Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 29 (Wednesday, February 24, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 24, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H772-H778]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SOCIAL SECURITY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, it is with true pleasure that I stand up
here today to talk about a program that is so important to America, and
that is our Social Security program.
I come from southwest Louisiana, Cajun country, bordered on the west
by the State of Texas and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. I have in
my district some 100,000 citizens and families and individuals that are
receiving some sort of benefits from our Social Security program. They
are the disabled, they are the retired, and they are the children who
have lost a parent.
The program was established back in 1935. It was established as a
response to the economic changes of the Great Depression. Back then,
the average life-

[[Page H773]]

span was only 61 years old. Today, the average life-span of Americans
is 76 years old and steadily rising.
History has shown that deliberate alterations of this program have
been very beneficial to our great Social Security program. It is a
program that is very popular. It is a program that is going to be
around here. Because what it has done for the American people, what it
has done for our elderly population has been incredible.
We have the most healthy, the highest quality of life of elderly
population, not even arguably, than anywhere else in the world. It is
because of the commitment that this Congress should make and other
Congresses have made to saving Social Security and taking care of it in
times that are just like today that are very good.
It has only been many years since this Social Security program has
been around. It seems like so long ago, but it truly has not been.
Throughout the 1950s, Congress altered the structure of Social Security
to try to meet the needs of the changing American people. They raised
the Social Security benefits by some 77 percent throughout the 1950s.
They altered means testing and also raised the payroll taxes.
In the 1960s, for the first time, they allowed disabled workers to
receive compensation that was only for retirees up to that point in
time. The 1980s saw some changes in the fiscal structure of Social
Security. Congress passed legislation to gradually, back in the 1980s,
increase the minimum age of Social Security and the benefits.
But, clearly, this program has survived time, has survived the
challenges that have accompanied and have faced Americans. Because this
program is so greatly used and needed for the betterment of the
American people, it has risen to those challenges.
One in six Americans today receive some sort of Social Security
benefits. Three million children are the beneficiaries of this program.
Currently, Social Security needs to increase its revenues in order to
address the financial obligations to the rapid increasing number of
retirees, the baby boomers.
If you look at it and look at the demographics of the American
people, they are changing dramatically. Today, there are approximately
3.2 workers paying into the Social Security system and only one
beneficiary. That is going to change in a few short years as America
gets older, as the baby boomers start to retire. That ratio is going to
be narrowed to only a two to one margin.
We cannot simply sit back in good economic times that we are seeing
today and let this program go unnoticed and let this program run into
more financial difficulties, because if you look at the numbers, it is
very, very clear that, soon, the revenues that are coming into this
program will not be enough to take care of the beneficiaries, not only
the increase, but also the larger number of people that are getting
into the program.

