[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23010-23016]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DESIRE OF HOUSE REGARDING BUDGET SURPLUS AND RETIRING THE PUBLIC DEBT

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 306) expressing the desire of the House of 
Representatives to not spend any of the budget surplus created by 
social security receipts and to continue to retire the debt held by the 
public.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 306

       Whereas, earlier this year, the House of Representatives 
     passed a social security lockbox designed to protect the 
     social security surplus by an overwhelming vote of 416 to 12;
       Whereas bipartisan efforts over the past few years have 
     eliminated the budget deficit and created a projected 
     combined Social Security and non-Social Security surplus of 
     $2,896,000,000,000 over the next 10 years;
       Whereas this surplus is largely due to the collection of 
     the social security taxes and interest on already collected 
     receipts in the trust fund;
       Whereas the President and the Congress have not reached an 
     agreement to use any of the non-social security surplus on 
     providing tax relief; and
       Whereas any unspent portion of the projected surplus will 
     have the effect of reducing the debt held by the public: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the the House of 
     Representatives that the House--
       (1) should not consider legislation that would spend any of 
     the social security surplus; and
       (2) should continue to pursue efforts to continue to reduce 
     the $3,618,000,000,000 in debt held by the public.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today Congress has an opportunity to send a clear 
message to all current and future Social Security recipients. Fiscal 
year 2000 will be the year Congress will end the raid on Social 
Security.
  For over 30 years, the Social Security Trust Fund has been used to 
distort surpluses, numbers, and mass deficits. Mr. Speaker, for years 
the Social Security trust fund has run a surplus, and for years 
Washington has taken that surplus and spent it on programs unrelated to 
Social Security.
  Just 4 months ago, this House passed by an overwhelming 416-to-12 
vote the Social Security Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999, a 
measure I introduced which locked up the Social Security Trust Fund, 
making it much more difficult to spend for non-Social Security 
purposes. This sense of the House Resolution we are considering today 
will reiterate the overwhelming passage of the Social Security Lockbox 
and our commitment to our seniors by reemphasizing this Congress' 
steadfast commitment to not spend one penny of the Social Security 
surplus.
  This resolution does not have any impact on any spending or tax 
relief that would not come from the Social Security surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not pass up this opportunity to 
protect Social Security and to vote for this resolution committing 
ourselves against any effort to once again raid the Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, fiscal year 2000 begins in 2 days, and we have no 
budget, no prospect of one. What we have instead is a red herring, this 
resolution, one House resolution hastily filed less than an hour ago 
which makes a promise that the majority has already broken. This 
resolution asserts that we should not spend any of the Social Security 
surplus.
  Now there is nothing wrong with that in principle, but there is a big 
problem with it in fact. When we recessed last August for our break, 
the House had already spent the entire on-budget surplus of $14.4 
billion for the next fiscal year, fiscal 2000, and we invaded the 
Social Security surplus, the House had, Mr. Speaker, on the majority's 
control and direction by some $16 billion.
  Now do not take my word for that. This is the conclusion reached by 
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dan Crippen, in a 
letter dated to me August 26. I put a copy of it in the Record:
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                  Washington, DC, August 26, 1999.
     Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr.,
     Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on the Budget, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: CBO's most recent baseline projections, 
     which assume that discretionary outlay's in 2000 will equal 
     the statutory limits on such spending, show an on-budget 
     surplus of $14 billion in 2000. As requested in your letter 
     of August 18, the Congressional Budget Office has computed 
     what the on-budget surplus would be using the following 
     assumptions that you specified:
       You requested that we incorporate legislation passed by the 
     Congress since the baseline projections were prepared. The 
     only such legislation with significant budgetary impact is 
     the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, which would 
     reduce the surplus by an estimated $5 billion in 2000.
       You also asked that we adjust the baseline figures to 
     reflect spending designated as an emergency. In the 
     appropriation process so far, each chamber has made one 
     emergency designation. The House has passed $4 billion in 
     funding for the census that it has specified as an emergency 
     requirement, while the Senate has passed $7 billion in 
     emergency spending for aid to farmers.
       You also requested that we include the effects of various 
     scorekeeping directives and adjustments made by the budget 
     committees, which would have the effect of reducing the 
     outlays attributed to appropriation bills. Directed 
     scorekeeping adjustments for defense, highways, and mass 
     transit total around $11 billion. Outlay reductions in the 
     nondefense category that equal 1.14 percent of new budget 
     authority would increase that total by another $3 billion. In 
     addition, the House Budget Committee has directed CBO to make 
     additional scoring adjustments, totaling $3.1 billion, 
     involving proceeds from spectrum auctions and criminal fines 
     paid to the Crime Victims Fund. The Senate Budget Committee 
     has adjusted CBO's outlay estimate of the spectrum auction 
     provision by $2.6 billion. In total, these adjustments come 
     to about $17 billion for the House and $16 billion for the 
     Senate.
       The Balanced Budget Act for adjustments to discretionary 
     spending limits to reflect funding for payment of dues in 
     arrears owed to international organizations and for 
     compliance efforts of the Internal Revenue Service related to 
     the earned income tax credit. Based on appropriation action 
     to date, we estimate that these adjustments would total about 
     $350 million for fiscal year 2000.
       Including about $700 million in additional costs for debt 
     service, the adjustments that you have specified total about 
     $27 billion for the House and $30 billion for the Senate. 
     Applying those adjustments to CBO's July baseline projection 
     of the on-budget surplus would turn that measure into a 
     deficit of $13 billion (based on House actions) or $16 
     billion (based on Senate actions).

