[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 27107-27114]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to for the next hour be 
coordinating a special order on the very important topic of Social 
Security. In the course of the next hour I am going to be talking about 
the very critical importance of this program. We are also going to put 
in perspective something about the present debate waging in this 
Chamber even as Congress works to conclude this session, and clearly we 
are in the final weeks of this session.
  I also want then to highlight the emerging opportunity that we have 
in this Congress still this year to take the steps necessary to do 
something to strengthen Social Security, to prolong the solvency of the 
program, to push the life of the trust fund out from its present 
expectation, and these will be the areas that we will be discussing.
  I am very pleased that joining me during this hour to discuss this 
matter will be a number of Members, and we will be pleased to 
incorporate them into the discussion.

[[Page 27108]]

  I will begin just by talking about the Social Security program. It is 
our foremost family protection program. It is truly, when you talk 
Social Security, a program of all of us for each of us, and it has been 
that way for 6 decades. I do not think there is much question about 
what has made Social Security America's most successful Federal 
program. It comes down to the fact that it helps families in very real 
ways with risks that they otherwise cannot avoid. We all have risks of 
life. We may die too soon. We may become ill and unable to work. We may 
outlive our assets. Maybe we live too long and outlive our assets.
  All of these are risks, all of us have them, and yet Social Security 
steps in and helps mitigate those risks by helping us in very 
fundamental ways. Let me just outline three of the coverages of the 
Social Security program.
  The first, retirement income. There are millions in this country that 
every month receive a Social Security check that are in retirement 
years. This retirement check will continue as long as they live. It 
will be inflation adjusted to keep pace with rising costs. This program 
is the primary source of income for more than two-thirds of those on 
Social Security. It is 90 to 100 percent of the income for one-third on 
Social Security.
  Let me make that clear again. Social Security is most of the income 
for two-thirds of Social Security's retirement recipients. It is all of 
the income for one-third of the recipients. You do not have to figure 
too hard given statistics like that to conclude how vitally important 
this program is to seniors on retirement depending upon this income.
  But that is not what is the best known of the Social Security 
coverages. It is certainly not the only coverage because Social 
Security also provides a survivors benefit. Now what is that?
  That is coverage that applies when the bread winner dies prematurely 
leaving dependents at home. Ninety-eight percent, 98 percent of the 
children in this country are covered under that survivor's protection. 
If their dad dies, they are going to have some support while the family 
tries to recover from that devastating tragedy. There, I do not think, 
is another program that has ever been passed that provides such 
comprehensive coverage to the children of this country, 98 percent.
  The third is disability benefits because if you become disabled and 
are unable to make an income, what are you going to do? There are an 
awful lot of people in that category that simply have no other means 
for support. In fact, the disability benefit provided from Social 
Security is the only disability protection for three out of four in the 
workplace today.
  You think about it. All the millions of people in the workplace 
today, driving to work this morning, absolutely depending on their 
paycheck at the end of the day or the end of the month or the end of 
the pay period to make it. Suddenly they become disabled, unable to 
work. What happens then?
  Well, thanks to Social Security, they can make it because there is a 
Social Security check under that disability component of the program.
  Now sometimes, as my colleagues know, we get up here and we talk 
about programs, and it sounds like just so much politics and government 
nonsense.

