
     respect to a child who resides in another State, if such 
     obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than one 
     year, or is greater than $5,000;
       ``(2) travels in interstate or foreign commerce with the 
     intent to evade a support obligation, if such obligation has 
     remained unpaid for a period longer than one year, or is 
     greater than $5,000; or
       ``(3) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with 
     respect to a child who resides in another State, if such 
     obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than two 
     years, or is greater than $10,000;

     shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).
       ``(b) Presumption.--The existence of a support obligation 
     that was in effect for the time period charged in the 
     indictment or information creates a rebuttable presumption 
     that the obligor has the ability to pay the support 
     obligation for that time period.
       ``(c) Punishment.--The punishment for an offense under this 
     section is--
       ``(1) in the case of a first offense under subsection 
     (a)(1), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more 
     than 6 months, or both; and

[[Page S758]]

       ``(2) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2) or 
     (a)(3), or a second or subsequent offense under subsection 
     (a)(1), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more 
     than 2 years, or both.
       ``(d) Mandatory Restitution.--Upon a conviction under this 
     section, the court shall order restitution under section 
     3663A in an amount equal to the total unpaid support 
     obligation as it exists at the time of sentencing:
       ``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `support obligation' means any amount 
     determined under a court order or an order of an 
     administrative process pursuant to the law of a State to be 
     due from a person for the support and maintenance of a child 
     or of a child and the parent with whom the child is living; 
     and
       ``(2) the term `State' includes any State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.''.
                                  ____


                      Section-by-Section Analysis

       The Child Support Recovery Amendments Act of 1996 amends 
     the current criminal statute regarding the failure to pay 
     legal child support obligations, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 228, to 
     create felony violations for egregious offenses. Current law 
     makes it a federal offense willfully to fail to pay a child 
     support obligation with respect to a child who lives in 
     another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for 
     longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. A first offense 
     is subject to a maximum of six months of imprisonment, and a 
     second or subsequent offense to a maximum of two years.
       The bill addresses the law enforcement and prosecutorial 
     concern that the current statute does not adequately address 
     more serious instances of nonpayment of support obligations. 
     A maximum term of imprisonment of just six months does not 
     meet the sentencing goals of punishment and deterrence. 
     Egregious offenses, such as those involving parents who move 
     from State-to-State to evade child support payments, require 
     more severe penalties.
       Section 2 of the bill creates two new categories of felony 
     offenses, subject to a two-year maximum prison term. These 
     are: (1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the 
     intent to evade a support obligation if the obligation has 
     remained unpaid for a period longer than one year or is 
     greater than $5,000; and (2) willfully failing to pay a 
     support obligation regarding a child residing in another 
     State, if the obligation has remained unpaid for a period 
     longer than two years or is greater than $10,000. These 
     offenses, proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 228(a) (2) and (3), 
     indicate a level of culpability greater than that reflected 
     by the current six-month maximum prison term for a first 
     offense. The level of culpability demonstrated by offenders 
     who commit the offenses described in these provisions is akin 
     to that demonstrated by repeat offenders under current law, 
     who are subject to a maximum two-year prison term.
       Proposed section 228(b) of title 18, United States Code, 
     states that the existence of a support obligation in effect 
     for the time period charged in the indictment or information 
     creates a rebuttable presumption that the obligor has the 
     ability to pay the support obligation for that period. 
     Although ``ability to pay'' is not an element of the offense, 
     a demonstration of the obligor's ability to pay contributes 
     to a showing of willful failure to pay the known obligation. 
     The presumption in favor of ability to pay is needed because 
     proof that the obligor is earning or acquiring income or 
     assets is difficult. Child support offenders are notorious 
     for hiding assets and failing to document earnings. A 
     presumption of ability to pay, based on the existence of a 
     support obligation determined under State law, is useful in a 
     jury's determination of whether the nonpayment was willful. 
     An offender who lacks the ability to pay a support obligation 
     due to legitimate, changed circumstances occurring after the 
     issuance of a support order has civil means available to 
     reduce the support obligation and thereby avoid violation 
     of the federal criminal statute in the first instance. In 
     addition, the presumption of ability to pay set forth in 
     the bill is rebuttable; a defendant can put forth evidence 
     of his or her inability to pay.
       The reference to mandatory restitution in proposed section 
     228(d) of title 18, United States Code, amends the current 
     restitution requirement in section 228(c). The amendment 
     conforms the restitution citation to the new mandatory 
     restitution provision of federal law, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3663A, 
     enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
     Penalty Act of 1996, P.L. 104-132, section 204. This change 
     simply clarifies the applicability of that statute to the 
     offense of failure to pay legal child support obligations.
       For all of the violations set forth in proposed subsection 
     (a) of section 228, the requirement of the existence of a 
     State determination regarding the support obligation is the 
     same as under current law. Under proposed subsection (e)(1), 
     as under current subsection (d)(1)(A), the government must 
     show that the support obligation is an amount determined 
     under a court order or an order of an administrative process 
     pursuant to the law of a State to be due from a person for 
     the support and maintenance of a child or of a child and the 
     parent with whom the child is living.
       Proposed subsection (e)(2) of section 228 amends the 
     definition of ``State,'' currently in subsection (d)(2), to 
     clarify the prosecutions may be brought under this statute in 
     a commonwealth, such as Puerto Rico. The current definition 
     of ``State'' in section 228, which includes possessions and 
     territories of the United States, does not include 
     commonwealths.
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hollings and Mr. WYDEN):

