[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4249-S4253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. I come to the floor this morning to talk about 
an issue which is dominating the Presidential race across the United 
States. It is the issue about the future of Social Security.
  It is interesting when you ask Americans how important it is. As an 
issue in this Presidential campaign, 71 percent of Americans say it is 
very important. It is understandable, because, at least since the era 
of the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt, Social Security has really been 
there as an insurance policy against the devastating impact of age and 
retirement of people before its creation.
  There was a time in America before Social Security when, if you were 
lucky enough to have saved some money, or if you were among the 
fortunate few with a pension, retirement was kind of an easy 
experience. But for the vast majority of Americans who didn't have that 
good fortune, retirement was a very troubling and dangerous experience.
  It is no surprise that before Franklin Roosevelt conceived of the 
notion of creating Social Security, one of the highest ranking groups 
of poor people in America was parents and grandparents who were 
elderly. In his era, President Franklin Roosevelt changed the thinking 
in America to say: we are going to create, basically, a safety net to 
say to everyone, if you will give the Social Security fund some money 
as you work during the course of your employment, we will put that 
aside and guarantee to you that there will be a safety net waiting for 
you; that you will have a nest egg; that the Federal Government will be 
watching; and it will be there.
  Over the years, of course, because of medical science and other 
things, we have gotten to the point where we live longer and more and 
more people are taking advantage of Social Security. Over the years, 
the amount of payroll tax for Social Security went up so you could take 
care of those senior citizens. But Social Security in America, for 70 
years, has been that basic insurance policy.
  When political leaders of either political party--Democrats or 
Republicans--start talking about changing Social Security, a lot of 
American families start listening--not only those who are receiving it 
but many who are near retirement. Certainly, a lot of younger workers 
ask very important questions, such as: Will it ever be there when I 
need it? I think for the last three or four decades in America that 
question from younger workers has been very common. It is natural to be 
skeptical--when you are 20 years old or 25 years old--that the money 
you are putting into the payroll tax for Social Security will ever help 
you.
  Yet if you take a look at the record in America, Social Security has 
always been there. Payments have always been made. We have kept up with 
the cost-of-living adjustments to try to improve and increase those 
payments over the years. But we have kept our promise. A program 
created almost 70 years ago has been an insurance policy for every 
American family.
  There are warnings, of course, for people: Do not count on Social 
Security for a living because it is a very spartan existence. It 
doesn't provide a lavish lifestyle once you have retired. But you are 
not going to starve. You are going to have some basic health and 
necessities of life. Americans have built this into their thinking 
about their future. What will happen to us at the age of 65? We would 
like to think we are prepared with savings and retirement, but we 
always know that we have worked for a sufficient number of quarters for 
our lives so that we will qualify for Social Security.
  It is interesting. In the year 2000, in this Presidential campaign, 
there is a brand new debate, and the debate suggests that we ought to 
take a brand new look at Social Security. On one side, George Bush has 
suggested we ought to change it rather dramatically; that we ought to 
take at least 2 percent of the payroll savings taxes that are taken out 
for Social Security and put that into a private account in which 
individuals can invest.

  There is some appeal to that because a lot of people say maybe that 
will be a better idea--maybe I can make more money by investing it 
personally and directing my investments than if the Federal Government 
buys a very conservative investment plan with the whole Social Security 
trust fund. It is not uncommon to think that people across America are 
feeling good about directing their own future.
  I say at the outset that--I think I speak for everyone in the Senate, 
both Democrat and Republican--we believe in encouraging people to save 
for their future. We believe in giving them options for investment. 
That is why we have created IRAs and 401(k)s, and all sorts of vehicles 
under the Tax Code so people can make plans for their future. But 
George Bush raises a more important question, and one that I would like 
to address for a few minutes.
  What would happen if George Bush had his way? If we took 2 percent of 
the

[[Page S4250]]

proceeds going into the Social Security trust fund and said they will 
no longer go into the trust fund but people will be allowed to invest 
them individually, what impact would that have? Frankly, it could have 
a very serious and, I think, a very negative impact.
  Keep in mind that the money being taken out of the payroll taxes each 
week in America goes to pay the current benefits of Social Security 
retirees. There is not some huge savings account that is blossoming. 
