[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2109-S2111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 502. A bill to protect social security; to the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to 
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be 
discharged.


            The protect social security benefits act of 1999

  Mr. ASCHROFT. Mr. President, there is no more worthy government 
obligation than ensuring that those who paid a lifetime of Social 
Security taxes will receive their full Social Security benefits. Social 
Security is a national, cultural and legal obligation. Social Security 
is our most import social program, a contact between the government and 
its citizens. Americans, including one million Missourians, depend on 
this commitment.
  This is more than just a governmental commitment. We have a 
responsibility as a culture to care for the elderly. Social Security is 
the only retirement income most of our seniors receive. It is our 
obligation, passed down from generation to generation, to provide 
retirement security for every American.
  As individuals, all of us care about Social Security because we know 
the benefits it pays to our mothers and fathers, relatives and friends. 
And we think of the Social Security taxes we and our children pay--up 
to 12.4 percent of our income. We pay these taxes with the 
understanding that they help our parents and their friends, and we hope 
that our taxes will somehow, someday make it possible to help pay for 
our own retirements.
  In my case, thinking of Social Security brings to mind friends and 
constituents such as Lenus Hill of Bolivar, MO, who relies on her 
Social Security to meet living expenses. Billy Yarberry lives on a farm 
near Springfield and depends on Social Security. And there is Rev. 
Walter Keisker of Cape Girardeau, who will be 100 years old next July 
and lives on Social Security. These faces bring meaning to Social 
Security.

[[Page S2110]]

