[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1350-S1353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. KENNEDY. The Social Security program is America's time-honored 
commitment to our senior citizens that we will care for them in their 
golden years. It says to our seniors that you have worked hard and 
faithfully paid into Social Security for all those years of labor, and 
when you finally retire, Social Security will be there for you. It will 
help you pay the rent, buy your groceries, and maintain a reasonable 
standard of living throughout your retirement.
  But under the proposed balanced budget constitutional amendment, the 
Social Security contract with America's senior citizens is broken. If 
this amendment is added to our Constitution, then no one can assure you 
of a Social Security check every month.
  The Rock of Gibraltar, on which our Nation's senior citizens have 
depended for the past 62 years would be reduced to shifting sand.
  The Reid amendment, which will be considered later this month, 
prevents this unacceptable outcome by protecting Social Security from 
the proposed constitutional amendment.
  The Reid amendment is needed because millions of the Nation's retired 
citizens live from check to check. They need that check to arrive on 
time at the beginning of each month to pay their bills.
  Martha McSteen, who headed the Social Security Administration during 
the Reagan administration, and now is president of the National 
Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said recently,

       Keeping Social Security safe from budget tampering is 
     frankly a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. 
     For 10 million Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and 
     older, their monthly Social Security check amounts to 90 
     percent or more of their income. Those checks keep 40 percent 
     of America's seniors out of poverty.

  But under the proposed constitutional amendment, if Government 
revenues fall unexpectedly or Government expenses go up, payment on 
Social Security checks could stop.
  If the balanced budget constitutional amendment is enacted, senior 
citizens may well find that the check is not in the mail after all.
  Three months ago, in November 1996, the House sponsors of the 
balanced budget constitutional amendment agreed that this could happen. 
As Congressman Dan Schaefer and Congressman Charles Stenholm said, 
under the proposed constitutional amendment ``the President would be 
bound,

[[Page S1351]]

at the point at which the Government runs out of money, to stop issuing 
checks.''
  And now we learned just this week that this unwise constitutional 
amendment could deny the Social Security program access to the trust 
funds in the future. American workers have contributed their payroll 
taxes to build up the trust so that when the baby boomers retire, there 
will be enough money there to pay for their Social Security. But now we 
learn from the experts in the Congressional Research Service that the 
proposed constitutional amendment could place the trust fund off 
limits. The money will be sitting there, and the Social Security 
program will need it to write Social Security checks. But if the 
balanced budget amendment is adopted, the Constitution will just say 
no.
  Here is what the Congressional Research Service concluded in an 
analysis provided to Senator Daschle on February 5:

       Because the balanced budget amendment requires that the 
     required balance be between outlays for that year and 
     receipts for that year, the moneys that constitute the Social 
     Security surpluses would not be available for the payments of 
     benefits.
  Clearly, Social Security benefits are at risk under the proposed 
constitutional amendment.
  There are those on the other side who don't want America's seniors to 
know that this proposed constitutional amendment puts Social Security 
on the budget chopping block. They say that our concern about Social 
Security is a scare tactic.
  But economists say there is a 50-50 chance in any given year that the 
budget projections will be wrong and that under this constitutional 
amendment, the Government will run out of money. Economic forecasting 
is not an exact science. The projections of budget experts could be off 
by only 1 percent. But under this constitutional amendment, that is 
enough to throw the budget out of balance and put Social Security 
checks at risk.
  Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, agrees. When 
the committee was debating this constitutional amendment on January 30, 
he said that under the proposed constitutional amendment, ``Social 
Security would have to fight its way, just like every other program.''
  Senator Hatch went on to say that he believes Social Security ``has 
the easiest of all arguments to fight its way.''
  I don't believe we should take that gamble when the future of the 
Social Security program is at stake.
  There is nothing--nothing--to assure our seniors that their Social 
Security checks will survive the budget battles that lie ahead.
  Senior citizens deserve more than speeches of good will by supporters 
of the constitutional amendment. If those who support this unwise 
constitutional amendment are committed to protecting Social Security, 
they should write that protection into their proposal and adopt the 
Reid amendment.
  President Clinton wrote to the Senate Democratic leader on January 28 
about the risk to Social Security. He said to Senator Daschle:

       I am very concerned that Senate Joint Resolution 1, the 
     constitutional amendment to balance the budget, could pose 
     grave risks to the Social Security System. In the event of an 
     impasse in which the budget requirements can neither be 
     waived nor met, disbursements or unelected judges could 
     reduce benefits to comply with this constitutional mandate. 
     No subsequent implementing legislation could protect Social 
     Security with certainty because a constitutional amendment 
     overrides statutory law.