But basically we are talking about a pay-as-you-go system. If you take 
2 percent away, you are still going to have the retirees needing their 
Social Security check. You are going to have to figure out some way to 
plug this gap.
  If you say that 2 percent of payroll taxes will stop going into the 
Social Security trust fund, who will make up the difference? How big is 
that difference? Some estimate that the difference is $1 trillion. If 
you think about that, you have to ask George Bush and others who 
support this: Where is that money coming from? How will we make up the 
difference if we start saying to people they don't have to put it all 
in the trust fund, keep 2 percent and invest it personally? That $1 
trillion transition has to be taken in the context of George Bush's 
other suggestion of a $2 trillion tax cut primarily for the wealthiest 
people in America.
  I will concede that we are in good times in America for most 
families. The economy is strong. For the first time in decades, we are 
seeing surpluses in the Federal accounts. You can attribute that to 
leadership in Washington, leadership in business, and leadership in 
families. It has all come together in the last 8 years. America is 
moving forward. We are in a surplus situation. Who would have thought 
we would be talking about this on the floor of Congress just a few 
years after we debated a balanced budget amendment?
  But many of us believe that even in a surplus situation we should be 
cautious because we are not certain what is going to be around the 
bend. We want to make certain that the decisions we make now about 
investing surplus funds makes sense for ourselves, for our children, 
and for our grandchildren.
  To come up with an idea for taking this surplus and putting it into a 
massive tax cut for wealthy people or putting it into a Social Security 
change that could cost us another trillion dollars, in my mind, is not 
fiscally conservative. Yes. That is right--fiscally conservative.
  The conservative approach being proposed by President Clinton and 
Vice President Gore says take the surplus and instead of putting it 
into something of great risk, such as a tax cut or some privatization 
of Social Security, let us buy down parts of the national debt. The 
national debt costs taxpayers in America $1 billion a day in interest. 
That is right. You are paying taxes now--payroll taxes and income 
taxes--to the tune of $1 billion a day for interest payments on old 
debt.
  If you think about it, what is a better gift to our children and 
their children than to reduce this debt, and to say to them that we are 
going to take care of our mortgage, the one that we were going to leave 
to you, by paying down the national debt? That is Vice President Gore's 
suggestion. He says, in the Social Security program, pay down the debt 
in the trust funds. Pay down all of the bonds that have accumulated. 
When you do it, incidentally, you can extend the life of Social 
Security and make it stronger to the year 2050. It is a twofer--
reducing the national debt and reducing the interest payment on it, and 
at the same time strengthening Social Security. That is the Gore 
approach. It a conservative approach. I will concede that. But I think 
it is the fiscally responsible approach.
  On the other side, George Bush has said don't worry about paying down 
debt; Let's talk about a tax cut of $2 trillion for wealthy people, and 
let's talk about a new Social Security privatization idea that will 
cost at least $1 trillion in transition. That is not conservative, nor 
do I think it is prudent. I think you can appropriately call it a risky 
idea.
  I joined with Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Senator 
Charles Schumer of New York and my friend and colleague Senator Boxer 
of California in sending a letter to George Bush saying to him: If you 
want to talk about one of the most important programs to America's 
families, Social Security, and you want to talk about dramatic changes 
in Social Security, then we want you to come forward with an idea about 
what this means. What impact will this have on families?
  We are anxious to receive a reply because, you see, George Bush, in 
the last few weeks, has gone beyond the 2-percent suggestion--that we 
can take 2 percent and invest it in the stock market--and now he says 
he can envision a day when we invest all of our Social Security in the 
stock market.
  I readily concede that over the last 8 years, during President 
Clinton's administration, the stock market has done very well. It 
doesn't from day-to-day for those who follow it, but over the long term 
it has. The Dow Jones Industrial Average of 3,000 back in 1993 is now 
up to 10,000. That suggests a lot of wealth has been created in 
America. Those that were smart enough, and could, invested in the stock 
market and have seen their savings grow.