{time} 1630

I believe that it is incumbent upon this Congress to take the surplus
that we are experiencing, and have experienced in fiscal year 1998 that
has just passed us, to shore up Social Security.
In fact, I will go one step further. Do we really have a surplus? If
we look at the numbers this year, fiscal year 1998, America had a $76
billion surplus for the first time in many, many years, through the
efforts of a lot of people in this Congress. The balanced budget
agreement was the big important piece of legislation that got us there.
However, we borrowed $99 billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund
to mask that deficit. Should we not ask ourselves, do we truly have a
surplus in this country?
I believe every American out there that pays FICA taxes and every
employer believes these funds should be put into a Social Security
Trust Fund and put back into the very system that it was intended to be
in.
Over the past few years we have borrowed somewhere upwards of $600
billion out of this trust fund. It is part of the unified budget. I
understand, as a small business owner, I understand in a unified
budget, where there are different revenue streams, that they are put
all together to make a business run, to make government run. But now is
the time to put up Social Security and make sure that we save this
important program.
Putting that money back into Social Security is not the only thing
needed to help this program. This program is going to need other
structural changes, changes that have been talked about. There are
several commissions, lots of study groups, task forces and think tanks
giving us advice in this Congress to talk about how we go about fixing
the structure of the program.
There are some things that are being tossed around. The President
talked about investing some money in the stock market, investing some
of the money for privatization of it; increasing the taxation benefits;
means testing benefits; adjusting the CPI, the Consumer Price Index;
also raising the retirement age. All of those things are being
considered today as structural changes to save this program.
I believe that while Social Security was never, ever intended to be
the sole retirement system and the sole income stream of Americans, it
has helped millions and millions of individuals and families from being
at or below the poverty line in America.
I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle recognize the
need to save Social Security, recognize that, yes, we have a surplus
but we need to infuse it back into the very program where the surplus
is being generated from. Yes, we want tax cuts. I have voted for them,
and I will continue to vote for them, but we must be able to put the
money back into Social Security and make sure that we pay for tax cuts
from other areas.
I hope my colleagues will join with me in saving this program,
because there are over 14,000 children, I repeat, 14,000 children in my
district, the 7th district of Louisiana, that are counting on this
Congress to make sure that this program is around for the next
generations.
As I look up in the audience, they just walked out, but there were a
whole host of generation X'ers, the next generation of leaders, the
next generation of Members of Congress who were here, who actually have
a question about whether their Social Security is going to be there for
them when they grow up and enter the work force and then retire. I can
say that if this Congress and this gentleman from South Louisiana has
anything to do about that, it will not only be there but it will be
strengthened, because I think it is important for the quality of life
for all of our seniors. The American people deserve it.
Let us save Social Security now, do it the right way, and in a
fiscally responsible way.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Marion
Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Louisiana
and appreciate what the gentleman has said here this afternoon. And,
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of fiscal responsibility and
budgetary common sense, which I think we all are in support of.
As this budget debate has begun, and it continues, I am reminded of a
fellow that I used to eat breakfast with every morning. For 30 years I
ate breakfast in the same little cafe, the Rice Paddy Cafe, there in
Gillett, Arkansas, and pretty much the same group of men would sit at
the table every morning. I am sure the Speaker has been in cafes like
that in her district. They are wonderful places.
I had this friend that, when harvest time would come, well, he would
eat breakfast there every morning, and then late in the afternoon, on
his way home, he would stop there and get a cup of coffee. And when he
would come back in every afternoon to get that cup of coffee, during
harvest time, he would have figured all over his pant leg. He would
have a ball point pen and he would be calculating on his blue jeans,
his pant leg there.
When the combine would make the first round, he would estimate how
much grain he had, and then he would start figuring out how much money
he was going to have. Sometimes he would figure he was going to have
lots of money and he would go buy some expensive item, like a new car
or something, before he got his crop harvested and before he sold it.
Then, when he would go home that night, well, his wife would wash his
blue jeans and the next morning all of his money would be gone.

[[Page H774]]

That is kind of the way I think of this situation we are in right
now. I think we need to take a realistic look at our national budget.
We keep hearing about this budget surplus, this magical surplus that
everyone wants to spend. We all love to spend money, especially if it
is someone else's. The fact is there is no surplus. The sad fact is
that the taxpayer dollars designated for the Social Security Trust Fund
are being used to cover up the true amount of the national deficit.
If we take the Social Security Trust Fund out of the equation, we
will have a surplus not until the year 2001. That surplus could be
minuscule even then compared to the billions and billions of dollars
that we keep hearing about. When we do get a surplus, I personally
would rather not count those chickens until they hatch. We still have a
matter of $5.6 trillion in debt to contend with. That should be enough
money to scare every one of us.
Those who advocate spending these surplus monies on new programs,
like tax incentives, should look to the private sector for advice. If
we asked our local banker if he had a customer that was $5.6 trillion
in debt, and the customer wanted to spend more, what would the banker
say to them? Would we want to give them a loan if we were running the
bank?
As world leaders, would our country say to an irresponsible nation
that was $5.6 trillion in debt, that is okay, what the heck, we will
just give them a couple more billion, it will not matter. I do not
think that is what we would do if we were going to be responsible.
Throwing good money after bad hurts our taxpayers, our economy and our
long-term prosperity.
How can we use any future surplus responsibly? First, we can pay off
the national debt. Second, we must ensure Social Security's solvency.
Just putting more money into the program will not work. We need
comprehensive bipartisan reforms. Taking the Social Security Trust Fund
off budget is a good first step. Third, we must ensure that the
Medicare program is there forever and for all of our seniors.

