[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 138 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11539-S11540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS MUST BE PROTECTED

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this year began in a way unprecedented 
during my years as a U.S. Senator. Just months after passing the 
balanced budget agreement of 1997, budget forecasters released 
projections that included the possibility of a budget surplus as early 
as 1999. By March, the Congressional Budget Office estimated an $8 
billion surplus by the end of fiscal year 1998.
  I'll skip ahead a few months, because we all know that the surplus 
projections continued to grow. Last week, fiscal year 1998 came to an 
end with the President and Congress announcing a $70 billion budget 
surplus.

[[Page S11540]]

  In less than a year, the deficit-busting efforts started early in the 
1980s and culminating in last year's balanced budget agreement reached 
the climax we have been waiting for since 1969--the first budget 
surplus in 30 years.
  All of this is very good news, everyone on Capitol Hill wants to take 
credit for it. Despite the euphoric attitude that has overcome the 
congressional budgeteers and appropriators, however, I want to sound a 
note of caution.
  This weekend, the Seattle Times published an editorial that sums up 
my hesitation to jump on the pig pile scrambling to spend the projected 
surplus on tax cuts, as advocated by a number of my colleagues, or new 
government programs, as suggested by the President and Democratic 
leadership.
  The editorial, aptly titled ``Surplus? What Surplus?'', reminds us 
all of a reality few are willing to face.
  In July, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the Federal 
Government will run a $63 billion surplus in 1998 if the Social 
Security trust fund is included in the budget calculations. We still 
are running a $41 billion deficit, however, if the surplus in the 
Social Security trust fund is excluded.
  The Federal Government will not run a surplus without the inclusion 
of the Social Security trust fund until 2002, when CBO expects a $1 
billion surplus. By 2008, the surplus will rise to $64 billion, without 
including the Social Security trust fund.
  We are close, but we are not out of the woods yet.
  I remain deeply concerned about the future viability of Social 
Security.
  Social Security is a sacred contract between the Federal Government 
and seniors. We cannot and must not use the current surplus in the 
Social Security trust fund to offset deficit spending in other 
Government programs. Unfortunately, the President, among others in 
Government, has proposed to do precisely that.
  As Congress speeds toward the end of the 105th Congress, we must keep 
the future of the Social Security trust fund paramount in our 
deliberations. Some Members of Congress want to pass a tax cut package 
before the election, which will be funded by the projected surplus.
  The President--who urged us to ``Save Social Security First'' during 
his State of the Union Address in January--opposes tax cuts for the 
American people but has been pushing for $20 billion in so called 
emergency spending since September. He does not propose to offset this 
spending with cuts in other Government programs. In fact, by 
categorizing his spending requests as ``emergencies,'' he plans to 
spend a large part of the surplus he himself designated for saving 
Social Security in January.
  Frankly, I question the legitimacy of the ``emergencies'' identified 
by the President--the year 2000 computer problem, military 
responsibilities in Bosnia, and the decennial census. These so-called 
emergencies have been on the radar screen for years. Unfortunately, the 
President failed to place a priority on these challenges when he gave 
Congress his budget in February.
  Now we have several ``emergencies'' for which the President is 
willing to dip into the surplus he deemed sacred in January--a surplus 
that does not exist unless we tap into the Social Security trust fund.
  Allow me to discuss the trust fund for just a moment. Today the 
Social Security trust fund is running a surplus. But that is by design. 
When the baby boom generation begins retiring in just a few years, that 
surplus will be needed to ensure that Social Security can meet its 
obligations.
  I believe that all Government surpluses must be used to guarantee the 
stability of the Social Security system so that everyone relying on 
Social Security today, and everyone working and paying into the system 
today, will be able to count on Social Security without any cuts or 
increased taxes tomorrow.
  The President has said that he wants to save Social Security, but in 
fact his budget proposed to spend billions of dollars over and above 
the balanced budget agreement he signed a year ago. Now he wants more 
money for the so-called emergencies I described earlier. Every one of 
those dollars will inevitably come out of the surplus I am convinced we 
need to preserve for Social Security. That is wrong.
  We must use all of the Social Security and other future budget 
surpluses to make entirely certain that the current generation, and at 
least the next generation, have Social Security in its present form.
  I believe so strongly in this position, that in a July strategy 
meeting to discuss tax and budget issues my advice to Senate Majority 
Leader Trent Lott was to ``save Social Security first.'' I believe now 
that that is exactly what we will do.
  We cannot play smoke and mirrors with the Social Security trust fund.
  At the beginning of September, I sent this chart, which you can see, 
Mr. President, to more than 300,000 seniors in Washington State. I have 
received thousands of responses over the last 3 weeks.
  This is a difference between a true deficit in our normal accounts 
and a surplus that is created simply by counting the Social Security 
surplus, with the 0 point, as I said earlier, not reached until in the 
year 2002.
  Margaret Collins of Kent wrote: ``Keep Social Security money for 
Social Security only.''
  Alice Crawley of Seattle wrote: ``I am 82 years old and I say they 
should use any available surplus, Social Security and otherwise to 
preserve and protect Social Security.''
  Mr. and Mrs. Bill Pennock of Redmond wrote: ``The American people pay 
into Social Security believing the money will be there when they 
retire. Our generation depends on Social Security and we feel future 
generations will also need it. Please do not spend the fund on other 
government programs.''
  Wallace Wickland of Bothell wrote: ``You people in Washington have 
got to keep your hands off Social Security. This is all some people 
have. Voting for Social Security will save your jobs!''
  Anna Green of Tacoma wrote: ``We always voted for you, and I hope you 
think of our children and grandchildren to preserve and protect the 
Social Security for them.''
  Barbara Murphy of Tumwater wrote: ``I'm in favor of using all the 
surplus to shore-up Social Security. I know House Republicans propose a 
tax refund for citizens, but let's wait on that.''
  My constituents support using all of the Social Security surplus and 
future budget surpluses to make entirely certain that the current 
generation and future generations are protected. Once Congress and the 
President agree to a plan that shores up Social Security for our 
children and grandchildren who will retire during the next century, I 
gladly will join my colleagues in providing tax relief for hard-working 
Americans.
  I want to make that point crystal clear. I am not opposed to tax 
relief. In fact, I'm all for across-the-board tax cuts that provide 
relief for middle class taxpayers. In fact, I have cosponsored two 
bills that reduce or eliminate tax penalties on married couples--a 
major component of the House-passed tax relief package. The taxpayers 
have contributed more than their fair share to the balanced budget for 
which we so desperately want to claim credit in Washington, D.C.
  Unfortunately, we have to eat the spinach on our plate before we eat 
dessert. We have one more challenge to face--one more hurdle to jump--
before we can claim victory on balancing the budget and start returning 
their hard-earned dollars to taxpayers. Let's secure and protect the 
Social Security trust fund for current retirees and future generations 
first.
  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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________