[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 146 (Monday, October 25, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10755-H10761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2000
                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Pomeroy) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.


                      On Passing of Senator Chafee

  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my 
words of recognition and condolences to the family of Senator Chafee. 
He clearly distinguished the legislative branch of government with 
service that was bipartisan, common sense, moderate, centrist, and 
simply was a personal example of integrity and honesty and courage, the 
like of which some suggest we have too little of around here at this 
time. In any event, he set the bar very high and it would do well for 
all of us as we mourn his passing to reflect carefully on his example 
and embrace it in our own lives to the extent we can. Again, that would 
be a tall order. Senator Chafee in my last visit with him was leading a 
bipartisan discussion on how we might somehow form a breakthrough in a 
knotty health policy issue that had divided the parties, divided the 
Chambers. It was just one example I got to see up close and personal 
the kind of bipartisan, nonideological, let-us-solve-the-problem 
leadership that Senator Chafee brought to his work, and clearly the 
work of the legislative branch was distinguished as a result of his 
efforts.
  Tonight, I am leading a special order about Social Security. In the 
course of our discussion, I want to provide background about the nature 
of the program. I also want to discuss the debate that is waging at the 
moment relative to the budget discussions between the two political 
parties, and I want to focus on really the missing element of what has 
captured much of the present discussion, and that is the steps we must 
take to preserve the solvency of the program, to make certain that it 
is there not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren as 
well.
  As will be the course in the course of this hour, as commonly happens 
during these special orders, I have invited several Members of the 
Democratic Caucus to join me on the floor this evening, and while many 
will no longer be available in light of the hour, I am very pleased to 
see the gentleman from Florida here.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding so that I 
might have an opportunity to address the Nation on this very important 
issue of Social Security.
  Madam Speaker, the district that I represent, which is like many 
other congressional districts across the Nation, has more than 76,000 
people over the age of 65 who receive Social Security. Tens of millions 
of people across the country rely on this important program for their 
long-term retirement needs. This makes Social Security one of the most 
important programs administered by the Federal Government. Everybody in 
Washington has concluded that finally.
  Madam Speaker, I am very troubled by much of the rhetoric that we 
have been hearing on Social Security over the last few weeks. The 
rhetoric over Social Security basically has been over what we do with 
surplus dollars. It really has nothing to do with extending the life of 
the Social Security trust fund, and that is what we should be talking 
about.
  Now, Madam Speaker, the last time I checked, the law says that the 
only way we can spend surplus dollars or use the surplus dollars is 
invest them in treasury notes. And this Congress has made no attempt to 
change that, nor has that been suggested in any of the rhetoric that 
has been going on for the last several weeks. All of this fighting and 
rhetoric over the surplus tends to hide the fact that no action has 
been taken to extend the life of the Social Security trust fund. 
According to the Social Security trustees, beginning in the year 2014, 
the Social Security trust fund will take in less taxes than it pays out 
in benefits. This means that Social Security will need to redeem the 
treasury notes it holds starting in the year 2014. By the year 2034, 
all of those treasury notes will have been paid in full, with interest. 
Once those notes are repaid, the Social Security trust fund will not 
have any additional revenue coming in other than the payroll taxes paid 
in that year to pay the promised benefits, and this will result in a 
significant decrease in the benefit of about 25 percent. Again, that 
starts under current projections in the year 2034. This long-term 
crisis is what Congress should be addressing now, not arguing about the 
surplus dollars of today. Because the longer we wait, the harder it 
will be to financially address and solve this very serious long-term 
crisis.
  There have been several plans suggested by both Democrats and 
Republicans to address this crisis, and my Republican colleagues in the 
majority up to this point have not considered any of them. At the State 
of the Union address, President Clinton put forward his plan. The 
Kolbe-Stenholm plan, a Democrat and Republican, has been introduced. It 
is a bipartisan plan. The Archer-Shaw plan has been proposed, as well 
as other plans which Congress should be considering. While no action 
has been taken on any of these plans this year, at a minimum this 
congressional leadership and the President should work together to set 
aside funding to enact Social Security reform, meaningful, substantive 
Social Security reform. This idea was first proposed in the Blue Dog 
budget back in the spring as a way to provide the funds necessary to 
ensure the long-term fiscal viability of the Social Security trust 
fund. That budget, I might say, enjoyed bipartisan support. Under our 
plan, the Blue Dog plan, we would set aside $83 billion over the next 5 
years of non-Social Security surplus to help pay for any reform 
proposal that Congress might adopt. Again, this does not exclude any 
reform option. All it does is ensure that we can pay for whatever plan 
that the Congress and the President ultimately agree upon.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to urge the congressional 
leadership and President Clinton to include these provisions which will 
fund substantive Social Security reform in any final budget agreement 
that they reach. After all of the rhetoric has ended, I believe that 
laying the groundwork for Social Security reform is the best thing that 
we can do this year to address the crisis facing the trust fund and 
ensure that Social Security and its benefits are there for our 
children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

  Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Florida, I 
want to thank him for an excellent discussion which really is 
reflective of a great deal of work the gentleman has provided and 
leadership on this issue. I thank him very much for his contribution.
  Madam Speaker, as I discussed in the opening, what I want to do over 
the next few minutes is talk about Social

