[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 16741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 16741]]

       SECURE MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY BEFORE GIVING TAX CUTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 4 minutes.



  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I would just like to 
question, if I could, the gentleman from Texas for 1 moment.
  I ask the gentleman, was it not the underlying assumption of the 
previous speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) suggesting 
that long-term economic projections are notoriously unreliable?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Indeed, he made the point quite well that so many 
economists share in, that we cannot count on those surpluses. They 
depend on everything, including the weather, and they are about as 
reliable as the weather report for 10 years from now.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, it seemed to me to be 
startling to suggest, and I agree with him, incidentally, that we would 
project surpluses for the next 10 to 15 years based upon current 
economic assumptions.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Absolutely outrageous, and Chairman Greenspan shared 
that concern also. That is why he emphasized in unequivocal terms that 
this Republican tax proposal would be a mistake, and pointed to the 
advantages that he said would accrue to the economy from a significant 
decline in the outstanding debt to the public; that that is the kind of 
thing that can keep our expansion going and can help us to secure 
social security and Medicare.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I ask the gentleman, these suggestions are 
being made in advance of having solved the Medicare and social security 
problem; is that correct?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Indeed, this proposed Financial Freedom Act, the Freedom 
From Reality Act, proposes about a $1 trillion cut in the next 10 
years, and then, as those baby boomers are really beginning to demand 
and need social security and Medicare, it explodes in the next 10 years 
another $2 or $3 trillion. These numbers do get so big, but we are 
talking not about billions but trillions of dollars that are likely to 
be additional debt at the very time many Americans are retiring and 
need social security and Medicare.
  That is why I think Chairman Greenspan, not only in answer to my 
questions, but just to turn the chart around, answered a specific 
question about the very kind of proposal, an outrageously irresponsible 
proposal, the Republicans have presented.
  A Republican colleague, asking in front of the committee that 
approved this bill, ``Would you support, say, the proposal being touted 
currently for a 10 percent across-the-board reduction in tax rates?'' 
And Chairman Greenspan says, ``Well, Congressman, as I said at the 
beginning, my first preference is to allow the surplus to run, because 
I think that the benefit to the economy through the strength of 
increasing savings is a very important priority for this country.''
  We are concerned as Democrats not with spending but saving, saving 
the economic expansion we have, saving Medicare, and saving social 
security.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, what we are essentially 
saying here on the Democratic side is this: we are not against tax 
cuts. We are simply suggesting that once we certify that social 
security and Medicare have been fixed for the next I think 65 years on 
the social security side and 35-plus years on the Medicare side, as 
certified by the trustees and actuaries of both those programs, then we 
are saying that we want to be able to entertain the notion perhaps of 
modest tax cuts, as proposed by President Clinton and the Democratic 
alternative.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Absolutely. And I know we will hear shortly about a 
Democratic alternative to try to provide some fairness to middle-class 
workers in this country and families. I know the gentleman himself has 
introduced a proposal to try to simplify this complicated web called 
the Internal Revenue Code.
  We have a number of creative Democratic proposals to try to get a 
little fairness for the people that are out there trying to hold their 
families together and earn a middle-class income. But to give it all to 
those at the top of the economic ladder, one-third of the benefits to 
individuals in this Republican bill go to families that earn over 
$200,000 a year, so that is not the typical middle-class family. They 
want to just let a little dribble down to the rest of us. But I think 
that is not the right approach.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. As is always the case, it is a question of 
priorities, is it not?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Absolutely.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. We are suggesting that Medicare and social 
security come first and then we can talk about tax cuts, or as the 
gentleman has indicated, I think, accurately so, what we are saying is, 
do not disturb the current economic growth that we have in anticipation 
of something that might not ever occur, massive budget surpluses.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Do not bet on the come, stick with economic reality.

                          ____________________