Like Social Security, Medicare needs some long-term reforms. There is
no question that its benefits are outdated, its payment structure is
unwieldy, and its reimbursement to rural areas is just plain unfair.
Setting aside money for Medicare out of any surplus will not end the
program's problems but it will provide a cushion in the event our
Medicare beneficiaries need it.
Paying down the debt, shoring up Social Security, and saving
Medicare. This is a reasonable thing to do, it is a responsible thing
to do, and it is a responsible use of the future surplus. Today I want
to urge my colleagues to reject a foolhardy proposal that will spend
nonexistent surpluses and create billions of new spending.
Let us do with our national budget what the American people do with
theirs. Let us balance it, let us keep it balanced and let us be
responsible. And whatever we do, let us do not wake up in the morning
to find out that our surplus disappeared when we did the wash last
night. I think it is a responsible thing to do, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in this effort.
Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentleman
from the panhandle of the Great State of Florida (Mr. Allen Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for
yielding to me, and I can identify with that story that my friend from
Arkansas told about making the circle with the harvesting machine and
trying to figure out what the yield was and what kind of return his
friend was going to have. I have done that a few times myself. I would
tell the gentleman that I do not ever remember writing it on my pant
leg, but I used to write it on the palm of my hand. That is something a
lot of our Ag people do.
I wanted to take this opportunity today to speak to the Congress and
to the people of America about my notion about this country and where
we are and where we should be going.
I was listening this morning to one of the local talk shows. I guess
it was the C-SPAN Washington Journal. I heard a caller call in and talk
about our country and the fact that no major power had ever lasted 300
years. That may be true. The truth is also that no other democracy in
this world has ever lasted as long as ours has. None has ever lasted
200 years. And this caller was saying that America is on the brink of
demise. Well, I am here today to dispute that.
I think our country is stronger than it has ever been in its history.
If we just look at the numbers and look at the facts, we are the
strongest and greatest country in the world. Militarily, we are the
only true superpower left, with the demise of the Soviet Union. We are
truly the greatest country in the world economically, at a time when
many countries around the world, Asia, Russia, Central and South
America, are going through some very difficult economic times. We are
flourishing. Even our Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, says
that the economy is doing great and the outlook is superb.
I think that that does not come very easy, though. There has been a
lot of hard work on the part of all the American people to make sure
that we move forward, to make sure that our economy stays strong, to
make sure that each generation has a better quality of life than their
parents did.
We are sort of at a crossroads now here in Congress, and I want to
talk briefly about that. We are at a crossroads because, for the first
time in 30 years, this Congress, after receiving the demand from the
American people, has adopted a course of fiscal responsibility. We have
come to an era where we are not spending more money than we take in. We
have come to an era where we do not talk about $200 billion, $300
billion annual deficits any more. We talk about surpluses.
Just 6 or 7 short years ago, in 1992, this country, or this
government that runs this country, spent some $290 billion more than it
took in. And last year, in 1998, this Federal Government took in about
$60 billion more. So we went from a $290 billion deficit to a $60
billion surplus.
Now, I have heard a lot of people argue about who is responsible for
that; whether it was Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or this Congress or
that Congress. I think the American people probably had more to do with
it. The American worker is more productive. The American capitalist is
more ingenious in how he spends his money and uses his money around the
world. And I am very proud of that.

{time} 1645

And I think the American people should be very proud of that.
I think what I want to do today is bring a warning about the idea of
surplus. The so-called $60 billion surplus that this government had
last year, of that $60 billion, $100 billion came out of the Social
Security Trust Fund. In other words, exclusive of the Social Security
program, this government had about a $40 billion deficit last year. And
so, we ought not to be talking about how we spend the surplus when we
do not really have one.
I know there are people on either side of that aisle over there, and
I always wondered when I served in the State legislature where that
term ``on the other side of the aisle'' or ``on this side of the
aisle'' came from and I guess now, Madam Speaker, I know once I have
arrived here in Congress, but we will find people on one side of the
aisle who want to take the so-called surplus, which I submit to my
colleagues is not really a surplus, and spend it on a new program. We
find others who want to spend it maybe on tax cuts.
Now, each of these ideas has some merit. But I would submit to my
colleagues that with a $5.6 trillion debt that this country owes that
we ought to do something else with that surplus. We ought to take it
and pay down the debt. We ought to shore up the programs that we have
in existence. We ought to make sure that we are able to fulfill the
commitments that we have already made. And where are those commitments?
A couple of them are in Social Security and Medicare.
Now, I have heard a lot of talk in the last week or so about the
President's budget and his plan for Social Security, and I think we all
know that what the President has submitted to us is a starting point.
He certainly has done a good job in saying to us, to Congress and the
American people, in saying that we are not going to spend that money
until we make some substantive reforms in Social Security and make sure
that it is solid through the year 2075 or 2100. And I think this is a
reasonable thing to do.

