Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 130 (Friday, September 25, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 130 (Friday, September 25, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H8732-H8756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 552, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4578) to amend the Social Security Act to establish the
Protect Social Security Account into which the Secretary of the
Treasury shall deposit budget surpluses until a reform measure is
enacted to ensure the long-term solvency of the OASDI trust funds, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Pursuant to House Resolution
552, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 4578 is as follows:

H.R. 4578

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RESERVE ACCOUNT.

Section 201 of the Social Security Act is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(n)(1) There is established within the Treasury a special
reserve account to be known as the `Protect Social Security
Account' (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the
`account'). The account shall be used to save budget
surpluses until a reform measure is enacted to ensure the
long-term solvency of the OASDI trust funds.
``(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay into the
account annually during the fiscal-year period beginning on
October 1, 1997, and ending on September 30, 2008, amounts
totalling, in the aggregate, 90 percent of the projected
surplus (if any) in the total budget of the United States
Government for that fiscal-year period.
``(3) Within 10 days after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
shall project the budget surplus (if any) for the total
budget of the United States Government for the fiscal-year
period beginning on October 1, 1997, and ending on September
30, 2008.
``(4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the funds
held in the account pending enactment of the reform measure
referred to in paragraph (1). The purposes for which
obligations of the United States may be issued under chapter
31 of title 31, United States Code, are hereby extended to
authorize, in the manner provided in subsection (d), the
issuance at par of public-debt obligations for purchase for
the account. The interest on, and the proceeds from
redemption of, any obligations held in the account shall be
credited to and form a part of the account.
``(5) As used in this subsection, the term `total budget of
the United States Government' means all spending and receipt
accounts of the United States Government that are designated
as on-budget or off-budget accounts.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to fiscal years
beginning on or after October 1, 1997.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is
adopted.
The text of H.R. 4578, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 552,
is as follows:

H.R. 4578

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL RESERVE ACCOUNT.

[[Page H8733]]

``(4) The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest the funds
held in the account pending enactment of the reform measure
referred to in paragraph (1). The purposes for which
obligations of the United States may be issued under chapter
31 of title 31, United States Code, are hereby extended to
authorize, in the manner provided in subsection (d), the
issuance at par of public-debt obligations for purchase for
the account. The interest on, and the proceeds from
redemption of, any obligations held in the account shall be
credited to and form a part of the account.
``(5) As used in this subsection, the term `total budget of
the United States Government' means all spending and receipt
accounts of the United States Government that are designated
as on-budget or off-budget accounts.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to fiscal
years beginning on or after October 1, 1997.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After one hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in the Congressional Record numbered 1, which shall be considered read
and debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).

General Leave

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 4578.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we consider a plan to set aside 90 percent of the
surplus until we can save Social Security and use the remaining 10
percent to cut taxes now.
The plan we vote on establishes a special reserve account within the
Treasury called the Protect Social Security Account. This account will
save budget surpluses until a reform measure can be considered to
ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security.
Ninety percent set aside, Mr. Speaker. Ninety percent of the surplus.
The American people expect us to save Social Security, and they need
tax relief. This plan gets the job done on both accounts.
We are committed to saving Social Security. We are also committed to
letting people keep a part of the taxes that they have generated for
this government by their work.
But, Mr. Speaker, I hear there is opposition to this plan from my
friends on the other side of the aisle. Why would anyone oppose setting
aside 90 percent of the surplus until Social Security can be saved? It
is because they do not want to save the surplus. They want to spend the
surplus. The Democrats do not want to use the surplus for Social
Security. They want to use it to increase spending, expand the size of
government, and grow bureaucracy. Under the Democrats' proposal, the
very people who need help will be hurt. The Democrats are proposing to
punish husbands and wives, farmers and ranchers, senior citizens and
small businesses by denying them tax relief now. Why? So they can spend
the taxpayers' money.
Earlier this year, President Clinton spent $2.9 billion of the
surplus to help the people of Bosnia. Already this fall he is proposing
to spend another $13 billion of the surplus on more government. Not to
pay for it, not to offset it, but to simply increase government
spending. When will this end? If we do not return a portion of the
surplus to the people whose income taxes created this surplus, the
politicians will spend it. They always have, and they always will. Make
no mistake about it, we have a surplus only because of the increase in
income taxes, not payroll taxes. We have a surplus instead of a deficit
only because of the increase in income taxes, not an increase in
payroll taxes.
Mr. Speaker, the best way to stop the politicians from spending the
taxpayers' money is to take it away from them before they can waste it.
We now have a chance to set aside enough money to save Social Security
and to cut taxes. They are both important goals. They are both within
our reach.
Now is not the time for anyone to say ``no'' to families who pay
marriage penalties, farmers and ranchers who are suffering, and small
business owners who create jobs. Now is not the time to say ``no'' to
senior citizens whose Social Security checks are reduced because of an
unfair earnings limit when they decide voluntarily they want to
continue to work.

{time} 1115

Now is the time to say yes to saving Social Security and cutting
taxes, and our 90-10 plan does both. We can save Social Security and
cut taxes. The job begins today with this vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong, but I thought I heard some
sense of partisanship in the gentleman from Texas' presentation on this
bill, and I am going to try to restrain myself and try to remind my
Republican friends that things that they are talking about today are
Democratic concepts. These are concepts that we Democrats have and
continue to support. The only difference that separates us today is
that we believe that until we have the fiscal discipline to abide by
our budget rules that we should have the money to pay for these tax
cuts before we cut the taxes.
Now I had thought, and probably my colleagues have had a caucus and
changed their mind, but the last I heard from my Republican leadership
friends was that they were running around the country pulling up the
Tax Code by the core. They were pulling it up by the roots. They were
saying that the system was too complicated. And they had the majority,
and they had the opportunity to fix it, and they came back with a $300
billion bill, which we supported, that was far more complicated than
any code the Democrats left them.
So let us forget all this talk about flat tax, consumer tax and
retail tax. They should say that they would like to be realistic and
deal with taxes that most of the people want. But they also have to let
the senior citizens know that they have decided that the moneys that
Americans have paid to make Social Security solvent, that they are only
entitled to 90 percent of it because they have decided to take 10
percent of the money that provides the surplus that was basically there
for survivors and widows and disabilities and Social Security to give a
pre-election tax cut.
Now some people talk about Democrats and the leader of the free
world, President Clinton, going into the surplus for emergencies. So
what would they have it? That the farmers not get any assistance? Shall
we tell our citizens in Puerto Rico that we are not going to help them?
Are we going to say to our military, our boys and our girls in the
military that are in Bosnia, that they are not going to be helped
because we do not touch the surplus?
We are talking about a one-shot emergency as opposed to a permanent
tax cut, as long as they are in the majority that is. And so let us
wait and do what the President has asked and that is to say we support
tax cuts, Republicans support the suggestions that the Democrats have.
The only difference between the two is we say save Social Security
first.
Now what is so remarkable about us coming back and in a bipartisan
way going to the Social Security Trust Fund and making certain that
actuarially it is going to be solvent, and then under the democratic
rule it triggers, without us going into conference and without us going
into debate, it triggers off the tax cuts, but what it does not do is
violate the rules of fiscal responsibility.
So I do not know when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) talks
about do not let the politicians touch it. My God, the politicians have
to be those who have the majority. They are the ones that have their
fingers in the cookie jar that the taxpayers put in the cookies for the
Social Security Trust Fund.
So I do not know how many votes they have. I do not even understand
the politics of their tax bill. All I know is this: that politically I
do not see why their leadership would have them to vote for a bill that
raids the Social Security system, that the Senate may

[[Page H8734]]

not even take up, that the President is going to veto and that they
know in the bottom of their hearts they do not have the votes to
override the veto. So if they want to go back home and be counted among
those who cared more about a political advantage in November than
preserving the funds for our seniors, they can do it, but it almost
frightens me that we are about to lose the rule, because I truly
believe, if we are going to show the difference between us and them,
this is going to be the issue.
So I do not know how many votes they have for fast track, I do not
know how many votes that they are going to have for Social Security,
but I do believe that if we are going to save Social Security, do not
put it in an accounting system and say we are not going to touch it,
that we really take it out of the system, off budget, put it in the
Federal Reserve, and then we would know not 90 percent but a hundred
percent of the taxes are going to be used for what the taxpayers think
it should be used for.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social
Security, who is a sponsor of the base bill on which we are voting
today. It is interesting to also note that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) is a cosponsor of that bill.
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, just to respond in a small way to the
gentleman from New York, the gentleman from New York voted just last
week on the floor of the House of Representatives to spend part of the
surplus on agricultural disaster relief. If it is okay for him to spend
part of the surplus, why is he proposing to punish farmers and ranchers
and others by denying them relief now?
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have devoted myself to protecting
and preserving Social Security. The Committee on Ways and Means'
Subcommittee on the Social Security, which I chair, has conducted a
series of hearings, 11 to be exact, on the future of Social Security
for this generation and the next. Our subcommittee has worked to fully
explore every option for Social Security reform. The information
obtained through these hearings will be invaluable to the Congress as
they proceed to save Social Security. And we will save Social Security
just like we balanced the budget, reformed welfare, saved Medicare and
cut taxes.
The President has also worked to advance the Social Security debate,
vowing in his State of the Union address to reserve every penny, then
$680 billion of future budget surpluses, until Social Security has been
strengthened. Unfortunately, however, somewhere between his State of
the Union and the drafting of the President's budget proposal this
commitment to Social Security got lost in the shuffle. The President's
budget did nothing to redirect budget surpluses to Social Security,
included no new trust fund investment strategies, no changes in Social
Security taxes or spending. It proposed nothing new.
That is why in March of this year I introduced legislation to create
a new Treasury account, the Protect Social Security Account, into which
each year's budget surplus would be deposited. My bill, as introduced,
walled off 100 percent of all budget surpluses so that they could not
be frittered away on new spending programs. Due to lower inflation,
increased corporate taxes and increased income tax revenue from hard-
working Americans, the projected surplus we reached is $1.6 trillion.
That is an additional 1 trillion since the President's State of the
Union.
So I say we can do more. We can save Social Security, and we can cut
taxes for those Americans who need it most: married couples, farmers,
small businesses and senior citizens. Today, using language virtually
identical to my original bill, we will pass legislation to wall off 90
percent of the budget surplus until a solution for Social Security is
found.

While less sounds like less, in this case less is more. Ninety
percent of the surplus today is just about 1.4 trillion, nearly double
the amount that would have been saved at the time of my original bill.
Certainly Social Security has no guarantee of any kind right now, no
guarantee of any kind that it will get any of the surplus without some
kind of protection like that provided in this bill. The President and
Congress will spend the surplus on anything they want.
Even the President has already proposed 31 billion in new government
spending funded from the very budget surplus he promised to reserve.
Americans deserve better than more broken promises. This bill, by
including my wall-off provisions, will guarantee in law that 90 percent
of the surplus will be held aside to strengthen and protect Social
Security. It will guarantee that we have the funds needed to implement
Social Security reform when Congress takes action on it. That is 1.4
trillion for Social Security.
The Federal Government has never done anything like this. I wanted a
hundred percent, but 90 in hand and guaranteed in law is better than a
whole roomful of wishes that it was 100 percent. This bill locks in
that protection in law.
My primary goal in this bill and since I came to Congress is to
protect and preserve Social Security. The bill with the wall-off
provisions will do more to protect and strengthen Social Security than
anything Congress has considered in the 12 years that I have been here.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure everybody to vote in a positive manner
on this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our Democratic Whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel)
for yielding this time to me.
For years the Republicans talked about fiscal responsibility. So what
is happening now? They are rushing to spend a surplus that does not
exist. This bill is nothing but camouflage to cover that up. It is just
an accounting trick to permit siphoning off funds from Social Security
Trust Fund.
Let us remember something here. Social Security is the foundation of
America's retirement system. It has worked well for more than half a
century, and we have to strengthen it for future generations.
Even as we speak today, 44 million Americans are receiving Social
Security benefits, our fathers, our mothers, grandparents, our friends,
our neighbors. Protecting these benefits for today's seniors and
protecting them for baby boomers and future generations beyond that is
our responsibility.
Of course everybody likes tax cuts. We favor tax cuts. We supported
tax cuts just a year ago, and they became law. But Americans have been
very clear with the Congress about their priorities. They want us to
save Social Security first.

{time} 1130

We cannot give a surplus that does not exist. Americans believe that
people who have worked hard all of their lives have a right to a secure
retirement. They expect us to guarantee that right. This is why we need
to address the long-term challenges of Social Security. If we fail to
come up with a long-term plan, if we squander today's Social Security
revenue on a short-term election year giveaway, then the retirement for
millions of Americans will be put in danger.
Now, the Republicans say they only want to divert just 10 percent of
the revenue from Social Security. Well, that is like rowing into the
middle of a lake and then announcing you only want to drill one hole in
the bottom of the boat; just one hole.
This bill is a prelude to a raid on the Social Security trust fund,
and that raid will probably happen tomorrow when we meet here to pass
the raid itself, the robbery, the stealing of the fund.
Perhaps my friends on this side of the aisle think that while the
country is distracted they can pick its pocket and dip into our
retirement funds. Well, I have news for you: The country understands
what is happening here. They know it is not right and not fiscally
responsible, and you are not going to get away with it.
To my senior friends in Florida, and we have many Michiganders who
have

[[Page H8735]]

gone down to Florida and live, let me say, you are going to about to
get hit by Georges, the hurricane, that is going to deliver that left
hook to you. But tomorrow the Republicans are going to give you the
uppercut, the knockout punch.
Vote no on this camouflage.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), a respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by respectfully
pointing out that the gentleman from Michigan voted just last week on
the floor of the House to spend part of that surplus on agricultural
disaster relief. If it is okay to spend part of the surplus, why is the
gentleman proposing to punish farmers and ranchers by denying them tax
relief now?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Republican plan to
save Social Security and reduce our Nation's record high tax burden. We
are also dedicated to fulfilling our commitment to our Nation's seniors
as our plan sets aside the vast majority, some 90 percent of our entire
expected surplus until we agree on a plan to save Social Security.
At the same time, we believe it is entirely appropriate to return at
least a small portion, some 10 percent of this projected surplus, to
those who created it in the first place, hard-working American
taxpayers.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, taxes are now higher
than they have been at any other time in America's peacetime history.
So to my friends on the other side of the aisle who say we should not
use even one penny of our Nation's surplus to provide middle class tax
relief, I say, yes, we do have crucially important task ahead of us in
saving Social Security, and our plan sets aside $1.4 trillion to do
precisely that. But, at the same time, we should, at least at this
time, not pass up this opportunity to provide 48 million married
taxpayers relief from the marriage penalty. After all, when a couple
stands at the alter and says ``I do,'' they are not agreeing to higher
taxes. And why should we deny Americans new incentives to save? Why
should we deny farmers and ranchers relief from the death tax? Why
should we deny the self-employed the opportunity to fully deduct the
cost of their health insurance? And why should we deny seniors a chance
to earn a little more outside income without facing the loss of their
Social Security benefits?
Today we have the opportunity to do all of this, while at the same
time setting aside 90 percent of our surplus to save Social Security. I
would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, do not
turn your back on husbands and wives; do not turn your backs on farmers
and ranchers; and do not turn your backs on seniors and small
businesses in your districts. Support the Republican plan to reduce
America's record high tax burden and, at the same time, save Social
Security.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) that I am one of the friends on
this side of the aisle, and we support those tax cuts. We just think we
ought to save the Social Security system first.
In terms of the emergency spending for the poor farmers that were hit
by an act of God with floods and droughts, we thought at one time that
America wanted to help them. We think that is different than a pre-
election tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and my
colleague from New York for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, this debate reminds me of an old gospel song, ``Ninety-
nine and a Half Won't Do.'' The song tells us that when you believe in
a cause, when you truly believe, you have to give 100 percent; ninety-
nine and a half won't do.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Social Security, when it comes to our
workers and the elderly, ninety-nine and a half won't do. And if
ninety-nine and a half won't do, then 90 percent just won't do.
My Republican colleagues want a tax cut, but they do not want to pay
for it. So what do they do? They raid the Social Security trust fund;
they steal from our workers and our seniors. They take 10 percent, and
then they brag this they let the elderly keep 90 percent of their own
money. They brag that they left 90 percent of the money in the Social
Security trust fund.
Mr. Speaker, 90 percent just won't do.
How can you do this to the old? How can you do this to our workers,
hard working American families that have paid into the Social Security
trust fund for 30 and 40 years? Now Republicans want to give them 90
cents on the dollar.
Mr. Speaker, 90 percent just won't do.
Democrats, my side of the aisle, will accept no compromise when it
comes to the savings and the retirement of American working families.
Every penny paid in the Social Security trust fund must be used to save
Social Security first.
So I urge all of my colleagues to reject this bill; to reject any
effort to sell Social Security short; to sell Social Security down the
river; to give anything less than 100 percent.
Mr. Speaker, 90 percent just won't do.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to quickly and briefly respond to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Lewis), for whom I have the greatest personal respect.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement that we want to raid the
Social Security trust fund is totally irresponsible and is totally
false. In our committee's markup of this bill, there was a political
appointee of the Clinton Administration from the Social Security
Administration that was asked this precise question and responded that
what we were doing did not raid the Social Security trust fund nor in
any way impact on the payroll dollars that go into that fund.
That should be very clear. We are going to hear a lot of rhetoric
today and tomorrow, and Members should realize that much of it is
false.
Recently the minority leader from the other body commented that we
were taking Social Security reserves out of the fund. That also was
repudiated by the administration's representative from the Social
Security Administration.
This type of rhetoric should not enter this debate. I regret it, but
the facts should be laid out for what they are.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, Judy Chesser, Deputy Commissioner of the
Office of Legislation of the Social Security Administration said that
statement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4578 Save Social Security Act.
H.R. 4578 establishes a new account in the U.S. Treasury to preserve
Social Security system. This account is being set up for the vote we
will have tomorrow on the tax relief or the 90-10 plan. What we are
talking about on this amendment is to set up this fund with the
understanding that 10% of the surplus will be used for tax reduction
for the middle income citizens of this country.
Mr. Speaker, the House will consider Mr. Rangel's amendment to
transfer 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund surplus to the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, to be held in trust for the Social
Security system. But under this substitute, Congress must default on
publicly traded debt obligations before it could default on its
obligations to fund the Social Security system.
This is a Faustian bargain and is not what we want to do. I represent
a District with a large elderly populations.
While I do like Mr. Rangel's idea about setting aside 100 per cent of
the surplus for Social Security, I do not think it is prudent to do so
at the risk of allowing the country to go into default to achieve that
end.
There is must good in the tax relief bill. Our tax cut focuses on
middle-income Americans. The centerpiece is marriage penalty relief. We
also help small business, make health care more affordable, and we will
make filing tax forms a lot easier. Plus we will lower tax penalties on
people who save, reduce death taxes, and provide tax relief for senior
citizens, for education and child care. We also provide help for
farmers and ranchers who have been hit hard this year. This is a
compromise that I can support.
Our plan protects Social Security and reduces the worst penalties in
the tax code, but