                              {time}  1600

  Social Security has had a very personal impact in the lives of 
millions of Americans, and I know well, because it has had a very 
personal impact in my life. My dad died when I was a teenager. I 
received a Social Security check. I have been a Social Security 
beneficiary. I, quite frankly, have no idea what my family would have 
done without the protection of Social Security, as we tried to regroup 
after the unanticipated death of my father at a relatively young age.
  My mother now has another experience with Social Security. She is 
now, some 25 or more years later, 79 years old. She is living 
independently, thanks to that Social Security check that arrives every 
month.
  My grandmother really did not have that opportunity. In the late 
fifties and early sixties, my grandmother's final years, she had to 
live with my family because she did not have the financial independence 
that my mother now has because of the Social Security check. Again, it 
could not be more personal to me, this program, which allows my mother 
the independence that she wants and deserves, thanks again to Social 
Security.
  Well, Social Security is running a surplus now, but we know that that 
changes in the years ahead. Right now, the demographic bulge known as 
the baby-boomers are in prime career years, and they are generating the 
surpluses into the Social Security account. Those surpluses end in the 
year 2011, and at that time the claims payments equal the cash inflow 
from the FICA tax. Over the next 10 years we actually have to draw down 
the interest on the trust fund that has accrued in the Social Security 
trust fund to make the cash flow obligations of the Social Security 
system.
  But it does not stop there, because in the year 2024 the interest 
part has been exhausted and you are dipping into principal, and, for 
the next 10 years, that principal is drawn down. So the Social Security 
checks are paid by the FICA taxes coming in and the liquidation of the 
Social Security trust fund until the Social Security trust fund is 
broke in the year 2034.
  At that time, the only thing available to pay the benefits will be 
the cash flow coming in from the taxes, and that will only pay 75 
percent of what the Social Security recipients would otherwise be 
expecting to receive. Benefits will fall by one-quarter in the year 
2034 if we do not take steps now to strengthen the trust fund, to 
prolong the life of the system, and that is why taking steps now to 
address the long-term are so critically important.
  Take note of these changing demographics: In 1960, 5 workers per 
retiree; in 1998, 3.4 workers per retiree, so today, 3.4 workers per 
retiree; the year 2035, when the baby-boomers are fully into retirement 
and advancing in age, 2 workers per retiree, just 2 workers per 
retiree.
  So if we do not bank this money now and keep it and take steps to 
strengthen the trust fund going forward, we are going to have the 
prospect of collapsed benefits and a tax obligation on our children and 
grandchildren that is impossible for them to bear. That is why we have 
to act.
  Basically there are three ways to strengthen the solvency of Social 
Security. It is very, very simple. You can cut benefits, reduce that 
benefit, kick out the COLA, the cost of living adjustment. I do not 
think you ought to do that.
  The average Social Security check in this country is $700 a month. 
Remember, one-third of the people are living on that. For two-thirds of 
the recipients, that is most of their income. So we better not cut that 
monthly benefit. Far from it, we must stand resolved to hold that 
benefit and the cost of living adjustment on it.
  Another way to cut benefits is to raise the retirement age. But, you 
know, the retirement age is already set to go up to 67. I do not think 
we ought to have 70-year-olds in the workforce because they cannot draw 
a Social Security check. I am against raising the retirement age. We 
have had people work for decades, counting on Social Security to be 
there when they retire, and to raise that retirement age, I believe, is 
just fundamentally wrong.
  So if you are not going to cut those benefits, what else can you do 
to prop up Social Security solvency? Well, you can raise taxes. But I 
do not think you should do that either. The FICA tax presently is 12.4 
percent. We are at a point in this country where more people pay more 
in FICA taxes than they pay in income taxes.
  For those of us that have an employer, we pay the employee's share 
and the employer pays the employer's share, but I represent a lot of 
farms and self-employed people. They pay the whole 12.4 percent, and it 
is breaking their back to do it. So that tax is as high as it can go. I 
would like to see tax relief on that one.
  So what else are you going to do? You cannot raise the taxes. The 
only other way to strengthen the solvency

[[Page 27109]]

