THE SENATE

Senator Spencer Abraham (R-Michigan), a member of the Senate Budget Committee: "We are here now after having, on three occasions, failed to obtain cloture on a Senate bill to try to lock away the Social Security trust fund moneys and prevent them from being spent on other Federal Government expenditures. The Democrats have filibustered the lockbox for 58 days. This is significant, because an additional $304 million of new Social Security surplus funds are added to the trust fund virtually every day. "
........ In my judgment, we should be husbanding these surpluses carefully to provide for future Social Security benefits and to make necessary reforms as easily and seamlessly as possible. But because of this filibuster, $17.6 billion of these future Social Security benefits have been placed at risk of being spent on other non-Social Security programs. This is the equivalent of taking away the annual Social Security benefits for 1.6 million American seniors. Full Text

Senator Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) Senate Budget Committee and the Committee on Finance: "I have believed for a very long time and I have fought repeatedly in the Budget Committee, in the Finance Committee, and on the floor of the Senate to stop the raid on Social Security surpluses. I see our friends on the other side all of a sudden become defenders of Social Security.
........ Some Members have not forgotten. Sometimes our friends on the other side of the aisle think we have amnesia, but we remember the repeated attempts on the other side to amend the Constitution of the United States with a so-called balanced budget amendment that would have looted and raided Social Security to achieve balance. We remember very well.
........ It was done in 1994; it was done in 1995; it was done in 1996; it was done in 1997; and here is the language. This language makes clear that the definition of a balanced budget was all the receipts of the Federal Government and all the expenditures of the Federal Government, including Social Security. Then they were going to call that a balanced budget. That is what they were doing in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997--an absolute raid on the Social Security trust funds and trying to put that in the Constitution of the United States."

Senator Craig Thomas (R-Wyoming) " Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for bringing this subject, his amendment, to the floor. We are talking about lockbox legislation. We are talking about Social Security, which is the bottom line. Lockbox is simply the first step to accomplish that. We have had in our agenda this year: Social Security, tax reform, education, and security for this country. These are the things we have been talking about and will, indeed, continue to talk about.
........ The two Senators from the other side of the aisle have spoken about excuses for not going forward with this bill. I can hardly understand it. They talk about amendments. They have 22 or 25 amendments designed to keep us from voting on the bill. That is why we are not doing amendments. We decided to move forward with something designed to ensure that Social Security surplus funds will be reserved for Social Security alone. There are lots of things involved, of course, in addition to Social Security. That is, if you like smaller government, if you like tax relief, if you would like to limit the amount of spending, then this is the way to do that and hold the spending to those funds that do not come from Social Security. So this helps us retain our commitment to smaller and more efficient government. "

Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-Illinois): A few years back Congress passed laws making it illegal for State and local governments to plunder the pension funds of their employees. But during all this time, where Congress has put these laws on the books and made it illegal in the private sector and at the State and local government level to plunder pension funds, we have gone on and on in Washington taking all the money that goes into the Social Security trust fund, taking every dime of it out, and spending it on some other program.
........ As a result, as I speak now on the Senate floor, there is no money in the Social Security trust fund. All of it has been taken out and spent on other programs. They have put meaningless, nonmarketable, nonnegotiable securities in the Social Security trust fund, securities that have no economic value because they cannot be sold to raise cash.
........ Right now our Government is building up, theoretically, surpluses in the Social Security trust fund, but they are taking all that money out and spending it. So when we actually need it to pay benefits, beginning in the year 2014, there will be no money there. No matter what the balance of those bogus IOUs is in the Social Security trust fund, in the year 2014--whether that balance is $1 trillion or $5 trillion--they are of no assistance in paying benefits to those who depend on Social Security. The country will either have to raise taxes or cut benefits to make up for the shortfall that is anticipated after the year 2014.
........ This legislation is basic, decent common sense. We should not allow Congress to continue frittering away the Social Security trust fund. I urge all my colleagues to support it and end this outrageous practice of plundering the Social Security trust fund, to the detriment of our Nation's seniors and those who will be desiring to live on Social Security benefits in the next century.

Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming): "Mr. President, I rise in support of the lockbox legislation being considered by the Senate. The Senate has tried to bring this important issue to a vote and begin changing the way people think about budget surpluses. Our House colleagues have passed their lockbox legislation and now it is up to the Senate to finish the job.
........ The source of the surplus is a rising inflow of Social Security payroll taxes. Under the current budget rules, this revenue is treated like revenue from any other source--it is put into the general fund and then spent. The lockbox would capture the difference between the inflows to the Social Security trust fund and the payment of benefits to current retirees--reserving it for the Social Security program only.
........ This debate is not only about preserving Social Security, but the entire concept of a balanced budget. In 1997, Congress passed the first balanced budget since 1969. We now have a surplus of $134 billion for fiscal year 1999 and forecasts show a combined surplus totaling $1.8 trillion over the next ten years. That gives Congress the opportunity to work on long term solutions to the fast approaching insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs. There are only 28 years remaining before Social Security is forecast to go broke. Medicare will be bankrupt in less than half that time. We must ensure that we capture as much of the surplus as possible to give Congress the ability to develop a new Social Security program that is actuarially sound for Baby Boomers."

Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida) Committee on Finance: "If I had been allowed, I would have offered an amendment that would use the Social Security surpluses to pay off the debt held by the public. Only this action will truly ensure that the Social Security surplus is used to create a stronger economy. Paying down the debt would lower long term interest rates. Lower interest rates make it less expensive for the American public to borrow money. The low cost of borrowing would encourage the American public to get loans that they could invest in new business ventures and in education. The new economic activity and increased labor productivity derived from these activities will lead to increased economic growth. More economic growth leads to increased FICA tax revenue which gives the Social Security Trust Fund more income and extends solvency. This lockbox proposal that we are considering has numerous other holes. The proposal focuses on securing the bank that will hold the Social Security surplus. However, it does not secure the train that takes the money to the bank. Jesse James, the famous American outlaw, used to rob banks and trains. Like any good outlaw, he would steal money where it was easiest to do so. If the bank was too secure to rob, he would rob the train that brought the money to the bank. Congress' abuses of its emergency spending powers are similar to robbing the train that brings the Social Security surplus to bank. The 1990 budget agreement specifically outlined a binding, multi-year deficit-reduction plan, along with a web of procedural controls to restrain federal spending. That included rules on instances when Congress could escape those spending restraints to pay for emergency needs. Unfortunately, this emergency safety valve is increasingly used to evade fiscal discipline. What Washington believes to be a true `emergency' is decidedly different than what the average person probably thinks. In the waning hours of last fall's budget negotiations, we passed a $532 billion omnibus appropriations bill. Included in that bill was $21.4 billion in so-called `emergency' spending. Without the emergency designation, Congress would have been required to offset each expenditure under the `pay-as-you-go' rule that is critical to maintaining fiscal discipline and balance. Let's consider the numbers. In 1998, the Social Security surplus was $99 billion. $27 billion of that surplus was used to cover a deficit in the Federal operating budget. An additional $3 billion was used to pay for emergency outlays. All of a sudden, the $99 billion Social Security surplus was reduced to $69 billion. In 1999, we are projecting a $127 billion Social Security surplus."

THE PRESIDENT