[[Page H10756]]

 Security in its full context. I want to do that as a predicate to talk 
about specifically the very shallow, empty and false rhetoric coming 
from the majority relative to the stakes regarding Social Security as 
we discuss the final appropriations bills before this body this 
session. I then want to get to what I believe is the most important 
responsibility on all of us, Republican and Democrat alike, and that is 
lengthening the life of the Social Security trust fund so that it might 
be there to provide future generations the secure retirement it is 
presently affording. I want to talk about specifically even in the 
closing weeks of this session the opportunity that is before us to take 
this action, to promote the length of Social Security.
  Social Security is our Nation's family protection program. It 
protects all of us. It is really a program of all of us protecting each 
of us, because it is a program truly that we all have a stake in. It 
offers us three distinct kinds of protection. First and of course the 
best known is the retirement income. Retirement income, payable every 
month, adjusted for inflation, coverage that you cannot outlive no 
matter how long you may live. You will have just as dependable as the 
first of the month that Social Security check for support. It has 
played an enormously important role in the lives of tens of millions of 
American families.
  Just think about the retirement income statistics that follow. It is 
the primary income for two-thirds of all retirees over age 65; 90 
percent of the income for one-third of the retirees. It is all they 
have got, which underscores how critically important when it comes to 
safeguarding, protecting and strengthening Social Security, how 
critical that challenge is. Again, one-third of all Social Security 
recipients have it for 90 percent or more of all their income.
  There are two other benefits I need to mention in addition to the 
retirement benefit. One is the survivors benefit. This is when the 
breadwinner dies prematurely, leaving young dependents in the home. 
They have coverage through the Social Security program. Ninety-eight 
percent of the children in this country have coverage because of this 
feature of the Social Security program. When we think of Social 
Security, we think of an old people's program. Well, it is also a 
program for America's kids. And make no mistake about that.
  Thirdly, it is a disability program, because if someone becomes 
disabled and unable to work, Social Security will be there. Three out 
of four workers in the workplace today have no other coverage but for 
Social Security. It is a vital protection. And without this, if they 
become banged up, cannot work, that is it, they do not have an income. 
With Social Security, they have an income. Again, three out of four, it 
is their only disability insurance policy.
  Now, these are kind of black and white, programmatic examples of how 
Social Security works, but I want to put this in a very personal 
context, because Social Security has been very important to my family 
and to me personally. I was a teenager when my father died. I have 
received Social Security checks personally. Quite frankly, I do not 
know how I would have gotten through college without the Social 
Security program. My mother is now 79 years old. Unlike my grandmother 
who in her last years moved in with our family because she had not the 
financial resources to live independently, my mom lives independently 
and hopefully she will live independently for a good many years to 
come, because she has that Social Security check coming every month. It 
really makes a difference in our family between my mom living alone, as 
she prefers, or living with us as she is always welcome, but it is not 
her preference.
  Finally, I have also, like many of us do, friends that have become 
disabled in one form or another. I have a friend, a good friend, but he 
has developed a very disabling bipolar mental illness and simply has 
been unable to work. Without Social Security, I do not know what he 
would do. He is now in his late 40's, does not have family to support 
him, and that Social Security check keeps my friend going. Without it, 
I shudder to think of what might be the consequences. But it has been 
vital. So when we talk about retirement income, we talk about survivors 
income, we talk about disability income, we are talking about literally 
Social Security achieving a miraculous benefit to the families that it 
touches every day, and across the country, of course, we are talking 
about millions and millions of families.

  Now that we reflect on the program, think about the good it is doing, 
let us think about the challenges that face it. It is running a surplus 
now. In fact very healthy surpluses. But if we look at the obligations 
upon the program going forward, we see the story starts to change. By 
2011, the Social Security program will no longer be in surplus. While 
that is a good ways out, you may think, well, what is the problem, we 
need to collect and hold the surpluses for Social Security so that the 
resources will be there as the baby boomers move into retirement and 
the draw on the program starts to accelerate. By the year 2021, we are 
not just paying Social Security benefits based on the FICA tax revenue, 
the interest of the Social Security trust fund, we at that point start 
to actually draw down the principal in the trust fund itself. By the 
year 2034 at present projection, we will wipe out the Social Security 
trust fund and benefits are scheduled to fall a full 25 percent.
  Driving this, of course, is the shift in the demographics of the 
country: 5.1 workers per retiree in 1960, 3.4 workers per retiree 
today. In the year 2035, 2 workers per retiree. So we see that the cash 
flow generating capacity of the workforce changes and the retirement 
need, the draw on the program accelerates.