[[Page H775]]

Now, we all know the President did not make any recommendations on
substantive reforms, and that is something that this Congress has to
begin to deal with in concert with the President. So I look forward to
getting busy on that task of making those substantive reforms.
In the meantime, I think that the proposal to set that money aside is
a reasonable proposal. After all, it did come into the Social Security
Trust Fund to start with, so it certainly should not be used for
something else.
There is another up side to paying down the Federal debt, the public
debt, and that is part of what the President has proposed. My
colleagues, the money that it costs to service the debt of this Nation
is about $215 billion annually, $215 billion. That is almost as much as
our national defense budget on an annual basis.
Think of the things that we can do with $215 billion if we had that
and we did not have to pay it to our creditors. That money does not buy
us one cop on the street, it does not put one new teacher in the
classroom, and it does not put one new GI in the field to defend this
country. All it does is pay for the excesses of the past. I wish that
we had that $215 billion to do something else with, and then we could
really have a lively debate about tax cuts or spending programs.
So I think the first thing we ought to do is begin to pay down that
debt and reduce that interest bill. It is what any prudent constituent
that my colleagues have would do. It is what any prudent businessman
would do. It is what any prudent local government, whether it be a
county or a school board or a city, would do. If they had extra money
and they owed a debt, they would go pay it off. So I think that is a
reasonable approach. In the meantime, that works hand in glove with
shoring up the Social Security system.
My colleagues, we already have in law that commitment. We have a
tremendous unfunded liability in the Social Security system into the
21st century. So there is nothing wrong with setting aside money to
cover that unfunded liability.
Now, if we want to change the law and take away that liability, that
is a different issue. I do not think that is something the American
people are going to stand for.
We need to remember that the Social Security system is one of the
programs that has enabled us to advance as a society and each
generation become more affluent and live a better quality of life.
I have one statistic that I like to quote from time to time when I
speak to my Kiwanis clubs and Lions clubs and that is, in 1963, a year
prior to the advent of the Medicare system, over 55 percent of the
people in this Nation who reached retirement age, the age of 65, lived
in poverty. That is just 36 years ago. Over 55 percent of the folks who
reached retirement age lived below the poverty level.
Do my colleagues know what that figure is today, 35 years after the
advent of Medicare and 55 to 60 years after the advent of Social
Security? That figure is less than 10 percent. Those two programs have
been very important to us in our advancement as a society, and I think
that they should be on the top of the list in terms of what we do
budgetarily.
I want to speak to one other issue before I yield back, if I might,
and that is that I talked earlier about the economy and how well it is
going. And we really are in a very unusual situation, with unemployment
at 4\1/2\ percent, the lowest it has been in 25 years. We have got real
domestic growth at about almost 4 percent. That is double the 25-year
average. We have got inflation at less than 2 percent. There are some
real special things going on in this country economically.
But there is a sector of our economy that is not doing well, and that
is our agricultural folks. I would like to remind my fellow Members of
Congress that the agricultural economy, industry, is very critical to
this Nation. It is critical to our food supply, and it is critical to
our national security. We never want to put ourselves in a situation
where we are totally dependent upon some other country for our food
supply.
I would implore this Congress to look seriously at our national
agricultural policy. I do not think we have a good national
agricultural policy. We had one, and we sort of undid it in 1996.
Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Cramer) my friend, the fellow co-chair of the Blue Dog Democrats here
in the Congress.
Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for
yielding.
I want to take some time today to also make points about preserving
Social Security. I am, as my colleague indicated, the administrative
co-chair of this organization that we refer to as the Blue Dog
Coalition of conservative Democrats, along with my colleague from
Louisiana, my colleague from Florida, from Arkansas, and the next
speaker, expected to be the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
We have carried on this year already a vigorous internal debate over
the issue of Social Security. We have identified this as a primary
issue that we think deserves a lot more discussion. We think protecting
Social Security is the most important thing that this 106th Congress
could be engaged in. It is our top legislative priority for this
session of Congress.
The exploding cost of Social Security threatens to become the
greatest financial crisis in American history, so we have got to do
something.
More than a financial crisis, the Social Security system is fast
becoming the kind of dilemma that could force us to choose between
economic opportunity for our children and retirement security for our
parents. So we believe that this has got to be a central issue.
Now, one of the ways that we are carrying on our internal debate is
to have a series of what we call face-offs to make sure that we explore
what is the smart thing to do, how do we really protect and preserve
Social Security.
A lot of us are talking about different approaches. We need some
evaluation of what will work and what will not work. Because I do not
want to leave this place having just window-dressed the issue. I want
to have accomplished and I know the Blue Dogs want to have accomplished
a comprehensive reform of the Social Security system that addresses the
financial challenges of Social Security and improves retirement
security for all Americans, without raising taxes, without cutting
benefits for current retirees.
I know my colleague from Louisiana has been involved with our group
in this very valuable discussion, and it might be important for the
Members to know that we have been meeting as a coalition of
conservative Democrats once a week. We have established a task force.
The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) is heading that task force,
who is making sure that we address together the issues that ought to be
addressed.
We want to do the fiscally responsible thing to do to take Social
Security where it needs to do. If that means taking it off budget, then
we want to consider taking it off budget. If that means legislation
that requires revenues from Social Security payroll taxes to be used
only to fund the retirement program, not to offset debt accumulated
elsewhere in the Federal budget, then that is going to be a solution
that we want to continue to discuss.
Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a
second for a question. When he talked about the Blue Dogs' positions
that are being formulated today and he talked about taking the Social
Security Trust Fund off budget, what exactly does he mean as it relates
to that and the other ideas that are being floated around?
Mr. CRAMER. Well, we have got a dilemma in this Congress, and we have
discussed this in other Congresses as well, and that is to make sure
that we do not commingle over budget issues pools of money that we have
available. We do not need to raid the Social Security Trust Fund and
allow it to be used as a front for solving the debt situation of this
country.
On the other hand, we have got to preserve the integrity of the
Social Security system as we know it for the future. We have got baby-
boomers that are coming into the system. We have got a date certain
when the system as we have known it cannot afford to fund itself the
way we have been going.

