To amend chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce the debt held by the public in fiscal year 2000 by up to the amount of surplus in the Social Security trust funds, and for other purposes.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 28, 1999
Amends Federal law to require the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce the face amount of publicly-held obligations issued under public debt provisions and of those whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the U.S. Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary) by an amount not to exceed the amount of the social security trust funds surplus in the preceding fiscal year. Defines a "publicly-held obligation" as one subject to the public debt limit, except any obligation issued directly to certain Federal trust funds or Government accounts.Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm- Rudman-Hollings Act) to require, in any fiscal year when such obligations are reduced by an amount less than the amount of such surplus, the shortfall to be included in the calculation of the sequestration required to offset the deficit increase.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.3175 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.3175 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.3175 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.3175 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.