Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 23 (Wednesday, March 6, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 23 (Wednesday, March 6, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H720-H725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STOP IMPENDING RAID ON SOCIAL SECURITY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with several
of my colleagues, to discuss the most pressing domestic issue of our
time, that of Social Security.
Let me first begin by thanking my fellow freshman Democrat, the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), for his leadership in
organizing with me this Special Order about the impending raid of
Social Security. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her leadership and assistance in
organizing our colleagues here today.
Our Nation faces incredible challenges; this we all know as we stand
united in a war on terrorism. All of our thoughts and prayers are with
our men and women in uniform today. This afternoon I stand before this
House to talk about one of the most pressing domestic issues of our
time, an issue that cannot be ignored even as we fight a war abroad,
and that is Social Security.
Around the world as populations of developed countries grow older,
the cost of paying for pension and health benefits rise. In the United
States, more than 44 million people collect benefits from our Social
Security system. Social Security represents one of the most important
and depended-upon programs in this Nation's history.
Social Security is a great American success story, having reduced the
percentage of poverty among our Nation's retirees from over 50 percent
to 11 percent since the program's inception in 1935. Moreover, Social
Security is not simply a retirement program; it is also a program that
provides disability and survivor's benefits to over 13 million workers
and their families.
Last year this House and this country had a 10-year estimated $5.6
trillion unified surplus, which included $3 trillion in non-Social
Security surplus. But how times can change. In less than a year, $4
trillion of that surplus is now gone due to tax cuts, the downturn in
our economy, and the war effort.
The greatest tragedy is not simply the diminution of the surplus, but
also the fact that the proposed budget now before us in this House
diverts $1.4 trillion of the Social Security trust fund and $556
billion from the Medicare trust fund to pay for spending and new tax
cuts.
I have supported and continue to support tax cuts, specific tax cuts,
but not tax cuts that undermine our ability to honor our promises and
commitments. I support, as do so many Members of this House, a fiscally
responsible plan for our Federal budget, a plan that recognizes the
current health of the Social Security trust fund, while also
recognizing the need in the future to protect it.
Because of the current strength of the trust fund, we have an
opportunity before us as a Nation that we will not have too much longer
to protect the reserves that will be vital in ensuring the

[[Page H721]]

program's survival for future generations. The question today is when
are we going to stop talking about saving the Social Security trust
fund and finally do it.
Legislation has been proposed, but no action has been taken. We
continue to use duplicitous accounting to hide the real deficits this
country faces in the coming years when the largest generation in
American history, the baby boomers, begin to retire.
It is hard for me to understand how, in what is obviously the most
successful and popular Federal program ever conceived, how it can be
subtly cut and raided for short-term convenience. The time has come for
us as a Nation and as a House to make the tough decisions to save
Social Security for our children and for our children's children.
There is a very real and looming threat that we may not be able to
meet all of the promised obligations unless we commit to make the
prudent fiscal choices today. As I mentioned, we have been presented
with a budget that proposes a spending deficit in the Social Security
trust fund of $1.5 trillion. Before we even begin the debate on long-
term solvency of Social Security, I find it irresponsible that the
Congress is being asked to force Social Security's obsolescence by
raiding the trust fund and risking the fiscal health of a system that
has been so successful. When, I ask, are we going to make the hard
decisions of financial prudence?
I believe that we can achieve our long-term goals of preserving our
Social Security system to prevent our Nation's seniors from falling
back into poverty while also updating and reforming Social Security to
meet the challenges of our modern era. It is true the baby boomers are
rapidly approaching retirement. The oldest will be retiring by 2008,
and it is true by 2021, the Social Security system will be taking in
less revenue than it pays out in benefits. But as we proved in 1983 and
as we can prove again today, we can save a program that has worked so
well for so many for so many years, and it is incumbent upon us to make
these tough decisions.
As the recent Enron debacle reminds us, it is critical to have a
safety net in place, and a solvent one at that, to protect seniors when
they retire. As workers across the country have watched their life
savings, their 401(k)s lose 24, 35, even 50 percent of their value, and
some regrettably have seen their 401(k)s and pensions evaporate
altogether, it is critical that Americans know Social Security will be
there to ensure that their minimum needs are met.
Mr. Speaker, in the last election perhaps the most used phrase was
the Social Security trust fund would always remain in a so-called
``lockbox'' unable to be touched by the spending desires or tax cuts of
some in Congress or of the administration. I do not believe any
American argues against making sure that there are adequate resources
to fighting the war on terrorism or defending the home front. However,
we cannot allow the Social Security trust fund to become the credit
card on which we charge a smorgasbord of new spending for tax cuts.