[[Page H8736]]

it is also a safety check against big government and wasteful spending.
For those who say we are hurting the Social Security Trust Fund . .
. let's go the Administration themselves. When Ms. Judy Chesser, Deputy
Commissioner, Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs, Social
Security Administration was asked if these tax cuts would impact the
Social Security Trust Funds she said ``NO.'' Therefore this tax relief
plan has no impact on the Trust Funds. Period.
And finally . . . isn't it possible that if we reduce taxes ever so
lightly we will also give more incentives for Americans to create more
jobs and to ultimately provide more revenues to the Government. This
will mean more surplus to the Government which will again shore up the
Social Security trust fund.
All of us here must also remember that we might not have a surplus if
it does not stop these emergencies supplements appropriations for all
these monies that the President is talking about. Every day he is
proposing a new program and every country he goes into he promises more
money without true accountability. So let's stop these emergency
appropriations.
For those Senior Citizens who want tax credit relief for estate taxes
and a social security earnings limit, I suggest that this bill our plan
will actually help Senior Citizens.
There are many other things that make H.R. 4578 a good bill towards
passage tomorrow of our 90-10 tax relief plan.
Seniors have done their part to make this country great and deserve
to be treated with dignity and respect. When the President receives
this bill, he can sign it thereby ensuring that Social Security will
remain solvent for generations to come. For these reasons I support
H.R. 4578.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to begin by commending the
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Kentucky
(Chairman Bunning) for their leadership on this effort, which not only
will save Social Security, but begin the process of eliminating the
marriage tax penalty, an issue which affects 28 million married working
couples.
We hear a lot of rhetoric and have to recognize it is an election
year, and politicians in many cases will say just about anything in an
election year.
Of course, we have heard some claim that this plan somehow harms the
Social Security trust fund. I thought it was so important when the
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) asked a representative of the
Clinton Administration, the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, Chairman Archer asked as a result of the tax bill being
considered by the committee, which, of course, we will be voting on
tomorrow, will there be any impact on the monies of the Social Security
trust funds? And Judy Chesser, the Deputy Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration was pretty direct. Sometimes politicians are
not very direct, but she had a very simple answer. She said no. This
plan in no way harms, hurts, hinders, impacts the Social Security trust
fund.
So let us be honest about it, this is an important piece of
legislation. We are going about saving Social Security here. This is a
big day. If you think about it, since 1969 Washington not only was
spending money beyond the means of this Federal Government, but we
never had the opportunity to save Social Security. Now, thanks to a
balanced budget, we have a projected surplus; extra money that we can
use for important priorities. Today we are voting to make saving Social
Security first the number one priority.
If you think about it, the same folks who oppose this effort to save
Social Security and to eliminate the marriage tax penalty are the same
people that said we could not balance the budget. They are the same
people that fought down here and fought against lowering taxes for the
middle class. They are the same people who opposed our efforts to
change and reform our welfare system that was failing, with more
children living in poverty than ever before, and also they are the same
people that objected when we wanted to tame the tax collector and bring
about IRS reform.
This is important legislation because, just as the Deputy
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration pointed out that our
legislation does not impact the Social Security trust fund, in fact we
are going to have extra money to help save Social Security, that we set
aside $1.4 trillion.
Think about that. When President Clinton gave a speech, which we all
applauded, talking about saving Social Security and setting aside the
surplus for Social Security, there was $600 billion in the projected
surplus at that time. Today we are setting aside more than twice what
the President asked for, $1.4 trillion. Think about that. $1.4
trillion. That is a lot of money. Yes, it is 90 percent, but it is more
than twice what the President originally asked for.
I have often had a series of town meetings and forums on Social
Security, and the senior citizens and the working people that attend
these forums have had a pretty common message. Number one is they say
as we work to save Social Security, let us keep the politics out of it.
Let us make it a nonpartisan effort.
Democrats and Republicans should work together. This legislation
deserves bipartisan support. Let us vote to save Social Security and
eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We have that opportunity today and
tomorrow.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I had thought under the House rules it was a violation
to take the official transcript of a markup or committee meeting, other
than a public hearing, that it should not be published or distributed
to the public in any way except by majority vote of the committee. But
having seen how the majority has waived the budget rules, I suppose you
have waived the House rules, and so I am not in violation.

{time} 1145

Now, Ms. Chesser was asked to respond to the majority, yes or no. Her
answer was no. That was the chart we saw.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) then asked her to come
back, and he said, I just want to make sure, unless I misunderstood,
Ms. Chesser, would you please come back to the table and repeat what
you have said.
The answer was, it does not affect the money currently going into the
trust fund. However, it would make a far smaller amount of the surplus
available when there is a bipartisan attempt to resolve the social
security's current financial problems, which we hope to do in a
bipartisan way. As Members know, we are not in actual balance over the
next 75 years.
It helps, when we take part of the transcript out and publish it,
that we put in the whole amount.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal).
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for 5 seconds?
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, on the statement made by the gentleman from
New York, I am not sure where he got what he presented to the House,
but we received what we presented to the House off of C-Span.
Therefore, it was not in violation of the rules.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the details,
when we come into this Chamber, that makes us really feel good about
being Democrats.
I have to tell the Members, when I hear speakers march to that
microphone and suggest that this side is playing politics with social
security, after they have scheduled the tax cut 6 weeks before the
national elections, that we are playing politics? Do Members know what
the name of this account they have offered today is? The Protect Social
Security Account. It is Orwellian, that is really what it is, because
only George Orwell would have suggested that we should protect social
security by raiding it. That is precisely what they are doing today.
For them to complain about politics, politics, 6 weeks before a
national election, to offer a tax cut to the American people by raiding
the social security account, that is politics. We ought to have a
substantive debate in this Chamber about what we really mean by
``protecting social security,'' and spending it for a tax cut is not
the way we protect social security.
This bill that they are offering today locks up what they say is 90
percent of the social security trust fund. What about the Asian fiscal
crisis? What about a recession that could loom on the horizon, and
alter dramatically

[[Page H8737]]

every fiscal projection we have seen in this Chamber for the last year?
Are we blind to the realities of what is happening across the globe?
This is a time when we should be taking satisfaction from the fact
that it was the Democratic Party, with the leadership of President
Clinton in 1993, that balanced that budget. Do Members know what else
is ironic? Let us not forget the role George Bush played in 1991 when
half of his own party split from him, when he looked at the reality of
where we were headed as we turn the page on this century.
I have to go back to what I said earlier. To complain that the
Democrats today are using politics, we are honoring the contract we
made with Mr. Roosevelt, which the American people have said time and
again they subscribe to and they do not want to see it altered.
A tax cut 6 weeks before the national election, who among us believes
that that is intelligent fiscal policy? And at the same time, they
violate that sacred trust that Democrats hold dear and senior citizens
hold dear. Social security should be saved and protected before we
discuss any tax cuts.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would once again point out that the term ``raiding the
social security trust fund,'' which obviously is programmed to be in
each of the Democrats' presentations, is completely and totally false,
and it is reprehensible that it continues to be used on the floor of
the House.
Members should be well aware that it is not the case. But I guess if
they say it enough, long enough, maybe some people may believe it. The
gentleman, who is a very good friend of mine, again, and whom I respect
personally, also said that we were locking up 90 percent of the social
security trust fund. That is false.
I would suggest that the Members on the other side read the bill. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) cosponsored it, other than the
change from 100 to 90 percent. The bill does not say that. It says, ``A
projected surplus will be set aside.'' Let us try to be accurate in
what we say.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Johnson), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respectfully point out that the
gentleman from Massachusetts who just spoke ahead of me voted on the
floor of the House to spend part of the surplus on agricultural
disaster. If it is okay to spend the surplus that way, why is the
gentleman proposing to punish farmers and ranchers by denying them tax
relief now?
I want everyone to listen to the Democrats' rhetoric. They are
forgetting one simple fact, that for 40 years the Democrats never set
aside one penny to protect social security. Instead, they spent
taxpayer and social security dollars on government programs. They are
talking about 40 days from election, and suddenly they are concerned
about saving social security. In this bill today we are protecting
social security, and the Democrats are going to have a chance to put
their money where their mouths are.
In 1960, the Democrats said that we could not win the Cold War. We
did. In 1996, the Democrats said we could not reform welfare. We did.
In 1997, the Democrats said we could not give tax relief and balance
the budget, and we did. They also said we could not and should not
reform the IRS. Well, we did that, too.
Now the Democrats say we cannot provide tax relief to families,
farmers, small business, seniors, and protect social security. Once
again, they are wrong. We will.
This bill does set aside 90 percent of the $1.6 trillion surplus for
social security. That is a lot of money. In return, we want to give the
families, farmers, small businesses, seniors a break from high taxes.
They deserve a break. Taxes are just too high.
Let me say it one more time. I think people deserve a strong social
security system and tax relief. What they do not need is for the
surplus to stay here in Washington, D.C., where Democrats and the
President will steal it to create a bigger government.
The choice is simple, taxpayers over bureaucrats. How can anybody
argue with that?
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a member of the committee.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4578 because it
breaks our promise to the American people to keep social security
whole. Mr. Speaker, this debate should not be about politics or
partisanship but about people, the American people.
Social security is the foundation of retirement income for American
workers and their families. Two-thirds of older Americans rely on
social security for 50 percent of their total income. Thirty percent
rely on it for 90 percent or more. It is the principal insurance
against family impoverishment due to death or disability for 96 percent
of America's work force, and it is a lifeline for more than 43 million
retirees and disabled workers and their spouses and their children.
Because of its importance to the American way of life, my Democratic
colleagues and I join the President in his commitment to preserve
social security for future generations. This is not a debate about who
favors tax cuts. Both Democrats and Republicans favor tax cuts in this
bill. This debate is about whether we have the resolve, the fiscal
discipline, to do what is right, or whether we will, once again, say
that we can have it all, let the good times roll, and do the wrong
thing: rob from our social security trust fund to give a tax cut we
know we cannot afford.
Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about preserving the benefits of
social security for our children and grandchildren, setting aside 90
percent to save social security is not enough. Even diverting 10
percent of the social security surplus before enacting a proposal to
save social security undermines the future financing of the system.
In fact, this diversion of 10 percent from social security, which our
Republican friends dismiss as small and rather unimportant, amounts to
more than a $200 billion hole in the social security trust fund over
the next 5 years, at a time when we owe $2.235 trillion to the fund
already.
As my Democratic colleagues have already stated, the surplus in the
unified budget consists of funds raised from social security payroll
taxes and from the interest accrued on social security Treasury bond.
Today we have a surplus in the social security fund due to the policies
of President Clinton and most of the Democrats on this side. However,
as millions of baby boomers age, the social security fund is projected
to begin losing money in 2013, and would become insolvent a few years
later unless reforms are enacted.
The bottom line is that we must begin to take steps to ensure that
sufficient resources are building up in the social security system, so
they are building to pay the promised social security benefits in the
future and that will not be threatened.
H.R. 4578 therefore amounts to an illusory election year tax plan
that might be right to pander for votes in an election year, but it is
dead wrong for the future of social security and the direction of our
Nation's fiscal policy.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, first of all, as a member of the
Subcommittee on Social Security, I have to commend the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, with having a series of
hearings about saving social security. I participated in the first
great debate in Kansas City with the President about the discussion
about social security.
But I think what we are trying to do today, Mr. Speaker, is rather
than just talking about saving social security, we are putting actions
with our words. We are putting the peoples' money where our mouths are.
There has been a lot of talk about billions and trillions of dollars,
about the surplus, but let me put it in language that everybody can
understand.

[[Page H8738]]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand ten $1 bills, a projected surplus. This
is not money that is needed to balance the Federal checkbook, which we
are doing. But of these ten $1 bills of surplus money, we want to take
9 of those bills and put them aside for social security for
safekeeping. We want to take this single dollar bill of surplus money
and leave it in the pockets of the people who sent it here.
How dare these Members say to married couples across this country, we
want to continue to punish you because you choose to get married, we
are not going to let you have this dollar? How dare we say to the
farmers of this country, who feed us, or the small businesspeople who
employ the majority of people, no, you sent the money here, but you
cannot have it back?
It is laughable, Mr. Speaker. Even in this tax relief measure we are
providing relief for seniors who choose to work beyond retirement.
There is tax relief for seniors in this bill. Yet, our friend on the
other side say no.
In fact, the gentleman from Michigan earlier today in this debate
said that we were picking the pockets of the taxpayers of this country.
There is such a death grip on this dollar by those on the other side
that they will not even let it stay in the pockets of those who sent it
here.
I say no. I say it is time to say no to the Rangel substitute and yes
to the bill. We can save social security, and let the American people
keep what they earn.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak in strong support of
the Save Social Security Act.
Social Security is perhaps the most important and successful program
in the history of our republic. It has helped generations of Americans
retire with dignity and respect. There is bipartisan agreement that we
should take advantage of projected budget surpluses to address the
long-term financial challenges facing the system. We owe it to retirees
and future generations to do this, and I commend Representatives
Bunning, the Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, for the
series of hearings he has held over the past year and a half to take an
honest, straightforward look at the choices we must make to save Social
Security for our children and grandchildren.
To make sure there are enough resources set aside from future budget
surpluses, the Save Social Security Act proposes that we wall-off $1.4
trillion of future budget surpluses in a special Save Social Security
Account. That's right, $1.4 trillion. Clearly, this is a responsible
commitment to the future of Social Security that will help preserve the
program's solvency.
By setting aside $1.4 trillion to save Social Security, we can not
only protect the program, but allow the American people to keep more of
their hard-earned money. Taxes are currently at their highest levels in
our Nation's peacetime history. The House has a clear choice today.
Those who think your constituents pay too much in taxes should vote for
the Save Social Security Act. Those who think that Americans are not
overtaxed or do not pay enough in taxes should vote against the bill
before us. It is shameful to scare seniors and hide behind Social
Security to cloak opposition to letting the American people keep more
of their hard-earned dollars. It is even more shameful to hide behind
Social Security to spend more on government programs, like the
Administration's proposal to spend $13 billion of the surplus on new
spending.
I'm going to illustrate what this debate is all about. I am holding
in my hand ten one dollar bills. What we are proposing is to take these
nine dollars and put them aside to save Social Security. A truly worthy
goal.
Given the willingness of the Administration to spend the surplus on
government programs, $13 billion at last count, the debate then becomes
what do we do with this remaining one dollar. I think we should let the
American people keep it. After all, it is their taxes that have created
the surplus in the first place. Those who agree with me that this one
dollar is best returned to the taxpayers will vote for the bill before
us.
Or, we can give this money to the Federal Government for new spending
programs and let Americans continue to pay the highest level of taxes
in our Nation's peacetime history. Those who favor this approach should
vote against the Save Social Security Act.
Putting aside enough money to protect Social Security is not the
issue. The issue is more government programs or tax relief. The choice
is clear. If you favor letting the American people keep more of their
money, vote for the Save Social Security Act. If you want more
Washington programs, vote against the bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the committee.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, will pull out those same 10 $1 bills. I, too,
will tell the Members that if I have $10 because I work for the
government, and I got them because someone is working every day
contributing to the social security trust fund for his or her
retirement, I am not going to tell them, well, I am only taking one of
your $10 you just gave me for your social security investment in
retirement, and I am going to use this to give out tax cuts, mostly to
folks who are better off and do not need to worry about your retirement
the way you maybe do. So you keep your 9 and I get to spend your one.