  S.J. Res. 12. A joint resolution proposing a balanced budget 
constitutional amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary


                Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment

  Mr. DROGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a constitutional 
amendment for myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, 
Senator Hollings, Senator Ford, and Senator Wyden.
  The constitutional amendment will be familiar to most Senators 
because it is about something that we are discussing a lot these days: 
balancing the Federal budget. It is a constitutional amendment to 
balance the Federal budget.
  A number of us have taken the position that we would support a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget if the constitutional 
amendment is the right kind of amendment. I want to talk a little about 
the constitutional amendment being proposed and the one was proposed 2 
years ago here in the U.S. Senate.
  I think fiscal discipline is necessary in this country, because our 
fiscal policy is out of whack. I think we have borrowed from our 
children and grandchildren. I think we ought to balance the Federal 
budget. I do not object to--in fact, I have supported and will 
support--the right kind of balanced budget constitutional amendment.
  I will not, however, support a proposal to amend the U.S. 
Constitution that would enshrine in the Constitution the practice of 
using the Social Security trust funds to balance the Federal budget. 
That is precisely what the balanced budget amendment that the Judiciary 
Committee will mark up later this week would do. That is why Senator 
Hollings and I and so many others are introducing a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget, but one that will not use the Social 
Security trust funds to do so.
  Let me explain why that is important. If you were in the private 
sector and you had a business and in that business you put away some 
money for your employees in a pension fund, and then at the end of the 
year you discovered that you had run a big loss, you might say, ``Well, 
I will just take my employees' pension funds and bring them over into 
the operating side of the business, and I will tell everybody that I 
didn't have a loss. I am using the employee pension fund to cover my 
operating loss.''
  If you did that, you would be on your way to doing 2 years hard 
tennis in some minimum security prison because it is against the law. 
You can't do that. And we ought not be able to do it in the public 
sector either.
  We are going to collect $78 billion more this year in Social Security 
revenues than we will expend in the Social Security system. We will, 
just this year alone, accrue a $78 billion surplus in Social Security. 
Why? Because we need the money after the turn of the century when the 
baby boomers retire. We have the biggest baby crop in the history of 
our country. When that baby crop retires after the turn of the century, 
we are going to have the largest strain on the Social Security system. 
Therefore, we are collecting more now than we need in the Social 
Security system and that savings is going to be used at the turn of the 
century to help fund the system when we need it.
  But what is happening? What is happening is that extra revenue is 
used as just ordinary operating money and is used to say, ``Well, now 
we have reached a balanced budget in the year 2002,'' when, in fact, 
the budget is not in balance at all. It appears in balance only because 
you use the Social Security revenue or trust funds to show a balanced 
budget.
  I want to demonstrate this with a chart. This chart is important 
because I was at a hearing the other day and they had the debt clock at 
the hearing--this clock that keeps running at $4,000 a second, or it 
is. The debt clock keeps running and running. I said to the chairman of 
the committee, Senator Hatch, the debt clock actually