  Whenever I meet with folks in Missouri, I am asked, ``Senator, you 
won't let them use my Social Security taxes to pay for the United 
Nations, will you?'' Or, ``Why can't I get my full benefits if I work 
after 65?'' Or, ``You know I need my Social Security, don't you?''
  And then there are the letters on Social Security I get every day.
  Ed and Beverly Shelton of Independence, MO, write: ``Aren't the 
budget surpluses the result of Social Security taxes generating more 
revenue than is needed to fund current benefits? Therefore, the Social 
Security surplus is the surplus!* * * Yes, we are senior citizens and 
receive a very limited amount of Social Security. We are children who 
survived the Great Depression and World War II so we know how to 
stretch a dollar and rationed goods--just wish Congress were as careful 
with spending our money as we are!''
  These concerns are why I am introducing today the Protect Social 
Security Benefits Act. Americans who have devoted 12% of their wages to 
the Social Security Trust Fund deserve their full Social Security 
payments now and in the century to come. The bill is part of a five 
part package that, taken together, seeks to provide greater protection 
for the Social Security Trust Fund.
  The substance and message of these provisions is that Social Security 
must be protected: protected from politicians who raid Social Security 
to finance additional deficits; protected from those who want to gamble 
with Social Security in the stock market; protected so that investment 
decisions ensure current and future benefits; protected so that seniors 
who work get full benefits; protected so that we keep our commitment to 
America's retirees.
  The Ashcroft Protect Social Security Benefits Act of 1999 prevents 
the use of surpluses in the Social Security Trust Funds to finance 
deficits in the rest of the federal budget. We must build a wall so 
high around the Social Security Trust Funds so that it cannot be used 
to pay for new government spending. Social Security should not finance 
new spending. But that is exactly what has happened in the past, is now 
happening, and will continue happening in the future, unless changes 
are made. It must end.
  Specifically, the bill makes it out of order for the House or Senate 
to pass, or even debate, a budget or bill that uses Social Security 
surpluses to finance deficits in the rest of the budget. In both the 
House and Senate, a three-fifths vote, or a super majority, would be 
required to change that. Let me assure you that this is extremely 
unlikely. We have enough trouble getting 51 Senators to agree to 
anything, let alone 60. Thus, it would be extremely difficult to use 
the Social Security surplus to fund new deficit spending.
  Two other bills I am supporting will also reduce debt and thereby 
strengthen our economy, Social Security and our future. The first bill 
structures the payment of the national debt by amortizing it--paying it 
off in installments--over the next 30 years. The second bill reduces 
the public debt limit every two years as an additional incentive to 
reduce borrowing. Additional surpluses in the Social Security Trust 
Fund can buy down publicly-held debt. By reducing the public debt, my 
plan will make it easier for America to meet its Social Security 
obligations in three ways. First, over the long run, paying off the 
debt will lower interest payments, which are now over $200 billion 
annually, equaling about 15% of the budget. Second, by relieving 
America of the burden of the $3.8 trillion national debt over the next 
30 years, it will free up more resources that may be able to meet 
Social Security obligations in the future. Finally, a debt-free America 
will have a stronger, faster-growing economy, and will be better 
equipped to come up with the money to redeem the Trust Fund when we 
need it.
  We must remember that federal debt incurs very real costs, in the 
form of interest payments and higher interest rates. With that in mind, 
we cannot afford not to pay off the debt. While it will cost money to 
pay off the debt, it is better to budget for those costs now. On this 
point, I agree with President Clinton. His idea to use Social Security 
surpluses to pay down our existing debt is a wise one, and I am 
offering a responsible plan to make it happen.
  Finally, and given the fact that Social Security surpluses are 
routinely being used to finance deficits in the rest of the budget of 
the federal government, it is time to decide carefully how Social 
Security should be treated in any proposed constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. I have always supported a balanced budget 
amendment. In the past, I have supported an effort that did not 
distinguish between Social Security accounts and the rest of the 
federal budget. However, last year's raid of the Social Security 
surplus to fund other government spending under the guise of 
``emergency spending'' has convinced me that Social Security must be 
protected under our constitution. Social Security must be walled off 
for special treatment in any proposed balanced budget amendment. We 
must make clear that the federal budget should be balanced without 
counting any Social Security surpluses.
  Walling off the trust funds is the first step, not the only step, 
needed to protect Social Security. This is the right way to start the 
effort to improve Social Security so it is strong for our children and 
grandchildren.
  To do this, we need to be honest, realizing that, for now, time is on 
our side to make thoughtful improvements. For the past few months, I 
have comprehensively reviewed Social Security. My conviction is that 
understanding must always come before reforming. The following 
summarizes the facts about Social Security.
  Social Security does now and will in the near future accumulate 
annual surpluses. Together, income from payroll taxes and interest is 
greater than the amount of benefits being paid out. The Social Security 
Trustees believe that these surpluses will continue each year for the 
next 14 years. In that time, a $2.8 trillion total surplus will 
accumulate.
  In the year 2013, however, when more baby boomers will be in 
retirement, annual benefit payments will exceed annual taxes received 
by Social Security through taxes and interest. As a result, Social 
Security will run an annual deficit. By 2021, annual benefit payments 
will exceed annual taxes received by Social Security and interest 
earned on the accumulated surpluses. In the year 2032, Social Security 
payroll taxes will not only be insufficient to pay benefits; the 
surpluses will be used up. Social Security will be bankrupt.
  Bipartisan efforts are underway to address this long-term situation. 
I will take an active part in this work. We must strengthen Social 
Security's capacity to pay benefits in full beyond the year 2032.
  But there is no getting around the fact that a key to the long-term 
solvency of Social Security is how the current mushrooming Social 
Security surplus is invested, managed and spent. That's why the Protect 
Social Security Benefits Act focuses on how the current Social Security 
surplus is invested and managed.
  Where is the Social Security surplus? This question helps us 
understand what the Social Security surplus is, and is not. In truth, 
the Trust Funds have no money, only interest-bearing notes. It would be 
foolish to have money in the trust fund that earned no interest or had 
no return. In return for the Social Security notes, Social Security 
taxes are sent to the U.S. Treasury and mingled with other government 
revenues, where the entire pool of cash pays the government's day-to-
day expenses. While the Trust Funds records now show a total of $857 
billion in the fund, these assets exist only in the form of government 
securities, or debt. According to the Washington Post, ``The entire 
Social Security Trust Fund, all [$857] billion or so of it, fits 
readily in four ordinary, brown, accordion-style folders that one can 
easily hold in both hands. The 174 certificates reside in a plain 
combination-lock filing cabinet on the third floor of the bureau's 
office building.''
  In recent years, Social Security surpluses have been used to finance 
deficit spending in the rest of the federal budget. Take Fiscal Year 
1998 for example. The Social Security surplus was $99 billion. The 
deficit in the rest of the government budget was $29 billion. So $29 
billion--or 30% of the Social Security surplus--financed other 
government programs that were not paid for with general tax revenues. 
this occurred despite President Clinton's promise to save ``every penny 
of any surplus'' for Social Security.

