[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13009-13010]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      THE SOCIAL SECURITY LOCKBOX

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, finally I want to comment on the vote we 
just had on the lockbox. I have to say I am puzzled and disappointed at 
the unanimous opposition by Senate Democrats to a proposal that passed 
with 416 votes in the House. Obviously, almost every House Democrat--
all but 12--voted in favor of this measure, a measure which obviously 
has broad bipartisan support and, as many have stated in the House and 
the Senate, one that is a first step toward dealing with the long-term 
problems of Social Security.
  The first step is very simple. We have a surplus. Do not spend it on 
things other than Social Security; save it for Social Security. We are 
eventually going to have to do Social Security reform. We are going to 
have to strengthen it and save it for future generations. It runs out 
of money in the next 15 years, so we are going to have to do something. 
We have surpluses building up which are now just being borrowed by the 
Government and spent on other things. We have had that happen for the 
past 20 years.
  We are now in a unique position. We are close to an on-budget 
surplus. We are not quite there, but we are very close to an on-budget 
surplus, non-Social Security surplus. So we have the Social Security 
money which will go to save Social Security by reducing the Federal 
debt unless we spend it. In a sense, all this lockbox does is say: 
Don't spend the money. Don't come up with new ideas and new ways to 
spend Social Security.
  We are not asking anybody to cut anything. That is one of the most 
remarkable things about it. We are not asking the other side to cut 
money to make sure the money is there for Social Security. All we are 
saying is don't spend more. That is why it received bipartisan support 
in the House.
  We hear so much talk on both sides of the aisle about how we have to 
save Social Security first, how Social Security is the highest 
priority, how we have to make sure money is there for future 
generations. In fact, in the budget vote just a couple of months ago, 
we had a 100-to-nothing or 99-to-nothing vote that we need to save 
Social Security; we are not going to spend that money in the trust 
fund. That was just a sense of the Senate. In other words, the first 
had no binding effect in law.
  Now the mechanism comes along that says if we are going to pass a 
bill that is going to spend Social Security surpluses, we have to have 
a separate vote where we have to stand up before the clerk and say: 
Yes, I will spend the Social Security surplus on this.
  There is no such vote that has to be cast right now. This will set up 
a point of order where every Member of the Senate has to say to the 
people back home: I want to spend Social Security money on this, 
because I think it is more important than Social Security. That is all 
this point of order does.
  There are points of order out there on spending, but there is nothing 
clear. There are points of order whereby you can challenge something if 
it breaks the budget point of order or this and that, and people run 
out and say it is really not Social Security. You can dance around it. 
You can spin it back home. There are lots of folks very good at 
spinning. The wonderful thing about this provision is you cannot spin 
it. It is what it is. It is a vote that says we will spend the Social 
Security surplus on this. That will have, I believe, the greatest 
impact--in this body and the other body, and in particular the other 
end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the President--on controlling our 
willingness to raid the Social Security trust fund for the demands of 
spending today. Or, for that matter, the demands of tax cuts today. I 
want to add, it is not just a governor on those, principally on the 
other side, who want to spend more. It is also a governor on those on 
this side who want to cut more taxes.
  As I said before, there is no tax cut I will not vote for, just 
about. But I am not going to do it out of the Social Security surplus. 
We will do it out of the general fund where the taxes are paid in. If 
people are paying in too much in the general fund, give them a tax cut, 
if we can. I will vote for it. If we can cut spending in the general 
fund to pay for a tax cut, I will vote for it. But I will not fund a 
tax cut out of Social Security funds, and that is what this says.
  While on the first vote on cloture many Democrats will vote no as a 
matter of principle, I am hopeful they will understand this is a bill 
that has consensus, that can be signed, that can put real restraints on 
our ability and the President's ability to spend the Social Security 
surplus and, hopefully, we will reach a point where we can have 
bipartisan consensus on this, because Social Security is simply too 
important to continue to play political games.
  I think what we have seen here is all the rhetoric says: Yes, we 
agree; yes, we agree. But when it comes down to casting the vote, what 
we have is this spurious argument, ``You are not letting us amend it,'' 
which I find is quite remarkable because, if you look at the 
amendments, they have virtually nothing to do with Social Security.
  In fact, I have not seen all the amendments, but those I have been 
made aware of have absolutely nothing to do with Social Security. They 
all have to do with what we do with the general fund surplus, and that 
is the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus.
  We have on a bill, which is focused on Social Security, on how we 
save Social Security, an attempt to bring in a whole lot of other 
issues to clog up this issue, to bog it down, and, in my mind, to try 
to destroy any chance of this ever becoming law.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania as I was coming through the Chamber. I want to propound a 
question.
  I do not think there is much disagreement in this Chamber as to 
whether anybody ought to put their mitts on the Social Security funds. 
Those are dedicated taxes that go into a trust fund and should only be 
used for Social Security. I must say, several years ago, we had an 
incredible debate in this Chamber on amending the Constitution. It was 
the case that those who wanted to amend the Constitution to require a 
balanced budget were saying, put in the Constitution a provision that 
puts the Social Security funds, along with all other operating revenues 
of the Federal Government, into the same pot. Many of us were very 
upset about that and stood on the floor day after day saying that was 
the wrong thing to do; you ought not put them in the same pot.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will respond to that. It is a far different thing to 
put a Government program--and I do not know of any Government program 
that exists, with maybe the exception of defense, but defense has 
changed over time--in the Constitution of the United States and say we 
are going to set up this Federal program that must be, in a sense, left 
alone when future Congresses, as I certainly hope will occur, will be 
making adjustments to that program.
  In fact, 200 years from now, who knows what this country is going to 
look like. It may, in fact, want to do something completely different 
than what we have in mind today. I think that was the concern of a lot 
of us. If we were going to start enshrining Government programs in the 
Constitution, that is a fairly dangerous precedent, and I think a lot 
of us had real concerns about that.

[[Page 13010]]

  At the same time, there was broad sympathy that we do need during 
this time of surplus, because it is not going to be forever that the 
Social Security surpluses will be there, as the Senator knows because, 
again, things change--for this time period, we can lock this away and 
do it by legislation, in this case a point of order.
  As the Senator knows, 15 years from now, that provision in the 
Constitution would work almost in some respects against Social Security 
because they would be running a deficit. As the economics of Social 
Security change, enshrining that in the Constitution I do not think is 
in the best interest of Social Security. Here we can react to what is a 
surplus situation and make sure that it is protected from raids.
  What will happen in the future is that it will be a deficit 
situation, and there may be a different dynamic that goes on with 
respect to that, which I do not think the Constitution would provide 
for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader's time has expired.

                          ____________________