{time} 1200

That is what we are talking about. And, by God, please do not tell me
that they are willing to tell an American farmer that they are going to
punish them because this Congress, some here, are willing to say that
we want to help them in time of need because of the drought and because
of floods and because of all that done through an act of God.
But my colleagues on the other side are saying to them, no, we cannot
let this Congress help them out in their time of need. But, by the way,
we do have money, that $10 that they just gave in their contributions
out of their paycheck every month, to take one of those $10 and give a
tax cut 6 weeks before the election. We can do that. Punish the farmers
for an act of God.
Do not do that. And please do not punish seniors for the political
acts of men in this House.
Now, when those folks out there in the country that are earning this
money that they are putting into the Social Security trust fund go to
the supermarket, they do not expect to receive 90 percent of the
groceries they just paid for. When we buy a home, we do not expect to
own nine-tenths of that home. When we pay for our child's education, we
do not expect them to receive 90 percent of a college degree.
Mr. Speaker, when Americans deposit money in a bank, they certainly
do not expect that bank to give them only 90 percent back of their
original deposit, or 90 percent of the interest that their money has
earned. They expect 100 percent.
The fact is, the budget surplus is not a surplus, other than Social
Security funds contributed every day by people who work and give of
that money out of their paycheck. American workers are doing what
Republicans here are unwilling to do in this House. They are saving and
investing for their retirement.
In fact, what Republicans are proposing through this tax cut is to
take those savings and investments because, again, the surplus we are
talking about is created by all the trust fund dollars that American
workers are contributing. The fact that we are not using every dollar
out of the trust fund for Social Security and paying out for today's
retirees does not mean that we should tell those folks who are working
and contributing that right now we have a surplus, because they are
paying a little bit more than we have to pay out today, because those
workers know that tomorrow when the baby boomers retire we are going to
go in the opposite case and we have to save now to take care of that
problem later.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, please do not take even one dollar
out of the $10 that American workers are earning every day and
depositing into the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts
right after an election.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), a highly respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this, but some of the
examples are just getting absolutely ridiculous. The gentleman from
Texas (Chairman Archer) has cautioned a number of folks that they
really ought to deal with a debate about the facts and not about some
political rhetoric that they wish to argue.
The reason we have a surplus right now is because people are paying
more

[[Page H8739]]

in income taxes, the economy is doing well, and inflation is lower than
anticipated. It is always relative to what people said was going to
happen. And what is happening today is that people are better off than
the projections and inflation is lower. So, more money is coming in
than anticipated.
The Social Security trust fund does not go bankrupt until 2030. We
have a few years to be prudent about the way we spend our money. And I
would tell the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the $9 he
counted out is not money that is in the trust fund. It is money that
people paid in income taxes beyond what the government's current
obligations are.
The point that needs to be made repeatedly, and I know folks on the
other side know it but will not admit it, but what the American people
need to understand is that all 10 of those dollars are theirs. All we
are proposing to do is to give them back one of them, as the gentleman
indicated, and set the other nine aside for the ongoing obligation for
Social Security leading toward the year 2030.
Now, what we propose to do is have a surplus every year, not just
this year. This is not a unique event. In 1999, in 2000, in 2001, in
2002, on and on and produce a surplus, every year. We want to make sure
if we miscalculate on collecting revenue that we set aside a reasonable
portion to deal with tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, till 2030. But
there is no reason whatsoever why people who are overcharged by this
government on their income tax cannot get a small portion of it back,
whether it is the first day of a Congress or the last day of a
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
continually forget is that the money is the people's in the first
place.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, hearing this debate leads one to believe that the only
thing we have to fear is truth itself. The truth, according to the tax
committee, is that we have in the next 5 years, according to this
chart, we have a national fiscal situation that is still in deficit.
$137 billion of the fiscal picture is in deficit.
We have a $520 billion fiscal picture over the next 5 years which is
in the plus side, and that is all in the Social Security account. There
is no free lunch in this business. We have to rob from Peter to pay
Paul. If we are going to give tax breaks, we have to pay for the lost
revenue. And the only surplus that we are going to have is in the
Social Security account. That is it. So, we will have to rob from the
Social Security account.
Now, if this tax plan is not an election year gimmick, I ask the
Republican leadership, they have been in the majority for 4 years, if
this was such a great tax plan, why did they not bring it to us before,
instead of 6 weeks before the election?
Mr. Speaker, this is not fiscal responsibility. This is fiscal
foolishness, election year fiscal foolishness.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer), chairman of our committee.
Mr. Speaker, hearing my good friend from California typifies the
incendiary nature of this debate. For what the American people see
today, Mr. Speaker, is a clear example of those who eagerly embrace the
politics of fear rather than the policies of hope.
The case is clear, the facts these: In excess of $1 trillion, $1.4
trillion set aside to do nothing but save and protect Social Security.
My colleague from California and others who expound on the politics
of fear talk about the short-term calendar. But, Mr. Speaker, for
purposes of full disclosure, it is far better to take a long-range view
and let history teach us.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of full disclosure, the facts are clear and
undeniable. In 40 years' time, when the liberals had the majority in
this Chamber, they never set aside one single penny to save Social
Security. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not a thing did they save.
Oh, they were happy to raise payroll taxes. They were happy to take
more and more of Americans' hard-earned money. And now when we have the
opportunity to set aside in excess of $1 trillion, they say no,
because, Mr. Speaker, the message is clear, if somewhat confusing, from
the other side. They once again say no tax relief, no time, no how. It
is the taxpayers' money, but somehow they should not have it.
Shame. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the majority
proposal, reject the minority substitute.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of my colleague, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and his amendment to protect
Social Security.
Without Social Security, an additional 11.5 million older Americans,
our mothers, our fathers, our brothers and sisters, would be
impoverished, dramatically increasing the overall poverty rate from 13
percent to nearly 50 percent among those over the age of 65.
It is very simple. Social Security works. Social Security reduces
poverty, and the American people want this Congress to ensure that
Social Security remains solvent well into the future. I, for one,
intend to do whatever it takes to make sure that this body meets that
demand.
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to me that the very party that at one point
would have turned Social Security over to Wall Street is proposing to
use the potential budget surplus not for Social Security but rather for
a tax cut that I find imprudent, ill-timed, inefficient, poorly
targeted and risky.
Mr. Speaker, we may end this fiscal year with a budget surplus. If we
do, we owe it to the American people to put that money, all of that
money, and that is the difference, all of it, aside until we are sure
that we can maintain the long-term solvency of Social Security.
Therefore, I stand in support of the Rangel substitute.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Adam Smith).
Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the key fact in this
debate is that there is no budget surplus. The only surplus that
exists, exists in the Social Security trust fund.
So, when we hear the other side talking about how they are setting
aside $1.4 trillion for Social Security, we cannot set aside money that
is already spoken for. That money is borrowed. It must be paid back,
plus interest.
We would not borrow $200,000 for a home mortgage and say we are
setting that aside for our child's education, because we have to pay it
back. That is the fundamental flaw in the Republican argument. The
money is already in the Social Security trust fund. We should keep it
there.
We saw that chart that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr)
brought up. We saw the truth. The only surplus that exists outside the
Social Security trust fund, which we have to pay back, is $31 billion.
Now, if they wanted to be honest and offer a bill to say we should set
aside 90 percent of the real surplus, 90 percent of $31 billion would
make sense, because that is the only surplus that we have.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot spend money twice. I will agree with the
Republicans on one point. We were wrong for 40 years. I use ``we''
loosely, because I was not here. We should not have borrowed that money
and used it to reduce the size of the deficit, and the public agrees.
They sent us that message in 1994.
What I am afraid of is that the Republican majority has forgotten the
very message that sent them here. I hope that the American public will
send them the same message in 1998: Do not borrow from the Social
Security trust fund and treat it as income. That is manipulative
rhetoric, and it is wrong.
The reason is that money is already spoken for. We have to pay it
back. We should not let the Republicans, any more that we would let the
Democrats, spend money twice. It gets us into big deficits.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).

[[Page H8740]]

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to H.R. 4578. I oppose
any Republican attempt to undermine Social Security by proposing a big
tax cut during this election year.
In the 1930s, before Social Security, many hard-working Americans who
had no family to care for them lived in the streets, and sometimes they
starved. Social Security was created to reduce this type of primitive
poverty, conditions that are unconscionable in our time and in our
Nation of wealth and resources.
We need Social Security for the 30 million hard-working Americans
who, after a lifetime of low-wage jobs, have no money for retirement.
Without Social Security, they would have nothing. We need Social
Security for the 5.5 million Americans with severe disabilities who are
unable to work. They would be destitute without Social Security.
This Congress has an obligation to strengthen Social Security,
because working people have earned and deserve Social Security. It is
the most sacred, fundamental measure for the survival of all Americans.
That is why tax cuts are not an option until Social Security is 100
percent secure.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4578.

{time} 1215

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen) is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, since everybody was using props, I think I
will use a prop, in my opinion, that talks about the deficit. It is a
credit card. It is not cash. We do not have the cash yet.
Anybody who believes a 10-year projection on what the surplus is
going to be really has lost their mind. We do not know if it is going
to be $1.5 trillion. We hope it is $1.5 trillion. We do not know that.
This whole tax cut and this whole 90/10 scenario is predicated on a
surplus that we do not even have yet. It is a fraud on the market, and
it is a fraud on the public.
The fact is, we are looking down the barrel at $5.5 trillion of debt
that we are going to have to pay, including the debt in the Social
Security trust fund. To go and start spending all that money now
without a rational plan of how it is going to be done means that we are
going to end up adding more debt. And, ultimately, our debt-to-gross-
domestic-product ratio will go to 200 percent, and then Social Security
will really be in trouble. So bills like this are not going to
strengthen Social Security. In fact, it probably makes it worse.
This is nothing more than a political gimmick to cover what the true
intention is, which is to take us back to supply side economics and
back to the days of $200 billion deficits, because many Members on the
other side just seem to think that does not really matter.
The fact is, if they ran a business the way they are proposing to do
this now, and I came from the business world, they would run it into
the ground. They would never be able to get credit, and now they are
talking about spending credit that they do not have.
This is a terrible, terrible idea. The best thing we could do would
be to start paying down the debt, get the debt-to-GDP ratio down. That
would make Social Security stronger and honor our obligations, not only
to the senior citizens and future senior citizens that are going to
rely on Social Security, but also honor the obligations of the United
States taxpayers to the Treasury bonds that are out there.
This is a fraudulent, risky policy that will lead us back into the
problems that we came out of. I guess if we pass this tax bill, we can
say that the days of fiscal responsibility, which we only have enjoyed
for a fleeting moment, are dead, and they are dead at the hands of the
Republican Party.
Who would have believed it?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4578. This bill does
nothing to strengthen Social Security and, in fact, it may weaken it.
It is nothing but a political gimmick that allows the Majority to
argue, falsely, that they voted to protect Social Security. This
legislation is only a cover-up for tomorrow's attempted raid on the
Social Security Trust Fund.
The best way and the most responsible way to strengthen Social
Security is to buy down the Federal debt, which today stands at $5.5
trillion. The debt to GDP ratio is 67 percent, double what it was in
1981. Interest paid on the Federal debt, $244 billion this year, has
more than tripled since 1981. It is now the third largest Federal
program after Social Security and defense. If we do not start paying
down the debt, it will mushroom to 200 percent of the Nation's economic
output by the middle of the next century and interest payments will
consume more and more of the Federal budget.
We should take advantage of this window of opportunity to begin
paying down the debt before the retirement of the Baby Boom generation
a decade from now begins to require additional spending on programs
such as Social Security and Medicare. By paying down the debt, we will
be able to add to private investment and expand national income to pay
the costs of the Baby Boom's retirement and reduce the share of Federal
spending taken by interest payments on the debt.
The Republican Majority says that they will pledge 90 percent of the
projected surplus to Social Security, but at least 98 percent of it
comes from Social Security. Furthermore, the surplus does not yet exist
and the Republicans want to go ahead and spend it. If it does not
materialize, the Congress will be spending far more than 10 percent of
the Social Security surplus. To propose a tax cut that is not paid for
means more debt. If you run a business that way, you would run it into
the ground.
There is no difference between the Social Security Trust Fund and the
``Protecting Social Security Account.'' This is spending the surplus
and there is no reason why the Majority could not dip into the
``Protecting Social Security Account'' to fund another ill-timed, ill-
advised, and irresponsible tax cut. Mr. Archer has said that as long as
the Republicans are in charge, there will be a tax cut every year. So
it looks like the Republican tax bill is just a downpayment on the $700
billion raid on the Social Security surpluses they proposed earlier
this year.
The Majority's proposed tax cut is not paid for, so my colleagues
have to resort to political gimmicks. This legislation is a sham. It
will neither strengthen Social Security nor will it help us buy down
our $5.5 trillion national debt. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
oppose H.R. 4578.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), highly respected chairman of the
Committee on the Budget.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, what is an interesting proposition is that
everybody in America now, from the President to the Democrats to the
Republicans, claims we have a balanced budget. Why is it that we claim
that we have a balanced budget? Well, it is not complicated. It is
because we are taking in more money this year than we are spending.
Now, when we take a look at the surplus, we are actually going to
spend less than what we take in. And let us just presume that the
surplus is $40, two twenty-dollar bills. You said to me, so, John, the
surplus is $40. Where does that $40 come from? I say, well, 20 of the
$40 comes from the Social Security FICA taxes that we all pay. That is
the difference between how much we collect in FICA taxes and how much
we pass out to our seniors. So of the $40 surplus, 20 of it is Social
Security FICA taxes. We are going to put it on this side of the podium.
The other $20 comes from all the other taxes that we levy in the
country, the income taxes, all the taxes that Americans are subjected
to; and we are going to put that $20 on the other side of the podium.
Now, the $20 that comes in from the FICA tax, the Social Security
tax, we are going to save it. We are going to put it right in our
pockets. We are going to save it, and we are going to use it to fix
Social Security long term, to save it for three generations of
Americans.
But the other $20 that gets generated from the income taxes and all
the other taxes, we are going to give part of it back to the American
people.
It is just that simple. It has nothing to do with robbing something
from Social Security. It is about giving people some of the taxes that
they pay in excess of the Social Security taxes.
One more time, for all those watching, $40 in surplus, $20 comes from
the

[[Page H8741]]

Social Security tax. We are going to save it and put it in our pocket.
The other $20, we are going to start to give some of it back.
To my colleagues and those who want to be in favor of change, let me
just suggest to you what this is about. For those that are watching
this debate, in my opinion, this is not really about tax cuts. School
choice is not really about just school choice. Social Security reform
is not just really about Social Security. It is about power. It is
about whether we are going to run America from the bottom up, where the
people and the families and the communities have the power, or whether
we are going to continue to run America from the top down, where just a
handful of people in America think they know better and they run our
lives.
If I can give you more money in your pocket, you and your family,
then you have personal power and you can begin to solve the problems in
your community. But if the government tells you they want to keep it
all here in Washington, they not only do not want to give you a tax
cut, they want to use the surplus to spend, to create even more
government.
Would it not be an irony for a party and individuals who are
committed to shrinking the size of government to take the benefits of
balancing the budget and then use it to increase the size of the
governmental elites in this town?
I ask you all to think, when you come for this vote, where do you
want the power to be? Do you want it to be vested in Washington with a
handful of people running this country from the top down, or do you
want to be in charge of where your kids go to school? Do you want to be
in charge of the ability to provide for yourself in your retirement
years? Do you want to be in charge of designing a welfare program in
your own community? And, finally, maybe the best manifestation of
personal power, do you want more money in your pocket and less money,
less of your money in the hands of the government?
I would argue to you, as we go into this next century, the strength
of America is not going to be based on the big shots, on the elite. The
strength of America is based on the power of every man and woman and
child and family and community inside of this Nation.
This is about power and this is about giving you more of it.
I hope my colleagues will reject this notion of keeping the
governmental elite powerful and accept the notion and have the
confidence that we, working together, can make America better. Support
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
majority's legislative measures that would jeopardize the solvency of
the Nation's Social Security trust fund. It is just ``mean spirited''
and ``irresponsible'' to further burden seniors by weakening their most
stale source of income.
Social Security accounts for more than 40 percent of the income of
the elderly. In fact, 44 million retired and disabled workers, their
dependents and survivors, are counting on us to do the right thing.
Preserving the safety net for elderly Americans is one of the most
pressing issues facing our Nation today, and impacts each one of us
individually and collectively. More importantly, how we as a Congress
choose to address this issue today will impact the quality of life for
generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, seniors are in the twilight of their lives, and we
should be considering measures that are designed to improve the quality
of their lives. Instead, the majority in Congress is once again playing
a game of Russian roulette and using ``smoke and mirrors'' tactics to
trade seniors' economic security for an election year tax cut. This is
just irresponsible, and threatens the lives of the weakest and most
vulnerable among us.
As the current baby boomer generation approaches retirement, our
Nation stands on the brink of an incredible demographic shock.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between the years 2010
and 2030, the over-the-age 65 population will increase by more than 70
percent. However, the population paying payroll taxes will rise by less
than 4 percent. This is firm and compelling evidence that the budget
surplus must be invested in protecting Social Security.
The Nation is enjoying a record budget surplus, and we had promised
the American people that if they would help us to control spending, and
help us to balance the budget, and that if we could yield a budget
surplus those funds would be used to protect Social Security. Now, the
Republican majority is reneging on that promise.
In fact, 98 percent of the more than $1.5 trillion budget surplus is
due to the surplus in the Social Security trust fund. These funds are
needed to pay future benefits to senior citizens.
We must do all that we can to protect Social Security's long-term
solvency. The Democratic proposal would save 100 percent of the Social
Security surplus and place it in a ``lock box'' account at the Federal
Reserve until it is released to be used or Social Security.
We must keep our word to our seniors and to the American people. We
must keep our promise to use the surplus to ensure the solvency of our
Nation's Social Security system.
Seniors must not be forced to choose between food and shelter, or
between food and medicine. They have worked hard for their country, and
their country must not turn its back on them. Let's do what is right--
protect Social Security. I ask my colleague to join me in voting no to
H.R. 4578, a bill that jeopardizes Social Security's solvency.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
bill, not because I am against reducing the tax burden on my
constituents, but because I am a firm believer in keeping promises--in
this case, the promise to our citizens that Social Security will be
there for them when they retire.
The debate on this bill involves one point of contention. Republicans
believe that the funds in our coffers are surplus, and we Democrats
believe that we ought to honor the contracts that we have entered into.
Why do I call this a contract? When we originally passed the Social
Security Act, we had to justify the additional amount of money that was
being taken out of the paychecks of our constituents. It was explained
to them at that time, that the money would be held and given back to
them at the time that they chose to retire.
As proof, I have brought with me a copy of a letter, that was sent
out in 1936 as a mass mailing to people all over the country. The
pertinent part reads:

Under this law the United States Government will send
checks every month to retired workers, both men and women,
after they have passed their 65th birthday . . . This means
that if you work in some factory, shop, mine, mill, store,
office, or almost any other kind of business or factory, you
will be earning benefits that will come to you later on. From
the time you are 65 years old, or more, and stop working, you
will get a Government check every month of your life.