[[Page 23011]]

       Finally, CBO's baseline calculation of the on-budget 
     surplus excludes about $3 billion in spending for 
     administrative expenses of the Social Security Administration 
     because that spending is designated as off-budget. The budget 
     resolution, however, treats such expenses as on-budget. If 
     the deficit figure were adjusted to be consistent with the 
     budget resolution, the projected on-budget deficit under your 
     assumptions would reach $16 billion (based on House actions) 
     or $19 billion (based on Senate actions).
       If you wish further information, we will be pleased to 
     provide it. The CBO staff contact is Jeff Holland.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Dan L. Crippen,
                                                         Director.

  Since the August break, Congress has taken up more bills. We spent 
$11 billion more of the Social Security surplus. This is neatly shown 
on this very basic graph right here. We started the year at $14 
billion, looking for $14.4 billion surplus in fiscal 2000 because of 
actions already taken in the Committee on Appropriations and elsewhere 
including the tax bill. That surplus was converted to a deficit of $16 
billion, and right now, if we carry out the track on which we are 
headed, it will be at least $27 billion, and I say ``at least'' because 
that makes minimal allowance for what will happen with Labor HHS, Mr. 
Speaker, the biggest of all the appropriation bills.
  The graph referred to is as follows:

FY 2000 ON-BUDGET SURPLUS/DEFICIT: WHERE THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IS NOW,
                        AS OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1999
                          [Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          CBO      OMB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current-law on-budget surplus, July reports...........     14.4      2.9
    Tax cut...........................................     -5.3     -5.3
    Census ``emergency''..............................     -4.1     -4.1
    HBC scorekeeping ``plugs'' to mirror OMB outlay       -16.1      0.0
     estimates........................................
    Crime Victims Fund scorekeeping ``adjustment''....     -0.5     -0.5
    Cap adjustments for EITC compliance and arrearages     -0.1     -0.1
    Debt service on above.............................     -0.7     -0.3
    Use congressional treatment of SS administrative       -3.3     -3.1
     costs............................................
                                                       -----------------
      Where Republicans are now: On-budget deficit        -15.7    -10.4
       [CBO 8/26].....................................
Likely adjustments to CBO's $16 billion estimate:
    Sustain veto of the tax cut.......................     +5.3     +5.3
    Use OMB/CBO accounting of SS administrative costs.     +3.3     +3.1
    Labor-HHS-Education restorations (preliminary est.     -7.8     -7.8
     of Porter's mark)................................
    LIHEAP emergency designation......................     -0.9     -0.9
    Emergency farm aid (Senate-passed)................     -7.3     -7.3
    Emergency Veterans' Medical Care (Senate-passed)..     -0.5     -0.5
    Other emergencies (hurricanes, Turkey, Kosovo,         -2.5     -2.5
     etc.) ???........................................
    Cap adjustments for CDRs and adoption incentives..     -0.4     -0.4
    Additional debt service...........................     -0.4     -0.4
                                                       -----------------
      Where Republicans are headed....................    -26.9    -21.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: May not add due to rounding.