                              {time}  2015

  The key to answering the question which party is fighting for Social 
Security is to look at which party addresses the date at which the 
program goes bust; 2034 it is scheduled to go bust. Benefits fall 25 
percent. Which party is addressing that figure? It is the long-term 
solvency of the program that is really what is at stake here.
  There are three ways to prolong solvency: raise taxes. The taxes are 
already at 12.4 percent. I believe they are already absolutely as high 
as can be tolerated, and if we can figure out a way to reduce them 
without damaging the solvency of the program, I would be all for that.
  The other alternative: cut benefits. And you do have people talking 
about cutting benefits, no longer having some people in this country 
participate in Social Security, raising the retirement age. Well, the 
average Social Security check each month is about $700 a month. You 
cannot reduce the average Social Security check in this country without 
doing significant harm to the one-third of the recipients that are 
depending on that to live.
  And raising retirement age. I tell you I do not know about all of the 
country, but the people I represent back in North Dakota do not think 
that they ought to have to try and make it on the farm or doing 
whatever they are doing until age 70 or even higher to receive a Social 
Security check. They are counting on it as is presently constituted in 
law.
  Well, if you are not going to raise taxes, if you are not going to 
cut benefits, the way you add to the solvency of the Social Security 
Trust Fund is to ultimately interject general fund balance into this 
program to preserve it over the long haul.
  That is the backdrop of Social Security, but there is quite a 
different picture being presented at the present time, and I would talk 
about that briefly and engage my colleagues in the discussion as well. 
The House majority has truly launched the most audacious attack that I 
have seen, charging Democrats with raiding the Social Security 
revenues. The facts of the matter are it is not true. The fact of the 
matter is that the charges are hypocritical and untrue.
  We are operating under a Republican-passed budget. They are the 
majority party in this Chamber, and they passed a budget almost on 
straight party lines. Spending that has occurred within this Chamber 
has been under the budget resolution, that is, the Republican budget 
resolution.
  The particular spending bills that have been brought forward have 
been passing with Republican majorities. They are the majority party, 
they are passing the spending bills, and we have some important third-
party validation in terms of what those spending bills

[[Page H10757]]

have produced so far. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that 
Social Security revenues have been drawn on already to the tune of $14 
billion, and I will tell you that that ticker is still running, that 
amount is still accelerating; and so the very things that the 
Republicans are charging the Democrats for doing, they have already 
done even though they have used every appropriations and budget gimmick 
in the book for a little sleight of hand to try and indicate that that 
is not the case.
  In any event, take that as it will. In any event it does nothing to 
preserve the solvency of Social Security. For all their rhetoric, they 
have done nothing. Not one piece of legislation has been considered on 
this floor this year to advance the solvency of Social Security one 
day. Let us look at that legislative record.
  Here we are very late in the first year of this session. For all the 
late-bloom rhetoric on Social Security, why in the world have they not 
brought a plan to the floor to advance the solvency of the trust fund? 
Nothing by way of activity. Why? Well, I believe it has something to do 
with their tax cut bill which was earlier considered, passed by the 
Republican majority, passed by the Senate Republican majority, sent to 
the President, which fortunately he vetoed because that tax bill would 
have gobbled up all the general fund revenue that might otherwise have 
been available to preserve Social Security.
  They took the funds for which we can strengthen Social Security, and 
they shipped them out the door in a great big tax cut benefiting the 
wealthiest people in this country. Thank goodness the President vetoed 
that bill and we were able to sustain that veto on the House floor.
  What I think is amazing is mere weeks after we stopped them from 
basically taking the funds that we need to preserve and strengthen 
Social Security and shipping it out to the wealthiest contributors in 
the form of their tax cut, just weeks after that they parade around on 
the floor of the House talking about how they are saving Social 
Security when they have not strengthened this one bit; they have not 
added one day to the solvency of the trust fund.