{time} 1530

Mr. Speaker, today is the day, finally, in which we stand on
principle as a Congress to send a clear message to this generation as
well as the future generations of retiring workers that there will be,
forever, a solvent, secure and dependable public Social Security
program in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Langevin) to also address this subject.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank my colleague for yielding.
I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues and friends, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), for joining me in focusing
attention on this critically important issue. Together with a number of
our esteemed colleagues, we are declaring that we will not accept a
budget that jeopardizes Social Security or Medicare, programs that are
essential to my constituents in Rhode Island and to Americans
everywhere.
As we consider this year's budget, we have a choice, to preserve
Social Security and protect our Nation's elderly from poverty, or
divert funds for this program to less critical priorities. To meet the
needs of our country's rapidly growing senior population, I choose to
prioritize Social Security and Medicare and will fight for a budget
that reflects that choice.
The administration's budget, on the other hand, raids $1.5 trillion
of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus, the very fund Congress voted
five times to place in a lockbox to ensure its solvency. This choice is
unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to the two-thirds of
recipients who rely on Social Security for the majority of their income
and the almost 20 percent who rely on it for their entire income.
Last year, the Congressional Budget Office projected a 10-year non-
Social Security surplus of $3.1 trillion. Just 1 year later, the
projection has plunged to a deficit of $742 billion. The administration
uses a series of gimmicks and unrealistic assumptions to disguise the
fact that the government will run a much larger deficit than its budget
predicts, virtually guaranteeing that the Social Security surplus will
disappear over the next decade, leaving 200 million Americans who
currently rely on Social Security, or will in the future, with no
financial security in their most vulnerable years. A raid on the Social
Security Trust Fund today is a promise to cut Social Security tomorrow.
In Rhode Island, Social Security provides a vital lifeline for a
significant percentage of the population. Rhode Island ranks fifth in
the Nation for the percentage of residents over 75 and sixth in the
Nation for those over 65. In my district alone, 110,000 people rely on
Social Security for their livelihood. These Rhode Islanders worry about
whether Social Security will continue to be there when they need it,
and they are tired of hearing promises from politicians that are not
backed up with action.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues to
fight to preserve Social Security's core structure and ensure that we
do not revert to an era of overwhelming poverty among the elderly. We
have a choice. I choose America's seniors. I choose a responsible,
honest budget that does not sacrifice the most vulnerable among us. I
know those Members who join me today have made that same choice. I urge
the rest of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. I know the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Langevin) has worked hard on these issues over the last few months as
well. We appreciate his comments on the issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) who
has also worked passionately on these issues and whose words are always
eloquent on this subject. Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I thank the gentleman for
allowing us to talk about the important issue of Social Security. I
also thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his
efforts. I know that we are all concerned. I also wanted to take this
opportunity to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald), who is not here but I know who also is concerned and who
might join us a little later as well as the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Carson).