  Now we are declaring everything around here unforeseen. We did not 
know we were going to take a census; $4.4 billion is an emergency, but 
this was foreseeable. We argued it right here in the well of the House 
when the budget resolution came up, and when we did the conference 
report, we had all of 30 minutes of a conference, and the majority was 
proud because they had made the trains run on time, they had done a 
budget resolution before April 15 for the first time in years, but in 
truth I told them, ``There is a train wreck down the road waiting on 
you,'' and here we are, 5 months later; I have never seen the budget as 
badly derailed as it is now.
  Mr. Speaker, it was foreseeable, and what do we have in these dire 
straits? We have this resolution.
  Why are we considering this bill today? This is subterfuge. This is a 
setup. This is an attempt to shift blame for failure. When we finally 
do pass all the spending bills because we have to, the majority wants 
to blame the President, Congressional Democrats for spending the 
surplus that they have already spent. That is a fact.
  The new fiscal year begins in 2 days. So far only 1 of 13 
appropriation bills, 1 bill out of 13, has become law. Most of the 
others are mired in conference.
  Later today, the House is going to take up a continuing resolution to 
prevent the government from shutting down. This is not a time for empty 
gestures, partisan ploys. This is a time to get down to business. But, 
instead of finishing the budget, the House is spinning its wheels on 
this resolution that tries to conceal the majority's failure to govern. 
That in itself should tell my colleagues why we are at this impasse.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just responding to the last speaker, it is precisely for 
this reason why we need this resolution, to enforce on this Congress 
the importance that we need to be trimming down in conference the 
spending that has been going on so that we ensure that we do not spend 
Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 
Vitter.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our country is enjoying 
unprecedented peacetime prosperity, Americans' cynicism toward 
government remains high. Now we may fuel that cynicism further because 
we have all talked for months about making Social Security our top 
priority, and we now clearly have the ability to stop spending Social 
Security money for other purposes, but we may go ahead and do just that 
anyway.
  This August I held town hall meetings throughout my district, 
speaking to thousands of people, and they made one thing very clear: 
they want us to protect Social Security funding. In short, they told 
me, hands off Social Security. They want Congress to stop spending the 
surplus dollars in the Social Security trust fund, like Congress has 
been doing for the past 30 years.
  This year we have already effectively erased the $14 billion non-
Social Security surplus. In coming weeks we must resist the urge to dip 
into the Social Security surplus to pay for Government programs we 
cannot afford. Instead, by making Social Security revenues off limits, 
Congress can give workers the confidence that the money they pay into 
Social Security will be there only for Social Security and for them in 
the future.
  Only by ensuring that any new Federal spending does not come at the 
expense of Social Security can we truly protect the surpluses that will 
be needed for Social Security and Medicare reform.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an enormous opportunity to do the right thing. 
We must make sure that we do that and set the proper precedent for 
future budgets.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my dear friend and colleague 
from California and member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I think 
we have the wrong forum for this type of resolution. This should be 
taken up at the Republican Conference, because the President of the 
United States and the minority here agree with everything that you are 
saying, and we have been saying it.
  The previous speaker already has indicated that you already spent the 
non-Social Security surplus, and, while my Democratic colleagues do not 
fully understand the need to bring this on the floor, I understand your 
calling, and you are saying, Stop me before I kill again. I understand 
that.
  But, you see, it has to be the chairman and the subcommittee chairman 
that hear your message, because they know you are right. But they are 
so creative that they come up with things that violate the budget caps 
because they cannot admit that they are going to sooner or later sit 
down with Democrats and sit down with the President and make certain 
that we have continuity in government.
  You just cannot do it by coming to an empty floor saying, Help us to 
do the right thing. You have to be able to say, Hey, listen. Census is 
an emergency. We were only joking. We know it comes every 10 years, but 
we thought the House was sleeping. But Republicans have to say, We 
don't tolerate it.
  Emergency home heating for the poorest of the poor, $1.1 billion. You 
have to send that message to the Republican leadership and say, We 
don't want that any more.
  The whole idea of creating a 13th month in order to manipulate an 
intrusion into the Social Security surplus you are saying is something 
that you as a Member of Congress will not tolerate, and certainly some 
of the creative thinking and deciding, which you are using, OMB-CBO, it 
means what we

[[Page 23012]]