  I think one has a responsibility to do more than just critique, 
however, an important matter like this; and I would just offer the 
following plan for strengthening, for actually doing something about 
trust fund solvency.
  We are at a point to capture the Social Security surpluses. We must 
do that. Over time we must capture every dollar coming in and allocate 
it to the Social Security program. We must do so in a way that draws 
down the debt held by this country. As you invest those Social Security 
trust funds, in this case we will actually be redeeming publicly held 
debt, bringing the debt down from the country.
  And then thirdly, because ultimately when you draw that debt down 
from these Social Security surpluses, you are going to have a windfall 
in terms of money now going to pay on interest that is no longer needed 
to go on interest. You take that money, and you invest it in the Social 
Security Trust Fund. Basically, Social Security earned that money, you 
can argue; Social Security ought to get that money.
  Taking that step would take that trust fund I was talking about and 
move it from 2034 to 2050. 2050. The program without further change 
would be able to pay benefits through 2050.
  Now I am a classic baby boomer, born in 1952. Year 2050 comes, I am 
going to be 98 years old, and in fact I do not know that I will be 
around to see the year 2050 as a good many of us will not be. But the 
point I want to make is moving into 2050 in the fashion promoted, 
actually allows us to strengthen and enhance the solvency of the trust 
fund.
  I see that a couple of Members are joining me on the floor, and I 
want to include them in the discussion. I yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. It is a pleasure to join you, my good 
friend from North Dakota.
  I think for all of us, when we return to our districts, this is an 
issue that is of real importance to the people that we represent; and I 
have to admit that when I have town hall meetings and advertise the 
topic is going to be Social Security, the audience is generally filled 
with people who are over the age of 65, and that is somewhat surprising 
because for many of these people the Social Security system right now 
is in good shape.
  For those who are in our parents' generation, they are probably not 
going to live beyond the year 2034, so that the assets are there right 
now for them. But as my friend from North Dakota mentioned, two-thirds 
of the elderly in this country rely on Social Security as a primary 
source of their income, and an amazing one-third of the elderly in this 
country rely on Social Security as the sole source of their income.
  It is their lifeline; and, therefore, we have a responsibility to 
make sure that any changes that are brought up, any proposals that are 
brought up before this body, do not in any way, in any way, lower the 
income for these people, these tens of millions of people who rely on 
Social Security either as the primary source or as the exclusive source 
of income for their families.
  But I am sure, as my friend from North Dakota knows, when we talk to 
younger people, they are really quite wary. They are not as trustful 
about the Social Security system, and in fact many of them say the 
money will not be there when I am going to retire, and the reason they 
say that, I think, can be summarized in part by what the gentleman from 
North Dakota said, because when the system began, you had 5.1 workers 
for each retiree. We are now at 3.4 workers for each retiree, but in 
about 25 to 30 years we are only going to have two workers for each 
retiree. So we have to do something to extend the life of Social 
Security beyond the year 2034.
  That is why I am as shocked and baffled as the gentleman from North 
Dakota about the arguments that we are hearing in this Chamber today. 
As the gentleman from North Dakota indicated, there has not been a 
single piece of legislation that has been considered by this Congress 
that would extend the life of Social Security. At the same time we hear 
many of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle saying, I 
think, as the gentleman indicated, quite untruly, that the Democrats 
are in some way raiding Social Security surpluses. That is wrong 
because obviously we are not the ones that are passing the budget.
  The people who are passing the budget are the Republicans. They are 
the ones on a party line vote for most of these measures that are 
advancing their agenda. So even if we wanted to, it would be virtually 
impossible for us to do so.
  But the fact of the matter is the Congressional Budget Office, which 
is a nonpartisan office, although the head of the Congressional Budget 
Office is appointed by the Republicans, has stated that in effect the 
Republicans themselves have spent some of the surplus on, some of the 
Social Security surplus to pay for their programs. So if anyone could 
be accused of taking money from the Social Security system, it is 
Republicans.

  But I think the American people are not interested in whether the 
Republicans are doing it or the Democrats are doing it. I think they 
view that as the same old potato/pa-ta-toe tomato/ta-ma-toe politics; 
and their reaction is let us call the whole thing off, and they will 
walk away from our political system, which is the worst thing that they 
can do.
  This is far too serious an issue to let partisan politics play a key 
role in it, and that is why I think what we have to do in this chamber, 
Democrats and Republicans, is let us put aside this ugly partisan 
rhetoric, let us put aside these claims, and let us work on the real 
issue. The real issue is extending the life of Social Security, and 
until we have a measure on this floor that is a bipartisan, serious 
proposal, we are going to remain mired in partisan politics, which is 
the worst thing that we can do.
  So I want to applaud the gentleman from North Dakota. I see my good 
friend from Ohio is here; my friends from Arkansas and Maine are here 
as well; and I think it is good that we are taking this hour tonight to 
talk about this because I think maybe we can get others on both sides 
of the aisle to form a nucleus to move ahead and come up with a 
proposal that will extend the life of Social Security.

[[Page H10758]]

  So I yield back to the gentleman from North Dakota and thank him very 
much for his invitation to be here.
  Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, and I thank very much the gentleman 
for participating in the discussion tonight. I think you have laid out 
a couple of very important ideas.
  First, the open-mindedness to participate in any kind of bipartisan 
plan they might move forward that is talking about actually lengthening 
the life of the trust fund. The President has advanced a plan that 
lengthens the life of the trust fund. I think we craft the President's 
long-term plan on the majority's short-term funding plan to get us 
through this year. You could have the beginnings of a bipartisan deal 
that ultimately is absolutely true to Social Security because it does 
something about the length of the trust fund.
  Your comments are just so critically important in terms of 
establishing a benchmark by which the public can really evaluate 
whether anything is going on with Social Security that means anything 
or not. The test is does it lengthen the solvency of the program? Does 
it preserve the life of the trust fund? And that really is the core of 
the issues you very well outlined.
  I thank the gentleman for participating, and I would yield now to the 
gentleman who has patiently waited to participate as well, the 
gentleman from Cleveland (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. It is certainly true that Americans are depending on us 
to guarantee Social Security. There is no question about it, and they 
are looking for help from both sides of the aisle. I know that in this 
big debate that has developed over the last few years the role that I 
have played in it is to suggest that while we want to guarantee Social 
Security, we need to avoid any effort towards privatization of Social 
Security.
  As you remember, there has been a big hue and cry in Washington over 
the past few years saying that we can only turn to the private sector 
to guarantee this tremendous social and economic benefit known as 
Social Security, and it is lucky that Congress did not privatize Social 
Security this year.
  You remember on October 15 the headlines nationally? Stocks Tumble 
After Warning By Greenspan, The Dow's Big Drop. An unexpectedly sharp 
rise in consumer price index fed inflation fears contributing to the 
Dow's worst drop in a year. The Dow Industrial Average today suffered 
its worst loss in a year, dipping briefly below the symbolic 10,000 
mark it bridged in March as investors recoiled from most of the high-
flying stocks that have driven this stage of the bull market.