  In the State of the Union Address, President Clinton added:

       I believe it is both unnecessary and unwise to adopt a 
     balanced budget amendment that could cripple our country in 
     time of economic crisis and force unwanted results such as 
     judges halting Social Security checks or increasing taxes.

  But supporters of the balanced budget amendment are ready to cast 
Social Security to the winds. They say to the Nation's senior citizens, 
``We are going to toss your retirement, your safety net into the rough 
seas of Federal budgeting and see if it can stay afloat.''
  We cannot let that happen.
  The balanced budget constitutional amendment turns its back on almost 
a decade and a half of bipartisan progress in protecting Social 
Security.
  In 1983, the Greenspan Commission recommended that we should place 
Social Security outside the Federal budget. The Commission said we need 
to build up a sufficient surplus in the trust funds to have enough 
money to provide checks to baby boomers when they begin to retire. And 
we can't do that if Social Security is subjected to the same ups and 
downs as the rest of the Federal budget.
  Both Democrats and Republicans supported this proposal. The 
Commission's recommendations were introduced as bill S. 1 sponsored by 
Senator Dole and Senator Moynihan. That bill required Social Security 
to be placed off-budget within 10 years. A bipartisan 58-to-14 vote, 
including 32 Republicans and 26 Democrats adopted the conference 
report.
  In 1985, Congress accelerated the process of placing Social Security 
outside the rest of the Federal budget. The Deficit Control Act of 
1985--the so-called Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law--exempted Social Security 
from across-the-board cuts or sequestration.
  Even more important, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law said Social 
Security could no longer be included in the unified budget of the U.S. 
Government.
  As Senator Gramm of Texas emphasized during the Senate debate on the 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings proposal:

       This bill takes Social Security off budget. So if you want 
     to debate Social Security, go to the museum, because that 
     debate is over. . . . The President cannot submit a budget 
     that says anything about Social Security. It is not in order 
     for the Budget Committee to bring a budget to the floor that 
     does anything to Social Security. Social Security is off-
     budget and is a free-standing trust fund.

  From that point on, when Congress has adopted the annual Federal 
budget resolutions, Social Security is not included. The last time the 
Congress of the United States voted on a budget that included Social 
Security was 1985.
  Congress supported this change by wide bipartisan majorities. The 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law was approved by a 61-31 vote in the Senate 
and a 271 to 154 vote in the House of Representatives.
  In 1990, some Members of Congress proposed to put Social Security 
back into the Federal budget. But Senator Hollings and Senator Heinz 
rejected this unwise suggestion. They insisted that Social Security 
remain off budget, and the Senate approved an amendment to protect 
Social Security by a 98 to 2 vote. In fact, the final Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990 speaks forcefully of Congress's intentions to 
continue to protect Social Security. In section 13301 of that act, the 
title reads, ``Exclusion of Social Security From All Budgets.'' It says 
plainly that Social Security,

       . . . shall not be counted as new budget authority, 
     outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (2) the congressional budget, or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.

  Again in 1995, section 22 of the congressional budget resolution 
amended the budget act even further to protect Social Security. In a 
provision entitled the ``Social Security Fire Wall Point of Order,'' it 
said that any effort to include changes in Social Security in the 
Federal budget were subject to a 60-vote point of order in the Senate.
  The proposed balanced budget constitutional amendment would reverse 
these years of progress in protecting Social Security. These efforts to 
protect Social Security and insulate it from the annual battles over 
the Federal budget were started by the Greenspan Commission. Senator 
Dole sponsored the bill in 1983 that got us started. And Democrats and 
Republicans alike rallied to preserve the Nation's Social Security 
system.
  But now, supporters of the balanced budget amendment are prepared to 
turn their backs on this important history.
  For almost 15 years, they joined Democrats in arguing that Social 
Security should be protected. But now they have decided that Social 
Security should be left to its own in the budget battles that lie 
ahead.
  Some argue that if we fail to include Social Security in the proposed 
constitutional amendment, it will cause even steeper cuts than 
necessary in other programs like education or health care or highways. 
They say that even President Clinton's balanced

