[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            ENTITLEMENT DAY

                                 ______


                            HON. BILL ORTON

                                of utah

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 30, 1994

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a concurrent 
resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that we should take 
action to reign in entitlement growth and to ensure that the burden of 
such spending does not fall disproportionately on future generations. 
This resolution is being offered as the base text for consideration of 
entitlement day, scheduled for House consideration next week.
  Entitlement day is another in a series of promises fulfilled by House 
leadership pursuant to my A to Z agreement with Majority Leader 
Gephardt announced in June. I believe it has become very clear that 
this agreement has achieved far more than A to Z could ever have hoped 
to achieve, with respect to legislative actions to reduce the deficit.
  As a result of open rules on appropriations bills this summer, the 
House had the opportunity to vote on 74 amendments to cut spending, 
many of which passed. The House has brought to the floor and passed 
four major budget process reforms, including line-item rescission 
authority, reform of emergency spending, reform of baseline budgeting, 
and entitlement controls.
  As significant as these actions were, we still face the greatest 
challenge of all--dealing with the tremendous growth of entitlement 
spending. Proof of the enormity of this challenge can be found 
everywhere. In July, I joined a number of members in offering an 
amendment to provide for a reasonable growth ceiling for entitlements. 
It allowed for increases in inflation, plus population, plus an 
additional 1 percent growth over a 3-year period. This amendment lost 
by a substantial margin.
  Over the last several months, the bipartisan Commission on 
Entitlement and Tax Reform has held hearings and issued preliminary 
findings on the growth of entitlements. This process has been 
tremendously contentious. Finding a consensus on actions needed to 
control entitlement spending will not be an easy task for the 
commission.
  Entitlement day is a further effort to continue this critical public 
dialog. The base text of the resolution I am introducing today contains 
the following language: ``Resolved, That it is the sense of the 
Congress that current trends in entitlement spending are not 
sustainable and Congress must act to resolve the long term imbalance of 
the entitlement promises and available funds to ensure that today's 
debt does not fall unfairly on America's children.''
  I hope that the debate over this resolution will address the need of 
Congress to actively confront the tremendous growth of entitlement 
spending, the effect it has on our budget deficit, and the deleterious 
effect this continued growth has on future generations. In the short 
run, continued deficits caused by exploding entitlement costs raises 
interest rates, crowds out private borrowing, and becomes a drag on the 
economy. In the long run, unchecked by action now, entitlement spending 
will overwhelm our budget, causing either severe cutbacks in important 
Federal programs or massive tax increases.

  I believe and hope that we can reach consensus on this resolution. 
However, the next question is how to address this problem. Debate this 
Congress over health care reform gives little comfort that health care 
reform will be the answer. This year's debate has generally 
demonstrated that even if we can enact health care reform, we will 
probably be lucky to even keep it revenue neutral.
  For this reason, when I pushed for entitlement day, I asked for 
public debate on the three entitlement reform measures which would 
generate the greatest savings, according to CBO's recent publication 
``Spending and Revenue Options.'' These are means testing, raising the 
retirement age, and limitations on COLA's. I recognize that these are 
controversial, that they affect popular programs. But, as virtually 
every budget expert acknowledges, we have no chance of significantly 
reducing entitlement spending without making tough choices, without 
dealing with popular programs.
  Therefore, my understanding is that at least three amendments will be 
offered to the base text of my resolution. The first, dealing with 
means testing, states: ``that it is the sense of the Congress that 
payments through Federal Government entitlement programs, except for 
benefits from programs into which an individual contribution has been 
made by the recipient, should be means tested so that benefits would be 
reduced or eliminated dependent upon the income of the recipient.''
  Quite simply, this resolution raises the policy question of whether 
currently non-means tested Federal entitlements should be means-
tested--that is, be reduced for individuals with higher levels of 
income. It excludes from means-testing consideration ``benefits from 
programs into which an individual contribution has been made by the 
recipient''--that is, Social Security and Civil Service Retirement 
benefits. A vote in favor of this resolution affirms the principle that 
we should means-test the remaining non-means-tested programs, at some 
income level. A vote against this resolution means that no matter how 
high one's income is, that individual should be entitled to unlimited 
Federal entitlement benefits.
  The second amendment is a resolution dealing with the qualification 
age for entitlement benefits. It states: ``that it is the sense of 
Congress that the age of qualification for age-dependent Federal 
benefits should be increased.'' This resolution would apply to all age-
dependent retirement benefits, including potentially Civil Service 
Retirement benefits, Social Security, and Medicare. A vote for this 
resolution is a vote that Congress should consider an increase in the 
age of qualification of one or all of these programs. In all 
likelihood, any such changes would be phased in over an appropriate 
period of time, so that those who are approaching this age in the next 
few years would not be unnecessarily affected. A vote against this 
resolution is a vote that we should not even consider changing the age 
qualification for these programs, even into the next century.
  The third amendment is a resolution dealing with automatic cost-of-
living increases, or COLA's. The resolution states: ``that it is the 
sense of the Congress that payments of annual cost-of-living 
adjustments [COLA's] should be reduced or deferred, except for 
beneficiaries with annual income below 200 percent of the poverty 
level.'' A vote for this resolution is a vote to revise the formula for 
determining COLA's or to limit automatic COLA's in some fashion, except 
for those individuals falling below 200 percent of the poverty level. A 
vote against this resolution is a vote not to consider this source of 
automatic entitlement growth as a possible area of deficit reduction.
  I recognize that these are tough, emotional issues. However, I 
believe it is imperative that we debate them. The simple truth is that 
we cannot realistically balance the budget--or even keep it from 
growing dramatically in the next few years--without making tough 
decisions on these issues. The American public deserves no less than a 
thorough public debate.

                          ____________________