                              {time}  2030

  Now, the falling stock market, and you see this graph right here, 
what goes up must come down, the falling stock market illustrates the 
danger we place the American people in if Congress ever agreed to bet 
Social Security money on the stock market.
  While my good friend the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) 
does this country a service by calling a special order on this topic 
where we have to say we are going to guarantee Social Security, we also 
know that investing Social Security in the stock market is a risky 
proposition that may be fine for people with extra income to gamble, 
but Americans need a guaranteed income when they are old or disabled. 
So long as Congress and the President keep Social Security out of the 
stock market, Social Security has a chance to be sound.
  Even as the stock market has been falling, and you might find this 
interesting, even as the stock market has been falling, Social Security 
has been getting stronger. The trustees released an analysis that 
asserted that the Social Security trust fund is now projected to be 
solvent through the year 2034, without any Congressional action. The 
previous trustees report set the date of projected insolvency to 2032. 
Now, think about this. The Social Security trust fund has gained 2 
complete years of solvency without privatizing Social Security or 
investing it in the stock market.
  While it is true that Americans are depending on us to guarantee 
Social Security, I think that Americans also want us to take note of 
the fact that Social Security got stronger without any Congressional 
action because the economy is stronger and wages are rising. This 
should be a lesson for everyone. We do not need the stock market to 
solve Social Security's projected financial shortfalls. We need to 
strengthen the economy, we need to raise wages, and Social Security 
will strengthen itself.
  As the stock market falls there is even more good news for Social 
Security. The President wants to credit the Social Security trust fund 
with an additional $2.3 trillion to guarantee surpluses for the trust 
fund over the next 50 years. No other organization, public or private, 
has a plan for operation 50 years into the future. Social Security is 
secure.
  What policymakers need to know is that Social Security is secure as 
long as the Congress and the President back Social Security with a 
guarantee of the full faith and credit of the United States. Congress 
can say that the United States of America will pay all promised 
benefits, just as America stands 100 percent behind its bonds. All 
Americans win if Congress guarantees Social Security. But if Social 
Security is invested in the stock market, all Americans will lose 
guaranteed old age income.
  Turning Social Security over to Wall Street will mean that senior 
citizens, the retirees, would have to check the Dow Jones before they 
check their mailboxes to see if they have money for shelter, food and 
medicine.
  The falling stock market should remind us that it is better to have a 
guaranteed monthly check from the U.S. Treasury. The American people 
received a big break this year when Congress did not privatize Social 
Security. We should leave Wall Street gambling to those who can afford 
to lose.
  Americans are depending on us to guarantee Social Security. They need 
help from people on both sides of the aisle, and I am proud to be here 
with my colleagues who have a commitment to Social Security and the 
security of our elderly today and to future Americans.
  I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his 
commitment, for his dedication to Social Security, and I look forward 
to working with the gentleman on those solutions which we know the 
American people will find their best interests served. So I thank the 
gentleman. I see our friend the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is 
here. I am glad we are all working on this issue.
  Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Cleveland 
for his very vigilant efforts in this regard. Clearly if you watch what 
in particular the Republican Presidential candidates are talking about, 
in the event any of them would end up in the White House, the 
privatization programs will be before this Congress that fast. So your 
working your vigilance will be an important matter ongoing.
  Clearly there are those that would like to actually end Social 
Security as we know it, as a Federal program of all of us protecting 
each of us, diminish the Federal role and allocate it out into the 
private sector somehow in a way that would only significantly increase 
the risk on the individuals, individuals, again, as we have said, two-
thirds of which get 70 percent or better of their income from the 
program, and one-third wholly dependent upon it. So the stakes are very 
high. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership.
  I yield now, Madam Speaker, to the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen.

  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his leadership and 
his knowledge on this particular issue. It is good to be here tonight 
to have a chance to bring some common sense and some realistic 
discussion into a debate that is now going onto the airwaves in this 
country.
  I want to start by trying to really talk about a couple of things 
that you hear all the time but really are not true. When I talk to 
young people in my district back in Maine, particularly high school 
students, I ask them, how many of you think that Social Security will 
be there for you? And very few, if any, hands go up in the room. They 
think that, somehow, Social Security is going away. But the truth is 
that as long as people in this country are working, Social Security 
will be there. There will always be Social Security revenues coming in, 
as they do now, that are turned around and going out to pay benefits to 
people who need them.

[[Page H10759]]