  It is naive to believe this will go on indefinitely. We have 
certainly seen in the last 6 months the roller coaster of the NASDAQ 
and the roller coaster of the New York Stock Exchange, to suggest there 
have been good days and bad days. To take your life savings, or take 2 
percent of your payroll tax and Social Security, and put it in the 
stock exchange, you understand there are risks. I think most Americans 
appreciate that fact.
  As I said earlier, for those who want to invest their savings, that 
is their business. When it comes to Social Security, we have always 
said this is a part of our system that should be protected. If we go 
forward with George Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, it would 
truly give to individuals some power to invest. However, it also raises 
questions about the future of this Social Security system. Where will 
we come up with the $1 trillion in transition payments?
  There are only so many ways to achieve that: We can tax Social 
Security to come up with more revenue; we can reduce benefits, for 
those who are currently receiving Social Security; or we can raise the 
retirement age under Social Security.
  Frankly, I reject all three of those. I don't think America's 
families who are looking forward to enjoying their retirement years and 
counting on Social Security will sign up for George Bush's deal when 
they understand it could jeopardize Social Security as we know it and 
as we count on it. That is truly one of the serious problems we face.
  Second, if we accept the George Bush approach on privatizing Social 
Security, we don't have the money that Vice President Gore wants to 
invest in paying off the national debt and paying off the debt of the 
Social Security trust fund. So we leave that interest payment out there 
for future generations. We don't stabilize Social Security. We don't 
give it a longer life.
  A point made earlier by my colleague from the State of California, 
Senator Boxer: What if George Bush guesses wrong? What if people invest 
some part of their Social Security into the stock market and the market 
goes down and they are losing money? What will the response be of the 
elected officials across this country? We don't know because we have 
never faced it.
  History tells us it is likely that Democrats and Republicans will 
say: Wait a minute; we cannot let a sizable number of Americans fail. 
People cannot be in a position where they don't have enough money to 
live on in retirement.
  We are then likely, on a political basis, to ride to the rescue. 
Anyone remember not too long ago we did that with the savings and loan 
bailout? Too many institutions had lost money across America, and a lot 
of people lost their savings accounts. We bailed out the savings and 
loans. I didn't like voting for that, but I didn't see any alternative. 
The economy was at stake and we did it.
  I happen to believe if the Bush privatization scheme goes through and 
it doesn't work, this Congress will be called on to come up with the 
money to bail out the families who guessed wrong in the stock market. 
Think about where this leads. From the dark days of deep red ink and 
deficits, we are now in a surplus. George Bush is saying let's try 
something that is a little new and a little innovative and

[[Page S4251]]

hasn't been tried. He is suggesting changes which could jeopardize the 
strength of this economy, the strength of our recovery, and what we 
envision as a strong American economy for decades to come. He is taking 
what I consider to be a leap of faith that some scheme which someone 
has come up with will work.
  Vice President Gore is urging a more conservative approach: Put the 
surplus into bringing down the substantial debt, into strengthening the 
Social Security trust fund; put the surplus into making certain that 
Medicare is there for years to come; reduce the national debt so our 
children and their children don't continue to pay $1 billion in 
interest a day on old debt that we have accumulated.
  That is the fundamental choice. It is not a question of whether 
people should have the right to invest their savings in the stock 
market--that is their right in America; 50 percent of families are 
doing that now. Our family is one of them--but whether or not you take 
the Social Security system, and after 70 years, turn it upside down and 
say we are now going to make this a much different system.
  In the words of George Bush: We will privatize Social Security. I 
think there is a great amount of risk to that. I can understand the 
skepticism of a lot of American families about this proposal.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a couple of questions?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague. Once again, he has explained quite 
clearly what the risks are to this Bush plan.
  I was reading some of the quotes that appeared in the press 
surrounding the Bush plan. I ask my colleague to comment on some of 
them.
  Bush's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, acknowledged somewhat 
sheepishly he bailed out of the market years ago. He said: That was 
because of my personal situation. I don't take risks. I hate losing 
money.
  That was from the Philadelphia Inquirer: I don't take risks; I hate 
losing money.
  I think that reflects certain people are more conservative. Others 
are willing to take a risk.
  The point my colleague and I have tried to make is that we think it 
is fine if you want to take a risk with certain accounts you have, but 
you don't want to risk the foundation of your retirement, the safety 
net of your retirement. You want to count on that.