Most importantly, the statement reads: ``The checks will come to you
as a right.'' A right.
We cannot deprive the citizens of this country this right. Last month
I held a series of town hall meetings. Although the meetings were all
held in different neighborhoods, with people of different races and
backgrounds, with people from different financial strata, and with
people of all age groups, at each of the meetings there was a clear
consensus that Social Security must be there for them when they call
upon it. It must be saved for them, not out of the generosity of our
hearts, but because we owe them the money. It is their right?
This position is supported by the National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare, who recently stated: ``An $80 billion
election-year tax cut proposed by the U.S. House Republican Leaders
wrongly taps Social Security funds and ignores Congress's obligation to
protect the nation's social insurance program . . . The diversion of
these Social Security funds undermines the future financing of Social
Security, and Congress should reject this proposal.''
We all agree that our middle class is taxed too heavily. However, it
does not make sense to remedy that by raiding the Social Security Trust
Fund, before the Social Security trustees tell this Congress Social
Security is safe. Instead, what should be done is follow the democratic
tax relief bill which gives tax relief to working Americans once Social
Security is saved.
We Democrats voted for significant tax cuts last year. However, that
bipartisan bill was paid for. This one is not. In order to even debate
this bill, we had to waive part of the Budget Act. If you need any
indication of how bad this bill, is, all you have to realize is that it
is just a few votes away from violating another federal statute.
I strongly urge all of you to vigilantly protect against this robbery
of the American people, and vote against this passage of H.R. 4579.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, at 7:00 p.m. on September 25,
National Weather Service and civil defense officials indicated that the
projected landfall of Hurricane Georges would be somewhere between
Baldwin County, Alabama, and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Based on this
information, Representative Sonny Callahan and I have decided that it
would be in the best interest of the constituents we serve to return
immediately to our respective congressional districts to make the
necessary preparations before this major hurricane strikes. We
understand that the House

[[Page H8742]]

will consider tomorrow H.R. 4579, the Taxpayer Relief Act. Although we
do not share the same opinion on H.R. 4579, I oppose it, both
Congressman Callahan and I do realize the important nature of the
legislation being considered. However, due to overwhelming threat of
impending natural disaster, we plan to go home to help our families and
constituents prepare for Hurricane Georges. Therefore, we have decided
to pair our votes and depart for our congressional districts.
Mr. Speaker, had I been present I would have voted against H.R. 4579
for the following reasons: there is no surplus. We are $5.5 trillion in
debt. Its the first time in 30 years that we haven't had to borrow
money to pay for our annual operating deficit. Its not the time to
incur new responsibilities.
We still owe $800 billion to the Social Security Trust Fund. When
Social Security was started there were 19 contributors for every one
recipient. By the year 2025, it is projected that there will be 2
workers for every one Social Security recipient. If we don't repay the
debt now, while we can, we never will.
People don't feel they get enough from their tax dollars now. They're
right. The biggest chunk of their taxes ($365 billion) goes for
interest payments on the national debt (approximately $1 billion per
day). The amount of money squandered on interest continues to grow
every day. Our taxpayers money will be squandered forever unless we
retire the debt.
This is especially bad for national security. These dollars could be
better spent replacing 30 year old warplanes, helicopters, ships, and
land weapon systems. National defense spending has shrunk since the
Republicans took control of Congress. In Fiscal Year 1995, the first
fiscal year under the leadership of the new Republican majority,
defense budget outlays in constant dollars amounted to $295.4 billion.
The Fiscal Year 1999 level of defense outlays in constant dollars is
$265.6 billion. That is a $30 billion reduction in constant dollars
under Republican leadership. Now, the GOP is dreaming up ways to give
tax breaks to rich contributors, instead of addressing our pressing
national security needs.
We need to fulfill the promises that have been made. First and
foremost, is honoring the promise of a ``lifetime of free medical
care'' made to those who served in our nation's armed forces. Just
yesterday, the House National Security Committee was informed that the
Defense Health Program was underfunded for the next year by $623
million. As you may know, the Defense Health Program provides funding
for the treatment of our uniformed service personnel, their families,
and military retirees. It also provides funds for the operation of our
military medical treatment facilities. It really doesn't surprise me
that House Speaker Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Lott, House Budget
Committee Chairman Kasich, and Senate Budget Committee Chairman
Domenici do not consider keeping our promises to our nation's military
retirees as important. After all, not one of them served one minute in
uniform. However, I do think that fully funding our nation's defense
and military health care needs is important. This is where we should be
spending any surplus that may be left after we've restored the
financial integrity and stability of Social Security.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this election
year GOP tax gimmick that would raid and expend the Social Security
Trust Funds and jeopardizes the solvency of the most successful
domestic program in our nation's history. The Republican leadership has
opted for instant gratification with an untimely and irresponsible tax
expenditures that would spend much of the projected federal budget
surplus in the midst of the ongoing global economic contagion. In this
bill, the Republican Majority breaks the 1997 budget deal and has
turned its back on our retirees by reneging on their prior promise and
advertised position to ``Save Social Security First.''
This irresponsible bill simply undermines the core effort to protect
the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds and provide sufficient
resources to fulfill our commitments to all retirees. I this plan,
Republicans spend the first projected budget surplus in almost 30 years
on tax cuts. Plain and simple, this GOP action speaks louder than
words. Tax breaks and election year gimmicks take first place over a
sound Social Security system. Whether or not this surplus will actually
materialize is not at all guaranteed. And virtually every economist,
inside the government and out, believes that any surplus could be
short-term and will vaporize shortly after the Baby Boom generation
starts to collect Social Security and Medicare in 2008. It would be
foolish to spend any of this money before we have assured the long-
range solvency of the Social Security system. Almost every plan that
has been offered to date to reform and strengthen the Social Security
Trust Funds would use the entire budget surplus. This suggests that the
GOP wants to manufacture a Social Security Insurance system crisis to
compound and ensure that radical changes will and must occur to this
time honored defined benefit program.
Rushing to spend the hard-won and long awaited budget surplus is
reckless and irresponsible for several reasons. First, this tax cut
plan reduces the amount available for Social Security from $520 billion
to $430 billion during the next five years. Next, the Republicans are
spending money that is not in the federal government coffers. The
surpluses the GOP want to spend is not real; such funds are only
projections made by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--the kind of unreliable budget
projections that the Republican leadership criticized only a few months
ago. The GOP view is colored by partisan motives and has changed as the
CBO has made more rosy projections.
Moreover, the recent turmoil in the financial markets and the ongoing
economic and financial crises in Russia, Japan and the other Asian
Pacific Rim nations, and now, Brazil could have a significant impact on
the U.S. economy. This would result in the further weakening of both
the stock markets and real economic growth more than CBO expected in
the July projections. As a senior Member of the House Banking
Committee, I visited southeast Asia last winter and met with political
and financial leaders in China, Korea and Japan. Following the trip, I
was convinced then and recognize today that the Asian economic
contagion is not isolated to Asia. This global crisis will further
impact adversely the rosy United States budget picture of today without
a doubt.
In response to this partisan and careless Republican tax plan, I
support the Democratic alternative tax plan, which safeguards Social
Security, is fiscally responsible and invests in our nation's future.
Unlike the Republican tax plan, the Democratic alternative sets aside
every penny of the projected federal budget surpluses to ensure the
long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, increases the
standard deduction for a joint return to an amount equal to twice the
amount allowed on a single return to provide some marriage penalty
relief and would permanently extend income averaging for farmers by
providing a tax relief package that would take effect immediately.
Furthermore, the Democratic tax bill would take the entire amount of
the Social Security surplus in each fiscal year and transfer it to the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be held in trust for Social
Security. This would safeguard the temptation to expend it on pet tax
breaks schemes. Furthermore, this would limit the use of the Social
Security surplus and place a control on Congress. Under the bill,
Congress would have to default on publicly traded debt instruments
before it could default on its obligation to the Social Security
system. Moreover, the Democratic bill would really lock up 100% of the
Social Security surplus, while the Republican proposal pretends to
safeguard 90% of the Social Security Insurance system surplus.
Deciding now to use the surpluses for tax cuts before addressing
Social Security's long-term problems will siphon off resources that
will be needed to maintain the solvency of the Social Security Trust
Fund. Budget surpluses should be reserved until a Social Security
Commission, the President and the Congress address the long-term
requirements of Social Security. This initiative represents just
another step in the Republican agenda to eliminate the Social Security
Insurance program and squander away the projected surplus as they cast
about for an issue in the upcoming mid-term elections.
Unfortunately, while House Republican leaders praised the concept of
``Saving Social Security First,'' they turned around and then passed a
budget that broke this pledge. However, its telling that the Senate has
never agreed to this scheme up-front in a budget blue print. This
broken promise has led to dissention and differences among their own
party and has entrenched the budget conference process with the GOP led
Senate, which strongly endorses the President's call to save every
penny of the budget surplus to strengthen the Social Security Trust
Funds. To date, we have no budget. This is not governing. There is
little doubt that the GOP Senate will finally be seduced into accepting
tax breaks. However, the Administration and most Democrats will not
accept this raid on the Social Security Insurance System. Nothing is
going to happen if these surpluses and funds are justified. Such funds
will be available once the solvency of Social Security is resolved.
Meanwhile, this ``surplus'' will translate into a lower overall
national debt. A good positive result that most citizens believe must
be reduced.
I urge all members to vote no on this Republican attempt to raid the
Social Security Trust Funds for election year tax breaks.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the single most popular
federal program ever conceived. It provides millions of seniors with
retirement income. But it does more than just pay out retirement
benefits. Social Security is a retirement program, a life insurance
program and a disability insurance program all

[[Page H8743]]

in one. Social Security provides benefits to more than forty-three
million Americans each year, only thirty million of whom are retirees.
Seven million Social Security beneficiaries receive survivors
benefits--one and one-half million of those survivors are children.
Five and one-half million Americans receive Social Security disability
benefits. Social Security has paid these benefits on time, month after
month, like clockwork, for the past sixty years. Social Security has
always been there when we have needed it and its our responsibility to
ensure that it will always be there in the future.
But now, the part of Social Security which Americans are most worried
about is its retirement portion, and with good reason. Since Social
Security was created six decades ago, Americans have depended on the
``three-legged stool'' model of retirement planning. The first leg of
the stool is personal savings; the second leg of the stool is the
employer provided pension plan; and the third leg of the stool has
always been Social Security.
Social Security has rightly been considered the bedrock upon which
retirement security rests for all Americans. No matter what damage
vagaries in the stock market might have on personal savings, no matter
what damage employer carelessness or dishonesty might have on pension
plans, people have always believed that Social Security would be there,
the strongest and most important leg of the stool.
Unfortunately, over the years, the stool has weakened. As income
stagnated in the 1970's, Americans had to dip into their retirement
savings to pay for their children's education, or put a down payment on
a house, or pay for increasing medical costs, thus weakening the first
leg of the stool.
Employer provided pension plans are also dwindling with the loss of
secure jobs with reliable benefits. Nowadays, less than half of all
workers have employer provided pension plans, and those that do are
receiving less and less in contributions from their employers, thereby
weakening the second leg.
Now, when people are beginning to depend on it the most, some people
want to weaken or even saw off that third leg of the stool. Those
people say that Social Security will go bankrupt in the next century,
that Social Security doesn't pay beneficiaries a high enough rate of
return. They believe that instead of fixing Social Security by saving
the surplus, and sitting Americans' retirement security firmly on the
three-legged stool, Americans would be better off trying to balance
their futures on only two legs. I wouldn't try to sit on a two-legged
stool, and I wouldn't recommend anybody trying to balance their
retirement future on one either.
Right now, some Republicans in this House are mounting an attack on
Social Security. Not a direct attack, though they have tried that in
the past, but an indirect attack. These Republicans are planning to
spend our budget surplus, the first budget surplus we have had for 30
years, on tax cuts. Tax cuts are not necessarily a bad idea. In fact, I
would seriously consider supporting some of these tax cuts, if we
really had any money to spare. But the fact is that we do not.
The ``surplus'' that some in this House so desperately want to spend
on tax cuts is in fact needed to support Social Security once it begins
running a deficit early in the next century. The only reason why a
surplus exists at all is because the Social Security trust fund is
taking in more money than it is spending. But that will change in 2013.
That year, Social Security starts paying out more money than it takes
in. That year, we will need the money which we should be saving from
the surplus to pay for the baby boomers' retirement. The surplus that
exists now, and with good economic luck will exist for the next several
years, is nothing more and nothing less than our and our children's
future.
But there are those who believe that Social Security is not worth
saving because its return rate is too low. Social Security is not meant
to provide workers with a big bonanza. It is intended to provide an
income floor, a minimum below which we will not allow beneficiaries to
fall. And it has worked. When Social Security was created, senior
citizens were the most poverty stricken group in America. Now only 12%
of older Americans are poor. Without Social Security, 42% of older
Americans would be poor.
Some may think that Social Security is too conservative. It may not
pay out as high a rate of return as more risky and speculative
investments. But it is that caution which guarantees that Social
Security will be there for all of us when we retire or are injured or
the person we depend on to provide for us dies. So if the stock market
fails us, if our savings are eaten up by illness, if our pension plan
disappears, we will be still able to live with dignity.
When you are already at retirement age, there are no second chances.
There is no time to build up a new nest egg. There is no time to play
the stock market for big returns. You retire with what you've got, and
if there is no Social Security, and you've made a mistake in the stock
market and your employer took the pension money and ran, you've got
nothing. Nothing at all to fall back on. Our mothers, our fathers, our
brothers, our sisters, our sons and our daughters, all of us deserve
better than that.
Don't let the short term gratification of a fleeting tax cut distract
us from saving for our future. Before we consider cutting taxes, save
Social Security first.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4578, the
so-called Save Social Security Act. This legislation is an assault on
one of the most successful government programs in American history--the
Social Security program.
H.R. 4578 would rob Social Security recipients of the very benefits
that they earned through their hard work and dedication. This bill sets
up a separate account for Social Security, and requires the Treasury
Department to deposit only 90% of the currently projected surplus in
that account. There are several problems with this bill. First, the
bill does not protect the Social Security Trust Fund--it does not
prevent these funds from being used for additional tax cuts or spending
increases in the future. Secondly, it does not reserve the full amount
of money that Social Security has accumulated. None of the projected
surpluses should be touched until the long-term solvency of Social
Security has been fully secured.
As the representative from the 20th oldest district in the nation, I
have always let the thoughts and views of my senior constituency guide
me through my legislative decisions. More than 113,000 individuals in
my District rely on the benefits of Social Security. They depend on
this sacred program on a daily basis and I have consequently worked my
hardest to ensure the solvency of their program! Today was one of the
most offensive attacks on the Social Security program that I have
witnessed thus far in my 16 years of working in the House. The seniors
in my district have asked me to vote against this fraud of a bill--it
does not adequately protect their hard earned money.
I believe that the Social Security program must remain sacrosanct and
excluded from budgetary gimmicks. Let us do what is right by reserving
every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund for the people that
contributed to its solvency. It is not our money to waste, but it is
our money to protect. This Republican bill does not properly address
the current issues facing Social Security. Instead of safeguarding
current Social Security funds, these Members would rather jeopardize
this remarkable program with a false plan to assure their existence.
As a true Representative of the Pennsylvania's Third District, I will
do all I can to Save Social Security the right way! I suggest that all
Members of this body do the same by concerning themselves will valid
legislation that will focus on strengthening our current Social
Security system that has been successful for more than 60 years. It has
provided a sense of certainty for more than 160 million workers and
their families. Let us Save Social Security First, not last.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
4578, the ``Save Social Security Act''. The title of this legislation
gives the impression that it will actually save Social Security when,
in fact, the Republican leadership has called this legislation up for a
vote to take away 10% of any budget surplus from Social Security. The
passage of this bill is a slap in the face to the millions of Americans
who have paid into Social Security their entire working lives.
This legislation is another attempt by the Republican-led Congress to
undermine our safety-net programs. It is not fair to spend the
projected surplus on tax cuts when Social Security is in need of
shoring up for the upcoming baby-boom generation. Of the projected
surplus of $1.6 Trillion, 98% is generated by payroll taxes for Social
Security. If it wasn't for Social Security, the federal budget would
have an estimated deficit of $137 Billion over the next five years.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we should solve the long-term Social Security
Trust Fund solvency problems before we pay for tax cuts out of a
surplus funded by Social Security. I support tax cuts for marriage
penalty relief, self-employed health insurance deduction, education and
child care tax credits, however, I believe it must be paid for through
responsible fiscal planning.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and ensure Social
Security benefits for generations to come.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the ``Protect Social Security
Account'' developed in H.R. 4578 should increase awareness of the
Social Security problem. However, the legislation does nothing to solve
the problem.
The bill requires the Secretary of Treasury to make annual
nonnegotiable ``IOUs'' to this new account each fiscal year from 1998
to 2008. The new government debt owed to this ``Protect Social Security
Account'' would equal

