[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.

                          ____________________