[[Page S759]]

makes the point I wanted to make at this hearing, because when you 
balance the budget, presumably you have stopped the debt clock from 
increasing. If you balance the Federal budget, the Federal Government 
ought not be taking on more debt. You have stopped the increase in 
debt. But guess what happens? In the very year in which the majority 
party says it will have balanced the budget, the Federal debt will 
increase by $130 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

  This is the debt. These are the numbers: $5.4 trillion in 2002, and 
it is still increasing on that year, by $130 billion. Why will the debt 
increase by $130 billion in the year in which you claim you have 
balanced the budget? Answer: The budget isn't in balance because you 
have collected the Social Security moneys that are an obligation 
because you need to use them later. But then you have brought them over 
here to use them to say you have balanced the budget.
  We have not balanced the budget until and unless we stop the Federal 
debt increases. And the proposal to balance the budget before the 
Judiciary Committee does not do that. The congressional majority 
claimed that its budget plan would reach balance, but then the 
Congressional Budget Office says the deficit for that year is $104 
billion, and the debt increases by $130 billion. This is a giant ruse. 
It, unfortunately, dishonestly uses the Social Security trust funds for 
a purpose that Congress never intended.
  I know a little something about this because in 1983 I was on the 
House Ways and Means Committee when the Social Security reform bill was 
enacted. When it was enacted, it was determined there would be savings 
for the future when the Social Security trust funds would be needed. I 
offered an amendment that day 14 years ago in the committee saying, 
``If you do not put these savings aside and out of the reach of people 
who want to use them for other purposes, they will not in fact be 
saved.'' Now these have grown to significant surpluses, and they are 
not out of reach. They are supposed to be out of reach because of what 
the Senator from South Carolina did when he wrote section 13301 of the 
Budget Enforcement Act, but they are not out of reach. They are used to 
show a balanced budget when the budget is not in balance.
  So what we have done is very simply say, go ahead and pass a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Let's do it the right 
and honest way. Let us make sure that the massive surpluses that we are 
going to accrue in the Social Security system are set aside, not 
counted as ordinary revenue, and that we balance the budget and save 
the Social Security trust fund revenues that are being taken out of 
workers' paychecks for that very purpose.
  Last evening I was on the phone with Congressman Mark Neumann from 
Wisconsin of the House of Representatives. Incidentally, he is a 
Republican Congressman from Wisconsin. He feels exactly the same way 
and says there are a couple dozen Members of the House who feel exactly 
the same way. They want to balance the budget. They believe it is 
appropriate to put a provision in the U.S. Constitution to do so, but 
they also believe it is inappropriate to use the Social Security trust 
funds which are saved for another purpose to show a balanced budget 
when, in fact, you are still increasing the Federal debt and you still 
have increases each year in the Federal deficit.
  I have said before that I come from a town of 300 people and 
graduated in a high school class of nine. I probably didn't take the 
fanciest math in the whole world, but back in my hometown cafe, if they 
sit around and start talking about what ``balances'' are and what 
``deficits and debts'' are, and if someone said, ``Do you think it 
would be appropriate to claim you have balanced the budget when the 
debt and deficit is still going to increase,'' it wouldn't take a lot 
of strong coffee to persuade people that that is not the right way to 
approach it and that is not an honest budget.
  So we are introducing today a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget that says when the budget is balanced, you will not have an 
increase in the Federal debt. You will have turned that debt clock into 
a stopwatch: no more increases in Federal debt and no more Federal 
deficits. There is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do 
things.
  We propose that if we change the U.S. Constitution, we do it the 
right way. We propose that no one enshrine in the Constitution an 
opportunity to misuse up to $3 trillion of Social Security revenues 
that are taken from workers' paychecks with a solemn promise: this tax 
taken from your paycheck goes into a trust fund to be used for only one 
purpose, and that is to fund the Social Security system.
  Some in this Congress, believing double-entry bookkeeping means you 
use the same money twice, have said we can promise that to the workers 
and then we can also use their money as an accounting entry over here 
to claim we have in fact reached a balanced budget.
  That is wrong. It is certainly the wrong way to amend the U.S. 
Constitution. And we propose that when this Congress acts on a 
constitutional amendment, it act on an amendment that does the right 
thing--the right thing for workers, the right thing for retired folks 
in this country, but especially the right thing to balance this 
country's books and prevent us from continually seeing an increase in 
debt and deficits year after year.
  Mr. President, we intend to talk about this later today, but I am 
delighted to see that my colleague from Kentucky, Senator Ford, is 
here, and my colleague, Senator Hollings from South Carolina. Both 
Senators are cosponsoring this constitutional amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 12