[[Page H8744]]

90% of the projected total unified budget surplus for each of those
fiscal years.
In addition, the Treasury will make out IOUs to the Social Security
Trust Fund for its annual surplus, as it has done in the past. The
Social Security tax revenues surplus, which is the social security
taxes in excess of benefit payments for that year, is a major part of
any unified budget surplus. This means we are creating a $1.90 in debt
for every dollar borrowed in those years that the unified budget
surplus is greater then the Social Security surplus. Total government
debt will increase faster than if the new account was not established.
In other words, the increased debt to the Social Security trust fund
will be about $80 billion for the 1998 fiscal year. Because the
calculations for government IOUs into the ``Protect Social Security
Account'' is 90% of the unified budget surplus in most years, there is
double accounting for government indebtedness for the same money. That
results in total debt going up faster than it otherwise would. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Congress and the
President will have to increase the existing $5.95 trillion in debt
ceiling two years earlier if this bill would become law 2001 instead of
2003. Ironically, the more unified budget surplus that is spent by
government, the less debt subject to debt limit there would be.
There will never be any actual money that is going into this account,
just more IOUs. I am voting for the Rangel substitute because it has
the effect of investing the Social Security surplus in marketable bonds
as does my bill, H.R. 4033. I am voting for H.R. 4578 in the hopes that
a future Congress will pay back the debt in the ``Protect Social
Security Account'' to help solve the Social Security problem. We should
all recognize that by the year 2008 the general fund of the Treasury
will owe $2.252 trillion to the Social Security Trust Fund. This does
not include the money that will be owed to the new fund. Unless there
are sufficient resources in the general fund of the Treasury to repay
that borrowing, the ability to pay the promised Social Security
benefits will be threatened.
The fact is, none of the rhetoric by Republicans or Democrats or the
President that we should save the surplus to save Social Security does
anything to fix Social Security. The legislation I introduced (H.R.
3082) has been scored by the Social Security actuaries to keep Social
Security solvent.
Others that have done real work to save Social Security include
Representatives Stenholm, Kolbe, Sanford, and Porter, and Senators
Moynihan, Kerrey (NE), Gregg, Breaux, Gramm, and Domenici. I applaud
all of their efforts. I acknowledge the tremendous increase in
awareness that the President has helped stimulate by announcing in his
State of the Union address last February that we've got to save Social
Security. As Chairman of the bipartisan task force on Social Security,
I am setting our first goal to be a discussion of the real facts and
the real problem of the current system.
Senator Moynihan said during Social Security reform discussions in
1983, ``Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, no one is
entitled to his own set of the facts.'' If we can have honest
bipartisan discussion of the issue, and if we can increase public
understanding, then we can pass real Social Security reform legislation
in 1999. That is important, because the longer we put off the
resolution, the most drastic the changes will have to be.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with the goal of
reducing taxes on hard-working American families. The Republican way of
reducing taxes is by reducing spending and reducing government. That's
why I voted earlier for a budget that reduced spending for these tax
cuts.
But the President likes to say, from one side of his mouth, that he
wants to save Social Security. Yet, from the other side of his mouth,
he calls for billions of dollars of new spending from the Social
Security Trust Fund.
Senate Democrats claim they want to save Social Security while
proposing to spend Social Security taxes on increased spending.
And my own Republican leadership wants to cut taxes--offsetting the
cuts with the Social Security Trust Fund.
On this issue, I say: A pox on all their houses.
I want tax cuts. I support these tax cuts. I just don't want them
funded out of Social Security taxes.
I had hoped that the leadership would find a way to phase in tax cuts
from the projected surplus in the general fund, but this plan does not
do that.
When I was in business, we had good years and we had bad years.
Sometimes we needed to borrow money to get through the lean times. But
every businessman knows that you don't raid the employees' pension fund
to meet payroll.
In the 40 years that Democrats controlled Congress they raided Social
Security for other programs. It was wrong. It's still wrong. And that's
why this measure is wrong today.
I'm not voting with the Democrats today. They can't wait for the
chance to spend the Social Security Trust Fund on more government
programs. But his vote today underscores the need to put this money
into personal accounts for each and every American. Those accounts
should be personalized with the name of an individual, not the name of
Congress.
I will not support this legislation today. Not because I don't
support the tax cuts, but because Montanans tell me the real path to
tax reduction is to reduce the size of government.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Speaker, the budget surplus which will be obtained
this year is the greatest achievement of common sense and foresight in
decades. While much of the world around us flounders in economic chaos,
the United States' economy continues to drive forward, largely due to
this success.
Now we are casting to the wind the same common sense planning--and if
I might add, conservative policies--which eliminated the budget deficit
and created the budget surplus. Six weeks away from the election we are
voting on tax cuts, many of which I admittedly support and would like
to see enacted, even though we can not yet pay for them without taking
money needed for saving Social Security.
The truth is that we only have a budget surplus today because a
surplus exists in the Social Security Trust Fund. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, 98% of the budget surplus from 1999 to
2008 will come from the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. Only
2% will come from non-Social Security sources. However, this surplus is
only temporary. The hordes of retiring ``Baby Boomers'' will draw
heavily on Social Security, and the Trust Fund will become bankrupt by
2032.
The Democratic Substitute to the Republican's so-called ``Save Social
Security Act'' we are now considering makes a very simple proposal: we
set aside 100% of the budget surplus in a special fund to be used
solely for keeping the Social Security Trust Fund solvent until a long
term solution can be found. The Republican bill, on the other hand,
will take the surplus which really belongs to Social Security and use
it for funding the tax cuts we will vote on tomorrow.
The Republican proposal risks Social Security and it risks America's
future. What happens if the worldwide economic crises seriously
affected American markets and the surplus turns out to be less than
predicted? The result, I fear, will be less than welcome. We will be
stuck with these new tax cuts, which I know this House will not have
the political capital to repeal. We will return to the days of budget
deficits, and our economy will be trapped in the same cycle of stagnant
growth we thought we left behind when the last recession ended six
years ago.
In recent years the improving economy has permitted the vast majority
of Americans to cast aside their fears and look towards their future
with renewed hope and newly minted dreams. I hope that either this
House or the more sensible policy-makers in this city reject the risky
political games we are playing and return to the common sense that has
served us well to date. Let us save Social Security first and enact tax
cuts when we can pay for them.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to dispel some of the
misleading hyperbole the American people are being fed today. Americans
are sick of political double talk. They want the truth--so here it is.
This surplus we are talking about here today--do you know where it
came from? It came from you--your hard earned pay checks, your savings
accounts, your investments and even the deaths of your family members
and friends. It's not the government's money--it's yours!
You know what happens to your money when it gets to Washington? Well,
for the last 40+ years, the Democratic majority spent it--spent well
above it--and often wasted it. In fact, if it weren't for the
Republican majority you elected, we wouldn't even be standing here
today talking about a surplus or how to use the excess taxes you have
sent us.
You deserve some of your money back. And, yes, your money--$1.4
trillion--should also go toward preserving and protecting Social
Security. Both can be done.
Let me reassure you right now that under the bill before us today,
fully 90% of your surplus goes into a ``Protect Social Security
Account.'' Some $1.4 trillion of your money is set aside until we pass
legislation to ensure the long term solvency of Social Security.
And do you know what the impact on the Social Security Trust Fund
will be from giving you back 10% of your money? None. Let me repeat
that. None. The Social Security Trust Fund will not lose one dime by
passing this legislation today and the tax bill tomorrow. Not a penny.
So, to recap the truth for Americans sick of all the political
legalese and double talk: Passing this legislation gives you, the
overtaxed

[[Page H8745]]

American, 10% of your money back. It secures 90% of your money in a new
account to be used for preserving and protecting your Social Security
program. Let's pass the ``Save Social Security Act.''
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is one of our Nation's
greatest success stories. It is the financial bedrock for our country's
elderly, and for all hard working American families who want to retire
with some peace of mind. Two-thirds of our seniors depend on Social
Security for more than half their retirement income.
But right now, Social Security is under attack: this bill would raid
Social Security to pay for a tax bill. The Archer bill pays for its tax
plan with money from the Social Security Trust Fund--money that
Americans have invested for their retirements, money that the program
needs for long-term survival. I believe in tax cuts, but I believe we
must protect the Social Security Trust fund first. We cannot undermine
our retirement security for the sake of ten cents per day today.
I urge my colleagues: don't be irresponsible. Protect our Social
Security trust fund, and protect our retirement savings. Vote for the
Rangel tax cut, which ensures the solvency of the Social Security trust
fund. Oppose the Archer Social Security raid.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this misguided
legislation. It combines commendable tax cuts with an unacceptable
funding mechanism. The bill would take money from the Social Security
Trust Fund to pay for these tax cuts. I consider this a fatal flaw.
This bill is the legislative equivalent of the Trojan Horse. It
contains a collection of tax cuts that Democrats would usually support.
Most of the tax cuts contained in H.R. 4579 have, in fact, been
proposed and supported by Democrats in the past. The marriage penalty
provision is similar to one offered by Representative McDermott during
the Ways and Means Committee mark-up of the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act--
and rejected unanimously by the Republicans on the Committee. The same
is true of the 100 percent deduction for health insurance for the self-
employed. Similarly, I do not think that anyone is opposed to extending
the expiring tax provisions contained in H.R. 4579--they are non-
controversial, and most of us have voted to extend these provisions a
number of times. The provision in the bill which would allow non-
refundable credits against the alternative minimum tax is similar to a
change proposed in legislation introduced recently by Representative
Neal. And the provision assisting military personnel who sell their
homes after returning from temporary postings is similar to a change
recommended by the Administration earlier this year.
The problem with this bill, of course, is not primarily with the
proposed tax relief, but rather with the way that this tax relief would
be paid for--with money from the Social Security Trust Fund.
The Federal Government is expected to collect $1.6 trillion more in
revenues than it is projected to spend in outlays over the next ten
years. That figure, however, hides the fact that the Federal operating
budget--the budget excluding Social Security--is projected to run a
surplus of only $31 billion over the next ten years, and that in fact
it is not even expected to produce a significant surplus until the year
2006. The reason that CBO has projected a unified Federal budget
surplus for fiscal year 1998 and the subsequent 5 years is that the
Social Security trust fund is currently running a surplus of over $100
billion annually. Without the surplus in the Social Security trust
fund, the Federal Government is actually projected to run a deficit of
$137 billion over the next five years.
The point that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle forget or
choose to ignore is that after 2010, first the unified Federal budget
and then the Social Security Trust Fund begin to run huge deficits as
the number of Social Security beneficiaries doubles from 40 million to
80 million. In fact, even counting the projected trust fund surpluses,
outlays for Social Security are expected to exceed receipts by
trillions of dollars over the next 75 years.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that the projected $1.6 trillion
surplus is going to materialize at all. CBO has estimated that a
recession next year could change the projected surplus of $520 billion
over the next five years to a deficit of $44 billion. I think that,
given the current global economic uncertainty, it would be wise for
Congress to actually run a surplus before it spends it.

Mr. Speaker, we all support taxpayer relief. And I suspect that we
all would agree on the need to preserve Social Security. The question
before us today is whether we should reduce the amount of money in the
Social Security Trust Fund before we have taken action to ensure the
program's future solvency. I do not think that we should. Most experts
agree that we will need the surplus--and then some--to keep Social
Security solvent in the next century.
43 percent of retiree households in my congressional district depend
on Social Security for all of their retirement income. That means that
roughly 33,000 people are living on an average of $9,000 a year. The
45,000 retirees who have pensions or income from savings get by on an
average yearly income of about $16,000 a year. We shouldn't risk the
retirement security of millions of senior citizens in order to score
political points in an election year. We don't have the right.
Consequently, I urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to spend
money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for tax cuts--no
matter how meritorious those tax cuts might be--until we enact
legislation that ensures the future security of Social Security. If we
restore Social Security's financial health next year--and if it looks
like we won't need all of the money in the trust fund to pay out
benefits--then we might want to take a look at lowering the Social
Security payroll tax rate. That might be the fairest tax cut financed
by Social Security receipts. I do not think that such a situation is
likely, but I would be pleased if it turned out to be the case. Short
of such a remarkable turn of events, I urge my colleagues to keep their
hands out of the Social Security Trust Fund.
Instead of this ill-advised bill, Congress should enact legislation
before it adjourns that will wall off the Social Security Trust Fund
surplus. Then, next year, this body can work to craft a long-term
solution that will ensure the solvency of Social Security. If we follow
such a course, Social Security will be able to continue paying out
benefits for the foreseeable future.
I will support the Democratic alternative. The Democratic amendment
to H.R. 4579 would allow all of the tax cuts contained in the original
bill--but it would delay these tax cuts until the Social Security
trustees certify that Social Security will be solvent for the next 75
years and OMB certifies that the Federal budget--excluding the Social
Security trust fund suplus--is running a surplus and will continue to
run a deficit for the following five years. The Democratic amendment to
H.R. 4578 would take all of the surplus in the Social Security trust
fund--100 percent of it, not merely 90 percent--and lock it away in an
account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where it would earn
interest at the market rate. By putting the money in this ``lock box''
account, Congress could ensure that it wouldn't be spent on other
programs--as many of my Republican colleagues fear--or on tax cuts
benefitting the well-to-do--as many of my Democratic colleagues fear.
The difference between 90 percent and 100 percent of the trust fund
surplus may sound insignificant at first blush, but once one realizes
that 10 percent of the projected Social Security surplus amounts to
over $160 billion, the importance of preserving this money for Social
Security becomes clear. Diverting $160 billion from the Social Security
program is not responsible. It is not reasonable. It is outrageous. It
is nothing short of a raid on our children's future.
I urge my colleagues to join me in exercising restraint, foresight,
and fiscal conservatism. Save the surplus--and preserve Social
Security.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this legislation.
When I came to Congress 10 years ago, my foremost priority was to work
towards balancing the Federal budget. As I prepare to leave this
institution, I am very proud of the fact that this goal has been
reached during my tenure. But reaching a balanced budget is only the
first step. We must continue to pursue fiscally responsible policies to
ensure that we can accomplish related objectives, such as maintaining a
solvent Social Security program for today's seniors and future
retirees, and saving our children from an increasing mountain of debt.
I am not opposed to tax cuts. I supported them in the Balanced Budget
Act last year, and I have been a forceful advocate for some of the
proposals us today, especially the 100% deductibility of health
insurance costs for the self-employed. But this is not the time to be
considering these measures. I fear this vote has political motivations,
and the subject is too dear to me and critical to the country. We must
be certain that Social Security is properly funded, that our parents,
our friends, and our neighbors that rely on that program can continue
to depend on it. Let us do the right thing here today, I urge my
colleagues to preserve the Social Security trust fund for its intended
purpose, and support the Rangel substitute.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the
Rangel Democratic Amendment and oppose H.R. 4578. I strongly support
the Democratic Amendment which would create an account at the Federal
Reserve Bank for the entire Social Security surplus.
It is fiscally irresponsible for Congress to spend any of the
anticipated surplus before we have addressed the long-term retirement
needs of working men and women, or before the surplus has even
materialized.
In order to claim a budget surplus, the majority will use money from
the Social Security

[[Page H8746]]

trust fund. We cannot let this happen. We must restore the $9 trillion
in unfunded liability owed to individuals who have paid into this most
successful government program all of their working lives.
Mr. Rangel's Amendment would transfer 100% of any Social Security
surpluses to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be held in trust
for the Social Security system.
Congress should stand firm to ensure that Social Security will remain
strong for future generations. I urge my colleagues to support the
Democratic Amendment sponsored by the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Rangel. Mr. Speaker, we need to save Social Security first.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 4578,
which contains the Republicans' plan to save Social Security. I oppose
it because it is a job incomplete.
It is not a coincidence that this bill is being brought to the floor
at the end of the session, and immediately before the House will
consider a Republican bill that spends a significant portion of the
Social Security surplus on a tax cut.
This bill comes to the floor only because the Republicans must have
some response ready for the millions of Americans that they plan on
taking money from tomorrow, when we debate the Republican Tax bill.
They want to be able to say that they voted to save 90% of the budget
surplus to Social Security.
Ninety-percent sure sounds good. It sounds like a good score on an
exam, but this is not an exam. This is the money of the American
people. This is money that should all be put into a safe place, away
from politicians, especially in election years.
Furthermore, this Republican plan does not really take the Social
Security Trust Fund off-budget. This means that not even the 90% that
they claim is safe, is truly safe. It is still reachable by Congress
when the next election-cycle comes around. We need legislation that
puts the money of the American people in a truly safe place, like a
Federal Reserve bank.
Democrats, on the other hand, are committed to preserving all, that
means 100%, of the budget surplus for Social Security. That is because
we know that this money is not really a surplus. It is, rather, a debt.
A debt that we owe to all of the Americans that have dutifully paid
into this plan over their entire careers.
The Chairman says, ``Let's be conservative.'' The trouble is the
Chairman's proposal is not conservative enough. The most conservative
thing to do is to take all of the surplus money and lock it away, until
we know that Social Security is saved.
This is not money that we should be using to play election-year
politics. I urge all of you to vote against this bill, and for the
democratic substitute.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his
support for H.R. 4578. This bill ensures that funds are saved for
Social Security, while at the same time allowing taxpayers nationwide
to benefit from a Federal income tax cut in H.R. 4579.
It is projected that we will have a $1.6 trillion surplus in the
Federal budget. House Resolution 4578 would set aside 90% of the budget
surplus, $1.4 trillion, to protect the Social Security system by
depositing this amount into a new Treasury account entitled the
``Protect Social Security Account.'' The Social Security system is a
supplemental retirement benefit to recipients for their life of
diligent service and dedication to their jobs, their families, and
their community. Accordingly, H.R. 4578 will help stabilize the Social
Security system from the threat of permanent insolvency. In turn, H.R.
4578 will help to ensure that the future inheritors of the Social
Security system reap a harvest from the seeds of hard work and toil
that they will sow as time progresses.
In closing, H.R. 4578 is certainly one important step forward in
ensuring a sound Social Security system for future beneficiaries. This
Member encourages a ``yea'' vote for H.R. 4578.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today against the
Republican Social Security bill because it raids the Social Security
Trust Fund in order to provide Republican tax cuts, six weeks before an
election. These tax cuts are a short-term, one-shot use of the surplus.
Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. Those working-class Americans who have
paid into the Social Security Trust Fund deserve to have Social
Security for them.
Social Security has provided benefits to more than 160 million
workers and their families since the program began in 1940. Without
this vital program, half of our Nation's elderly would live in poverty.
Two-thirds of our Nation's elderly depend on Social Security for one
half or more of their income.
Make no mistake about it. The issue is not whether cutting taxes
aimed for reduction should or should not be cut certain reductions
might be beneficial. The heart of the matter is, it is unacceptable to
finance the tax cut package with Social Security funds.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand
up for the elderly and the working poor--preserve 100% of the surplus
for Social Security. They have been there for us, let us not let them
down and leave them behind now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
It is now in order to consider the amendment numbered 1 printed in
the Congressional Record.