are going to have to do, Democrats and Republicans, is send a message 
to the leadership that is it is time for us to come together.
  You cannot possibly do the things that you want to do and talk about 
a $92 billion tax cut, unless you talk with Democrats.
  I know how badly you feel about having to sit down with the 
President, but, still, we are your colleagues. We want to work with 
you. But you just cannot come to the floor, make declarations saying, 
do the right thing, and then go into the Committee on Appropriations 
and do the wrong thing.
  So what I am suggesting is that if you can get your leadership to 
come out, not with a resolution, not with a vote, but just to come to 
the well of the House and say, How are we going to do this without 
intrusion on the Social Security surplus; the President says let us 
repair the Social Security system, let us do the right thing for 
Medicare, a modest tax cut, and then we will go on.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the point is, we have to begin doing the right thing. We 
have not been doing the right thing since 1937 when we first began 
spending Social Security surpluses. We need to begin doing that now. We 
all have projects in our districts that we would like to spend money 
on, and the fact is the reason we are here doing this today is to help 
reemphasize, during this time we are in the appropriations season, that 
we are going to cut back, that we are going to trim back these 
legislations so that we are not spending Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, first I rise and state my very strong 
support for this resolution and commend the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) for bringing this to the floor.
  After I was first elected in 1988, when I first came to the Congress, 
we were routinely giving 12 and 15 and 18 percent increases to almost 
every agency and Department. But after President Clinton came into 
office, a few months later his director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, Ms. Rivlin, put out a memo stating if we kept going in the way 
we were going, we would have deficits, yearly losses, of over $1 
trillion a year by the year 2010, and between $4 trillion and $5 
trillion a year by the year 2030.
  If we had allowed that to happen, our whole economy would have 
crashed. Nobody would be able to buy a house; nobody would be able to 
buy a car. But then control of the Congress changed after the 1994 
elections, and we started bringing these increases in Federal spending 
down to a manageable level of about 3 percent a year, about the rate of 
inflation. So this resolution is another important step in that 
direction, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for 
bringing this to our attention and to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise for the purpose of engaging the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger) in a colloquy. House Resolution 306 
expresses the sense of the House that it should not consider 
legislation that would spend any of the Social Security surplus.
  It is my understanding that this resolution is not intended to affect 
future consideration of the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 
21st Century, which passed the House by an overwhelming majority in 
June. This legislation, also known as Air 21, would not spend any 
portion of the Social Security surplus.
  Let me emphasize that. Air 21 would not spend any of the Social 
Security surplus. Rather it seeks to recapture that portion of the on-
budget non-Social Security surplus that is attributable to unspent 
aviation taxes.
  Therefore, I believe that future consideration of Air 21 would not be 
prejudiced by House Resolution 306; and on behalf of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, I have been asked to ask the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger), is this also your understanding of the intent of the 
resolution?
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding of the resolution.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just hope that the author of this resolution, 
and I have not checked, and I will not check, but I hope he voted 
against all of the appropriations bills before the August recess and 
since we have come back, because, from what we understand, you have 
already dipped into the Social Security trust fund by passing all these 
appropriations bills. The Senate has as well. In fact, Mr. Crippen on 
August 26 pointed that out. So I just want the gentleman to understand 
that he has already done that.
  Secondly, I think everybody knows that this will not save Social 
Security. This will not add one day to the life of the Social Security 
system, because this is just a resolution. It has no meaning at all.
  It is kind of interesting, this resolution. It is about the 18th 
resolution on Social Security. It says, basically it expresses the 
desire of the House of Representatives not to do all of these bad 
terrible things that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) does 
not want us to do. It is kind of interesting, it is like talking to 
yourself. The House should not do this to the House.
  The reality is that this is irrelevant. It has no meaning at all. At 
least the resolution we just took up, the Taiwan resolution, expresses 
regret to the people of Taiwan for the earthquake. This one here is 
telling ourselves what to do.
  What we really should be doing, instead of wasting our time, as we 
are on this issue, is actually do it. But, undoubtedly, what this is is 
just a political gimmick. I think everybody understands that.
  So we will pass this thing, play our games and hope that the American 
public does not understand that in the next 3 weeks we are going to 
bust those caps. This resolution is ludicrous.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, what we are trying to do is break the addiction 
that we have had since 1937 of spending Social Security. It is a hard 
addiction to do away with. But why we are bringing this up again today 
is that we want to emphasize it, so that this Congress, before we vote 
on final passage of the conference committee of our appropriation 
bills, that we do not spend this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
all his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the other side of the aisle 
is saying. What we are trying to achieve in this resolution is 
essentially this: let us stop raiding Social Security.
  All sides can be blamed for raiding Social Security over the last 30 
years. Looking at the CBO's estimate of the President's most recent 
budget, the President proposes raiding Social Security. If you do not 
take into account his tax increases, the President proposes raiding 
Social Security next year by $20 billion. If you pass his tax 
increases, he is raiding it by $7 billion.
  Having said that, the pressure in this place is amazing. I know I am 
a new Member of Congress, I am a young Member of Congress, but I am 
also growing tired and old with all the excuses you hear around here 
for raiding and spending Social Security.
  What we are trying to achieve with this resolution is basically this: 
while we are going through the waning days of our appropriations 
battle, while we are coming to the end of the fiscal year, let us 
remember what we all said in our campaigns. Let us remember the 
policies we produced in our budgets, and that is this: every dime of 
money we pay in FICA taxes for Social Security should go to Social 
Security, should go to paying down our debt, and should go to paying 
off the debt we owe to Social Security, not to be spent on other 
government programs.
  We are trying to get Congress to reaffirm that policy with this 
resolution

[[Page 23013]]

today. Yes, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), 
it is not binding, but it does get everybody on Record saying ``stop 
raiding Social Security.''
  The ranking member of the Committee on the Budget suggested that the 
raiding is already taking place, pointing to various legislative 
proposals in the House and Senate that are out there. If added 
together, it would cause raiding of Social Security.
  Well, these legislative proposals have not passed yet. The tax cut 
was vetoed. The conference reports on the appropriations bills have not 
been signed into law. That is why we are trying to pass this 
resolution.
  So as these bills are put together, as these conference reports are 
assembled, make sure you do not raid Social Security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is the equivalent of 
saying that we are going to quit smoking while we are lighting a 
cigarette, or saying we are going to quit drinking alcoholic beverages 
while we pour out a beer, or any other equivalent that you want to talk 
about.
  We do not need a nonbinding resolution to tell us that we do not want 
to spend Social Security money. We just need to do it. It is like the 
Nike ad, ``just do it.'' We do not need to say what we are going to do; 
we need to do the right thing, not say the right thing.
  As the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has pointed out, we already this year, 
unfortunately, are spending Social Security money.