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds 
     of each House concurring therein), That the following article 
     is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years after 
     the date of its submission to the States for ratification:

                              ``Article --

       ``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall 
     provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts 
     by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States 
     held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-
     fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law 
     for such an increase by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall 
     transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United 
     States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays 
     do not exceed total receipts.
       ``Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law 
     unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each 
     House by a rollcall vote.
       ``Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this 
     article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is 
     in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for 
     any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in 
     military conflict which causes an imminent and serious 
     military threat to national security and is so declared by a 
     joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number 
     of each House, which becomes law.
       ``Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this 
     article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on 
     estimates of outlays and receipts.
       ``Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of 
     the United States Government except those derived from 
     borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the 
     United States Government except for those for repayment of 
     debt principal. The receipts (including attributable 
     interest) and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds 
     (as and if modified to preserve the solvency of the Funds) 
     used to provide old age, survivors, and disabilities benefits 
     shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for purposes of 
     this article.
       ``Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with 
     fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning 
     after its ratification, whichever is later.''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Let me thank my 
distinguished colleague from North Dakota. Senator Dorgan has been 
forthright and persistent on this particular score. He has given us the 
necessary leadership to bring truth in budgeting.
  I will never forget when we started out in this budget process back 
in 1973 and 1974--and I am the only remaining Member in either body, 
House and Senate, that still serves on that Budget Committee--the 
litany was all for a 10-year period and, particularly up through Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings, about truth in budgeting. No more smoke and mirrors, 
no more rosy scenarios and those kinds of things--certainly no use of 
trust funds to obscure the actual size of the deficit.
  It is very easy to determine what a deficit is. All you need to do is 
find out what the debt is this year and then what the debt is the 
ensuing year, and a simple subtraction will determine for you, if you 
please, that the debt this past fiscal year, for 1996, was $261 
billion--not $107 billion. Not $107 billion, $261 billion.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, if you please, 
a chart which shows that the U.S. budget ``busts'' the trust funds. It 
shows the trust fund surpluses, the real deficit, the gross Federal 
debt, and the gross interest costs.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               U.S. budget                                 Annual         Gross
     President and year       (outlays--in   Trust funds  Real deficit     deficit    Federal debt      Gross
                                billions)                                  change      (billions)     interest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
    1945....................          92.7           5.4  ............  ............         260.1  ............
    1946....................          55.2           3.9         -10.9  ............         271.0  ............
    1947....................          34.5           3.4         +13.9  ............         257.1  ............
    1948....................          29.8           3.0          +5.1  ............         252.0  ............
    1949....................          38.8           2.4          -0.6  ............         252.6  ............
    1950....................          42.6          -0.1          -4.3  ............         256.9  ............
    1951....................          45.5           3.7          +1.6  ............         255.3  ............
    1952....................          67.7           3.5          -3.8  ............         259.1  ............
    1953....................          76.1           3.4          -6.9  ............         266.0  ............
Eisenhower:
    1954....................          70.9           2.0          -4.8  ............         270.8  ............
    1955....................          68.4           1.2          -3.6  ............         274.4  ............