[[Page S1352]]

budget--while holding Social Security outside the overall Federal 
budget--still counts the Social Security surplus to bring the overall 
Federal budget into balance.
  But under current law, Social Security is protected, whereas under a 
constitutional amendment it is not.
  Under current law, even when the President counts Social Security in 
calculating whether the budget is balanced, neither he nor Congress nor 
the courts can use the budget process to change Social Security. Even 
if Republicans tried to use the Federal budget to cut Social Security, 
they could not under current law.
  A balanced budget constitutional amendment would end these 
protections. Including the Social Security trust funds on the 
Government's balance sheet may be a useful way to reach a balanced 
budget today. But what about the year 2020 or 2030, when baby boomers 
retire and trust funds decline? If Social Security is not off-budget, 
we would have only three choices. First, we could cut Social Security 
benefits. Second, we could raise taxes. Or third, we could cut billions 
of dollars from education, health, national defense, and other 
priorities to keep the Social Security checks flowing.
  We must--and we will--balance the budget. We must--and we will--take 
steps to ensure the solvency of Social Security well into the future. 
But it makes no sense to jeopardize Social Security by subjecting it to 
the requirements of this blunderbuss constitutional amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to protect Social Security by supporting the 
Reid amendment.
  So, Mr. President, I am going to look forward, in the next few days--
certainly before the end of the month--to join with my colleague and 
friend, Senator Reid, and other Members of the Senate, in urging 
support for the amendment that Senator Reid will propose, which will 
effectively remove the Social Security trust funds from the balanced 
budget amendment.
  I offered that amendment in the Judiciary Committee. We ended up with 
a tie vote, 9 to 9. We had the support of a Republican on that 
amendment. But the Judiciary Committee was virtually evenly divided on 
that issue, virtually evenly divided.
  What we hear from our friends and colleagues in the House of 
Representatives is there is increasing recognition of the importance of 
separating the Social Security trust funds from the consideration of 
the balanced budget amendment. I think that is wise. I believe, 
hopefully, that the Senate will reach that conclusion.
  Mr. President, we can ask ourselves, is the Social Security trust 
fund of such special importance that we ought to consider it separately 
from the overall budget considerations? I suggest that it is, and not 
just because it is a lifeline for our senior citizens, and has been 
depended on for over 60 years by those who reach their golden years to 
be able to live in peace, dignity, and security. I think that would be 
a compelling enough reason to separate out the Social Security.
  But, Mr. President, for another very important reason, which has been 
understood by Republicans and Democrats alike, since the report of the 
Greenspan Commission in 1983 where, virtually unanimously, the members 
of that commission recommended that Social Security be separated from 
various budget considerations, and it was only a year or so after that 
that a bipartisan leadership amendment was offered and supported 
overwhelmingly by Republicans and Democrats alike, that they would put 
this off budget for a period of some 10 years. Later, in 1985, under 
Gramm-Rudman measures, Republicans and Democrats--if you read the 
history of that debate, one of the prime reasons that that particular 
proposal was passed was because Social Security would be removed from 
the considerations of the budget, and that was, again, the position 
that was accepted in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 98 to 2 back in 1990. 
So we have the recommendations of the Social Security Commission, you 
have the action that has been taken by the Senate, and in a bipartisan 
way, in 1984-85, and repeated in 1990.
  Now, why do the Members of this body believe that that fund ought to 
be different? Well, I say that it is a very different fund, for a 
number of reasons. The most powerful one is because, as I mentioned 
before, of that contract that will be out there and exists between the 
seniors and the Federal Government, when it was established that there 
would be a guarantee that those funds would be there as long as people 
paid in. That was the contract. People understood it. The elderly 
understood it.
  But, now, under the balanced budget amendment, by including the 
Social Security trust funds in that--and if that amendment were to pass 
and be ratified by the States--that would be at risk like all the other 
spending would be at risk, because of the language of the balanced 
budget amendment. And that is recognized by the floor manager of the 
bill, Senator Hatch. It was recognized by those that were the principal 
spokesmen. Mr. Miller ,formerly of OMB, recognized that that would be 
part of the spending limitation. Now we receive assurances from those 
that propose the balanced budget amendment, ``well, that is going to be 
OK because there will be more support for Social Security, so we really 
don't have to worry about it.''
  Well, Mr. President, all we have to do is look at the assaults on 
Social Security in the last Congress by many of our good Republican 
friends. Look at the period of the 1980's. I was here on the floor of 
the Senate when there were other assaults on Social Security. I am not 
one that is prepared to say, well, we are going to just let the dice 
roll and see whether this continues to remain in the balanced budget 
amendment and the trigger is pulled on the balanced budget amendment, 
that Social Security will be out there trying to do the best it can in 
terms of the spending limitations. Look at what happened in the last 
Congress--increased funding for defense over what was recommended by 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and assaults in terms of the Social Security 
trust system. That was the record, Mr. President.