                              {time}  1200

  There is only one way not to spend it, and that is to have a budget 
that does not invade the Social Security money and uses that money to 
pay back down debt so we are prepared for the baby boom when they come, 
which is what the President has been repeatedly asking us to do.
  We do not have a budget on this floor today, and we are going to 
later today take up a continuing resolution because the majority in the 
House does not confront reality. The reality is, the budget that we are 
operating under spends Social Security money and does things that many 
in the majority and many on our side say we do not want to do. We need 
to stop the music, sit down, and figure this out with the executive 
branch, with the leaders on both sides of the aisle, and come up with a 
new blueprint, a new budget, that does what a majority of this House 
wants to do.
  If we continue to grind our wheels and waste time with resolutions 
like this, which are totally meaningless and time wasting, we are never 
going to get the work done of this Congress.
  I urge the leaders on the other side, let us sit down, let us figure 
out a budget which is good for the American people, which does pay down 
the back debt, which does save Social Security, and gets America the 
budget that we need and want. Let us do it on time. We are going to 
miss the deadline at the end of this week. We are going to have 3 more 
weeks. Time is running out. It is time now to get this budget done.
  As the leader of the minority, I reach out to the majority and say, 
let us sit down, let us figure out a budget that the President can 
agree to and let us get it done for the American people.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, could we inquire of the remaining time, 
please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the budget we are working on 
does the things that my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt) said we ought to be doing.
  We must have voted on two separate budgets this year because the 
budget I voted on clearly balanced the budget without spending a penny 
of Social Security. We need to stick to that commitment. We do not need 
a new budget. We need a commitment to the budget we have.
  What was that budget based on? That budget was based on the balanced 
budget agreement between the Congress and the administration in 1997, 
not 1987, not 1887; 1997. Two years ago, the President said, and the 
Congress agreed, this is how much money we need to run the government 
in fiscal year 2000. Suddenly, because of a productive economy and 
hard-working American families, we have more money than that; and 
suddenly we decide we have to have more money.
  All this discussion about cutting programs is just not what we agreed 
to. We agreed that this is what we were going to spend this year. 
Suddenly now, if we spend what we agreed in 1997 to spend, we are 
cutting programs. How could that possibly be the case?
  We have not broken the caps. We may do that. I do not know. We cannot 
possibly break the overall cap until we pass the last budget. It is not 
possible to do. There is one overall cap. It cannot possibly be broken 
until the last appropriations bill is passed. We have not done that 
yet.
  We need to work hard to find offsets. No question, if we stay on the 
course we are on right now, without working to find the offsets, we 
will go beyond that cap, but those offsets can be found; they must be 
found. This House has to dedicate ourselves to do that. We should not 
spend a penny of Social Security.
  This should be the first budget since Eisenhower was President, since 
fiscal year 1960, when we did not spend a penny of Social Security. As 
has been said earlier by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui), that this is not the solution to the long-term future of 
Social Security.
  I will say we will not find the solution if we cannot, first of all, 
have the resolve not to stop spending the money. This is where the 
solution to Social Security is found. It is found by not spending the 
money. Not spending the money is found by finding the resolve to find 
the offsets in the budget to see that we do not dip into that surplus.
  Let us set a new standard for the American people and the future of 
Social Security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution certainly is a feel-good resolution 
expressing the desire of the House of Representatives not to spend any 
of the budget surplus created by Social Security receipts and to 
continue to retire debt held by the public. It sounds good but the 
problem we have is that in 2 days, when we start the new fiscal year, 
we are going to start to spend the Social Security-generated surplus. 
That is because of the programs that the Republicans have brought 
forward.
  First, they wanted to spend 100 percent of the on-budget surplus with 
a tax cut. Thank goodness the President vetoed that. Then they bust the 
spending caps. The projections are based upon adhering to the spending 
caps; but when regular spending is called emergency, such as our census 
that is going to come up, and we start to advance fund projects and 
say, well, we will pay for something in the other fiscal year that 
really occurs in one fiscal year, the Social Security surplus is being 
spent.
  Do not take my word for it. The Congressional Budget Office has 
already told us that the Republican fiscal plan will spend the Social 
Security-generated surplus.
  Now, I understand what my friend from California wants to do. He 
wants to have a responsible budget. So do I. Rather than spending time 
today, 2 days before we start a fiscal year, on this resolution, why 
are not we meeting to bring out a budget that protects

[[Page 23014]]