  Bush's top economic adviser is saying he hates losing money, and yet 
the person he advises is essentially putting money at risk for other 
people.
  I want to mention something else. The word ``privatization'' is a 
good word. I like it. It is similar to the word ``deregulation.'' It is 
a nice word. Everybody likes ``privatization.'' It is a nice word that 
indicates individual control. Of course, much of what we do in our life 
is privatization. We have our own accounts, whether they are savings 
accounts, or we own bonds, and we direct them. However, Social Security 
is a little bit different. It is the foundation.
  The Houston Chronicle reported that Bush said on Tuesday, his plan to 
create private savings accounts could be the first step toward a 
complete privatization of Social Security. That would be the end of a 
program that has worked for 70 years. There is more at stake than a 2-
percent diversion of funds.
  Finally, the New York Times reports, when answering the question 
about his plan, Mr. Bush said the Government could not go from one 
regime to another overnight. It is going to take a while to transition 
to a system where personal savings accounts are the predominant part of 
the investment vehicle. When he is asked by the Dallas Morning News, 
would beneficiaries receive less money, he says: Maybe; maybe not.
  I ask my friend for his comments on the volatility of the stock 
market expressed by Bush's own top economic adviser, the fact that this 
could be the first step toward the end of Social Security, and the fact 
that George Bush cannot answer today whether anyone would have to take 
a cut in your benefits.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California. Quoting George Bush 
on this issue tells me more than anything else that he has not thought 
this through. In the 18 years I have served on Capitol Hill, when the 
issue of Social Security has come up, I have had a tendency to step 
back and wait. I want to hear both sides.
  This is complicated. We are literally talking about a Social Security 
system that benefits tens of millions of Americans today and that many 
more Americans are counting on for the future. When people start 
talking about change in Social Security, I am very cautious. I think 
the people of Illinois who have sent me here expect me to be cautious.
  I recall when the Senator from California and I were serving in the 
House of Representatives many years ago when there was a debate on the 
floor about the so-called ``pickled-pepper'' amendment. Jake Pickle of 
Texas and Claude Pepper of Florida had a fight over the future of 
Social Security and whether to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. 
I voted against that. I really think the retirement age is an important 
milestone in people's lives, particularly if they have jobs involving 
manual labor and physical work. So when people start talking about 
changing Social Security--``We will change a little bit here and a 
little bit there''--I am very skeptical because I don't want to see us 
put in a position where someone's great campaign promise in the year 
2000 means someone trying to retire in just a few years from now finds 
out that the window is closed at Social Security:
  ``No, you have to wait a few more years.''
  ``Why?''
  ``We wanted to try a new approach to Social Security.''
  The Senator from California is right. When George Bush says--and this 
is a quote from the Houston Chronicle--``creating private savings 
accounts in Social Security could be the first step toward a complete 
privatization of Social Security,'' that is a frightening idea. Let me 
explain to you why.
  If we ever privatize Social Security, we will still have millions of 
Americans who worked their whole lives, paid their taxes, obeyed the 
laws, and counted on Social Security, who need to receive their 
benefits. If you are going to have that requirement out there, you have 
to figure out a way to keep Social Security moving while George Bush 
creates a brand new system, his new idea, whatever it is. That is a 
massive investment. When we talk about keeping America's economy moving 
forward, not increasing our deficit, creating more surpluses, keeping 
job creation online and businesses thriving, I think this is a risky 
venture by George Bush when it comes to Social Security.
  Frankly, I think the American people should ask of George Bush what 
several Members of the Senate have asked: Sit down and explain this to 
us; put it on paper. Before you start messing with Social Security, 
explain to us what you have in mind because a lot of us--a lot of 
families across America--are counting on this system.
  Mrs. BOXER. If my friend will yield further, I understand Senator 
Grams came down and quoted me as saying I like the idea of people 
investing in the market. I do. But not taking it away from the 
foundation of Social Security. Social Security is that foundation. As 
my friend pointed out, this is really serious.
  Since Governor Bush is now saying he envisions the day when we don't 
have any more Social Security, when it would all be private accounts--
that is not Social Security. He is right to point out: What happens to 
those of us who have worked our 40 quarters? There would be nothing 
going into the Social Security fund to pay those benefits. What does 
that mean? We are not going to let those people go poor; everyone knows 
that. The pressure will be on us. We will bail out the system.