[[Page H776]]

So I think the best thing that we can do now that we are making the
significant progress that we are making and we are crawling out of our
debt situation is to make sure that we do not use any surpluses at
first for anything other than taking Social Security off budget. I know
that that is an issue that we are debating internally, something that
we feel like we can accomplish.
Mr. JOHN. I think it is important to note that, as we have been
working through the Social Security problem, I think as my colleague
gets to understand, of course being a second-termer and a member of the
Blue Dog Coalition, we were very important and an integral part of
balancing the budget, which I think is one of the most historic pieces
of legislation that the past Congress could have done, and I think that
is where we have made our mark as being fiscally responsible. And that
is the same kind of approach that we intend to take as a coalition in
solving the Social Security problem.
Mr. CRAMER. As my colleague points out, whatever reform measure is
adopted, it has got to be fiscally responsible, if that means biting
the bullet and coming up with legislation. And as my colleague also
knows, this needs to be a bipartisan issue. Not one side of the aisle
should lay claim to protecting Social Security.
I think we are the kind of centrist group in this 106th Congress that
can accomplish this. It can put the issues on the table and invite
Members from both sides of the aisle to come to the table. Let us give
and take and let us come up with something that makes sense. Let us not
come up with some window dressing there.
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
yielding.
I would like to share with my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition and
the Members of this body that, over the past 10 days, I had 27 town
meetings on Social Security; and people recognized throughout rural
Minnesota that we really have an obligation to act promptly, that it is
much easier if we make the adjustments in the Social Security program
over an extended period of time than if we wait, postpone this very
difficult decision-making process, and then leave our children and
grandchildren holding the bag. And they asked, why is it Congress
cannot act? Does it have to be so politicized? And we tried to identify
some ways of proceeding.
One thing I would like to suggest to my colleagues is that we
consider the base closing commission format that was used in connection
with excess military bases and see if we could not have a body that is
established quite quickly by the President and the leadership in
Congress that would come forth with recommendations to Congress that we
would agree to vote on up or down and make these decisions quickly so
that we do not leave, like I said earlier, our children and
grandchildren holding the bag and continue this process of masking the
size of the Federal deficit or claiming that there is a very large
Federal surplus when, in fact, all we are doing is playing games with
the Social Security Trust Fund.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am like him,
I have conducted town meetings in my district and I think
overwhelmingly, especially young people, they are afraid that Social
Security is not going to exist when they reach that age where they
would be eligible for the system.