    1956....................          70.6           2.6          +1.7  ............         272.7  ............
    1957....................          76.6           1.8          +0.4  ............         272.3  ............
    1958....................          82.4           0.2          -7.4  ............         279.7  ............
    1959....................          92.1          -1.6          -7.8  ............         287.5  ............
    1960....................          92.2          -0.5          -3.0  ............         290.5  ............
    1961....................          97.7           0.9          -2.1  ............         292.6  ............
Kennedy:
    1962....................         106.8          -0.3         -10.3  ............         302.9           9.1
    1963....................         111.3           1.9          -7.4  ............         310.3           9.9
Johnson:
    1964....................         118.5           2.7          -5.8  ............         316.1          10.7
    1965....................         118.2           2.5          -6.2  ............         322.3          11.3
    1966....................         134.5           1.5          -6.2  ............         328.5          12.0
    1967....................         157.5           7.1         -11.9  ............         340.4          13.4
    1968....................         178.1           3.1         -28.3  ............         368.7          14.6
    1969....................         183.6          -0.3          +2.9  ............         365.8          16.6
Nixon:
    1970....................         195.6          12.3         -15.1  ............         380.9          19.3
    1971....................         210.2           4.3         -27.3  ............         408.2          21.0
    1972....................         230.7           4.3         -27.7  ............         435.9          21.8
    1973....................         245.7          15.5         -30.4  ............         466.3          24.2
    1974....................         269.4          11.5         -17.6  ............         483.9          29.3
Ford:
    1975....................         332.3           4.8         -58.0  ............         541.9          32.7
    1976....................         371.8          13.4         -87.1  ............         629.0          37.1
Carter:
    1977....................         409.2          23.7         -77.4  ............         706.4          41.9
    1978....................         458.7          11.0         -70.2  ............         776.6          48.7
    1979....................         503.5          12.2         -52.9  ............         829.5          59.9
    1980....................         590.9           5.8         -79.6  ............         909.1          74.8
Reagan:
    1981....................         678.2           6.7         -85.7        [-6.1]         994.8          95.5
    1982....................         745.8          14.5        -142.5       [-56.8]       1,137.3         117.2
    1983....................         808.4          26.6        -234.4       [-91.9]       1,371.7         128.7
    1984....................         851.8           7.6        -193.0       [+41.4]       1,564.7         153.9
    1985....................         946.4          40.6        -252.9       [-59.9]       1,817.6         178.9
    1986....................         990.3          81.8        -303.0       [-50.1]       2,120.6         190.3
    1987....................       1,003.9          75.7        -225.5       [+77.5]       2,346.1         195.3
    1988....................       1,064.1         100.0        -255.2       [-29.7]       2,601.3         214.1
Bush:
    1989....................       1,143.2         114.2        -266.7       [-11.5]       2,868.0         240.9
    1990....................       1,252.7         117.2        -338.6       [-71.9]       3,206.6         264.7
    1991....................       1,323.8         122.7        -391.9       [-53.3]       3,598.5         285.5
    1992....................       1,380.9         113.2        -403.6       [-11.7]       4,002.1         292.3
Clinton:
    1993....................       1,408.2          94.2        -349.3       [+54.3]       4,351.4         292.5
    1994....................       1,460.6          89.1        -292.3       [+57.0]       4,643.7         296.3
    1995....................       1,514.4         113.4        -277.3       [+15.0]       4,920.0         332.4
    1996....................       1,560.0         154.0        -261.0       [-16.3]       5,181.0         344.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government FY 1996; Beginning in 1962 CBO's 1995 Economic and
  Budget Outlook.


  Mr. HOLLINGS. You see, by subtracting last year's debt from this 
year's debt, the increase of the debt over the last fiscal year gives 
us a deficit of $261 billion. Immediately the question is: How do we 
all run around claiming that we have a $107 billion deficit? The truth 
of the matter is that we go and borrow from other trust funds.
  I ask unanimous consent at this particular point to have printed in 
the Record a list of those particular borrowings in trust funds.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Gross debt 1996...................................................5,181
Gross debt 1995...................................................4,920
                                                               ________