[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5109-5110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           TRUTH IN BUDGETING

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I remember the day when we had truth in 
budgeting. I will never forget when we promulgated in 1985, almost 15 
years ago, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. At that time, we realized 
that Reaganomics was going up and away with respect to the growth of 
the debt and the accelerated interest costs upon that debt, not just 
necessarily the growth of the economy.
  We got together on a bipartisan basis and, under the auspices of 
truth in budgeting, we came to the floor, and even though we had 
opposition on both sides early on--President Reagan opposed it, 
certainly over here the majority leader, the whip, and the chairman of 
the Budget Committee opposed it--on this side of the aisle, on 14 up-
or-down votes, we got a majority of the Democrats on the basis of truth 
in budgeting.
  Fifteen years later, we have gone to fraud in budgeting. It is all a 
political exercise that will bring us later in the year to what one 
might call a Mexican standoff. Then both sides will probably get 
together, hopefully, and, since the media will be covering them and 
they are moving into an election, do some saving of Social Security or 
at least some paying down of the debt. But I have a bill today, Mr. 
President, that actually requires us to save Social Security.
  Let me mention that, once the government receives the moneys from the 
payroll tax under section 201 of the Social Security Act, it 
immediately buys special securities, 30-year T-bills. With those 30-
year T-bills, of course, Social Security has the bond, or the IOU, the 
Government has the money, and obviously they have been spending that 
money for either increased spending or for tax cuts, but not for any 
paying down of the debt. The debt continues to go up.
  Under section 201 in that particular instance, it is like having two 
credit cards. You have a Visa card and a MasterCard, and you want to 
pay off your MasterCard with your Visa card. So you pay down the public 
debt. Herein, let's say the Visa card is Social Security and the 
MasterCard is the public debt or Wall Street credit card. That is the 
crowd that does not want the sharp elbows of Government coming in and 
crowding out finance, running up interest costs and disturbing 
corporate finance.
  When you take the Social Security credit card to pay down public 
debt, it is simply a transaction of increasing your Social Security 
debt. At the present time, the deficit in Social Security is some $730 
billion in the red.
  Mr. President, we did not intend that in 1983. In 1983, what we did 
was say: We are going to put in an inordinately high payroll tax in 
order to build up a surplus to take care of the baby boomers in the 
next generation.
  That is exactly what we are not doing. We are crowding around on the 
floor saying, ``Beware, beware, beware, the baby boomers, baby 
boomers.'' It is not the baby boomers, it is the adults on the floor of 
the Senate looting the fund if we keep the money in, as was intended in 
section 201 of the Social Security Act.
  As Mr. Greenspan said, take Social Security outside the unified 
budget, do not have any unified budget and growth deficit, just have 
the national debt and the national deficit, one accounting, not two 
sets of books. That is what we called for. We wrote it into law under 
President Bush in November 1990. It is constantly disobeyed and is 
being disobeyed with the two budget proposals of the President and the 
Republicans now.
  President Clinton's budget came to us. And I call it a fraud because 
everyone else has called it a fraud. What it did was say we are going 
to hedge a way against this so-called tax cut move on the Republican 
side politically, so we are going to save Social Security, we are going 
to take care of Medicare, and pay down the debt. They mean public debt. 
They know they can easily do that with the Social Security money.

[[Page 5110]]