{time} 1700

They do not trust us to guarantee that we can protect the Social
Security system.
How do your constituents react at town meetings to the issue of do
you want to save Social Security or what about tax cuts? What about
surpluses in the budget? How do they respond to that?
Mr. MINGE. There is a fair amount of cynicism and I would say even
despair among young people. They feel they are paying in, it is about
12.4 percent in payroll tax for Social Security and that this is a
benefit that is for their parents, their grandparents and it will not
be there for them. I have gone through the entire financing arrangement
and pointed out that this program has disability benefits that are
important now, but we need to do something promptly here to restore the
confidence of our younger people.
Mr. CRAMER. In 1940, 7 percent of America was over 65 years of age.
In 2025, it is predicted that more than 20 percent of the population
will be over the age of 65. So I think while your constituents and my
constituents probably do not recognize those numbers, what they are
saying to us is that this system is not likely to exist and they are
very cynical, as the gentleman says, about our role in preserving it. I
think we talk too much about it. We need to put something on the table.
It needs to be a give-and-take process. It needs to be a bipartisan
process. I know that my colleague has committed himself to
participating with us to make sure that happens.
Mr. MINGE. I certainly agree. I hope that we will find that
Republicans, Democrats, independents join together and rather than this
being sort of the political football that it has been in the past, we
find a way to get beyond that. One other thing that came up that I
think is important that we should all remind ourselves, that we were
elected to make decisions. We were elected to be a part of the process
of solving problems. We were not elected to figure out how we could get
reelected. What we need to make sure that we do is that we discharge
this trust responsibility that we have to the American people to deal
with a difficult, some would say an intractable problem. We are not
going to come up with some sort of magic bullet here that solves this
with no pain. I know there is going to be some unpopularity with
whatever kind of proposal ultimately emerges.
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner), my colleague to the east.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be
here on the floor with my Blue Dog Democrat colleagues today talking
about issues that really form the backbone of the reason that the Blue
Dogs exist in this Congress. As each of us here understand, the Blue
Dog Democrats have worked for years for fiscal responsibility. I am
proud to be here this afternoon and to be able to talk about the budget
and some of the issues that are important to helping us preserve Social
Security.
As I look at the issues and I think about some of the positions that
we have taken in years past, when it comes to budget issues, it seems
that there are certain standards and certain principles that we as
fiscally responsible Members of this body all believe in. First of all,
I think we all believe that the budget must be balanced without using
any surplus accumulated in any of our trust accounts. We believe that
the Social Security trust fund should be left alone, that the surplus
that exists in Social Security belongs to Social Security, and that we
should not be taking away from the Social Security trust fund to fund
other operations of our Federal Government.
We also believe very strongly that as surpluses begin to materialize
in our country, we should reserve those surpluses until we ensure the
long-term solvency of both the Social Security trust fund and the
Medicare trust fund which is under increasing stress. I come from a
rural area in deep east Texas. Many of our rural hospitals operate on
very small margins. We know in east Texas that we have got to preserve
the Medicare trust fund to be sure that we keep those rural hospitals
open to meet the medical needs of the people of east Texas.
Another principle that Blue Dogs believe in very strongly is that we
believe that the balanced budget surplus beyond what is needed to save
Social Security and to save Medicare should be allocated first to
reducing the national debt. We believe it is a priority that this
Congress should not forget.
As we reduce that national debt and reduce the amount of interest
that we are paying every year out of our budget, they tell me that just
a couple of years ago we were paying 17 cents out of every tax dollar
collected by the Federal Government from the American people just to
cover the interest on the national debt. Next year that number will be
down to 12 cents out of every tax dollar to cover the interest. We are
making progress. But that is because this Congress and we as Blue

[[Page H777]]

Dog Democrats are committed to reducing that national debt.
We also believe that there is room for tax relief for the American
people in our overall budget plan. But we believe it ought to be
targeted, it ought to be tax relief that is meaningful, tax relief that
is needed by middle-class working people to help make their lives
better.
We live in an economy today that is booming. We believe that the
economy that we have now if it is sustained will allow us to accomplish
all of these goals as well as to invest in the legitimate needs that we
in America have to improve education, to improve health care, to
improve our national defense, to be sure that our military personnel
are adequately compensated, and that we remain the world's strongest
military power. These things can be done with the projected surpluses
that we now see. But we also believe that any additional spending and
tax cuts must be paid for through credible and politically feasible
spending cuts and tax cuts. We believe that we should not backload tax
cuts. That is, we should not pass a tax cut and say it is not effective
now, it is just effective later, on down the line. And we believe that
when we try to improve education or strengthen Medicare, that those
spending decisions should not become effective in the future but we
should deal with them on the short term. We do not believe in pushing
unrealistic tax cuts into the out years. And we believe very strongly
that the budget rules that this Congress has passed, that it is the law
of the land, should be honored. We believe the 1997 budget act, the
pay-go rules, the budget enforcement acts, the caps that we have
established is a principle that should be maintained, and that changes
in any of those should be approached very, very cautiously.
Finally, we believe that any budget projections should be based on
honest, realistic budget projections. We believe that if this Congress
will follow these principles and adopt a budget resolution which this
Congress failed to do in the 105th Congress, for the first time in the
history of this Congress it failed to pass a budget resolution, that if
this time, in this 106th Congress, we exercise our responsibility and
do what the law requires us to do and pass a budget resolution in a
timely way, preserving the principles that I have mentioned, we will
keep America on a course of fiscal responsibility and we will preserve
the principles that will continue us along the road toward economic
prosperity.