of the Social Security trust fund is to invest general fund revenues so 
that this Social Security program, the crown jewel of the Federal 
Government, stays able to meet its commitments over the long haul.
  Fortunately, there is a plan that has been advanced that would afford 
us doing that, and I will describe it in a minute. Before I do, I want 
to describe instead the position taken by the House majority this 
session on Social Security, because right now we are in the middle of a 
pitched battle where the House majority has launched frankly the most 
audacious attack against Democrats that I have ever seen launched on 
this issue. They have accused us of raiding Social Security to pay for 
programs, to finance government programs, and they say they are trying 
to stop it and they are going to save Social Security. These charges 
are unfounded, they are hypocritical, and they are untrue. Let us look 
at the record.
  First of all, this is a GOP-controlled Chamber. They have the 
majority. We are operating under their budget. Their majority passes 
the appropriations bills. So for them to suggest that the Democrats, 
operating from the minority position, are raiding Social Security, is 
flat-out baseless and untrue. In short, it is a damnable lie.
  You do not have to take my word for it, because it has been very 
heavily covered in the media across this country. Take a look at this 
Wall Street Journal coverage. ``Social Security surplus triggers 
concern. CBO study shows Congress intends to spend billions on 
unrelated programs.'' Wall Street Journal coverage of the GOP budget 
and appropriations bills.
  Here is what the Congressional Budget Office shows has already been 
spent out of the Social Security surplus, looking at the appropriations 
bills passed and marked up by this Republican majority. Already into it 
to the tune of $14 billion. And yet this same crowd that is spending 
the surplus are running the ads in my district and other districts 
across the country saying that the Democrats are doing it.
  It is really a new level of political hypocrisy: Do something, and 
then charge your opponents with doing that very same thing.
  Washington Post story: ``GOP spending bills tap Social Security 
surplus. CBO notes planned use of $18 billion.''
  Again, the source document for all of this is the Congressional 
Budget Office, the nonpartisan number crunchers in the bowels of the 
Capitol here that relay the factual information on the budget. ``CBO 
notes planned use of $18 billion of Social Security revenue.''
  Here is in fact a copy of the letter from Dan Crippen, head of the 
Congressional Budget Office, that outlines where that spending has 
occurred.
  So for a start you have to fault them on the pure baseless hypocrisy 
of their attack that the Democrats have raided Social Security. The 
spending that has occurred in this Chamber has been under the GOP 
budget by GOP-passed appropriations bills. Make no mistake about that.
  Even more importantly than that, however, is that this focus on trust 
fund spending as we try to get the last appropriations bills worked out 
distract from the true measure of who has done something for Social 
Security. The true measure of who has done something for Social 
Security depends upon who has advanced the life of the trust fund. That 
trust fund, slated to go bust in 2034, that trust fund that, if not 
replenished, will cause benefits to fall 25 percent just when baby-
boomers are most dependent on Social Security.
  We are now at the end of a full legislative year. The President 
advanced a plan for Social Security in January, and what have we seen 
come to the floor? Nothing. Not one thing, not one vote, not one debate 
on the floor of this House on how to strengthen the Social Security 
trust fund. They are not even talking about it.
  Why are they not talking about it? I think they are not talking about 
it, frankly, because the tax bill that passed this very Chamber last 
summer, and, fortunately, was vetoed by the President in September, 
would have taken all of the general fund revenues that we need to fix 