  The problem is that in 2034, the Social Security authority runs out, 
the solvency of the system runs out, unless we make some changes, and 
then there really will not be the authority to pay out funds at that 
point in time. But even in the worst of all possible worlds, where this 
Congress did not meet its responsibility to make appropriate changes, 
benefits would be three-quarters of what they are today. The system 
does not just disappear and go away. What you would have is a reduced 
level of benefits.
  Social Security will be there, but it will never be a retirement 
system. It is a social insurance system. It is meant to protect people 
from the worst kinds of poverty, and, in that regard, it is probably 
the most successful program in this country's history.
  But what we have to do as Members of Congress, as elected officials, 
is to make sure that the benefits are not reduced, that we figure out a 
way to cover people so that they will have the security in the future 
that they have today.
  The second topic I want to mention is all this talk about raiding the 
Social Security surplus. In fact, there are Republican ads out there on 
air waves in this country accusing Democrats of theft, people coming in 
in the dark of night to steal hard-earned Social Security dollars.
  No one, and I say this about my Republican colleagues as well as 
Democrats, no one is raiding the Social Security surplus. No one is 
stealing that money and taking it away so it will not be available for 
benefits.
  What is happening is this: The Treasury is borrowing the Social 
Security surplus, promising to pay back to the Social Security trust 
fund interest on the money that is borrowed. If the U.S. Treasury will 
not pay back its money to the Social Security trust fund, no one will. 
The Treasury has always done that. Social Security benefits have always 
been paid to beneficiaries.
  What is going on here? What is going on here is politics, the 
politics of a kind that is really very disturbing, because the benefits 
that people get from Social Security are not at risk in this debate. 
The long-term solvency of Social Security is not at risk in this 
debate. What is going on has really a lot to do with politics, partisan 
positioning.
  The Washington Post the other day had an editorial headlined ``Fake 
Debate.'' What they were talking about was all this controversy about 
raiding the Social Security surplus. It is a diversion.
  We have a problem, we have a serious problem, but it is a manageable 
problem, and it has very little to do with raiding. It is all about how 
we deal with the long-term consequences of this plan.
  As I said, Republicans are running TV ads accusing Democrats of 
theft. Democrats are rightfully saying, ``you are saying you are not 
borrowing the Social Security surplus, but in fact you have already 
done that to the tune of $13 billion, and before we are done here, 
probably some more will be `borrowed,' '' but it does not put benefits 
at risk or the long-term health of the system at risk.
  It is important. It is important that if we borrow, if we wind up 
borrowing at all, and, as I say, the Republican appropriations bills 
have already borrowed $13 billion, that ought to be kept to a minimum. 
Why? Because there is one thing we need to do in this country. We need 
to pay down the national debt. The most important thing we can do for 
the long-term solvency of Social Security is pay down the national 
debt, so that this country is stronger economically, better able to pay 
Social Security benefits when the baby-boomers retire, and that is what 
we are doing.
  From 1980 to the present there are only 3 years when any debt from 
any of the national debt has been paid down with the Social Security 
surplus, only 3 years: The year we are going into, we can already 
project that; the year we are going into, fiscal year 2000 we expect to 
pay down the national debt by about $124 billion; the year we are in, 
the year 1999 is about $124 billion of paying down the national debt 
with the Social Security surplus; last year, 1998, paying down the 
national debt by about $98 billion.

  This is unprecedented in these two decades. We are doing well. We are 
getting our fiscal house in order. Democrats are leading the way. What 
we have been able to do is assert some fiscal discipline and do it in a 
way that will benefit the Social Security system in the long term.
  But it is not enough. As the gentleman from North Dakota has pointed 
out on many occasions, in 2034 this system becomes insolvent, so we 
need to make changes now that will extend the life of the system beyond 
that date.
  I applaud the President for the plan that he has announced, because 
it is a way of extending the solvency of the system to 2050. By 
contrast, the folks on the other side of the aisle have not come up 
with a proposal that I am aware of that would extend the life of the 
Social Security system by one day, not one day, and all the charts and 
all the exhibits and all this talk about raiding the Social Security 
system has nothing to do at all with extending the life of the system 
and making sure that it will be there for baby-boomers when they 
retire, when their needs are the same as seniors today.
  That is why it is a little bit discouraging to hear some of the 
things we have heard, both on TV ads and on the floor of this body over 
the last few weeks, because, frankly, if we are not dealing with the 
facts, if we are not being honest with each other, if we are making 
allegations that are simply untrue, it is the people of this country 
who lose.
  There is no question that we Democrats created Social Security, 
extended Social Security, protected Social Security and will fight for 
Social Security as long as we are here. There is no question about 
that. What we need to do is make sure that that basic commitment is not 
undermined by wild allegations that have no basis in fact. That is what 
I am disturbed to say I am hearing from the other side of the aisle 
this day.
  But I believe, more than anything, that the commitment to Social 
Security is so strong that we will protect it, that we will protect it 
for those who receive it now, that we will protect it for the baby-boom 
generation, and that we will protect it for those kids back in the high 
school in Maine who do not really believe it will be there for them. We 
have a responsibility to do that. But this is a manageable problem, and 
if we maintain our fiscal discipline, if we pay down the national debt, 
if we adopt a plan that will extend the life of the Social Security 
system, it will be there well into the 22d century, not just the 21st.
  I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for leading this discussion 
tonight, and I appreciate all the hard work that he has been doing on 
this work.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman's contribution to 
this special order has been significant and reflects his time and 
effort and expertise in the Social Security issue. I also appreciate 
the tone, which is measured, which is factual, which gives the other 
side their due when they are entitled to their due.
  I have heard on this floor parties suggest that 100 percent of the 
economic recovery is due to the fact that some Republicans got elected 
in 1994 and that everything bad that occurred before then was the fault 
of Democrat Congresses, notwithstanding Republicans in the White House.
  You cannot have it both ways. When there is a Republican in the White 
House, it is entirely the President that gets the credit, and the 
Democrat Congress gets the blame if something bad happens. Conversely, 
when it is a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the White House, it 
is 100 percent the Congress that has saved the day. The people of this 
country know better.