Amendment No. 1 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment No. 1 in the nature of a substitute offered by
Mr. Rangel:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. RESERVATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES SOLELY
FOR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--Section 201 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(n)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury, before the
beginning of each fiscal year, shall estimate the amount of
the Social Security surplus for such year. For purposes of
this subsection, the term `Social Security surplus' means the
excess of the receipts in the Trust Funds during the fiscal
year (including interest on obligations held in such funds)
over the outlays from such funds during such year:
``(2) If the Secretary of the Treasury determines that
there is a Social Security surplus for any fiscal year, such
Secretary shall transfer during such year from the General
fund of the Treasury an amount equal to the amount of the
surplus to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Such
transfer shall be made monthly on the basis of estimates by
the Secretary of the Treasury of the portion of the surplus
attributable to the month, and proper adjustments shall be
made in amounts, subsequently transferred to the extent prior
estimates were in excess of or less than amounts required to
be transferred. Amounts transferred under this paragraph
shall substitute for (and be in lieu of) equivalent amounts
otherwise required to be transferred to the Trust Funds.
``(3) The Federal Reserve Bank of New York shall hold the
amounts transferred under paragraph (2), and all income from
investment thereof, in trust for the benefit of the Trust
Funds. Amounts so held shall be invested in marketable
obligations of the United States with maturities that the
Managing Trustee determines are consistent with the
requirements of the Trust Funds. Amounts held in trust under
this paragraph (and earnings thereon) shall be treated as
part of the balance of the Trust Funds.
``(4) If, at any time, any obligation acquired under
paragraph (2) has a market value less than its acquisition
cost by reason of a change in interest rates, the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York may, at any time, present such
obligation to the Secretary of the Treasury for redemption,
notwithstanding the maturity date or any other requirement
relating to such obligation, and the Secretary of the
Treasury shall redeem such obligation for an amount that is
not less than such acquisition cost.
``(5) Upon request by the Managing Trustee, the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York shall transfer to the appropriate
Trust Fund the amount determined by the Managing Trustee to
be necessary to meet the obligations of such Fund.
``(6) All transfers to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
under paragraph (2) shall be treated as Federal outlays for
all budgetary purposes of the United States Government,
except that such transfers shall not be subject to section
252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 and all transfers to the Trust Funds under paragraph
(5) shall be treated as offsetting receipts.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to fiscal years beginning on or after October 1,
1998.
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to reserve 100
percent of the social security surpluses solely for the
Social Security System.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 552, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed, each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Earlier in the debate, somebody said the only difference between the
bills is that I wanted 100 percent and the Republicans wanted 90
percent. That is not the only difference, because, in this substitute,
we take that 100 percent, not just merely put it in a separate
accounting system in the Social Security trust fund, as I once
supported, but we take it away completely from the opportunity of
politicians, Republican or Democrats, and lock it into the Federal
Reserve Bank so that it cannot be touched.

[[Page H8747]]

But I would just like to say, with all of this display of currency on
the floor, that we should recognize for those who have the $40, that
the 40 bucks was owed to the Social Security trust fund. We have not
used the money that has been collected for the trust fund. We have used
it for other things.
So if Members want to say the only difference between Republicans and
Democrats is they want a total commitment to the system and Republicans
want a partial commitment, then we may be closer to the facts, because
we say that after we fix Social Security first, then we would trigger
the exciting and the ever-inviting tax cuts, as my colleagues in the
majority have suggested.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, do not question the reasons
or demean the intentions at all of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer), the Republicans and the former speaker the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich). I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is a great
chairman, and I think America is very fortunate to have the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel),
two of the best.
I want to talk taxes today. I voted for the previous tax cuts. They
made sense. Social Security is funded by its own tax. That tax is to
ensure the solvency of Social Security. I philosophically and in my
heart believe that not one of those pennies should be used for anything
else.
Having said that, let us take a look at the situation in America
today. I can remember from my devastated community, when the CEOs of
the companies were so desperate to try and save their companies, they
used the pension funds, maybe with good intentions. The economy
slumped, and retirees lost their pensions, and Congress had to bail
them out.
Let me caution Congress today about this so-called booming economy.
This just may be a paper tiger. It seems to me if Wall Street sneezes,
the world catches pneumonia and Social Security, once again, needs an
ambulance.
The Archer plan is a good plan. The Rangel plan is a good plan. Today
I am going to support the Rangel plan for one major reason: The Rangel
plan is the safest and the most pragmatic for our country.
I will support the Archer plan. It is one of the best tax packages
brought before this Congress, without a doubt. I will support it when
you find the money elsewhere or after you have implemented the
safeguards brought forth by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
I think we should leave the politics aside today. This is not Rotary.
Republicans are not trying to rip us off. Democrats are not trying to
stop a tax cut. We have a difference of philosophy on this and a
difference of opinion.
I honestly believe there would be a budget deficit without the Social
Security monies of surplus. Let us take care of Social Security. Let us
make it solvent. Then let us go on to the Nation's business, to cut
taxes or, if necessary, find that money elsewhere.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When I was first appointed to the Committee on Ways and Means in
January of 1973, I took an immediate interest in Social Security. There
was no subcommittee then, but I knew how vital it was, not just to
current retirees but to future generations, the most important program
the Federal Government has.
As a result of that, I was appointed by Ronald Reagan to the Social
Security Commission in 1982. No one in this body recognizes more the
importance of Social Security and how sacred it is. So let it be clear
that there is a determination on my part and the part of the majority
to protect, to guard, to reform and to save Social Security.
But what we are talking about today is a different issue. No one
should be fooled about it. If I believed, as my friend from Ohio said,
that this is the only safe way to move, I would not be here urging an
alternative. But the Rangel scheme will not dedicate 100 percent of the
surplus to Social Security. Why? Because surplus, in his definition, is
only what is left over after all of the spending that is urged upon the
Congress occurs in each year. It is an open door to pave the way for
Democrats to increase government spending, reduce the surplus that is
available in each year and, at the same time, expand the size of
government and grow the bureaucracy, grow the power of Washington, as
my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) said.

{time} 1230

Save 100 percent of the surplus for Social Security? How can they
claim to support saving every penny when President Clinton is leading
the charge to spend the surplus now? Extrapolated over a five-year
period, the additional spending this year alone could well reach $100
billion of surplus that will not be there when they are through. The
President has already spent $2.9 billion from the surplus to help the
people in Bosnia. That was not an emergency. We knew ahead of time, for
at least a year, that those moneys would have to be spent. Yet it was
okay to spend the surplus on the people of Bosnia. And already this
fall the President has asked Congress to spend $13 billion in
additional surplus money on other government programs some claimed to
be emergency, and yet clearly were planned in advance, known in advance
and should have been paid for in advance.
Mr. Speaker, if it is acceptable for the Democrats to spend the
surplus on the people of Bosnia, why do they oppose using it to give
tax relief to the taxpayers of America who send it here in the first
place? It is not our money. It is their money.
Do not be fooled. This substitute is a risky scheme to squander the
surplus on more government while denying tax relief to husbands and
wives, farmers and ranchers, senior citizens and small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) our minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the
Democratic substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) that will truly save the surplus for Social Security. I
challenge my Republican colleagues to put the money where their mouths
are. Join with Democrats in using all of the surplus to save Social
Security first.
Republicans talk a big game in election years when it comes to
protecting Social Security. Listening to their rhetoric today, one
would have thought that they were the ones who came up with the idea of
Social Security in the first place. They did not. Republicans fought it
in the 1930s and they are fighting it again in the 1990s. They want to
weaken it by eroding its financial stability. They want to starve
Social Security so that it withers on the vine. That is exactly what
the Republican bill does. It puts Social Security second. It raises and
raids funds from the Social Security trust fund to further their
ultimate goal, killing the system that lifts millions of our senior
citizens out of poverty. This is the first step in their plan to
transform Social Security from a guaranteed fundamental bedrock into a
crapshoot in the markets. They are not really committed to saving
Social Security.
All one has to do is take a look at the Republican bill today to see
how weak their commitment to Social Security really is. If you are
really committed to something, you stand 100 percent behind it. You do
not go halfway in fighting for your bedrock values. You do not go
almost all the way. You go all the way. But the Republicans' 90 percent
solution does not really protect the crown jewel of our efforts, to
make sure that seniors can live in respect and dignity no matter what.
Republicans only want to throw Social Security a string instead of a
lifeline. And Republicans only want to go the whole eight yards to save
Social Security. In baseball, 90 percent of the way only gets you a
pop-out on the warning track, not a home run. We want to knock this
ball straight out of the park.
Democrats are 100 percent committed to Social Security. We are going
to

[[Page H8748]]

dedicate the entire surplus to saving Social Security, not just part of
it, not just 90 percent of it. It is important that we stop these
Republican raiders in their tracks, because this year they will steal
10 percent of the surplus from Social Security and next year they will
come back and try to get more. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
has said so himself. ``As long as there is a Republican majority,'' he
said in a press conference, ``we're going to have a tax cut every
year.'' He said, ``We need to take a stand now.'' Well, I think we need
to take a stand now and show the American people that we will save all,
100 percent, of the surplus for Social Security.
When you have a jewel, you do not keep it on your kitchen table. You
lock it up in a safe deposit box. That is exactly what we want to do
with the surplus for Social Security. Our substitute puts the money
under lock and key, at the Federal Reserve Bank, so that neither
Republicans nor Democrats nor anyone will be able to get their hands on
it.
Let us take the surplus away from the Republicans. Let us shore up
the system and show the American people that we can save Social
Security first.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) another respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, much of the debate here today has been
misleading, to say the least, including the remarks of the previous
speaker.
Look. Democrats, I believe, do want to preserve Social Security. So
do Republicans. There is no difference. We both want to preserve Social
Security. The difference is that for 40 years of Democrat control, they
ran a deficit. They spent more at the Federal level than we took in,
mounting up a debt on which we had to pay interest and, of course, we
could not use that money for Social Security or anything else. So if
they had remained in control and continued 40 years of history, of
spending more than they were taking in, the only solution to Social
Security would have been to raise taxes. Thankfully Republicans gained
control of the legislative branch 3\1/2\ years ago, and thanks to our
fiscal policies getting government spending under control, we are now
running a surplus. We are bringing more money into the Federal
Government than we are spending for the first time in 30 something
years. So, thanks to our policies, we now have an opportunity to save
Social Security, to preserve Social Security that the Democrats want to
do and that we want to do, but our way to do it is to use the surplus
to finance a transition from the current Social Security program to one
that will be smarter, use our money more wisely and even give people
back more than they are getting now from the Social Security system.
If we take a look at the solutions that have been proposed, none of
them spend the entire projected surplus for the next 10 years. They
range anywhere from about $650 billion to $900 billion. So we want to
use that money to transition to a new Social Security system that will
give people more and at least preserve what they have got now. That
should be the debate, and that will be the debate, I hope, over the
next couple of years, how to preserve the Social Security system. What
we have heard here today is a bunch of poppycock and I am tired of it.
Let us be honest. Republicans want to save Social Security, Democrats
want to save Social Security. Thanks to our fiscal policies, we now
have a chance to do that without raising taxes, and I am thankful for
that. Dadgum.
Let me just speak for a minute about the substitute that we are
debating now. If the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) is correct and
if the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) is correct and we are
really going to lock that money up in the Federal Reserve in New York,
well, guess what? Under the wording of the Rangel substitute, we are
not only going to lock up the unified budget surplus, we are going to
lock up the Social Security surplus. That is what it says. So if the
Social Security surplus is more than the unified budget surplus, which
it is over the next five years, you are going to have to come up with
some spending cuts to finance your plan. What are you going to cut,
Medicare? Give me a break.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), one of the strongest supporters of our Social
Security system.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am holding up 10 one-dollar bills. But
as you can see, there are none there. Because we do not have a surplus
to distribute as yet from anywhere. All of what we are talking about
today is projected. Projected.
Let me remind all of us now the facts, because my colleague from
Texas is a little sensitive about raiding, and I will not use that,
because I agree with him, to a point. But when you have a projected
surplus of $520 billion over the next five years, of which $657 billion
of the $520 are Social Security trust funds, what else can you define
the utilization of those funds other than misuse of Social Security
trust fund?
Now, my colleague from Louisiana, I happen to agree with the tone of
his comments a moment ago, because I do agree. I have been working with
a lot of folks on his side of the aisle on the long term of Social
Security. That is why I stand here today absolutely supporting the
Rangel substitute and absolutely supporting not supporting the tax cut.
Because anyone that has spent any time at all looking at what it is
going to take to transcend into a new and survivable Social Security
system knows there are transition costs up front that have to be paid
for. I challenge anyone, and I would be glad to yield to anybody that
would challenge me on anything that I have said thus far. Because
anyone, and I know the chairman of the committee has worked on this and
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) about to speak has worked on
this and I believe he will agree. If we are going to solve the long-
term problems of Social Security, we have got to have some transition
costs. That is why I oppose a short-term political fix of a tax cut
because I want to spend the money on Social Security. Because we cannot
get from where we are to where we want to be unless we do that.
No one as yet has talked about the debt, $5.4 trillion, and we can
point the fingers at what caused it. I am reminded when I point my
finger, there are three pointing back at me. But no one also has talked
about the $9 trillion unfunded liability of the Social Security system.
That is why some of us are so opposed to a tax cut right now, 60 days
before an election, because we want to start the day after the election
working together in a bipartisan way with our colleagues to solve the
long-term Social Security problem. That is why I am here. I do not want
my remarks mischaracterized as some have done this morning on the rule.
I want it to be perfectly clear why I oppose the tax cut today using
Social Security trust funds, because no one can refute me when I say
when the projected surplus over the next five years, that is projected,
and look at the world economy and tell me that it may not happen.
The conservative thing for us to do is to bank the surplus of Social
Security, reserve it for the future of Social Security, and reserve it
for perhaps an economy that may not be as good next year as it is
today.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social
Security.
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker,
the Democratic alternative is not a good deal for Social Security. On
the face of it, one might think that putting aside $1.6 trillion in
excess FICA taxes seems better than the $1.4 trillion the GOP would
reserve at 90 percent of the total budget surplus. But the amendment
adds risks to Social Security that are totally unnecessary. The
Democratic substitute sends all excess FICA reserves and receipts to
the Federal Reserve Bank in New York City where the central bankers are
to invest them in marketable securities.