Social Security for the long haul and sent it out the door in a tax cut 
benefiting disproportionately the wealthiest people in this country. 
That is the hard fact.
  Their tax bill, passed by this majority, vetoed by the President, 
would have taken the general revenue we need to strengthen Social 
Security and it would have shipped it out the door, forcing us to one 
of the following alternatives: Benefit cuts, tax increases, or a busted 
trust fund in the year 2034.
  We have quite a different plan. The plan of the Democrats is to take 
the Social Security surplus and preserve it for Social Security. Put 
them in and invest those proceeds in a way that draws down the national 
debt.
  This national debt drawdown will produce tremendous savings for this 
country. Debt held by the public in 1997 was $3.77 trillion, 47 percent 
of the gross domestic product. Today it stands at $3.4 trillion. By 
drawing down the surplus in this fashion, we can reduce this debt to a 
point that by the year 2011 we are saving in interest charges paid 
alone $107 billion every year.
  Do you know that 15 percent of every tax dollar today goes to pay 
interest on this debt? Fifteen percent. If you just think about it for 
a second, if you bring that debt down, think of the money you save, 
that you no longer have to pay in those interest charges.
  The Democrats' plan is pay down the debt, take the interest money 
saved and invest that back in Social Security. That is where you get 
the general fund revenue available to invest in Social Security to 
strengthen the trust fund, to prolong the life of the trust fund, to 
strengthen Social Security, so that it is there past the year 2034 when 
we need it most.
  That is the President's plan. That is the plan that is being 
introduced into this Chamber, and we strongly support, because it 
really gets to the core issue, who is doing something to strengthen 
Social Security for the long haul? And on that one, this majority has 
fallen woefully short.
  I used to be an insurance commissioner. I would regulate agents. 
Sometimes I would see sales practices that were really shocking. The 
more they talked, the louder they talked, the more fancy materials they 
had, often masked the fact they were doing the opposite of what they 
were saying, and time after time I would revoke their license and put 
them out of business for lying to their customers.
  You know, sometimes I wish we had kind of similar restraints on the 
action of both political parties here. If that was the case, these guys 
would be out of business, because they are flat out lying to their 
customers, the taxpayers of the United States, about their intentions 
for Social Security.
  I am very pleased that we have had a couple of other Members join me 
in this Chamber. I would like to incorporate them into the discussion 
right now, beginning by yielding to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was just talking about the 
use of the interest. I wonder if he would reclarify that. He is telling 
us we can get rid of the interest on our debt, which is almost $4 
trillion, and by paying down our debt, that interest payment, that 
amounts to almost as much as we are paying on defense for our whole 
Nation, could ultimately be used in the Social Security program and 
Medicare. Talk about that for a minute, would you, please?
  Mr. POMEROY. I certainly will. Then I would very much invite the 
gentleman's presentation on this vital topic, because I want to hear it 
and I know that we all do.
  The way we have constructed this package is that the general fund 
money we get to strengthen Social Security comes from the interest we 
are no longer paying on this debt. Remember again, there are three ways 
to make this trust fund more secure: Cut benefits, you do not want to 
do that; raise taxes, you do not want to do that. You have to invest 
some general fund money. Where are you going to find the general fund 
money? Over time, by drawing down that debt, you free up interest 
payments that we are now having to make.