Mr. JOHN. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Next I would like to
yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a distinguished
member of the Blue Dogs.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
yielding and I thank him for taking the time today to allow the Blue
Dog Democrats to discuss in quite some detail where we are coming from
and will be coming from regarding this year's budget debate.
Our position is pretty simple. We think the primary goal this year
should be reducing our debt. In that, we agree with the President very
strongly. And strengthening Social Security. To do that, it is awfully
important, extremely important for the American people to understand
that this year, 1999, there is no surplus other than Social Security
surpluses. And next year there is no surplus to be divided other than
Social Security surplus.
So any dollars that we spend over and above the budget caps, whether
it be for defense, and I am one of those that do believe that we do
have a need of taking a good, hard look at our defense capabilities,
but I also do it in the same spirit in which I speak today, of saying
that in the short term, you will find that the surpluses are in fact
Social Security trust funds which we believe very sincerely that we
have now a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to honestly take Social
Security off-budget. We have done it many times over the last umpteen
years, but we have never meant it.
As one of my colleagues spoke a moment ago, we are elected to make
difficult decisions, and this one should not be too difficult today if
we can just withstand the temptation of spending the surplus.
Let me remind my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, that it was
not very many years ago that the biggest debate that we had here was
whether or not we could have 3-year projections. And then we went to 5-
year projections. And then we went to 6 and 7. During the 1980s we had
a habit of backend loading, that we would do the easy stuff up-front
and we would backend load. As we did that, we saw our debt grow from
about $1 trillion in the late 1970s to now $5.5 trillion. That is a
significant amount of money. It is one of the reasons why the Blue Dogs
say now one of the best things we can do is pay down the debt, and the
overwhelming majority of the American people are agreeing with us, so,
therefore, that should be the policy that comes out of this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, projections. Today we are now projecting, not 6 years,
not 7 years, we are projecting 10- and 15-year surpluses like they are
going to happen. No one can predict tomorrow. But for us to do, as some
suggest, that now because we have these projected surpluses for the
next 15 years, that we should spend them, whether it be for a tax cut,
10 percent straight across the board, or whether it be for any other
spending. I do not think that is a very conservative approach. In fact,
it can be a very alarming approach.
Our debt today is $5.5 trillion. Let us not for a moment forget,
which is being conveniently forgotten and this is an area where I have
criticism for our President's budget. He is not doing anything about
the $9 trillion unfunded liability of the current Social Security
program. I hope that we can in a bipartisan way, and certainly the Blue
Dogs will be willing to work, as I have been working with the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) on the other side of the aisle for the last 3
years coming up with a proposal and we hope more of our colleagues will
look at that, of something that we can do, that we can deal with the
real problems of Social Security, the $9 trillion unfunded liability,
the bills that will come due beginning 2010 to 2013 unless we do
something additional other than what anybody is talking about today.
The Republicans' agenda focuses on massive tax cuts out of the budget
surplus. I hope we can avoid that, and I am glad to hear those voices
on the other side beginning to talk about that. Because right now we
have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal with the very serious
long-term problem of Social Security.
We should avoid frightening those on Social Security today or those
soon to be on it. What we are talking about is our children and
grandchildren. I will conclude today by saying this. The reason that I
have been as involved in Social Security for the last 3 years, in
trying to come up with a plan or plans, of trying to be a part in a
constructive, bipartisan way of making some difficult decisions, I have
two reasons. It is mine and my wife's 3\1/2\- year-old and 1\1/2\-year-
old grandson. I do not want them to look back 65 years from today and
say if only my granddad would have done what in his heart he knew he
should have done when he was in the Congress, we would not be in the
mess we are in today.
Every one of our colleagues know that unless we can make some
difficult decisions now when we have got a chance, we are postponing
and we are saying to our children and grandchildren, ``We don't give a
rip about you, we want ours today.'' That is not the Blue Dog position.
You are going to see that our input into the budget debate is going
to be one of saying, let us pay down the debt, let us truly preserve
Social Security. We will be willing to roll up our sleeves and bite
some of the tough bullets. We hope that we will see from both sides of
the aisle this effort put forward in a very meaningful way.
I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for conducting this special
order today. I would love to see, and I will be more than willing to
participate in some honest discussion where we have differences of
opinion on either side of the aisle as we talk about these specifics,
of having some of these special orders where we have an honest
discussion when we have got plenty of time to talk about it, and I hope
we will see that in the days ahead and you will see us back here.