  I don't think the seniors ought to have to be put in the position 
where their futures, their livelihoods, their whole security is going 
to be put at risk, based upon what action is going to be taken here. I 
don't believe that should be the case for a very important reason, Mr. 
President, which is that unlike other spending proposals in the budget, 
the fact is that this is the one aspect of the budget where people pay 
in, with the agreement that they will be able to receive.
  Nobody battles stronger than I do in terms of trying to make 
education more accessible and available. No one will struggle more in 
terms of fighting and helping and assisting academic accomplishments or 
teacher training in the schools in my State of Massachusetts or in the 
country. The fact of the matter is that those students didn't pay into 
this fund. They didn't contribute to this fund. We recognize, as a 
matter of national policy, the importance of enhancing education 
opportunity and access for the young people of this country, because it 
is vitally important for our Nation to be able to compete in the world, 
and it is vitally important in terms of our social responsibilities to 
the young people of this country, in terms of their future.
  But, Mr. President, they didn't contribute. But Social Security did. 
Social Security did. The beneficiaries of the NIH research didn't 
contribute either. I am all for NIH and for investing in that research. 
But Social Security recipients paid in. Big difference. Major 
difference. Major difference. Why are we going to treat both of the 
different groups the same? That is wrong. It is wrong on the face of 
it. Most important, it is a basic and fundamental potential violation 
of a very fundamental contract made between the President of the United 
States, the Congress of the United States, and the American people. 
That was a contract, not just between two individuals; it was made by a 
Nation, establishing that system that said if you pay in during your 
working years, you are at least going to be able to live out of poverty 
during the time of your retirement. That is a solemn commitment that we 
have made year after year after year. And, yet, those who are promoting 
the balanced budget amendment are saying, ``well, that is all fine and 
all well and good, but we want to make sure we put Social Security on 
because, if we do

[[Page S1353]]

not, maybe our economy is going to deteriorate, and it will threaten 
somehow the Social Security recipients.''

  The problem for our economy is not our senior citizens. Sure we have 
to deal with what is going to happen after the year 2029 in terms of 
Social Security. Although the fact remains that for the next 40 years 
after that, three-quarters of the benefits could be paid without any 
changes in it, I want to make sure those recipients are going to get 
the full benefits. So I am going to work to try to make sure that we 
are going to do that.
  But the problem in terms of 2003, 2004, and 2005, during that period 
of time, is not Social Security. It may be another factor. But why hold 
our Social Security recipients hostage to that factor? Why hold them 
hostage? That is basically the issue that is included in this 
amendment. I believe that the American people wisely are understanding 
the significance and the importance of this effort by Senator Reid and 
other sponsors, the importance of this debate and this discussion.
  Now we will hear from our colleagues on the other side. ``Well, it is 
very nice of you to point that out, Senator Kennedy, but look at what 
the President has done. The President has put Social Security into his 
budget when he makes that recommendation, and, therefore, don't you 
think that we ought to do that?''
  Well, Mr. President, it is an entirely different system. We have what 
we call the walls that exist under the Federal budget that have been 
put there since 1990. So you cannot violate the funding of the Social 
Security system. Those walls exist, and they exist by statute. But you 
pass a constitutional amendment and, as every Member of this body 
understands, a constitutional amendment supersedes those statutes. They 
are off. It is an entirely different situation.
  So, Mr. President, I have listened over the period of the last days 
to those--Senator Reid, Senator Dorgan, and others--who have taken the 
floor and supported this. I have listened to the responses and find 
them woefully inadequate in terms of the power of this particular 
argument.
  I think both in terms of fairness, in terms of justice, in terms of 
decency, and in terms of our commitment to our seniors that this 
amendment, which is going to remove the Social Security trust funds 
from the balanced budget amendment, is absolutely essential if we are 
going to maintain our commitment to our senior citizens. And I am going 
to welcome the opportunity to be a part of this debate that will take 
place in these next several days and toward the latter part of February 
because I think this is really one of the very, very most important, if 
not the most important, amendments that we will have on the balanced 
budget amendment.
  Mr. President, I see my time is almost up.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed in morning business for a period of up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________