[[Page 27110]]



                              {time}  1615

  You have got a smaller debt. You have got a smaller interest payment. 
You take the difference in interest payment, and you put it into the 
Social Security Trust Fund, and you strengthen it for years.
  In fact, under the plan that we have introduced, it will carry the 
life of this trust fund out to the year 2050, 2050. What is so 
important about that is this baby boom demographic bulge that we have 
got, it will be pretty well wiped out by then. I say so as a baby 
boomer myself, born in 1952. I would be 98 years old in 2050. Quite 
frankly, I do not think I will be drawing a Social Security check 
anymore personally. Most of us will not be. Our time will be at an end.
  That is why our children and grandchildren and their children will 
have a shot at getting a Social Security benefit themselves because we 
will have seen this program pass the middle of the 21st century, and 
that is exactly the steps we need to take to make sure this program can 
meet our needs going forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), 
because he has been very patient listening to me, and I would like to 
hear his presentation, his own personal reflections on Social Security.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy) for yielding to me.
  It is nice to be able to rise and join the Speaker and other Members 
and begin to talk about this particular issue because it affects 
hundreds of seniors, millions of senior citizens across this country 
and their families. They are the people that I am hearing about in my 
own office. It is not just the comments that I get from my own mother 
and others in my family, my uncles and aunts; but it is the letters 
that are written there concerning the future of Social Security.
  Americans from all walks of life recognize that this sacred contract 
between the public and their government must be addressed and must be 
addressed now. If it can be done as simply and logically as what the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) has just said, then it does 
not make sense for us not to pick it up and go forward with it.
  The people do not want Congress to play games with this matter, with 
this retirement security that they feel so strongly on. As we look 
toward the 21st century, we cannot afford to risk losing this 
opportunity to save Social Security by allowing ourselves to become 
mired in partisan rhetoric or by failing to use creative approaches to 
problem solving.
  It has been said that opportunity knocks but once, and Congress has 
to answer the door. We owe that to the American people.
  Nancy Lampson happens to be my mother. She lives in Texas. She is 89 
years old and lives by herself. Like millions of other senior citizens, 
she is worried about the future of Social Security. She, indeed, relies 
on it. She is afraid that it will not be there for me and my brothers 
and sisters. She knows what it has done for her. My mother knows that 
Social Security is not just good for retirement security for her. It is 
also good for me, her children, her grandchildren, and great 
grandchildren, including my own grandchild who will be born in just a 
few weeks.
  Just as the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) spoke a few 
minutes ago about his own personal experiences, my mother, who is now 
89, faced the task of raising six children when my father died when I 
was 12 years old. Not an easy task for a family to face, not an easy 
task for a single mother who had no education to be able to face in 
this country.
  Without the assistance of Social Security survivors benefits, our 
family would not have stayed together. It is difficult to imagine, as 
the gentleman from North Dakota said, what would happen to those 
families who do not have that kind of security, that wherewithal. One 
child goes off to live with one relative, another goes off with 
another. Perhaps they never see each other again. Perhaps they are not 
able to grow up in the manner that we all believe so strongly in, as 
family can support each other in their quest to become productive 
citizens in this country.
  Well, many claim that this Congress is claiming, and particularly the 
Republicans within Congress, claiming their budget does not touch the 
surplus. But such a claim is a ruse. The leadership of this House 
continues to use gimmicks and false promises in an attempt to mislead 
the American public. We need to put aside the surplus for Social 
Security, not spend it and, in turn, reduce the national debt and the 
billions of dollars that we are wasting each year on those interest 
payments that I asked the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) 
about a minute ago. Winnowing down the national debt will be good for 
my mother's great grandchildren, my grandchildren.
  Currently, the United States of America spends nearly as much on 
interest payments as it does on national defense. If we wisely invest 
the surplus in Social Security, then we can reduce our interest 
payments from almost 20 percent of the budget in 1999 to around 2 
percent in 2014. It is just 15 years away.
  Investing in Social Security will not only reduce the debt, but it 
will also lower interest rates, boost economic growth, and increase the 
financial security of working families. One does not have to be a 
Harvard economist to know that this makes good sense for the American 
people.
  Well, I am dedicated to ensuring the long-term solvency of Social 
Security and committed to guaranteeing American families financial 
security upon retirement and in the event of death or disability. 
Social Security has kept millions of retired seniors from living in 
poverty and by providing a guaranteed cash benefit with a lifetime 
protection against inflation.
  That amount of money only amounts to $571 for my mother, but it makes 
a difference in her life. For about two-thirds of the beneficiaries, 
Social Security provides about half of their annual income. For 30 
percent of the beneficiaries, Social Security provides 90 percent of 
their annual income. Social Security is the only source of income for 
one in six older Americans. If the Republicans succeed with their 
budgetary sham, the quality of life of seniors in this country will be 
put at risk.
  On behalf of my mother, on behalf of the people of my district in 
southeast Texas, on behalf of the millions of people across this 
country that we in Congress represent, I urge all of my colleagues to 
avoid the trap that is being set by the leaders of this House. Before 
we do anything else, we must save Social Security.
  We need to focus on the present and the future by investing the 
budget surplus in Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, I would love to participate more as this dialogue 
continues. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for 
the leadership that he is showing on this issue.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
very, very much for that very compelling statement. In his family, as 
in my family, this is a program that has really mattered. I cannot 
think of anything more important for us to do than to join forces and 
try to protect it for the millions of families that are depending upon 
this program.
  It really all comes down to, are we taking the steps necessary to 
strengthen the trust fund, prolong its solvency? If this Congress 
leaves in the face of these surpluses without lengthening the solvency 
of that trust fund, we will have failed the people mightily.
  I am terribly concerned at this very late point in this session, here 
we have been here all year, not one bill on the floor, not one hour of 
discussion on the majority side in terms of actually pushing out that 
solvency date, strengthening the Social Security program. Without, 
really, that key point, we really miss the mark in terms of taking 
steps to shore this program up for, not just our retirement needs, but 
our children and grandchildren as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for organizing this