[[Page H8749]]

{time} 1245

The Fed's job is to control inflation and provide market liquidity,
not invest Social Security funds. This is not the role of the Federal
Reserve and only creates a conflict of interest.
When the Federal Reserve buys securities to keep financial markets
steady, what will it do with the FICA receipts? Will the Fed's first
priority first be to stabilize markets or getting the best deal for
Social Security?
After all, investing FICA funds in marketable securities introduces a
new risk, market risk from the changing prices of bonds, from which
Social Security, under current Treasury investment practices, is
spared. While the Treasury Secretary is ordered in this bill to make up
the losses, the trackings of trillions of bonds would be so complex
Social Security might not receive what it is due.
The Republican plan avoids all this by using the current investment
procedures in special Treasury securities that have no price
volatility.
For all the increased risk in complexities to Social Security, the
bill still has the same budgetary outcome as current law. The surplus
would still be on the Federal books and still considered Federal money
available for Federal purposes according to the Congressional Budget
Office. And if there is a budget surplus other than FICA receipts, is
it the intention of the minority to give a tax break to the working
Americans, as this Congress will do tomorrow in the tax bill, or spend
it away?
Perhaps, however, the intent of the Democratic proposal is larger
than what is written here. Is this the prelude, as some Democrats have
proposed, of government bureaucrats investing Social Security funds in
the private capital markets?
As my colleagues know, Fed Chairman Greenspan fears the interference
of government ownership of American businesses and the financial and
competitive penalties this could bring to workers and investors.
Private investment of Social Security funds is something we should
debate as part of the Social Security reform, not a tax bill, and I,
for one, want to take no step, no matter how innocuous it might seem
now, to give government, not individuals, control over such enormous
sums of money.
When the President spoke to us about reserving the surplus to save
Social Security, I believe he meant all types of excess revenues, not
just FICA receipts as in the Democratic bill. Under their amendment, if
the surplus gets larger due to the historical rise in individual and
business income taxes, not a penny of it will be saved for Social
Security. The Republican bill captures every penny of this increase and
could actually end up reserving greater amounts than the Democratic
plan.
Finally, let us put this in perspective. Under current CBO
projections, our bill reserves $1.4 trillion over 11 years, and the
Democratic plan, $1.6 trillion. For no change in the bottom line, are
we willing to have the system take on more risk, alter the income the
funds receive and upset the important financial operations of the
Federal Reserve? It is just not worth it.
The Democrat substitute introduces new risk for Social Security that
we do not need. It creates uncertainty that we cannot justify. The
Republican bill is straightforward, honest and safe. It sets aside $1.4
million to save Social Security, using tried and true methods.
Please stick with the Republican bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark), a member of the committee.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I must say I am confused by some of the
discussions here. I had assumed that the Republicans were pushing to
privatize Social Security and invest in things like the long-term
capital corporation on Wall Street, but they are sending conflicting
messages. They have been for Social Security since 1973, but none of
them were around when it came into being, voted for it, and now they
want to privatize it, and all I have got to do this morning is convince
my mother that her Social Security benefits will continue.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can tell her is to not vote Republican,
because the record of the Republicans has been to dismantle Social
Security since 1935 when they opposed it, and they still do.
But the real issue that we are here debating today is how we are
going to pay for the tax cut that we are going to debate tomorrow. And
the only way that the Republicans could pay for their tax cut that they
want to bring up tomorrow is to endanger the Social Security moneys
today. They have got to take 10 percent. Let us forget about the 90
percent, and let us assume that is safe. Let us assume that nobody is
going to steal that money. But the 10 percent we are talking about is
going out for a tax cut.
Now between now and tomorrow, with the way Republicans write bills in
secret and pass them out of the Committee on Rules, they could increase
that to 20 percent. Would not make any difference how we vote today,
unless my colleagues support the substitute of the gentleman from New
York who would lock away that money and take it out of the reach of
these spending-crazed Republicans who would like to take this money and
have a huge tax cut and increase the deficit even further than their 10
percent will do.
So let us try and not confuse the public with whether we are better
off having the Federal Reserve buy government bonds, which are indeed
supported by Federal Reserve activities so that they are better
investments, or whether we should leave them in a lower interest rate
account at the Treasury, which has a fixed maturity value. I think that
is splitting hairs. The truth is, the Republican plan gives us no
protection beyond today. They say they are going to save 90 percent,
but there is nothing in their bill that prevents them from changing
their mind the very next day and spending 20 percent instead of 10
percent. And there is nothing in their past history of actions that
would give us any confidence that that is not exactly what they will
do.
So what I am suggesting to my mom is that if she is worried about
Social Security is to support the Rangel amendment which will limit the
Republicans, at least, to only spending 10 percent for the tax cut that
they want tomorrow, unlike the Democrats who would say, ``Let's wait,
eat your spinach first, and then get your desert until there is a true
surplus, and then we'll all support the tax bill.''
So please support the Rangel substitute so that the seniors can be
secure that their old age retirement will be there and that my mother's
grandchildren can also be secure in the knowledge that when they pay
their taxes out of each paycheck there will be a retirement plan for
them as well.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to briefly comment on what some of the previous speakers have
said.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
is making a good-faith attempt to accomplish his purpose. His scheme,
as designed in statutory language, will not do it, number one. And,
number two, it will take an even greater risk with the very sacred
Social Security funds because it will take those payroll taxes
dedicated to Social Security and give them to the Federal Reserve, a
Federal Reserve bank that is not accountable to the people, that is not
accountable to the Congress, and that is a highly risky activity to
take with these sacred funds.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rangel
substitute, and I stand here in support of the Protect Social Security
Account legislation offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
which sets aside $1.4 trillion for Social Security.
This is what this debate really is all about. Today we are asking a
pretty basic question: Can we save Social Security and can we eliminate
the marriage tax penalty at the same time? The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) says no; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) says yes,
and he has offered a plan.
When I think of Social Security, I think of my mom and dad, I think
of my Aunt Mary, my Aunt Eileen, my Uncle Jack, my Uncle Bob, all on
Social Security, and when I think of the marriage tax penalty I think
of my sister Pat and her husband who, like 28 million married working
couples, suffer higher taxes just because they are married, and I think
we all agree we

[[Page H8750]]

need to do both. We need to save Social Security and eliminate the
marriage tax penalty for married working couples.
What is, I think, a great victory about legislation offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is that we are setting aside $1.4
trillion, which is more than twice what President Clinton said we
should set aside back in January. The President said we should set
aside the $600 billion surplus at that time. Today, we have the
opportunity to set aside more than twice what the President called for,
$1.4 trillion.
One clear message that I hear back home and that is, let us keep the
politics out of Social Security. Let us be honest about it. We need to
work together. Republicans and Democrats need to work together. We have
an opportunity today to set aside $1.4 trillion to save Social
Security. We also have an opportunity tomorrow to eliminate the
marriage tax penalty for people like my sister Pat and her husband, 28
million married working couples who are punished under our Tax Code
just because they are married.
Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the marriage tax
penalty. Let us vote yes for Mr. Archer today. Let us vote yes for Mr.
Archer tomorrow. Let us save Social Security. Let us eliminate the
marriage tax penalty.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) a member of the committee.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, Point one:
Let us remember history, where the deficit came from. I heard one of
our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means talk about it as if
it came when the Democrats were running the show.
Most of the deficit occurred in the 1980s when there were Republican
Presidents, and we appropriated no more than those Presidents asked
for. And the two major deficit reduction bills before last year, in
1990 the majority of Republicans voted no, and in 1993 every single
Republican voted no.
Secondly, the emergency argument is pure bootstrap. If it is not an
emergency, do not include it within the bill. The Budget Act provides
for emergency expenditures. It does not provide for raiding the Social
Security fund, and we have to amend the Budget Act in order to do it.
This bill before us is nothing more than an accounting gimmick, a
bookkeeping contrivance that does nothing to protect Social Security. I
support the Rangel substitute. Our colleagues are in a box on this, so
they come up with a phony lockbox. Ours is a real one.
What it does, the Rangel substitute, it takes a hundred percent of
the budget surplus each year and transfers it aside to the Federal
Reserve Bank to be held in trust for Social Security. But the important
point is we should not spend any of the budget surplus until we have
first taken action to assure the long-term health of Social Security.
Without the surplus in Social Security, there is no budget surplus this
year. Without Social Security, the general fund of the Treasury will
not post a genuine surplus of any size until 2006.
Look, this bill and its companion tomorrow divert 10 percent of the
budget surplus, the Social Security surplus. When it comes to Social
Security, my constituents and I think theirs say being a 90 percenter
is not good enough.
I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel lockbox substitute. This
is the time to make saving Social Security the first, not a second or
third priority. We must not divert Social Security funds. Let us fix
Social Security and then enact a tax cut for American families.

{time} 1300

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
simply to reiterate what I said earlier. I cannot believe that senior
citizens in this country or the Association of Retired Persons could
support this Rangel substitute to take greater risk with the sacred
funds of the Social Security trust fund and put them in the hands of
the Federal Reserve, particularly the Federal Reserve Bank that
recently bailed out a losing hedge fund in order to save bankers and in
order to try to reduce the threat of that, and used, of course, dollars
within their control. This is highly risky. I do not know where it came
from, we have not had hearings on it, but I am sure that ARP would not
support this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the chairman of the
committee, for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, to expound upon the comment just made by the
distinguished chairman of the committee, we must rise in strong
opposition to the Rangel substitute precisely because of its method of
devising a so-called lockbox, because it does nothing to serve as
stewards or protectors of Social Security. Oh, no, it gives the
consideration to the central bankers. The Federal Reserve Bank of New
York City. New York City? Why on earth would we devise this legislative
sleight of hand?
We understand the desperation of those on the left. Not only intent
on bankrupting the Nation fiscally, they are bankrupt and bereft of
ideas. So this extension of the politics of fear is made manifest in
the Rangel substitute. You see, Mr. Speaker, the left so mistrusts the
American people with their own money that they will devise any scheme
to put the government in the way of hard working people and their
money.
There is another fatal flaw that we should point out, and I listened
with great interest to the revisionist theory of my friend from
Michigan who comes down with his tired old recitation of government
spending, as if history occurs in a vacuum, about the 1980's, and we
did not have our defenses fall into great disrepair and we did not
confront a superpower intent on enslaving all the world; as if all that
was brushed away with a sleight of hand, as if the world was not a
dangerous place and it was not incumbent upon President Reagan and
others to provide for the common defense.
But the spending question is very interesting here, because we had no
less a personage than the President of the United States come to this
chamber and stand in that podium for his State of the Union message and
say to us all in sterling rhetoric that we should save every penny for
Social Security.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, the facts are these: He has already taken $2.9
billion of that surplus to support a misadventure in Bosnia. Those are
the facts. And the simple distinction is this: Do we allow the left,
thankfully these days the minority, to continue to stand in the way of
the American people and their money, in holding onto a small portion of
their money through tax relief, or do we allow them to spend it and put
the money in the hands of the central bankers?
Reject the Rangel substitute.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the committee.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has one effect and one
effect only, and that is to allow us to vote on the tax cut bill
tomorrow. It does not protect Social Security, it sets up an accounting
gimmick. We should be honest with the American people as to the purpose
of this bill.
There are no guaranteed projected surpluses, yet the tax bill we are
going to be asked to vote on provides for permanent changes in our tax
laws. There is no assurance that only 10 percent of the projected
surplus will be used for a tax cut; it could be 20 percent, it could be
30 percent, it could be 100 percent.
The projected Social Security surplus today, that is, payroll taxes
and interest, is about $1.5 trillion. But if you ask our actuaries how
much money we should have in it to provide for a 75 year solvency of
the Social Security system, they will tell you that we need $3.3
trillion, or twice what we have today. So the assumption that we are
flush with money just is not true. We do not have enough money to deal
with Social Security in the long term, and yet we are asked to vote on
a tax bill.
We are going to have the first balanced budget in 30 years, and yet,
as the President said, before we even have

[[Page H8751]]

an opportunity to transfer from red ink to black ink on our accounting,
there are those who want to start giving money away.
Let us be fiscally responsible. The tax cut that we voted last year
was fully paid for under the budget rules. We did not have to waive the
budget rules. Yet the bill we are being asked to vote on tomorrow will
violate the budget rules and our discipline.
We talk about emergency spending. Emergency spending is not budgeted.
One-time-only emergency spending is consistent under our budget rules.
Ninety-eight percent of the budget surplus projected during the next 10
years comes as a result of our Social Security system. Let me put it
differently. Without the Social Security system, we would not have any
budget surplus. We would not be able to consider a tax bill. No one can
dispute that.
So let us be honest: If it were not for Social Security, we would not
have a budget surplus and we would not be considering a tax bill
tomorrow.
This bill claims to protect 90 percent of the funds for Social
Security. It does not do that. If we did not pass any bill, 100 percent
of the funds would be in the Treasury, preserved, for preserving Social
Security first. The Rangel substitute protects 100 percent of the funds
until we have resolved the Social Security problem. It is the right
bill to vote on.
I urge my colleagues to support the substitute, so that we can really
protect Social Security first and use the surplus monies that have been
generated as a result of our Social Security system to resolve the
problems of Social Security first, before we consider a tax cut.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is always dangerous around here to read
legislation that you are looking at, but if you were to look at the
substitute that the gentleman from New York is offering, it says on the
first page, line 15, ``If the Secretary of the Treasury determines that
there is a Social Security surplus for any fiscal year, such Secretary
shall transfer''--transfer--``during such year from the general fund of
the Treasury an amount equal to the surplus to the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York.''
Transfer. If there is a surplus, take the money and transfer it to
the Federal Reserve Bank. The Social Security surplus is to be
transferred.
I would ask my colleague, the gentleman from New York, if he is going
to transfer Social Security surplus monies, and we have been talking
about the trust fund involving billions and trillions of dollars in
terms of obligations. The Congressional Budget Office, is the facility
that we use to estimate the cost of legislation, therefore I would ask
the gentleman from New York, does he have a cost estimate of this
transfer?
Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman will yield, I will tell him how this
works.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman have a cost estimate?
Yes or no? I am asking a question. If the gentleman has a response, I
would like to hear it. I have very few seconds left here. Does the
gentleman have an estimate, yes or no?
Mr. RANGEL. It does not respond to a yes or no answer.
Mr. THOMAS. It does not respond to a yes or no answer. I will tell
the gentleman why, because the Congressional Budget Office said this
has no budgetary consequence. It is an intergovernmental transfer. The
gentleman's argument is they are saving the Social Security trust fund
by shipping off, according to the Treasury's recommendation, an amount
equal to the Social Security surplus to New York City to a Federal
Reserve Bank, and that they are lockboxing, saving Social Security,
removing the money so it cannot be spent and sending it to New York
City. And the Congressional Budget Office, the agency we use to
determine the costs of these actions, says there is no cost. There is
no cost because it is an intergovernmental transfer.
This is hogwash, vote no.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the committee.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I actually thought that the Congress
was going to address the Social Security shortfall in a bipartisan
manner. Well, I guess we are not going to see that. I want to tell you
that when I came to Congress, I told my constituents that I was going
to put our house in order by reducing the deficit, providing tax relief
and saving Social Security.
Well, guess what? We have reduced the deficit, and, last year, we
gave tax relief, $95 billion over five years. And do you know what? We
gave tax relief that we paid for, the right way, without using the
surplus.
In my six years, I have rarely seen a bill so inaccurately titled,
``Protect Social Security Account Bill.'' Let us get something
absolutely straight: What they intend to do is take 10 percent of the
total budget surplus, which is nearly all due to the contributions that
American workers have invested in Social Security, and use it to fund
tax cuts. In return, they will reserve 90 percent of the budget
surplus.
This is simply irresponsible. Congress does not own the trust fund.
The American people, who have paid the taxes into the trust fund, own
the trust fund, all of it. Not 90 percent, not 95 percent, not 99
percent, the American people own 100 percent of it. So when you tell
the American people that you propose to reserve 90 percent of the
surplus, you are in fact robbing them. That is wrong.
I and my democratic colleagues have committed to save Social Security
first. We believe that reserving the entire budget surplus until we
have resolved the shortfall will have positive results for the entire
economy, far outweighing any election year tax cuts.
Let me remind my colleagues: March 5th, before the Committee on the
Budget, be cautious about spending it, Greenspan said, adding that the
best way to ensure continued economic expansion would be to put the
Federal budget into ``significant surplus.'' Doing so, he said, would
encourage better saving habits among Americans. Greater savings would
promote lower interest rates for borrowers and spur productivity,
enhancing investments by business.
Think what that would mean for working Americans who have mortgages,
credit card bills and college loans. And to my friends with farmers,
certainly they would appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, the old tax-and-spend days are over. I have not been
here for 40 years. This is a new Congress. By supporting the Rangel
substitute we can finish a process we started in 1993 and uphold our
commitment to the American people.
My constituents have told me time and again, take Social Security off
budget. Quit spending the Social Security surplus. The Rangel
substitute would save Social Security by setting aside 100 percent of
the trust fund. Let us vote for the Rangel substitute.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of our television audience
and the people in the gallery, we are not today going to convince a
single Member of Congress of the rights or wrong or merits or demerits
of this issue. But keep in mind, I have something that I think both
sides will agree with, which we need some bipartisan agreement on here.