  If you take it a step further and look at his $2 trillion tax cut, 
where is he going to get the money? He will print it. We will go back 
to those days his father oversaw, with $300 billion deficits which 
added to the national debt. As my friend well knows, we had more debt 
in the Reagan-Bush years than we had from George Washington to Ronald 
Reagan.
  We do not want to go back to those days. We don't want to go back to 
those days when our President had to go visit another country to find 
out how to run the economy. Those were

[[Page S4252]]

bad days for this Nation--bad, bad days. It took us a long time to get 
out of it. A lot of people lost their seats around here because they 
had the courage to vote to balance this budget. It did not take courage 
to vote for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It did 
take courage, however, to vote to actually balance the budget. It meant 
some tough stuff.
  I want to ask my friend, we have a colleague on this side of the 
aisle who says: Yes, we ought to go into privatizing Social Security. 
But he is one of the most courageous and straightforward colleagues, 
Senator Bob Kerrey. What does he say about it? He says if you are going 
to go that route, this is what you have to do: Raise the retirement 
age.
  My friend has already pointed out we have raised it to 67 over time. 
What is it going to be, 75? People will die long before they get their 
checks or they will be too old to really appreciate it. We don't want 
to see that happen, raising the retirement age after people worked so 
hard, and then make them work longer, or raise taxes on the Social 
Security that you get, or on your interest from these personal 
accounts. Raise taxes, raise their retirement age, lower benefits--you 
have to do a combination of those things.
  I have to say, there are a lot of things we do around here that are 
not very good. But would my friend not agree we have a good system here 
that has lasted through time--70 years, as he points out? It is a basic 
retirement, a basic safety net.
  One last point I would make for my friend to comment on. Around here 
we are like everybody else; we want to make sure we can take care of 
our families. I think what we do around here is a good system. We have 
had Social Security since the 1980s. We decided to make sure we paid 
in. We have Social Security retirement as our basic foundation, and 
then, if we want, we can add a thrift savings plan. So, yes, we can 
pick out investing in the market--or, by the way, Government bonds, or 
corporate bonds--in addition to our Social Security.
  That will be my last question to my friend. We know it is good to not 
put all your eggs in one basket, but we also think it is important to 
have a basic account, No. 1; No. 2, don't go back to the bad old days 
of these yearly deficits that were dragging our economy down. Yes, you 
want to add something to sweeten your retirement pie, take a little 
risk with it. We know some people who have taken some risks and didn't 
do too well; others have done very well. That is fine. Don't mess with 
the foundation of the house. If you want to add a room, fix it up. That 
is great. But don't mess with the foundation.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my friend, the Senator from California.
  It is interesting in this debate how the roles have been switched. It 
used to be not that long ago the Democrats were faulted for being 
fiscally irresponsible, too liberal when it came to tax and spend. In 
this debate over the future of Social Security, the fiscally 
conservative and, I think, from my point of view, the prudent approach 
is being pushed on the Democratic side. That is, make certain before we 
take the surplus economy for granted, and make certain before we talk 
about any changes for Social Security, that we have thought them 
through.
  Here we are in the middle of the Presidential campaign, with George 
Bush, the Republican candidate, suggesting sweeping changes in Social 
Security, changes which could literally affect millions of American 
families.
  The concept that we would somehow privatize Social Security would 
have been laughable not that many years ago. Now it is being said with 
a straight face during the course of this Presidential campaign. 
Unfortunately, the candidate, George Bush, who is making these 
statements, refuses to come forward and explain how he would achieve 
it.
  I think it is natural for those of us on the other side, those 
supporting Vice President Gore, to ask of him to be specific. If you 
are going to start talking about Social Security, start telling us in 
specific terms how you are going to change it and what it is going to 
cost us.
  I think the plan on the other side, from Vice President Gore, is a 
conservative, sensible approach that does not assume this economic boom 
which we have seen over the last 8 or 9 years will continue 
indefinitely. What Vice President Gore has said is take the surplus we 
have coming into the Federal Government and invest it back to pay off 
the debt of our Nation.