[[Page 27111]]

special order this afternoon, since Congress got out much earlier than 
we normally do, and to talk about Social Security.
  But because I, like a lot of Members, have seen, not only here in 
Washington but around the country, the ads that our Republican 
colleagues have that shows the Democratic Caucus squandering Social 
Security funds. I kind of laugh. The gentleman from North Dakota has 
been in our caucuses, and they are pretty boring compared to those ads. 
Obviously, I do not think they are getting their money's worth. In 
fact, some of us have said, well, we need to go to where they have 
those ads.
  But it is amazing to me that they would spend whatever they are going 
to do, the millions of dollars, to put those out in selected districts 
around the country when, historically, Social Security was not created 
with any Republican support. It has not been supported typically, in 
fact even the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, 
has said that Social Security is something that he would not have 
supported. It is a falsehood on the American people.
  But since the 1930s, and following the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas 
(Mr. Lampson), and how important Social Security is, it is one of the 
most successful domestic programs we have ever seen. It guarantees 
retirement security for millions of Americans and health care benefits 
for the disabled.
  It also, as the gentleman from Texas said, survivors benefits for 
children, if a person who pays his Social Security dies, his children, 
until they are of age, can have some help in just surviving.
  So what we are seeing here today, instead of those ads that are 
saying something about Democrats challenging or threatening Social 
Security, I think it is ridiculous. I think the American people know 
that. What we are seeing, though, is the rhetoric for one side who is 
just about the biggest falsehood I have seen in history, because we 
know that threatening of the program is because of what is happening 
now with their budget projections.
  In the article of the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), he 
has, CBO notes a planned use of $18 billion of Social Security surplus. 
It was $14 billion, but up here we change those numbers almost on a 
daily basis because of appropriations.
  As always, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle leave 
everything to the last minute. So that is why we are here today looking 
at a Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill tomorrow that 
very well could go higher in Social Security numbers. Instead of $18 
billion, it could go as high as $24 billion in using Social Security 
and trying to scramble to balance the budget.
  But even with that, even with going as high as $24 billion in using 
Social Security trust funds for their budget, they are still going to 
cut math teachers and reading teachers for public schools. They are 
going to cut veterans health care programs with that proposed across-
the-board 1 percent cut. It was 1.4 percent 2 days ago. Now it is a 1 
percent cut.
  But even then, they are still dipping into Social Security. We cannot 
allow that to happen. Social Security is simply too important, not just 
to my father who will be 85 years old and who benefits from Social 
Security, but not only for the baby boomer generation that we are 
members of, but also for our children and our grandchildren.
  Social Security is a primary source of income for two-thirds of all 
Americans over 65. Two-thirds of all Americans is the primary source. 
For one- third of seniors over 65, it represents 90 percent of their 
income. That is not just true for those recipients today, not just like 
my father or the mother of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), it 
is going to be true for our generation.
  Sure we have opportunities to save and invest and things like that. 
But, again, Social Security was created not to make one rich. I use the 
example, it will not buy one one's Cadillac, but it may buy one a used 
Chevy. That is what we need to make sure, that it is there for every 
generation, not just the current generation, but for every generation.
  It is more than a retirement program. It is a critical survivors 
benefits, as the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Lampson), said. 
One out of every five Social Security beneficiaries receive survivor or 
disability benefits.
  So many children in the United States receive some type of benefits 
from Social Security. It provides disability benefits for our Nation's 
workers. Three out of four of the workers sometimes can benefit from 
disability in some form.
  So where is the Republican plan to extend the life of the Social 
Security Trust Fund? Well, obviously from that article we see and the 
article we have seen, it really does not exist. Because, again, if it 
gets as high as $24 billion with the drastic cuts in programs and 
diversions of money, I guess what worries me is the 1 percent I am 
hearing today would be across the board.
  Instead of prioritizing our appropriations, it is much easier to say, 
well, I am going to let a $500 million aircraft carrier that the Navy 
does not want, we are going to cut it 1 percent. But we are also 
cutting math and science teachers and reading teachers in our public 
schools.
  While my Republican colleagues for months were proposing an 
irresponsible tax cut and talking about how they were really saving 
Social Security, but that is not so. Thank goodness the President 
vetoed that. They have not brought that up to try and override the 
President's veto. Maybe we need to talk about that sometime on the 
floor.
  They propose a budget that does not do anything to, again, reduce the 
class size, put more police on our streets. In fact, they are cutting 
the successful Cops on the Beat program. Computers in the classroom, 
like I said math and reading teachers, after-school programs, and, 
worst of all, they are proposing to cut immunizations for children with 
that 1 percent, yet still spend $24 billion of Social Security trust 
funds.
  Their budget plans leaves nothing for strengthening the fund. It does 
not leave anything to extend the life of Medicare Trust Fund or 
modernize Medicare to provide for prescription medication.
  Now, there is a plan that both the administration and Democrats have 
proposed that we have talked about to extend the solvency of Social 
Security to 2050 and avoid the difficult choice of reducing Social 
Security benefits or raising the retirement age of seniors. According 
to the primary estimates by the Social Security program's Office of 
Actuary, the administration's proposal would extend the solvency until 
2050. This is an extra 16 years added to the program.

                              {time}  1630

  The administration's proposal would devote the entire Social Security 
surplus over the next 15 years to paying down the debt held by the 
public. This would reduce the debt held by the public by $3.1 trillion 
over the next 15 years.
  We have a responsibility to take the necessary steps to make Social 
Security safe and strong, and not only for our baby boomers and our 
parents' generation, but also for future generations. Hard-working 
Americans pay a lot of their income into Social Security, both 
themselves and their employers, and they are relying on that program to 
make sure they are not in the poor house as they used to be before we 
had a Social Security program for our seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we put politics aside and also put 
gimmickry aside and really get down to trying to do what we can to make 
sure we balance the budget and still provide for the safety of Social 
Security, and looking at the Medicare Trust Fund too, along with 
prescription medication. We can commit enough money to shore up both 
Medicare and Social Security.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy), for asking for this special order and giving us the 
chance to come and talk about it.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for 
participating and the observations that he has made. They are so apt.