Let me just indicate that, when it comes to Social Security, it is
one of the issues that hits home and it is one of the areas that we
forget that, during the time prior to Social Security, we had the
largest problems that we had regarding poverty among our seniors. This
has been one of the best programs to alleviate poverty among our
seniors. So I am pleased to stand today and make some comments as we
reach this critical time of reviewing and dealing with the issue of how
we respond to the difficulties that we find ourselves in.
As a country, we are often faced with challenging obstacles on our
quest to do what is just. The resources we have at our disposal are not
infinite, as we all recognize. At these critical moments Americans
expect their leaders to stand strong and make decisions that reflect
all that makes this country great. Our seniors are facing a dilemma,
one that threatens the security and trust they have as they reach
retirement. We must fight to preserve our Social Security Trust Fund
and honor our country's commitment to our seniors.
The President's budget does not honor the commitment to our seniors

[[Page H722]]

and, in turn, fails all Americans. The President's new budget raids the
Social Security surplus to pay for other government programs, not just
one year but every year for the next 10 years. Ultimately, the
President's plan would spend $1.5 trillion in Social Security surplus
dollars to fund programs other than Social Security. This year alone,
$262 billion in Social Security surplus funds are redirected. In the
year 2003, the President's budget projects using $259 billion. All this
money would be taken out of the trust fund and used to fund other
programs.
One of the things that bothers me and irritates me is that we dealt
with the tax cut and at a time right now when our first response should
be in terms of defending our homeland, taking care of the war, we are
choosing to respond to all the problems with a tax cut, when we ought
to be telling those corporations they also have an obligation to pay
for defending this country, and our seniors should not be carrying the
burden for that to be occurring.
Now is the time for us to focus on a long-term budget plan that will
recover as the economy recovers, returning us to an era where we can
fully protect and even strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund. We
need to recommit to the idea of Social Security surplus dollars only
for Social Security and paying down the national debt. Our national
debt now stands at $3.4 trillion. Paying down the national debt will
strengthen the financing of the Social Security Trust Fund over the
long term and will allow us to keep our commitment to seniors.
Our seniors deserve better than a piece of paper which attempts to
guarantee their rights to receive benefits. That piece of paper means
nothing. You can tell that to our veterans who have been told that they
should have access to health care and we have not delivered for them.
This piece of paper also will mean nothing. What we need to do is do
the right thing in our budget, be able to pay down debt and be able to
take care of our seniors.
As we look, and I would hope that we just do not look at those that
are now receiving those benefits but we reach out and look at those
baby boomers that are getting ready to reach that age, because they
have also paid into the fund. In addition to them, we all recognize
that the kids of the baby boomers, what we call the baby echo, we also
need to consider the baby echo.
As we move forward on Social Security, there are special populations,
Hispanics, for example, one out of every three Hispanics only have
another pension, while one out of two Anglos have other pensions. So
there are certain special populations out there that get
disproportionately hit and depend on Social Security much more than
other populations, especially Hispanic women who are the ones that are
hit the hardest and if there is any move to privatize will be in
complete jeopardy.
One of the things, and I want to thank the Members that are here
tonight, because we need to talk about this. There is a great deal of
talk right now, but what is transpiring and what is occurring already
in the budget has a direct impact on our Social Security. I do not
care, and I hate to see people come and talk about it and then they
vote for those tax cuts that jeopardize not only our economy but the