  We in Illinois, I think, represent kind of a microcosm. I represent a 
microcosm of this Nation--rural, urban, liberal, conservative, and you 
name it--across our great State. When I go back and talk to business 
leaders about what to do with our surplus, they universally agree with 
Vice President Gore's position: Be prudent, be sensible, take the 
surplus and invest it in such a way so if 6 months from now we are in a 
recession or a downturn, we will not regret decisions we have made.
  Take a look at what has happened to us in just a short period of 
time. Because we have had fiscal discipline for the last several years, 
the Nation's debt is already $1.7 trillion lower than it would have 
been. In other words, if we had not made this decision a few years ago 
to balance the budget and to make certain that Social Security trust 
funds were not spent for other reasons, we could be $1.7 trillion 
deeper in debt, meaning we would have bondholders in the United States 
and around the world asking every month for their interest payment and 
being paid with taxes coming out of families, businesses, and 
individuals across America.
  We are on the right track. I think we in Washington got the message. 
Under the Clinton-Gore administration, we have started bringing down 
this debt and the economy has flourished for most people. There are 
exceptions: In the farm belt, exceptions in the inner city, exceptions 
in small towns. But by and large, most people believe America is moving 
in the right direction.
  Along comes a Presidential campaign. Really, this is a referendum on 
our future. I am not going to question the motives of George Bush on 
the Republican side, and I hope he would not question the motives of 
Vice President Gore.
  The American people basically have a crucial choice this November. In 
a time of prosperity, what should America's future look like? What 
should we be doing for the young people across America to say to them: 
We want to create at least as good an opportunity for you as we have 
had in this country.
  Frankly, the Democratic approach, Vice President Gore's approach, is 
the sensible one. It basically says: Don't assume prosperity forever; 
pay down the debt so we don't have to collect more in taxes to pay 
interest on this debt. Reduce the debt of the Social Security program 
so that it will be stronger for a long period of time.
  In fact, under Vice President Gore's proposal, for another 50 years, 
it will be solvent, so we can even say to those who are just getting 
their driver's license this year: Social Security is going to be there 
when you show up at the window 50 years from now. That is a good thing 
to say to the future of America.
  Also, we are saying when it comes to Medicare--this is a program 
often overlooked by this Congress; it is not overlooked by tens of 
millions of elderly and disabled who count on Medicare for their health 
insurance--we believe we should take part of this surplus and invest it 
in Medicare as well to make sure it is stronger and is affordable. This 
is the Gore approach.
  The other side is a much different view of our future. What George 
Bush has proposed for America's future is let's try something new and 
untried. First, let's talk about a $2 billion tax cut, and it is a tax 
cut that is not targeted to families who need it. It is a tax cut that, 
frankly, goes to a lot of people who are already wealthy.
  I am joined on the floor by my colleague from New York, Senator 
Schumer. Senator Schumer has a proposal most American families would 
applaud. He has suggested targeting the tax cuts where they are really 
needed. One of Senator Schumer's proposals is to allow families to 
deduct up to $10,000 a year in college expenses for their children. 
That means about $2,800 in the bank for a lot of families to help pay 
college education expenses. That is a smart investment. That is a 
targeted tax cut that does not go to the wealthiest in America but 
prepares the next generation of Americans to compete in a global 
economy.

[[Page S4253]]

  This election is coming down to: Do you want the Bush tax cut for 
primarily wealthy people, and do you want to target the tax cuts and 
invest in paying down the debt? Do you want to keep Social Security 
strong for decades to come, or try a privatization approach which 
Governor Bush proposes which has never been tested and will cost us a 
trillion dollars and runs the risk of more red ink, more deficits, and 
problems in the future?
  We are taking the Gore and Democratic side, fiscally prudent approach 
which says: Let's look to the future in real uncertain terms.
  I know we only have until 11:30 for morning business. My colleague 
from New York is here. I yield the floor to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I also thank the 
Senator from Illinois for his, once again, enthusiastic, as well as 
erudite, presentation on our fiscal policy and on Social Security. 
Maybe after I finish what I have to say I will say a few words on that. 
I do not know the time situation.

                          ____________________