[[Page S2111]]

  For next year, this money shuffling is even greater. To quote the 
Senate Budget Committee's February 1, 1999, analysis:

       Conclusion: the President's budget, despite the rhetoric, 
     not only spends all the non-Social Security surplus over the 
     next five years, while providing no meaningful tax relief to 
     American families, but also dips in the Social Security 
     surplus for $146 billion to pay for the President's spending 
     priorities.

  This kind of money shuffling must end. I cannot go back to Lenus Hill 
or Billy Yarberry and tell them that I stood by silently as the 
government devoted--spent half of their retirement money to paying for 
the President's new spending initiatives. We must stop the dishonest 
practice of hiding new government deficits with Social Security 
surpluses.
  The Protect Social Security Benefits Act of 1999 is designed to 
cripple attempts to use surpluses in the Social Security Trust Funds to 
pay for deficits in the rest of the federal budget. Specifically, the 
bill states that it is out of order for the House and Senate to pass--
or even debate--a budget that uses Social Security surpluses to finance 
new debt in the rest of the budget. This provision could only be 
overridden if three-fifths of the House or Senate openly vote to bypass 
this rule.
  Three times Congress has passed laws that tried to take Social 
Security off-budget. These efforts have called for accounting 
statements that require the government to keep the financial status of 
Social Security separate from the rest of the budget. But these efforts 
are inadequate unless Congress puts in place safeguards that protect 
surpluses in Social Security from financing new government spending.
  Right now, such procedures do not exist in current law or in senate 
rules. On the contrary, current law and senate rules create 21 separate 
points of order that apply to spending increases and tax increases, 
making it difficult to protect Social Security surpluses. But none 
actually stop these surpluses from paying for new budget deficits. We 
need a point of order protecting Social Security surpluses from 
irresponsible government raiding.
  The Protect Social Security Benefits Act would create precisely such 
a point of order. This would prohibit the federal government from 
running a federal funds (on-budget) deficit without 60 votes, or what 
is known as a super-majority. With no on-budget deficit to finance, we 
would use the entire Social Security surplus to shrink the publicly-
held federal debt. Reducing the publicly-held debt would cut annual 
interest costs that now cost $200 billion and 15% of the entire federal 
government budget. Eliminating this interest cost would provide more 
flexibility to address the long-term financing difficulties Social 
Security now faces that could someday jeopardize payment of full 
benefits.
  The only exception to this point of order would be in time of war. If 
Congress were to declare war, and the government needed to go into 
deficit in order to protect our national security, then the point of 
order would not apply. It would remain in effect at all other times. In 
the event that the House or Senate did not pass a budget resolution, 
the point of order would apply to all appropriations bills passed after 
September 1. This fail-safe would ensure that the President and the 
Congress could not raid the Social Security fund for irresponsible 
spending, as they did last year to the tune of $22 billion.
  The Ashcroft Protect Social Security Benefits Act is the first 
provision in a multi-part Social Security package that will address 
vital issues relating to the management, investment, and taxation of 
Social Security. This plan is designed to protect the Social Security 
system. More importantly, it is designed to protect the American 
people--from debt, from bad investments, from misinformation, and from 
attempts to spend our retirement dollars on current government 
spending. While I value the Social Security system, I value the 
American people, people like Lenus Hill and the one million other 
Missourians who receive Social Security benefits, more. My primary 
responsibility is to them. My plan to protect the Social Security 
system will protect the American people first, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in support of this plan.
                                 ______