Nation as a whole and our fight in this war on terrorism. We are
fighting this war on terrorism on the backs of our seniors.
Every single war we have had, we have always had a tax. When we had
the Spanish American War, we had a tax on phones. When we had World War
II, we had taxes. This is the only war that we have decided to give tax
cuts to the wealthiest at the same time that we burden our seniors by
taking their trust fund and their security from them. So it is unfair
that we do this, but it is a good opportunity to begin to talk about
where we are at.
Once again, I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to say a
few words. I know we have some additional colleagues that have come on
board. I thank the gentleman for his efforts.
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for
his impassioned words about the future of Social Security and the
imperative on all of us, especially those of us with a real commitment
to our seniors, and to remember that so many promises to our veterans
were made more in rhetoric than in reality and that we should not do
the same thing with Social Security. I thank the gentleman for his
comments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding and my
other colleagues who have commented.
It is easy for folks who have not been in this body over a period of
time or who are not old enough to realize and remember some of our
folks who have had it so tough. Those of us who understand history
remember that Social Security is a retirement system that has really
been a bedrock. It is really that foundation that a lot of the other
retirement systems were built on. Whether a person has no other plan,
whether they have a 401(k), a 201(k) or no K, we always start with
Social Security. If you go to a retirement planner and they want to
help you if you have money, they still want to start with looking at
Social Security, because that is the foundation or bedrock.
It has been that way since President Roosevelt signed it into law in
1935. It has been one of the most successful government initiatives,
lifting millions of seniors and working families out of poverty in the
20th century.
But there was a time before Social Security, I remember my history,
when seniors suffered in abject poverty. Too many people could not
afford the basic human needs of food and shelter, and even some died
homeless on the streets, far more than we see today.
The creation of Social Security is one of the landmark achievements,
as I have said, of the 20th century. Together, we declared that seniors
should not be forced to live in Third World poverty here in America.
Together, this Congress, I was not here, but this Congress did it, a
previous Congress. The House and Senate, along with the President, said
that we are going to make a compact and we are going to make it with
our seniors, seniors like my mother and my mother-in-law, that we are
going to deal with generation to generation. The younger generation is
going to help the older generation, and you are not going to be left in
poverty.
My mother-in-law lost her husband when she was, I think, a relatively
young lady of 59. My dad lost his life early on. People forget the
survivor benefit that the wives tap into. Yes, there is a disparity now
in what women draw because they are not in the workforce as long, but
there is that provision to make it available. You cannot buy it with
any other insurance. Congress in my opinion does not have the right to
break that contract.
There is no question that Social Security is facing a serious
challenge. The system has been deteriorating over recent years in terms
of money available. But we made a lot of progress in the 1990s when we
had a full economy, we had a growing budget, we had money available. It
seems to me I remember last year that we were talking about having
surpluses as far as the eye could see. What a difference a year makes.
Now we are looking at deficits as far as the eye can see. But over the
next few decades, we must act and we must act to make sure that it is
secure, that it is safe. Otherwise, we will not be holding up our end
of that compact.
There are those, including the people who served on the President's
commission, who feel that privatizing Social Security is the answer to
this problem. I respectfully disagree. Last year, when the President
appointed his commission on Social Security, that commission, I think,
was stacked and stacked with members, every one, who wanted to
privatize it.