                              {time}  2045

  They know that this economic recovery, which is literally without 
precedent, occurred because of a very courageous step taken in 1993, 
offered as the budget plan of the new president, passed by this 
Congress on a straight party line vote, that began to tackle the 
deficits.
  In the spirit of bipartisanship, I will give the other side some due 
for holding down spending, along with Democratic participation, because 
the balanced budget amendments of 1997 was a bipartisan vote. I was 
proud to vote for that bill.
  We have collectively held down spending, but they have been part of

[[Page H10760]]

that effort. So under the deficit reduction plan passed by the 
Democrats, combined with fiscal restraint of both parties in the years 
since, we have reversed a course that brought our country to the brink 
of economic ruin.
  Just to cite some statistics, debt to GDP, gross domestic product, in 
1980 was 26 percent. What happened in the decade and a half that 
followed, literally in the 12 years that followed, was complete fiscal 
irresponsibility. Both parties have plenty to shoulder in terms of 
blame for that, but that brought us in 1997 to where debt to gross 
domestic product was 47 percent, fully 20 percent higher than in 1980, 
just 17 years earlier.
  We have made some headway, and today it is 40 percent. We are 
reversing the trends that have brought us so deeply into debt by those 
terribly out-of-balance budgets.
  What the President has proposed is to capture this surplus generated 
by social security, preserve it for social security, and pay down debt 
held by the public. That would bring us in the year 2015 to where 
borrowing costs were 2 cents on every Federal dollar. Presently we pay 
interest, and it costs 15 cents on every taxpayer dollar, just 
interest. By the year 2015, according to the President's plan, that 
would be down to 2 percent, the lowest debt to GDP since 1917, 
literally without precedent in modern history.
  So this business about having resolved to save social security 
monies, to apply them to the social security trust fund to pay down the 
national debt, this has a great deal of importance. But the crux of the 
President's plan is to basically leverage that savings. If we reduce 
debt at that rate, by the year 2011 we will be saving every year $107 
billion in interest costs.
  Interest achieves nothing. Interest costs achieve nothing by way of 
strengthening the national defense. They do not improve our schools, 
they do not reduce taxes. They are just a burden that we have to carry, 
much as an American family carries their mortgage interest burden or 
their credit card interest burden. If we can retire debt to this tune, 
we can save each year $107 billion.
  The President's plan is to take this interest savings and pay it into 
the social security trust fund, because we know we have a shortfall. 
That is why we are going to run out of money in the year 2034. But 
rather than raising social security taxes to address that shortfall or 
cutting benefits to address that shortfall, or making that retirement 
age go even higher than it already is, the President would take the 
money we are no longer spending in interest and divert that into the 
social security trust fund.
  That is the kind of infusion we need from the general fund that will 
ultimately push the solvency of the program out to 2050, so it covers 
virtually all of the retirement needs of the baby-boomer generation.
  I have been very pleased that in the course of this special order, 
several of our caucus' leading participants in social security have 
joined me on the floor. I would like to recognize one other who has 
just joined me, very recently having completed a hard-fought but very 
important legislative victory on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am 
pleased to have the efforts and attention and support of the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) now on the issue of social security.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from North Dakota, for those kind words.
  I can remember when I first came to the Congress. In the Blue Dog 
Caucus, my good friend, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) 
came because we had had a terrible disaster in North Dakota. We had had 
a terrible flood. He came to the Blue Dog Caucus and he talked to us 
about how badly they needed the money to help repair the damage done by 
the flood. I remember how hard he fought and how hard he worked for the 
people of North Dakota.
  I appreciate what he is doing here this evening. Mr. Speaker, it 
shows us what a good man my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota 
is, when he stands here on this floor this evening and gives credit to 
the Republicans for the work that they have done to help reduce the 
debt and help reduce deficit spending, and try to make this country 
better by being fiscally responsible. It shows us what a charitable man 
he is.

