[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 144 (Monday, October 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12372-S12373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THE WORST OF ALL OUTCOMES: CLINTON SPENDS THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I believe these are times in which 
anyone, anywhere would wish to live--times of boundless opportunity 
when distant horizons are brought near. Since the second year of Ronald 
Reagan's first term, America has seen her GDP climb every year but one. 
Our unemployment rate stands at a historic low. Poverty has dropped by 
more than ten percent. And our budget is in surplus for the first time 
in a generation.
  For the first time since 1969, the federal government will run a 
surplus estimated to be $70 billion. It is a surplus that could allow 
us to do so much for so many. We could free American families from a 
debilitating tax burden or help the forgotten middle class keep more of 
what they earn with tax relief.
  Beyond meaningful tax relief, the surplus offers another great 
potential--ensuring the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust 
Fund.
  The surplus is an opportunity for us to honor our commitment to the 
men who scaled the cliffs at Normandy and the mothers who sent their 
son to defend America's freedom halfway around the world. It is, Mr. 
President, a once in a lifetime chance for us to make the paper IOUs in 
the Social Security Trust Fund real--to pay our debts and keep our 
word. We can use the surplus to do this.
  Unfortunately, the President and his apologists on Capitol Hill have 
a different plan. It is an attack given to platitudes rather than 
principle, an approach long on meaningless rhetoric and short on 
meaningful reform. It is a plan that calls for a return to the 
profligate spending of yesterday at the cost of a brighter tomorrow.
  As I suggested last Monday on the Senate floor, since late September 
the President has submitted a series of requests to fund new 
``emergency'' spending initiatives. And, because current law subjects 
discretionary spending to annual caps through FY 2002, this so-called 
``emergency'' spending would increase the discretionary spending caps, 
decrease the budget surplus, and take money from the Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  And what are the President's ``emergency'' spending requests? What 
are the eleventh hour developments that have made Social Security's 
solvency a low priority instead of a high one? The President is 
proposing that the equivalent of at least 24% of this year's surplus--
$14.4 billion to date--be spent on a Bosnia deployment that is now four 
years old, government computer repairs, increased embassy security and 
a variety of other initiatives.
  Now, I will be the first to concede that many of the President's 
requests constitute real and important funding issues. But emergencies? 
Mr. President, the lives of our elderly are too important for half-
truths and doublespeak.
  Social Security should not be betrayed by emergencies that are 
conjured up and have been anticipated for quite some time. The 
definition of an emergency is not something that we have known about 
for 4 years or 2 years or something that we are really trying to get 
money to spend in the last fiscal year and not in this one.
  In his January 1998 State of the Union address, President Clinton 
made the following statement: ``What should we do with this projected 
surplus? I have a simple four word answer: Save Social Security first. 
. . . I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus--that's 
every penny of any surplus--for Social Security.''
  And just 10 days ago, the President repeated his demand again 
(October 2, 1998). ``I made it clear and I want to make it clear again. 
. . . We simply have to set aside every penny of it [the budget 
surplus], . . . to save Social Security first.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, you can't have it both ways. We can't 
hide from the truth. More to the point, you can't save Social Security 
by wasting the surplus on mislabeled emergencies or more big spending. 
Even as I speak here, the President and his aides are working to see 
that our seniors' Social Security checks either are shipped overseas or 
squandered on more bureaucrats in Washington, DC, with more spending 
programs proposed for money to be shipped overseas or bigger 
bureaucracies here in the nation's capital. Tragically it is what 
Chairman Greenspan warned us about just weeks ago. Referring to whether 
the surplus should be spent, saved, or returned to the taxpayers, 
Greenspan said, ``. . . I am also, however, aware of the pressures that 
will exist to spend it, and that in my judgment would be the worst of 
all outcomes.''

  Greenspan says, ``. . . the pressures . . . to spend it . . . would 
be the worst of all outcomes.''
  Mr. President, if increased spending is labeled as ``emergency'' as 
an accounting gimmick in order to authorize us to spend the surplus, I 
will not be a party to it. Labeling the taxpayers' money ``emergency'' 
doesn't make it any less wasteful. Just because it is called emergency 
doesn't prevent it from adding government and adding bureaucracy. As 
was said by another, putting a sign on a pig and calling it a dog 
doesn't make the pig any less of a pig. And there is going to be plenty 
of pork in this ``Mother of All Pigs,'' that is coming to the Senate 
for its approval by way of a proposal for spending.
  For example, the Wall Street Journal this morning reported that 
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education account for the single 
largest part of the Omnibus bill in terms of add-ons sought by the 
Administration. The President wants a total of $1.6 billion, including 
almost $1.2 billion for his ``class size'' initiative and another $182 
million for a child care block grant.