{time} 1715

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for those
very candid and concise remarks about the future of Social Security and
the position that the Blue Dogs will take.

[[Page H778]]

I yield to my final speaker tonight, the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Napolitano).
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I am bringing up the rear, I take it.
I am sure we have all heard the extensive dissertation on the
surplus, and we will continue to hear it as the days move forward.
There is a crisis looming over our Nation. The Medicare trust fund is
currently projected to run out within the next 3 years.
However, the Nation is also receiving a great windfall. We have heard
about it. This current budget deficit is over, and we now have a
projected surplus, and the economists, as was just told by the
gentleman from Texas, has forecast to run for the next 15 years. We
must use a portion of this windfall to stave off the looming crisis.
Let us commit to dedicating 15 percent of the surplus over the next 15
years to saving Medicare, saving and protecting Medicare, not offering
meaningless tax cuts that are not going to prove any long-term benefit
for our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, this proposal will
extend the life of the Medicare program to the year 2020.
I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
agreed with us to use 62 percent of the budget surplus to protect
Social Security, and now I hope they will also join us in protecting
Medicare. It is a critical component of our retirement security, and I
just do not mean ours. I mean the senior range, but there are people
who will be currently in the area, in that age area, that are going to
be necessitating those services, that are going to be looking for
assistance in their retirement.
Saving Social Security alone is not enough to help our seniors cover
all the costs and expenses they may have to face. That is why we need
to use that 15 percent of the surplus to protect Medicare rather than
spend it on these meaningless tax cuts that most citizens do not want,
and they tend to favor the rich plus do nothing to strengthen our
economy over the long term.
In a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut plan the average working
individual making between $20,000 to $30,000 would only see their taxes
cut by $146 a year, while those making $200,000 would get $12,874 in
tax cuts. This is not only not equitable, it is not fair, and it is
also not a responsible way to spend the surplus.
Why do we need to save Medicare? Well, dedicating this 15 percent of
this surplus to saving Medicare is the moral and responsible thing to
do. If people have spent years paying into the system, the least we can
do is ensure, making sure it is there for the time when they need it.
According to a CBS/New York Times poll taken recently, the last couple
of weeks, 64 percent of our Americans said they believe the surplus
should be used for protecting Social Security and Medicare.
While we strengthen Medicare, we can also get serious about paying
our national debt. Reducing our national debt will cut the amount we
spend on interest payments every year by the millions of dollars. Last
year, the government spent $3,644 for every American family to pay
interest on our national debt. That is 14 percent of government
spending dedicated to retiring our debt, more than was spent on the
entire Medicare program that year. As we pay off the national debt, we
stop wasting millions on interest payments. This money that we save can
then be reinvested in Medicare so we can strengthen it further beyond
the year 2020.
In conclusion, I am asking all of us in Congress to commit to saving
both Medicare as well as Social Security. We must unite and dedicate
that 15 percent surplus towards Medicare and 62 percent towards
safeguarding Social Security.
At the same time paying down that national debt is the responsible
thing to do, it is what America wants, it is what America needs, and it
is what America deserves.
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California.
I would like to close by also thanking and asking the indulgence of
the House for the past hour to give the chance for the Blue Dogs and
some of the other types of groups that are coming up to talk about the
fiscal position of this country and to also reiterate how important it
is in this Congress to face some of those tough choices. I believe, as
you have heard over the last hour, that there is nothing more important
that we can leave the next generations of Americans than paying off the
debt that we have strapped them with in today's economy, and we do that
starting today.
I thank the Houses' time and patience, Mr. Speaker.

____________________