[[Page 27112]]

  Basically, we have a majority here that says the Democrats are 
spending the Social Security money, when in fact the media coverage, 
based on the Congressional Budget Office shows it is the GOP spending 
bills, based on the GOP budget. After all, they are the majority party 
in the body. If anyone is raiding Social Security, it is the majority, 
not the minority. We do not have the votes, if we wanted to, and we do 
not want to.
  Second, they accuse the Democrats of jeopardizing Social Security 
when this same crowd running the Chamber has not offered a proposal and 
debated on this floor any ideas relative to strengthening the trust 
fund.
  I think it is terribly unfortunate that we cannot work together, 
Democrats and Republicans, to strengthen this program. Because it is 
not a Democrat program or it is not a Republican program, it is 
America's program. And in the middle of all this political smoke I hope 
Americans keep one thing in mind: The way to evaluate whether anything 
is happening or not on Social Security is to look at that 2034 date, 
the date at which the trust fund goes bust. If that date is not 
addressed, those benefits are going to fall by 25 percent. And the 
prospects of our children and grandchildren getting a meaningful Social 
Security benefit are greatly reduced, even though they definitely face 
the prospects of significantly higher taxes.
  So has the trust fund been strengthened? The answer; not by anything 
they have done so far this year. And that is a deep disappointment to 
me, and I am sure the American people.
  Joining me, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Vic 
Snyder), from Little Rock, Arkansas. Well, from the State of Arkansas, 
I am not certain if Little Rock is in the gentleman's district or not. 
I am happy the gentleman has joined us for this special order, and I 
yield to him at this time.
  Mr. SNYDER. Well, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I was over in 
my office and watching the gentleman's usual thoughtfulness. The 
gentleman has been a beacon in this town for the last several years, a 
light in all this fog that is surrounding us here right now.
  As the gentleman knows, when I first came here 2\1/2\ years ago, I 
was invited to attend the gentleman's Democratic budget study group 
that meets every Wednesday morning, and it has been through those group 
meetings that I have been helped in sorting through this fog of these 
numbers and in trying to understand in an unbiased way what all these 
numbers mean.
  I remember when the gentleman had that terrible tragedy of the floods 
in North Dakota and he was literally immersed in flood waters and 
stayed overnight in the shelters there, at least for one night. Well, 
now the gentleman has immersed himself with these budget numbers trying 
to understand this very, very complicated issue of budgets and how it 
impacts on Medicare and Social Security. And I appreciate the 
tremendous work that the gentleman has done.
  I have seen these ads that have been running against the gentleman in 
North Dakota, and those are an insult to the people of North Dakota. 
Anyone wanting to put out those ads does not understand the kind of man 
the gentleman is and the kind of work the gentleman has done in trying 
to provide for the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
  Anyone can put together a 30-second ad for short-term political 
advantage, but that is not what I think the people of America want us 
to do, it is certainly not what the people in North Dakota and Arkansas 
want us to do. They want us to work on long-term solvency of these very 
important programs, not short-term political advantage.
  It is 4:30 in the afternoon. We have our usual about empty Chamber 
here when we are doing these special orders. I would like to think that 
everyone is out trying to solve the problem of Social Security. My 
guess is a lot of them are out trying to raise more money trying to 
figure out how to run more ads against good people like the gentleman 
from North Dakota. But I do not think that will work and I commend the 
gentleman for his efforts in this regard.
  I want to pick up on the some of the last comments the gentleman made 
about the importance of Democrats and Republicans working together. We 
cannot solve the long-term problems of Medicare and Social Security, 
and I will put down there defense and veterans issues, in a partisan 
manner. We cannot do it. And the American people will not stand for it. 
Any party who has the votes can put bills through, but that will not 
lead to the ultimate long-term solvency of these programs that the 
American people care about so much.
  Somehow we have to get past all this. We also have to recognize that 
this country has a lot of needs. Our senior citizens have a lot of 
needs, not just Social Security, even though it is vital. Veterans. 
Very important to senior citizens. Medicare is very important to senior 
citizens. A lot of the senior citizens in my district care very much 
about our defense budget. They came through World War II and the Korean 
War and the Vietnam War, and they recognize the importance of a strong 
defense. They also recognize the problems of paying for drugs when on 
Medicare, and they care about that deeply.
  They also understand the importance of education. When I go visit a 
friend in the hospital, I am very much aware most of the people working 
in the hospital are fresh out of our high schools and colleges. We 
depend, even in our retirement years, on the education level of the 
generations coming behind.
  So for many what long-term solvency means is to have a program that 
my mother can depend on, that I can depend on, and that the staff that 
work for me in their 20s in my office can depend on. I have one 
pregnant staffer. To me, long-term solvency means that those kids that 
are coming behind us, that are now toddlers and in grade school, that 
they know that their Congress is watching out for this program, not for 
short-term political gain, not to run a 30-second political spot to try 
to hurt a good Member like the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Pomeroy), but that we are working together in a bipartisan way, 
Republican and Democrat, old and young, so that we can make this Social 
Security, Medicare, and veterans programs be there for all our retirees 
in the future.
  And once again I commend the work the gentleman has done on this 
issue and, I am confident, will do for many years.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for those kind comments. The 
gentleman's measured, reasoned analysis is once again so directly on 
point relative to what types of response we ought to work together in 
this Chamber to take. Not running 30-second attack ads, just playing 
politics with an issue that is as important as Social Security, but 
working to strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund by taking the 
interest savings generated by Social Security, as we pay down that 
debt, and putting it into the Social Security program.
  I am very pleased to call on my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who has been very patient in the course 
of this afternoon. I thank her very sincerely for staying and 
participating, and I yield to her now.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I want to 
salute him for spending time to put together this special order with 
regard to Social Security. And as my colleagues have said, I would say 
to him that he should stand tall; we know that the gentleman is doing a 
great job here in the Congress of the United States. Those ads will not 
last for long, because we are going to get the message out that the 
gentleman is doing a great job and that the Democrats are not trying to 
raid the Social Security fund. So I thank the gentleman very much for 
his consistency.
  Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the cornerstone of our retirement 
system. Social Security is the principal source of retirement income 
for two-thirds of the elderly. In 1959, the poverty rate for senior 
citizens was 35.2 percent. In 1998, it was 10.5 percent, the lowest on