{time} 1315

The American people watching this today, and especially senior
citizens, are going to be deluged in the next couple of weeks with
letters from organizations here in Washington and outside Washington
telling them that Social Security is endangered, and it is going to be
filled with a lot of misinformation.
The bottom line, usually the postscript, is going to say, send $15 or
$25 or $50, and let us save Social Security. We in Congress will work
on Social Security. It will be saved. It will be solvent,

[[Page H8752]]

but there is no need for anyone listening to send one dime to any
organization in order to save Social Security. Rely on your Member of
Congress.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Ms. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Rangel substitute. I am
a senior citizen. I am speaking on behalf of those who come after me,
those who will not have the opportunity to share in the resources of
the Social Security Act.
When I came to Congress, I served on the Committee on the Budget
under the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). We talked about the budget
agreement. There is a budget agreement. So what the Republicans are
doing, Mr. Speaker, they are breaking their promise to the American
public. The American people do not like broken promises. They have
heard them too many times.
Social Security is extremely important to all of us. It is extremely
important to senior citizens. When Members go back to their districts
and walk the byways and trailways of this country, every American will
tell us, leave Social Security alone. What this Rangel substitute does
is it puts it aside so we as politicians can leave it alone for a while
and leave it there, where it purports to be from the very beginning.
By their actions, it appears to me that over the years, and I have
been here longer than a lot of people, the Republicans do not seem to
like Social Security. They have used every kind of methodology to make
it look remiss. They have tried their very best to show that it is
failing and it should be put aside, or to privatize it.
I am here to say to the American public, on behalf of this country,
let us stick to our word. This bill is too risky. It takes too many
promises that they cannot submit. Some of us may not even be here when
this comes up. I say, take the Rangel substitute and turn down the
Archer.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I admire the intention of my colleague, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) on this proposal, but I would respectfully
ask that my colleagues reject it. I would say that for four different
reasons.
I would say, first of all, that the notion here is that this time it
will be different. How many times have we heard that in Washington,
D.C., this time it will be different? In other words, what we have been
doing in Washington is borrowing against trust fund balances for the
last 30 years, and what is proposed with this super-duper trust fund,
if you will, is that this time it will be different. What people back
home tell me is that they do not buy into the idea that this time
things will be different.
Two, I think it offers false hope. If we look at what the trustees
have said, the trustees would say, whether this proposal went through
or not, Social Security would begin to run shortfalls in about 15
years, and it would be out of money, unable to pay its obligations, in
about 30 years. That would not change with this.
Thirdly, I would say that it moves us in the wrong direction. We are
going to go in one of two directions in this debate, over the long run,
on Social Security. We are going to either move towards greater
personal control of one's savings, which I think is the real way we
keep politicians' hands off our money, or we are going to move toward
collective investment.
I think there is nothing more dangerous than the idea of collective
investment. This sets up the mechanism for collective investment,
wherein $400 billion a year could go into the private sector. What
people back home who care about limiting the size and scope of
government tell me is that that is not a good idea.
For these reasons I would ask that we reject the Rangel proposal.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, Social Security is one of our Nation's greatest success
stories. It really is financial bedrock for our country's elderly, for
hardworking American families who want to retire with some peace of
mind. I think it is important to note that two-thirds of our seniors
depend on Social Security for more than half of their retirement
income. But in fact, Social Security is under attack. This bill would
raid Social Security to pay for a tax bill.
I believe in tax cuts. Too many parents today sit at their kitchen
tables trying to figure out how to pay their bills. They are raising
their children, they are working harder to making ends meet. I also
believe when they sit there that they have a certain relief knowing
that Social Security will be there when they retire. The American
public overwhelmingly wants to make sure that the Social Security trust
fund is there to pay for Social Security and nothing else, not tax cuts
today that jeopardize Social Security tomorrow.
Do not take my word for it. Martha Phillips, with the conservative
Concord Coalition: ``Policymakers who are lining up to spend those so-
called budget surpluses should keep in mind that the money they are
talking about consists entirely of Social Security's annual trust fund
surpluses.''
Steve Moore of the Cato Institute, another conservative organization:
``The solution is simple: Formally wall off Social Security from the
rest of the budget to prevent continued thievery from the trust fund.''
Vote for the Rangel tax cut proposal. It says, let us not raid Social
Security to pay for tax cuts. We can have our tax cuts when Social
Security is safe and secure for the future.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I robbed a bank of 10 percent of its
cash or its revenues, I seriously doubt the police and judge would
accept my excuse that, Officer, Judge, I was really trying to save the
bank. Yet, incredibly, that is what my Republican colleagues are doing
today. They are saying, we just want to take 10 percent out of Social
Security taxes that should be used to protect Social Security, and use
that money for election-year promises and gimmicks.
Mr. Speaker, a judge would never believe my excuse as a bank robber.
I do not think the American senior citizens are going to believe this
explanation of the bill today. The fact is, the American people will
have to choose today, who do they trust better to protect Social
Security, Democrats or Republicans.
In my brief time, I would only point out that the number two ranking
Republican leader in this House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey),
said on September 28 of 1994, ``I would never have created Social
Security.''
I think the American people will answer the question today. That
answer will be, resoundingly, we trust the Democrats to protect our
Social Security retirement.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, in response to the gentleman who
just spoke, it is a good question, whom will senior citizens trust, the
Treasury of the United States or the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on the issue before us, this Congress
stands at a very important crossroads: Do we go down the easy path of
dissipating the Social Security surplus on election year gimmicks like
this proposed tax cut, or do we brace ourselves for the tough march
that lies ahead to secure Social Security, to address the long-term
solvency problem in Social Security so it will work as well for our
grandchildren as it has worked for our parents and grandparents? It is
a critical question.
Dissipating Social Security trust funds makes our problem worse. We
already have bills before this session that would require someone to
work until they are 70 years old before they would get their Social
Security payment, or that would raise the tax on Social Security,
making wage-earners pay even more into Social Security. Both of these
measures are to fill the solvency hole we already have.

[[Page H8753]]

Mr. Speaker, a tax cut on the Social Security surplus would only make
the problem worse. The question before us is one most of us have never
faced before, the first surplus we have seen in 30 years. Let us hold
the Social Security surplus for Social Security. Pass the Rangel
substitute.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in order to save Social
Security and instill trust, I rise to support the Rangel amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Democratic amendment. Only by
transferring 100% of any Social Security Trust Fund surpluses to the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, can we look our constituents in the
eye and say, ``Yes, you can trust in us. We have protected your future,
your children's future, and your grandchildren's future.''
The Republican bill appears to save 90% of the budget surplus,
leaving 10% to Congressional discretion. Although this figure seems
fair at first, I do not believe that we should have the discretion to
use 1% of our citizens' futures, much less 10%.
I fear that stealing 10% from the Social Security will create a
dangerous precedent. What will stop Congress from taking out a higher
percentage of the surplus in subsequent years? I may be 10% this year,
but it could be 50% within two or three years. We should not give
Congress free reign over this money.
Worse yet, it does not appear that the Republican plan protects the
remaining 90% of the budget surplus. Unlike the Democratic amendment
that places the surpluses in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the
Republican bill does not ensure that the Social Security surplus is
off-budget. In other words, Congress may still choose to delve into
these funds when the next election comes around. This approach is
simply unfair to the American public, and it deceives our citizens into
thinking that their futures are secure.
We must put these funds in a lock box where political maneuvering
cannot reach them. By placing 100% of the surplus in the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, the Democratic amendment would properly lock
away this valuable resource.
Moreover, the Republican measure relies upon the spending of $200
billion of the surplus, money that may not exist. As recently as last
month, we did not have a surplus. The Republicans rely solely upon a
projected surplus, and the Republicans even admit that their
projections may be erroneous. Our constituents, our citizens, deserve
better treatment than this. What kind of message do we send when we
attempt to spend what we do not have?
Even if we had a surplus, who are we to spend this money? It is not
for us; it is for our retiring citizens. The money found in the surplus
comes from payroll contributions. The money should be returned to the
people who originally invested it.
The Republican measure endangers the future of Social Security
itself, not just the people who rely upon this fund. It is well-known
that Social Security will face a fiscal crisis early in the next
century as the baby boomer generation retires. Too many of our citizens
drink from this well, and the Republican bill would allow politicians
to spill this precious resource, drying up the sole reservoir for those
who truly need it.
Please do not think that I am against tax cuts. I strongly favor
``fiscally responsible'' tax relief. Democrats have proposed and voted
for many tax cuts this year. The bipartisan 1997 Tax Cut bill included
almost $300 billion in tax cuts over a ten-year period, and many
democrats support even greater tax relief for the middle-class than was
contemplated by that bill.
I just believe that tax cuts should be based upon sound reasoning.
Haphazard legislation such as the Republican bill simply does not
fulfill this notion of fiscally responsible tax relief.
Instead, I strongly support sounder approaches such as this
Democratic amendment. I also support approaches such as the Democratic
amendment to H.R. 4579 that delays tax cuts until we know for sure that
the Social Security Trust fund will be available to our citizens for
years to come. This idea is the true embodiment of fiscally responsible
tax relief.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is the only way
we can ensure that our American citizens have a financial future as
they reach their golden years.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I heard a Republican colleague earlier
defend the Republican bill by saying, ``in this case, less is more.''
Only in Washington would someone say ``less is more'' with a straight
face, that less protection is more security. But I am glad that at
least we have one Republican on the record who admits that their bill
in fact does less. It does less to protect Social Security, it does
less to protect our seniors, and it puts aside less of the surplus.
Less in this case is not more.
The Democratic bill saves 100 percent of the budget surplus for
Social Security, because seniors put 100 percent into their
contributions over years and years of work. They did not put 90 percent
in, they did not put 95 percent in, they put 100 percent in. That is
what we should protect, not a penny less.
Republicans should be ashamed to come down here to the floor and
convince seniors that less is more. Our seniors know that less is not
more, that less protection is not more security. They know who is on
their side. They know it is the Democratic plan. Let us pass the Rangel
substitute.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the most important program that we
have that is working. It makes the difference between the elderly
living in poverty, and to convince them that taking 10 percent of their
safety net, that they are helping them, they do not buy that.
I would say to the Members, if they really want to help Social
Security, they would put 100 percent in. Support the Rangel substitute.
That is the only way we can convince the American seniors that we are
sincere.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio) is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, as we look to the next
Congress, the one that will fix the Social Security system for the out
years, the baby boomers, we need to maintain every dime we can so that
we do not end up forcing people to work longer or live longer to
benefit from the same Social Security system that those that preceded
them have.
We also need to think about this election year tax cut in another
context. The average working family, paying the most regressive tax on
income that we have, the FICA tax, would be, in effect, asked to take
their taxes and transfer them to the proposed beneficiaries of this
Republican election year tax cut. We are therefore asking our working
families to take their hard-earned dollars to provide tax breaks for
others.
However valuable they may be, however worthy they may be, those tax
breaks must wait for the day when we have a surplus in the general
fund, and that, Mr. Speaker, is 5 or 6 years away. To go for the cotton
candy of a tax cut in an election year out of the hides of working
American families is unconscionable.
This Congress should support the Rangel substitute and avoid doing
it.
Mr. Speaker, this Republican misses the point of what Americans
really want.
We do not want to take money out of the Social Security Trust Fund
for purposes other than Social Security.
The American people pay Social Security taxes and expect that money
to go to Social Security.
Democrats believe that any future surplus should go to insuring the
solvency of Social Security.
So, why now are we specifying that only 90% of any surplus should go
to saving Social Security and 10% can go elsewhere?
Let's look at numbers.
If in fiscal year 1999 we have an $80 billion Social Security Trust
Fund surplus and a $37 billion general fund deficit, why should $8
billion of the surplus for that year go somewhere other than to Social
Security?
Over the next 10 years, we'll need over $1.55 trillion to pay the
future beneficiaries of the Social Security system--the elderly; the
children, widows and widowers receiving survivor benefits; and the
disabled--not prop up our budget.

[[Page H8754]]

We need all 100%--not just 90%--of future budget surpluses to ensure
that this anti-poverty program continues beyond 2032.
Let's be fiscally responsible and use the Social Security Trust Fund
for who it was intended--the elderly, disabled and children--not to
provide tax cuts.

{time} 1330

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Archer), my friend, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I must say, during the time I was on the floor, I
listened to a series of Members with amazement. The distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the
Committee on Ways and Means, had an opportunity recently to vote on the
question of spending part of the surplus, and he voted ``yes.'' He
would spend part of the surplus. This is House vote number 430 on
September 15. He voted to spend part of the surplus, but it was on
government, not the taxpayers.
The gentleman from California who just spoke had a chance to vote on
that day. He voted ``yes'' to spend part of the surplus, but it was on
government, not the taxpayers.
I will say the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) did not
vote ``yes.'' She did not happen to vote that particular day. But the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) voted ``yes'' to spend part of
the surplus, but on government, not on the taxpayers.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who spoke a few minutes
ago, voted ``yes'' to spend part of the surplus, but on government, not
on the taxpayers. And the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
who spoke voted ``yes'' to spend part of the surplus, but on
government, not on the taxpayer.
Every person but one who just finished this debate on the other side
voted to spend part of the surplus on September 15 on government.
The Clinton administration has sent up a proposal, in between fund-
raising trips, and they sent up a proposal that said, spend money on
Bosnia, but not the taxpayers. They said, spend money for the
government to fix Y2K, but do not let the taxpayers have money to fix
their own commuters. They said, spend money on Africa, but not the
taxpayers.
Again and again and again the liberal Democrats get up, and I will
bet that between now and the time we leave there are several votes
where liberal Democrats vote ``yes'' to government spending out of the
surplus, because if it is government money, that is okay. But now this
idea of letting the taxpayers have some of that, that is dangerous.
Then they would not be dependent on government. Then power would not be
in Washington. Then they would not need the bureaucrats.
Now, they raise this phony issue about Social Security. And it is
phony on three grounds. It is phony, first of all, because the fact is
we are setting aside more money for Social Security than the President
requested in January. Now, that is a fact and the gentleman knows it.
The gentleman knows when the President stood up here in January he was
talking about a surplus whose total was around $650 billion. This
proposal sets aside more money, 60 percent more money, than the
President requested.
Second, the gentleman knows that when asked as a result of the tax
bill being considered by the committee today, will there be any impact
on the monies in the Social Security trust fund, the Clinton
administration's Deputy Commissioner for Social Security said, ``no,''
there is no impact to the trust fund from this particular vote.
But the other part I have to say to my good friend, to suggest, as
his substitute does, that instead of keeping the money in the U.S.
Treasury we send it to the New York Federal Reserve Bank, I just had
the numbers run on the last great crisis in the price of treasuries
which was 1973. Over the period we are considering, we would put $750
billion in the New York Reserve Bank. That money would be of a floating
value of the nature of money held in the New York Reserve Bank.
In the 1973 oil crisis, U.S. treasuries declined 20 percent in value.
That would be $150 billion lost in the value of the notes held by the
New York Federal Reserve Bank. So, I cannot believe my good friend from
New York really wants to risk losing $150 billion in Social Security
value by putting this money in notes that would have a floating value.
So, I would understand if at some point before we get to a vote the
gentleman wants to withdraw his substitute. Because I cannot imagine
that he wants his colleagues to vote for a proposal to put at risk all
of the excess FICA tax money by putting it in notes that would be of a
floating value.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from New York briefly.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, because these Treasury notes, these notes
that will be in the Federal Reserve are always redeemable, they are not
at risk. And if they ever became at risk in the Federal Reserve Bank,
it would mean the Republic would be bankrupt.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say to the
gentleman from New York, and I am not the expert that he is on much of
this, but I am assured by the experts, and I am sure later if he would
like to check with the folks that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
has assembled on this, there is a big difference between the New York
Reserve Bank holding the notes where they do change and fluctuate in
value and the rest of the system.
Mr. Speaker, let me just wrap up for a minute. Let me just say we
have a surplus because we have consistently worked through welfare
reform, through controlling spending, through cutting taxes, to
encourage economic growth.
We have proposed to set aside over a trillion dollars. My good
friends on the left in the 40 years they were in charge of the House
set aside zero. Let me make it clear. All of our good friends who are
complaining today, during the 40 years they were in charge set aside
zero for Social Security.
We are setting aside today over a trillion dollars, 60 percent more
than President Clinton asked for in January. And we are setting it
aside in the safest possible Treasury notes held by the U.S. Treasury,
not put at risk in New York City.
My other point is very straightforward. All of our friends on the
left are going to vote to spend part of the surplus on government. All
of our friends on the left but one of those who voted on September 15,
all but one voted to spend money on government out of the surplus.
The only time they start to yell about the surplus is if the money is
going back to the taxpayer, because from their standpoint that is
dangerous since that means the money is not available for bureaucracy.
Let me note what the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Archer) does. It begins to phase out the marriage tax, so we
are not punishing people when they get married. It accelerates lifting
the amounts Americans can earn over the age of 65 without being
punished, so we are not punishing senior citizens.
It goes immediately to a million dollar exclusion for the death tax
to save family farms and small businesses. It has a savings proposal
that helps 10 million senior citizens by eliminating the tax on the
first $200 of interest and dividends.
It allows small business owners who are self-employed to buy health
insurance with the same tax break as big corporations, which helps
people buy health insurance and helps children have health coverage.
And, finally, it eliminates the Federal tax on local school boards, so
local school boards have $1.4 billion more for local school
construction, something my good friend from New York has said he
favors. Here is a chance to have those local school boards have $1.4
billion more at home to build schools without any new Federal
bureaucrat, any new Federal red tape, any new Federal regulation.
Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of positive tax cuts that help the
American family, help senior citizens, help farmers, help small
businesses and help local schools. It is done within a framework based
on welfare reform, controlling spending and economic growth

[[Page H8755]]

through tax cuts that has allowed us in 3\1/2\ years to move from a
projected $3,100 trillion deficit to a projected $1.6 trillion surplus.
We can say to the American people for the first time in their
lifetime that we are prepared to set real money aside from a real
surplus. None of our Democratic friends who are complaining can say
that. We are simply saying to the Democrats, if they vote against the
taxpayer having the surplus, then they ought to vote against the
government having the surplus. But it is wrong to increase spending on
Bosnia, to increase spending in Africa, to increase spending on
government commuters, to increase spending on government programs, and
then say to the taxpayer that they are not good enough to get their own
money back. We need to keep it in Washington for the Washington
bureaucrats.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute,
vote in favor of protecting Social Security in a real way by setting
aside over a trillion dollars in the surplus.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 216, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 463]

AYES--210

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--216

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--9

Burton
Cox
Goss
Kennelly
Linder
Moakley
Pryce (OH)
Waters
Yates

{time} 1359

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Burton of Indiana against.

Mr. REDMOND and Mr. WAMP changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. DIXON, MATSUI and SHERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House
Resolution 552, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as
amended.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240,
noes 188, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No 464]

AYES--240

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter

[[Page H8756]]

Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--188

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--7

Brown (OH)
Burton
Goss
Kennelly
Moakley
Pryce (OH)
Yates

{time} 1420

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Burton of Indiana for, with Mr. Moakley against.

Mrs. BONO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________