Social Security and Medicare, that makes sure we do not spend the 
Social Security money, that retires debt, rather than doing this 
resolution which will have no impact?
  It is only our Chamber that is doing it, and we are going to start 
the next fiscal year in 2 days.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again I want to emphasize, we do not have a final budget 
yet. This is being done specifically to help put pressure on this 
Congress to do what we have already promised we would do, and that is 
not spend the Social Security surplus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), a distinguished member from the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, during the August district work period, I 
conducted nearly 20 town hall meetings throughout middle and south 
Georgia. And at every stop, I had young people who came up to me and 
raised the concern that Social Security would not be there for them 
during their retirement years.
  This concern is legitimate, as American taxpayers have witnessed the 
raiding of Social Security surpluses time after time after time. In 
fact, since 1983, the Social Security Trust Fund has run a surplus. And 
since 1983, Washington has taken that surplus and spent it on programs 
that are totally unrelated to Social Security.
  This practice must end; and I agree with my colleague, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader, who 
said that exact same thing earlier. After years of hard work, the 
independence that comes from financial security ought to be the one 
thing that our senior citizens can count on.
  Now, earlier this year we made a commitment to this idea by 
overwhelmingly passing the Social Security Safe Deposit Box Act. Now, 
as we near the end of the appropriations process, it is important that 
we reiterate our resolve to reign in government spending and not spend 
one penny of the Social Security surplus.
  I commend my colleague on the House Committee on the Budget, my good 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), for bringing this 
legislation to the floor and for his tireless effort in promoting 
honest budgeting. This resolution reaffirms our commitment to the 
principles of honesty and accountability in the Federal budget process, 
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have no argument with this resolution. I 
do have a problem with hypocrisy. Where has the majority been for the 
last 6 months? The Blue Dogs put a budget on this floor 6 months ago 
which was not just a meaningless, nonbinding, feel-good piece of 
rhetoric like today's resolution. Our budget laid out concrete 
strategies for doing what this resolution pretends to do: Protect 
Social Security with a real lockbox, fix Social Security and Medicare 
long term and do it now.
  Where have we been the last 6 months? If the majority really embraced 
the tenets of today's resolution, they would have come on board the 
Blue Dog budget 6 months ago.
  The gentleman is correct, we have a budget. The only problem is, that 
budget has already spent Social Security surpluses. We have already 
done it. How can we stand on the floor and make speeches like we are 
not going to do it when we have already done it? I do not understand 
this rhetoric.
  Instead, we keep having devised scorekeeping and bookkeeping gimmicks 
which allow us to pretend that we kept the budget caps but which in 
fact have already invaded Social Security funds. When are we going to 
stop playing games and get serious? When are we going to have an honest 
effort at fixing Social Security and Medicare first and stop this 
endless speechifying on this floor about what we should do and the 
desire to do?
  Where have we been? We spent 6 months debating a tax cut that would 
have gone into Social Security in ways in which no one on this floor 
could possibly have stood up and defended in the 2014 period when 
Social Security is going to be in its biggest trouble. No one would 
stand up and defend that, but here we are today with another 
meaningless resolution of a desire to protect Social Security when we 
know it has already been spent.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I really hope the 
American people are listening to what is being said here today. What 
did the minority leader say? He said we need a budget that does what we 
want it to do. What is that? They want to spend more money.
  He said let us figure out a budget that the President can agree to. 
What is that? He wants to spend more money.
  When the President proposed his budget this year, he spent $58 
billion of Social Security money.
  What do we have to do to get Members to focus on the issue? We are 
saying, let us save Social Security.
  What do the others argue on that side? No, we do not want to agree to 
this resolution that we will not spend Social Security dollars this 
year.
  We need to protect the money our constituents pay for Social Security 
in a bipartisan fashion. If my colleagues really want to save Social 
Security, why will they not vote for this?
  Actions speak a lot louder than words. My colleagues have come before 
the American people and their rhetoric says let us save Social 
Security, but their actions today will not vote for a resolution that 
says we are going to save Social Security.
  None of us, including the President, should be adopting a strategy to 
increase pressure for spending new money just to force the other party 
to spend money from Social Security. It is easy to say we are going to 
play one up on the other side, we are going to present something that 
Social Security monies have to be spent for.
  Let us stop that. Let us stop playing games. Let us do what we say we 
are going to do. Let us protect Social Security.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) is coming forward with a 
reasonable resolution. My colleagues on the other side say it does not 
do any good. What harm does it do? If it does no good, it does no harm. 
Let us put our actions where our efforts are. Let us say we are going 
to save Social Security. I urge my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, 
and all of us should call on the President, to support this resolution 
and refrain from spending one dollar of Social Security money.
  This is a noble goal. This is an appropriate line to draw in the 
sand, and it should be drawn here today.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the question was asked by the last 
speaker what harm does this do? Well, this harm that is being done here 
is throwing sand into people's eyes again.
  Now, I know the Republicans are getting to the end of the fiscal 
year. They all know that so they must be getting ready to do something 
real bad because they come dragging this old horse out here again, and 
said we are going to pass a lockbox.
  I do not know if this is the fourth time or the fifth time we have 
seen the lockbox on the floor, but the gentleman from California ought 
to get the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor for being 
picked to drag this mother out here.
  We have already spent all the non-Social Security budget surplus. We 
received a letter from the CBO, appointed by the Republicans so it has 
to be right, there cannot be any question about it, and we received 
estimates that are way understated, again from a letter from the CBO to 
us.
  Now what I watched a couple of weeks ago was something that I have 
not seen since I have been in the State legislature. I thought I was 
back in a State legislative body when I saw people coming out here and 
saying, well, we are going to snatch this money