  Mr. President, all of this $1.6 billion dollars in increased 
education spending is paid for from the Social Security Trust Fund. The 
President has not offered one dime in spending cuts to pay for his 
``priorities,'' which he has labeled as ``emergencies.''
  What is equally as shocking is that the underlying Labor/HHS/
Education appropriations bill is estimated to be about $4 billion over 
its spending allocation even before accounting for the extra money 
sought by the Administration this weekend.
  The President should explain to the voters that his pledge to ``save 
every penny of any surplus'' was untrue. His promise to ``save Social 
Security first'' was just a slogan--offered during his State of the 
Union with a wink and a nod, and broken days later.
  Only days after first promising to save the surplus, he submitted a 
budget to Congress calling for $150 billion in additional spending. And 
in the entire legislative year since the President made his pledge, he 
has done nothing to fix the Social Security problem--and far too much 
to fix the blame. He has wasted this entire year, just as he is 
proposing to waste our senior's Social Security checks on overseas 
deployments and projects.
  If the President truly meant what he said about Social Security, he 
would propose real fixes instead of empty promises. If the President 
truly meant what he said about saving the surplus, he would not be 
trying to spend the taxpayer's money under the camouflage of bogus 
``emergencies.''
  This whole notion of false ``emergency'' spending is a dangerous 
ploy. It

[[Page S12373]]

puts the President of the United States in the position of the little 
boy who cried wolf. If and when we face a true emergency, we will be 
forced to fund it through this discredited process. And when that time 
comes, we will regret having engaged in this sleight-of-hand, in this 
legerdemain, in this charade. Words should have real meaning, Mr. 
President, and actions should have consequences. Two lessons we would 
do well to remember.
  Mr. President, the normal appropriations process is what every 
American family does when they plan their spending for the upcoming 
week, or month, or year. Families measure how much they can afford to 
spend, and where they have to cut back. In some years, when there is an 
illness or a recession, they may have emergency savings that they use. 
Perhaps it is a rare occurrence--one they take only in extraordinary 
circumstances.
  But think what would happen if families used their savings for non-
emergencies--for a new car or a new dress. They would quickly find 
themselves unprepared for true emergencies.
  The Federal Government should treat its emergencies the same way 
families do. Necessary but non-emergency problems should be addressed 
by achieving savings in lower priority federal spending programs.
  The President's commitment to send troops to Bosnia was made 4 years 
ago. It is time to account for that in the normal appropriations 
process. The Year 2000 problem is a very real threat. But it is also a 
problem that we have known about for some period of time--since we do 
have calendars here in Washington. No, instead of anticipating the need 
and including it in the regular budget process, the President has 
chosen to ask for this kind of additional funding in the ``emergency'' 
category. The President is crying wolf and I only hope the Republican 
Congress has the good sense say, ``No.''
  Mr. President, I don't agree always with what I read in the 
newspaper, but here's an editorial with which I do agree. ``Republicans 
rightly point out,'' the Christian Science Monitor recently noted, 
``that there's a double standard here: It's OK for Clinton and the 
Democrats to propose spending $20 billion of the coming surplus for 
`emergencies,' but when the GOP suggests returning some of it to 
taxpayers, that's a `threat' to Social Security.'' (Christian Science 
Monitor editorial, September 28, 1998)
  The Christian Science Monitor had it right in that editorial. And the 
double standard is even worse than the Monitor suggests. For when this 
$20 billion is spent, the money will be gone. Whereas if we had given 
it back to the taxpayer, at least we would have provided some measure 
of relief from the highest tax burden in the history of this republic--
a helping hand to the forgotten middle class.
  And that is the key question here. Who owns the surplus? President 
Clinton and the Democrat Party see the surplus as own private slush 
funds--money he can hoard with the shield of false promises, but spends 
whenever it suits them.
  I would argue that the American people own the surplus. And it is 
time to give it back. As we have learned with all too great a frequency 
in recent years, if we leave the surplus in Washington, supposedly far-
sighted bureaucrats will find a way to spend it.
  For there is no end to the good Washington believes it can do with 
their brains and our money. This town specializes in spending.
  I believe it is time for us to make the American people aware of the 
deceitful and dishonorable efforts to use the budget surplus on 
mislabeled emergencies and increased spending. I came to Washington 4 
years ago to cut taxes and decrease government interference in our 
lives.
  I also made a sacred commitment that I would protect and defend the 
Social Security Trust Fund. I intend, therefore, to oppose any effort 
to spend the elderly's Social Security checks on overseas deployments 
or the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., and mislabeling those things as 
``emergencies'' will not change my commitment or determination.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________