{time} 1545

Now, if you want to privatize, that is one thing; but do not do it to
the folks without letting the people involved be involved in it. There
should have been on that commission beneficiaries. There should have
been minorities on it, there should have been women, there should have
been seniors. In the end, the commission offered only three flawed
plans to privatize Social Security and failed to provide any kind of
plan to restore the solvency of the system.
In that regard, I cannot support any privatization plan that would
jeopardize the retirement security of our seniors and working families,
because for many families in America, that is the only security they
have. The recent

[[Page H723]]

Enron scandal clearly demonstrates that we cannot allow the retirement
security of our working Americans to become the victims of unrestrained
corporate greed and mismanagement.
Social Security was designed to be a safety net, a safety net, and a
compact between generations, as I said earlier, not a privatized
vehicle of massive wealth for some and massive poverty for others.
Some would say, well, you know, look at what the stock market has
done. Look at those who had 401(k)s last year and 201(k)s this year,
and some of them may have zero(k)s if they have it in the wrong stock.
That is just absolutely not what Social Security was meant to be; and
there are many problems, in my opinion, with privatizing Social
Security.
First, if you take money out of the trust fund to put in private
accounts, then you weaken the system. One of the plans offered by the
President's commission would remove $1.5 trillion, that is with a T,
from the trust fund over 10 years.
Privatization also means benefit cuts. Another of the commission's
plans would have reduced the benefits promised to future retirees by as
much as 46 percent. Every privatization plan that I have seen thus far
has what is called a ``clawback'' provision. That means in a privatized
system beneficiaries will not receive both the full value of their
private accounts and, along with that, their full Social Security
benefit, so you lose something. That is not the commitment that was
made.
In addition, a system based upon individual accounts would also
disproportionately hurt women because they would suffer from low
account deposits and likely lose their spousal benefits, because, for a
lot of women, that is how they step up to higher incomes. Minorities
would be literally shortchanged because private accounts would erode
the progressivity of the system. Finally, the transitional costs
associated with privatization puts the system solvency and the
retirement security of those who depend on it at risk at a much more
rapid pace.
The majority in this House now proposes to issue what are called
certificates to Social Security recipients. I call them sham
certificates. That reminds me last year they also sent out letters, the
administration did, to folks and said you are going to get a tax cut,
$300 or $600. I held a town hall meeting a little over a month after
those letters went out and this lady came in and she was quite upset.
She had been expecting that $600, she and her husband were. They did
not tell her you had to pay so much in income taxes. They said you are
going to get the check. She got $3 and some change. She lost her job
and had to sell her car to keep her family together.
This Congress has a responsibility not to play charades and sham
games, not to be playing gotcha and ideology. We have a responsibility
to do the people's business. People who draw a Social Security check do
not want games being played. They want their check, they want their
money, and they want that contract and commitment to be there. People
count on their Social Security benefits too, and these certificates
would only be worth no more than the paper they are written on, because
if the other stuff is not worth anything, it is sort of like the locked
box. You know, you can lock a box, but what happened to the locked box?
It is about having the integrity to tell people the truth and then
following through and doing it.
We can find something better to do with the $10 million we are
talking about using to send worthless certificates. Folks in my
district learned the hard way to be skeptical when they are promised
something that they know does not come through.
I, like my other colleagues who have been on the floor this evening,
am willing to work with anyone in good faith to strengthen the bedrock
that is Social Security; but we really must put aside partisan gimmicks
and ideological differences, like certificates that are not worth the
paper they are written on, or privatization plans that only make Social
Security budgetary problems worse. We really ought to have a major
study, if we are really serious about doing what we ought to do for the
people, and bring the people to the table.
I was really disappointed last year that no one from this body was on
the commission. If you are going to get something done, you ought to
have Members of Congress involved who ultimately are going to have to
be involved in the process. I urge all my colleagues in this House to
get serious about Social Security reform if we are going to do it,
because the time is here.

I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for putting together this
Special Order this afternoon. This is an important issue. It is
important not just to the people who are now drawing Social Security;
it is important to a lot of folks who ultimately are going to be
drawing it. But, more importantly, it is important to the young people
who are paying into it. They have a right to know that we are going to
keep that commitment and that contract that has been made over
generations to them as they pay in. And it has to get beyond gimmicks,
and who has got the best idea to play gotcha with or get ready for the
next election.
It is about good policy, not good politics. It is about doing what is
right for our seniors, people like my mother and mother-in-law and
their friends and others like them all across America who depend on
Social Security every month. If the stock market is up, they get their
check. If the stock market is down, they get their check. They do not
worry about where the stock market is. They know that the United States
Government stands four square behind the commitment it made, and we as
Members of this Congress have that same solemn obligation that Members
who have stood here before us had, and we cannot drop the ball now.
I thank the gentleman for putting together this Special Order and
allowing me a few minutes to participate in it.
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentleman from North Carolina for his well-informed comments, and I
also appreciate the fact that he brought up the ill-conceived nature of
sending certificates to millions of seniors and Americans out there,
certificates that provide no new rights and are not an enforcement
mechanism for any existing rights, all at the cost of more than $10
million, all of this in a year when our budgets are strapped and so
many very meritorious projects are going to have to go unfunded and
left on the drawing room table. So I thank the gentleman for his
comments and thank him for being here this afternoon as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to someone who is equally
impassioned about the subject of Social Security, the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Carson) for bringing us together for this very important
discussion and also want to compliment the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for doing such a fine job in simplifying what
could be a complicated debate.
I wanted to add my words this afternoon to the very important issue
of Social Security, probably the premier program of the last century,
that helped lift one-third of the Nation out of poverty. Even today, if
you think about many of our seniors, certainly women, the majority
receive checks in a month that average maybe around $550, $580 per
month. Social Security for them is not pocket change; it is a lifeline.
Without Social Security and Medicare, they simply could not survive.
So you would think America, during this period of the stunning
collapse of Enron, would have learned an important lesson, and that
certain Members of this Congress who are trying to tinker around with
Social Security would have learned an important lesson, and that is
that the vagaries of the market and the private sector's penchant for
gambling with other people's money is no substitute, can never be a
substitute, for the rock-solid guarantee of Social Security, an
insurance program and a disability program. Any one of us, any one of
our family members, can be struck by a disability. Social Security is
the social safety net for this country.