  Incidentally, we had a motion on President Clinton's budget in the 
Budget Committee, so I speak advisedly. The record will show it did not 
get a single vote, Democratic or Republican, for that President's 
budget.
  Along comes the Republican budget, and you can see exactly what is 
going on. They are meeting with the candidate for President, Mr. 
Kasich, who knows better. He is the one, incidentally--I do not know if 
he is running as a Democrat or a Republican--he said if the 1993 tax 
increase and spending cut and paring down the size of Government, 
corporate downsizing, Government downsizing some 300,000--he said if 
this thing works, ``I will change parties.'' I have not seen the 
distinguished Congressman recently, but I am waiting to, because I am 
going to ask him how he is running, as a Republican or Democrat. He 
promised to change parties and become a Democrat if it worked. It is 
working.
  The Republican budget comes in now and they say, ``We have to do 
better. We have the House and Senate. We want to take over the White 
House, so we want to give them a tax cut.''
  How do they do it? With a fraudulent budget. They go up and above, 
and my distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee on the Senate 
side, the Senator from New Mexico, knows better. I have worked with 
him. We are the two original members since 1974 of the budget process 
and the Budget Committee.
  He comes in and he adds on almost $800 billion to the debt. In 
addition to adding to the debt, he comes around and says now, ``We are 
going to direct in reconciliation that the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, the Finance Committee itself, come out with a tax cut.'' 
This is an absolute adulteration and fraud of the budget process. We 
intended--and it is right in the reconciliation provisions--that if you 
get to the end of the road--and you are always slightly over--you can 
increase some revenues here, there, or yonder, or you can cut some 
spending here, there, or yonder. You reconcile spending and revenue so 
you do what you say and say what you do to balance items in the budget.
  Instead, now the Republicans are going to use reconciliation to cut 
the revenues. Here we are spending $100 billion more this fiscal year 
1999 than we are taking in. Under current policy, it would be $90 
billion more, but you can see already with this particular monkey shine 
in the face of reality, there is no chance of a tax cut and having a 
real budget. We have already come in with caps.
  Last year we exceeded the caps by $12 billion. We exceed the caps $21 
billion this year. Then we come and pass an $18 billion increase for 
military pay. That is $50 billion we ought to be looking for in either 
increased revenues or spending cuts. Rather, the wonderful Budget 
Committee, on a partisan basis--the Republican budget is a fraud--comes 
forward and says, Here it is--and we are amending the reconciliation in 
this particular process--and sends it to the floor directing the 
Finance Committee--and the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
incidentally, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, said: If we do 
not have a tax cut, it would be highway robbery. We've got money 
sloshing around up here.
  Unfortunately, they also repeal the pay-go rule. This means they will 
not need an off-set to pay for their tax cut. When we debate the budget 
this week, the Republicans are going to ram it through the Senate--10 
hours, 10 hours, and 10 hours. They can get it through in three days 
and back up all the roll calls. And they already have it greased on the 
Republican side to send it through. Instead of a Budget Committee 
exercising its responsibility to promote fiscal responsibility, this 
budget here is a fraud and promotes irresponsibility.
  To those who say, Mr. President, what are you going to do if you pass 
the Hollings bill that sets aside the money in Social Security? It does 
not just sit there; it earns the highest amount allowed by law, just as 
it did for 33 years--from 1935 until 1968. The Social Security trust 
fund was sound. That is a requirement for all corporate endeavors, in 
that we make it a felony if you try to pay down the company debt with 
the pension fund.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer, he heard me speak of Denny 
McLain the other afternoon. So I keep harping on it. Here we say in 
corporate America, if you engage in that kind of nefarious activity, it 
is a felony, and off you go to jail. But here you get the ``Good 
Government Award.'' It is totally fraudulent what is going on. Neither 
side is giving. Both sides are out of reality and they are going 
merrily down the road as they are with the census, with no 
reconciliation. But be that as it may, there isn't any question that we 
can pay down the debt under current policy if we just stay the course.
  That was my motion in the Budget Committee. You say, ``All that big 
talk, Hollings. What then would you do?'' Look at the particular budget 
we have. Look at the economy we have. If you were the mayor of a city, 
if you were the Governor of a State, you would immediately say, ``Well, 
let's stay the course. We don't want to let go of the firemen or the 
policemen. We don't want to start any new endeavors right now. Let's 
keep this economy growing.''
  All we have to do, as Mr. Greenspan finally testified, is do nothing, 
just hold the line, generally speaking, taking this year's budget for 
next year. By 2006, by that time, above Social Security surpluses, we 
would have regular surpluses, true surpluses. And that money could be 
used to pay down the debt.
  I am not for the gamesmanship about public debt and the interest 
costs going down. That is a story out of the whole cloth. That is not 
going to happen. Right now, we owe $730 billion to Social Security. By 
the year 2013, we will owe Social Security $3 trillion--$3 trillion.
  We are supposed to have, under the Greenspan Commission report and 
law as it now stands, $3 trillion in the bank. I know my distinguished 
friend from North Dakota is waiting to come here, but I want to make 
sure we understand the fiscal cancer this country has.
  When Lyndon Johnson last balanced the budget, we only had to pay $16 
billion in interest costs on the national debt--today, we pay $357 
billion each year--almost $1 billion each day. And the interest costs 
go up, just like the price of energy and gas is going up now, as 
indicated in the morning paper. If those little interest costs go up, 
it will be over a billion dollars a day.
  With the money we would save in interest costs on the national debt, 
I could give my Republican friends an $80 billion tax cut. I could give 
my Democratic friends $80 billion in increased spending. I could give 
Social Security $80 billion. I could give paying down the debt $80 
billion. That is only $320 billion. We are going to spend that each 
year--next year and more. This country has fiscal cancer. That is the 
state of the Union. And in the best of times that we are all enjoying 
now, if we cannot get some kind of discipline in reality out of the 
process here in the Congress, I do not know how we are ever going to 
save it.
  I thank the distinguished Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________