PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Rereferred to the House Committee on the Budget.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 19, 1999
Social Security Surplus Protection Act of 1999 - Amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to require, after any sequestration of budget-year budgetary resources under discretionary spending limit or pay-as-you-go enforcement provisions, a sequestration equivalent to the estimated net surplus in the social security trust funds (Federal Old-Age and Survivors and Disability Insurance Trust Funds) for the budget year as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury in order to reduce the public debt. Includes information on sequestration to reduce the public debt in reports issued by the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office. Applies this Act's amendments, beginning in FY 1999, and ceases its effectiveness after the earlier of: (1) the first fiscal year during which there is no public debt; or (2) the fiscal year during which there is enacted legislation which is determined, under Government budgeting and scoring principles, to keep social security solvent.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Nick [R-MI-7] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Rereferred to the House Committee on the Budget.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H11710-11714)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1027)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security.
Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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
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
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.
Analyze H.R.420 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.
Examine H.R.420 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.
Examine H.R.420 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.
Examine H.R.420 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.