Yet what we see in the Bush administration's proposal in the wake of
Enron is not retirement security, but retirement insecurity. In fact,
the lockbox that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge)
referenced, where

[[Page H724]]

we all promised we would not touch the Social Security trust fund, in
that in fact that trust fund would be there to pay dollars, the
billions of dollars to our seniors across this country this year, next
year, and as the baby boom generation retires, what the Bush
administration is actually doing is taking these dollars and giving
them away; and it is giving them away by the billions.
How is that actually happening? It is happening because this trust
fund is being borrowed from now to pay tax rebates to some of the
wealthiest and most profitable corporations in our country, not just
this year, but over the next 10 years.
If you think about who is getting the benefit, let us take a look at
Enron. If you look at the tax proposals that were passed here in this
House, which I did not support, what they essentially meant was that we
are taking money from the trust fund, and we are giving it to companies
like Enron.
Enron, unless we stop it, is going to be getting rebates, rebates
that basically are transfers from the trust fund which are the
accumulated savings of the American people, taken out of every worker's
check, and put there for their parents or grandparents. Those dollars
are being transferred, not by the thousands, not even by the millions,
but by the billions, which is the amount that is in the trust fund; and
if you take Enron, for example, just in the years we are serving here,
the first 3 years they probably will get $350 million in rebates.
Guess where that comes from? It comes from the one source of
accumulated savings that the American people have, and that is the
Social Security trust fund. So my aunt in Toledo and maybe your
grandmother in Chicago, those savings that are there are being
transferred because of consolidated accounting.
The Republican Party has invaded the lockbox that we promised would
be there in perpetuity. Overall, the numbers show that the
Congressional Budget Office projected a 10-year non-Social Security
surplus of $3.1 trillion; and now, just 1 year later, that projection
has plunged to a deficit of $742 billion, almost $1 trillion. So the
surplus that had existed technically in the annual budgets has been
turned almost overnight into a deficit, and the borrowing is continuing
from the Social Security trust fund.
Now, Enron just does not get a little bit. I mean, $350 million in
rebates, that is one-third of $1 billion. None of my relatives can even
imagine how much money that really is. But that is what is going on
here. And if there is any program that has marked the Democratic Party,
and in fact it is one of the reasons I am a Democrat, is because of
this Social Security program. It meant the difference for our
grandmother between the poor house and being able to live out her final
years in dignity. It was very meager, but at least it was something. It
was something. To see this program violated for the likes of a chief
executive officer like Ken Lay is absolutely abhorrent to me.
If I look at other corporations that are benefiting and the money
coming out of the Social Security trust fund and going to them, we can
look at General Electric, because General Electric is one of the
companies that is not just going to get millions. Enron is going to get
millions; General Electric is going to get billions out of the Social
Security trust fund.
With the changes in the alternative minimum tax, it means that all of
these little tax breaks and loopholes that the very well-paid
accountants from companies like Arthur Andersen can find for these
large corporations, they are going to get rebates through the Social
Security trust fund, which sounds incredible because we were supposed
to have put it in a lockbox and not touched it, and yet it is being
drawn down to give money back to really the wealthiest people in our
country and the wealthiest interests.