[[Page 23015]]

from next year and move it over into this money, that is like taking 
one of those lights up there and moving it over there and thinking that 
we have saved the light in this place. Light bulb snatching is going on 
at this point, and that has to be what is happening here because I can 
see these bills just being lined up to run at us for the next 3 days 
and everybody is going to say, but we are protecting Social Security, 
we have this lockbox right here. There is no bottom in that box.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just in response, for the last almost 40 years that the 
other side of the aisle was in control, we never heard one word about 
protecting Social Security during that period of time. Now we are 
talking about it. We are putting it up front.
  A final budget has not been passed, and that is the purpose of why we 
are here this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is lock 
in our intestinal fortitude not to spend the Social Security surplus. 
As Democrats all vote for this resolution, we would hope they also 
would lock in their intestinal fortitude not to spend Social Security 
money.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) had suggested, until 
the Republicans took the majority in 1995, almost every one of those 40 
years that Democrats had control before that time, the Social Security 
surplus was spent on other government programs. That raises a 
tremendous problem of, not only the indebtedness, but the problem of 
interest and the problem of paying it back and ultimately the solvency 
of Social Security.
  Democrats have to stop criticizing Republicans for not spending 
enough money, not spending enough money on water, not spending enough 
money on Medicare, salaries, pork, or other government programs. That 
is what is happening.
  The President has suggested that we spend $120 billion more next 
year. That was in his budget. So somehow we are going to have to have 
the guts, the fortitude to live within our budget without spending the 
Social Security surplus. I would hope both sides would work together to 
do that.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the Republican Majority Leader was campaigning in 
Texas, he declared Social Security, ``a bad retirement program,'', ``a 
rotten trick on the American people'', and said, ``I think we are going 
to have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out.''
  Of course all of us remember Speaker Gingrich's prophetic remarks 
that we should let Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' So it is that, 
every time people that are predisposed against Social Security are 
caught meddling with it, they come up with a gimmick like this 
resolution.
  Now, this year in Congress, the most amazing thing has been that we 
have been in an emergency state all year long. Every time that there 
has been a need to reach into Social Security, an emergency is 
declared. That is what happened in April when the price of getting the 
necessary funding for Kosovo was to attach billions of dollars of 
unrelated projects. That is what happened when the Republicans 
discovered the census that we have taken every 10 years since 1790 and 
declared we needed $4 billion to fund that.
  Now, I understand the Republicans have discovered it gets cold in the 
winter and hot in the summer, so they declared the Fuel Assistance 
Program an emergency. These folks have almost as many emergencies as 
EMS--all of them to reach into Social Security. Of course we would have 
had a true emergency had President Clinton not vetoed their tax bill.
  This designation of an emergency is just a way of grabbing money out 
of Social Security and spending it on unrelated projects.
  So this resolution basically says, by the Republicans, ``help us,'' 
``help us to not steal money from Social Security again.''
  I think it ought to be approved, and I only wish there were a way to 
enforce it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Herger) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, when we get past all of the rhetoric, the 
legislation, and the debate, our job here in Congress is to try to 
secure the future for every American. There are no Americans more 
deserving than our senior citizens who have put into this Social 
Security system all of their lives.
  The reason we have this resolution today and the reason I support it 
is that we are having difficulty in this budget process bringing one 
side of this room to the table to work in good faith to solve our 
budget differences without spending Social Security.
  I rise in strong support of this resolution so that we can all go on 
Record that we are committed not to spend any Social Security surplus, 
and we will work out our budget differences aside from that.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, we are at the 11th hour in the 
appropriations process to get the funding for the United States 
Government in place by the beginning of the next fiscal year. This is 
an hour where the American people have a right to expect straight talk 
and substantive action. Instead, this majority, in a resolution 
introduced at 10:30 this morning, gives them this utter nonsense, 
basically saying we pledge not to do that which we have already done. 
This resolution gives hypocrisy a bad name. It is patently phony.
  The fact of the matter is that actions of this body have already 
spent Social Security trust fund dollars. Let us not try and do some 
kind of bait and switch on the American public. Be square with them.
  We know that, to shore up Social Security for the long haul, it will 
not take paper resolutions that fly in the face of the actions of this 
Congress. It will take bipartisan action working with the President to 
substantively resolve the differences before us and ensure this program 
for the long haul.
  Vote for the resolution, but it is phony.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for 
closing.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up to the gentleman from 
North Dakota who just spoke. This is the type of resolution that gives 
Congress a bad name.
  I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has only the best 
intentions, but the fact is the CBO, our budget office, has already 
said that we have spent the Social Security surplus.
  The problem is, Republican after Republican has come down here and 
said the President does not want to do this, the minority does not want 
to do this. They are in the majority. They control the Committee on 
Appropriations. They control the floor schedule.
  Bring the Labor-HHS bill down to the floor. It is not our fault we 
have not gotten the budget done and the fiscal year is almost over. If 
my colleagues want to pass that bill and show the American people how 
much they want to cut out of education, do it. But they cannot do it.
  Somebody said both sides cannot come to the table. Apparently that is 
all in the Republican Caucus because they cannot bring their own bills 
down here. They cannot keep their own bills within the budget caps set 
in the 1997 budget agreement. So they cannot do it on their side, and 
they blame it on us. They are in control.