  I have seen those ads they are running against my friend, the 
gentleman from North Dakota. I was amazed the first time I saw them. I 
do not see how anyone could publicly accuse my good friend, the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) of being a thief. It is 
amazing to me that anyone would rise to that level or sink to that 
level. But I tell the Members that just to let them know what a good 
man this is who is working on this particular issue this evening.
  Saving social security is not complicated. First, we stop spending 
the social security trust fund. We preserve and invest it. But we 
cannot do that by just claiming to do it. Talk is one thing and action 
is another. The same people that we hear down here accusing the 
Democrats of spending the social security trust fund are the same 
people that said that the Census is an emergency. We have known for 200 
years we were going to have to take a Census in the year 2000, but they 
were going to declare an emergency and use that as a budget gimmick, so 
we can say we are not spending the social security trust fund.
  They have done these things dozens of times in this budget year. It 
is amazing to me that they would want to do that. It is the 
responsibility of the majority party to give us a budget that does not 
do this.
  By definition, the minority party cannot pass legislation. Our 
Republican colleagues keep talking about spending the social security 
trust fund. They should know, they have been spending it. But they love 
to say, well, someone else is doing it. It is not my fault, someone 
else is doing it. It is almost childlike to hear this. Then they take 
money and run ads accusing someone of being a thief if they voted for 
any of these appropriations bills. Let us just blame it on someone 
else. Do not worry about the consequences. Do not worry about extending 
the life of the social security trust fund.
  Just imagine what would have happened if the President had not vetoed 
that irresponsible tax bill that they tried to pass.
  After we stop spending the social security trust funds, the second 
thing we have to do is pay off the debt, as my colleagues have also 
talked about here this evening. We take the on-budget surplus and pay 
off the debt, and we extend the life of the trust fund.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota, and my colleague, 
the gentleman from Maine, have already mentioned, then we take this 
interest that is saved and we have some money to work with, and we can 
extend the lives of these trust funds. We can save social security and 
Medicare. It is not that we do not know how to do it, it is having the 
political will to do it.
  We also must not forget that we have got to continue to do the things 
that sustain this economy and let it continue to grow. If our economy 
goes in the tank, we are going to be in a lot more trouble with the 
social security trust fund and all other budget issues than we are 
right now, so we have to remember that we have to continue to expand 
our trading markets overseas and all the other things: Educate our 
children, continue to do research and development, and sustain this 
economy that has made us the greatest Nation in the history of the 
world.
  It is a pleasure to be on the floor this evening and to compliment my 
good friend, the gentleman from North Dakota, for the great work he 
does for the people of North Dakota, for the people of this great 
country, and the high quality that he brings to this Congress and to 
this House of Representatives.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman. I thank him deeply for the kind 
observations that he made about me, and more importantly, for the 
contribution he has made in terms of talking about the vital nature of 
the social security program and the importance of the debate before us.
  I do not think it is the worst thing that ever happened that the 
parties find themselves now in an at least rhetorical debate in terms 
of who can best protect social security. This is good competition. This 
is good competition. May the best party win in terms of protecting it 
and preserving it and strengthening it on into the future.

[[Page H10761]]

  We could be in quite a different matter, where all of this surplus is 
coming in, and rather than looking at the long-range responsibilities 
for our country, like the families we represent look after their long-
term needs when they might have an unexpected windfall, we need to save 
this and commit it for the long haul, because as we have talked about, 
social security is a program that is on the books. It is a vital 
program, but it is going to run out of money in 2034, and benefits are 
going to fall 25 percent if we do not take the steps now to strengthen 
it.

  So again, this debate, this little competition we are having in terms 
of who can best strengthen and protect social security, that is a good 
competition. One of the things that will make it good is whether or not 
there is actually any delivery behind all the rhetoric.
  I see they are bringing out the charts now, so I guarantee Members in 
the next hour they are going to get an awful lot of rhetoric about 
Democrats raiding social security, and all the rest of it. I would 
expect those listening to what might follow to know that the issue is 
not the rhetoric, the issue is the performance. Ultimately that can 
only be measured by one thing. That trust fund, the trust fund that is 
going to go bust in 2030, is it preserved and strengthened? Is that 
trust fund date pushed back, or is it not?
  We have advanced a plan that would measure the interest savings to 
the Federal Government by paying down the national debt due to these 
social security revenues. We would then take that savings reflected in 
general fund dollars and put it into the social security trust fund.
  Again, the social security trust fund does not have enough money, so 
there are three things we can do to strengthen the program long-term. 
We can raise taxes. I do not think we should do that. We can cut 
benefits, stop the COLAS, raise the retirement age. I do not think we 
should do that. Or we can interject additional general funds. That I 
think we have to do, because the other two alternatives are simply 
unacceptable.
  So let us have that general fund contribution make sense. If we 
consider the fact that this debt buy-down that saves these interest 
charges of the Federal Government is directly attributable to social 
security in the first place, that, Mr. Speaker, is a very good program 
for shoring up this program over the long haul.
  I used to be an insurance commissioner. For 8 years I regulated 
insurance in North Dakota. That meant that I looked at a lot of phony 
pitches, put a lot of insurance agents out of business if they were 
lying about what they were selling, and I fined the heck out of a lot 
of companies, while I was at it.
  I would just say that the efforts underway, the rhetorical efforts of 
the majority to pose as defenders of social security, would certainly 
not pass any ethical tests that are presently applicable to the sale of 
insurance in this country. I have put people out of business for 
charges that were as false as what they are saying about what the 
Democrats are doing relative to social security.
  Let me just sum up by emphasizing the core points. We are operating 
under the budget passed by the majority. The appropriations bills have 
been passed by the majority. The Congressional Budget Office asserts 
that the majority, who is paying these ads to run in North Dakota and 
other places accusing Democrats of raiding the social security trust 
fund somehow, that they have already spent into that trust fund, those 
revenues, from the cash flow on social security to the tune of $14 
billion and going up.

                              {time}  2100

  So let us put aside the smoke and the tired political rhetoric and 
look for bipartisan ways to lengthen the life of the trust fun. Nothing 
else cuts it. It is only looking at who is extending the life of the 
trust fund by which voters in the American public can determine who has 
been advancing the interest of this final program.

                          ____________________