{time} 1600

And they are not having trouble. These companies like General
Electric, they are not going bankrupt. Now, Enron went bankrupt because
of wrongdoing, criminal wrongdoing, it appears. And many of these other
corporations, take Chevron, take Texaco, we are not talking about
pennies, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. The
Social Security Trust Fund is being invaded to give nearly $200 million
to Texaco, three-quarters of a billion dollars to Chevron. Think about
that. Think about the transfer of wealth that is occurring.
So some people are saying, well, let a senior family or someone who
is going to be of retirement age someday, let them put money aside. We
just have to encourage responsibility in the American people. How do we
do that on minimum wage? How do we do that when we do not earn a
minimum wage? How do we do that when we have no health benefits?
Yesterday I sat in the Committee on Veterans Affairs thinking about
this Special Order tonight and the fact that we were taking money out
of Social Security Trust Fund to give it to some of the wealthiest
corporations in the country, and we have a proposal from the Bush
administration to charge veterans for prescription drugs. Now, we have
always had a $2 copayment for various prescriptions, and many of our
veterans average 10 prescriptions per month. What the Bush
administration is doing is raising that copayment to $7 per
prescription which, per month, would be $70, with a cap annually of
over $850 for prescription drugs for veterans.
I am sitting there and thinking, well, is this not interesting. We
hear all of these patriotic speeches on behalf of our military; and
yet, when it comes to serving those who have put their life on the
line, then, as they are very elderly and unable to fend for themselves,
they say, now you have to pay additional money for prescription drugs.
Is that what Lincoln had in mind when he said we would care for the
veteran, his widow, his orphan? Is that the promise? Was it a false
promise that was made?
So what we see happening is, why are we charging for prescription
drugs for veterans, for those who have created and preserved the
freedom that we have here in this country? Why are we charging them?
Because we have to borrow. We have to take the money that should be
placed into paying for those pharmaceuticals for those who have served
our Nation. We are giving it away. We are giving it away to Enron in
rebates, we are giving it away to General Motors in rebates, we are
giving it away to Chevron in rebates, we are giving it away to IBM in
rebates. That is where the money is going.
So I want to say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson), I am
really very pleased that he has taken the leadership in pulling this
together today, because this truly is; this is not a tangential issue
for the Democratic Party, this is the core of the Democratic Party.
I was here in 1983 when we saved Social Security. It was the key
issue in the election of 1992, along with the recession. We were able
to reconstitute a healthy Social Security Trust Fund which served us
well into this millennium. I am certainly one Member that will do
nothing to weaken the system.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Democrat. I am proud to be holding
the Social Security Trust Fund in our hands, and we literally do, and
preserving it for the American people for this generation and
generations to come.
I thank the gentleman again for giving this time this evening and
urge him on in his efforts to inform the American public and to re-
create that lockbox permanently.
Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentlewoman from Ohio for her comments today. She is quite right in
saying that, if the American public is wise, the upcoming election will
be about this important issue, the most successful social program the
United States has ever had. A social program that once, in 1935 when
seniors were the poorest group in America, has lifted them out of
poverty, so that those people in retirement no longer have to worry
about making basic ends meet. Indeed, the election and this entire
debate about the future of Social Security is between those people who
would preserve this important program and those people who, in the name
of reform, seek to dismantle it.
It is so important that people watching this today and those people
who are across America and are going to be casting their ballots
recognize the importance of Social Security. It is not as

[[Page H725]]

a 401(k) program is, it is not as a pension program is at a private
business. Those programs are important; and I in Congress, along with
my colleagues, have voted to make those more accessible to our
retirees. We should encourage people to invest and to save on their
own. But the genius of Social Security has been always that it is a
program below which we allowed no one to fall, a safety net, below
which no one was allowed to fall. We can make good on the promise of
retirement and the harvest of a bountiful life.

____________________