[[Page 23016]]

  Perhaps what the American people need to learn about this is it is 
time to get rid of that control and get some people who are going to be 
honest about the process and save Social Security.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is long on principle, a principle that 
most of us agree with. In fact, we initiated it in the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997. We laid out the plan for achieving a situation in 2002 
where we would have a unified budget surplus.
  We are well ahead of the plan we laid out for ourselves. The majority 
of the Social Security payroll taxes this year were, in fact, used to 
pay down Government debt. We are not quite there yet.
  Now we have this resolution on the floor of the House at the 11th 
hour when we are facing a shutdown of the Government unless we pass one 
of these stopgap resolutions called a CR. We are out here spending our 
time on what is an empty gesture because this is long on principle, but 
short on practicality. Because this resolution vows that this House 
will not do what it has already done; and that is pass spending 
legislation that would require the Government to dip into the Social 
Security trust fund, borrow money from the Social Security trust fund 
next year as it has for the last 45 or 50 years.
  If the sponsors of this resolution were in earnest, what they would 
be doing is proposing now an amended budget resolution, a road map to 
get us from where we are with one budget resolution, with one 
appropriation bill passed, 12 still mired in conference or committee, 
and not passed.
  We do not need any more resolutions like this. We need to get down to 
work and pass a budget.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here this morning, and the reason we 
are bringing up this sense of a concurrent resolution to not, for the 
first time, be spending Social Security surplus is because of what we 
have done in the past. We have spent Social Security surpluses in the 
past.
  The fact is we have not voted out a final budget yet. Even the 
resolutions that we have put out that have gone out of here, the 
President has indicated he was going to veto them because we have not 
spent enough in them.
  Just yesterday, the President was out proclaiming that we had $115 
billion surplus. The fact is we do not have $115 billion surplus if we 
figure in the fact that is Social Security. We have to begin somewhere. 
Let us begin today on voting out our budgets that are within the 
spending caps.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about committing this Congress to end 
the raids on Social Security. Four months ago, this House passed a 
Social Security lockbox by an overwhelming 416 to 12 vote. Will it be 
easy for this Congress to not spend Social Security surpluses as 
Washington has done for the past 60 years? No. I have projects in my 
district that I would like to have funded. But, Mr. Speaker, we owe it 
to our constituents and our seniors to stop the raids on Social 
Security.
  Let us set a precedent in fiscal year 2000. Let us lock up the Social 
Security surplus. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this measure.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I think this resolution is 
accurate but misleading.
  The resolution says it's the desire of the House not to rely on funds 
from the Social Security trust fund for extraneous purposes, and to 
continue to retire the publicly held federal debt. I think that's 
accurate, because that is the desire--at least the professed desire--of 
all or nearly all Members. Certainly it expresses my preference.
  However, it is misleading because it suggests that the House can 
escape arithmetic--and we can't. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, some of all of the funds in question will end up being used for 
purposes other than those cited in this resolution.
  That's not all bad, in my opinion. Congress should respond to true 
emergencies, such as those experienced by the victims of hurricanes and 
floods, and to other crisis situations at home and abroad. But we 
should not try to mislead people about what is involved.
  We should be straightforward about our arithmetic, and not resort to 
phony bookkeeping devices such as pretending that the constitutionally 
required census is an unforeseen emergency. We also should be candid 
about the fact that all these estimates of future surpluses or deficits 
depend on assumptions, including assumptions about the realism and 
desirability of the funding levels set in the 1997 budget agreement.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution because I agree that 
bolstering Social Security and reducing the federal debts should be our 
top priorities. But I hope none of the resolution's supporters want to 
mislead people about what actually has been occurring this year in 
terms of the tax bill and the appropriations bills. We need to be 
straight with the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 306.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________