[[Page 27113]]

record. Last year, Social Security benefits lifted roughly 15 million 
senior citizens out of poverty. At the same time, poverty remains high 
for widows and other groups.
  Social Security is more than just a retirement program. One in five 
beneficiaries is under the age of 62, receiving either disability or 
survivor benefits. As my colleagues have said, I am blessed to have 
parents who are living and healthy, 78 and 79 years old. I am blessed 
to have in-laws who are living, whose health is somewhat in disrepair, 
who are also 78 and 79. And as I campaigned throughout the City of 
Cleveland back in 1998, the major issue that senior citizens brought to 
my attention was Social Security and they told me that they were 
counting on me to go to Washington and save Social Security.
  Now, over this past year, as a new Member of Congress, I have watched 
and learned about this discussion with regard to Social Security, and I 
am begging my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, to stop talking 
the political language of Social Security and get down to the issues 
that are important with regard to Social Security; that the people of 
these United States expect that we are going to do.
  Social Security is projected to become insolvent by 2034 as a result 
of the demographic pressures it faces. In 1960, there were 5.1 covered 
workers for every Social Security beneficiary; in 1998, there were only 
3.4 workers for every beneficiary; and by 2035, there are projected to 
be only two workers for every beneficiary. That is why it is so 
important that we now hold on to the dollars for Social Security and 
put them aside, put them into a fund so that they will be maintained 
and be able to bear interest so that Social Security will be around. It 
is important that we assure the young, the old throughout that Social 
Security is something that they can count on over time.
  I do not know who else has been on the floor today with the gentleman 
from North Dakota, but I think it would be of interest for those who 
are listening to us to hear about The New York Times piece that said, 
and I quote the next to the last paragraph: ``Asserting that it is 
merely trying to save money for Social Security, the Republican 
leadership in Congress wants to cut spending by 1.4 percent,'' or now I 
understand it is 1 percent, ``across the board, and block the White 
House's initiatives for money to hire new teachers and police officers. 
The leaders' approach has been so wrongheaded that yesterday it 
provoked a revolt in the party rank and file, and the cuts were being 
scaled back. But it is not necessary to slash programs to `save' Social 
Security. More to the point, there are better places to save money, by 
cutting billions of dollars in pork barrel projects and eliminating 
some of the expensive tax breaks for special interests that have made 
big campaign donations to the party in recent years.''
  This is clearly on line and on point with what we have been trying to 
say over the past few days. The House GOP'ers have already dipped into 
$14 billion of Social Security surplus. They are on track to spend $24 
billion of that surplus. The appropriations exceed the President's 
request by $14 billion. The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey), is on record as stating he never would have created Social 
Security. The number of days the GOP budget plan would extend the life 
of Social Security is zero.
  By way of contrast, the number of years the Democratic tax budget 
plan would extend the life of Social Security is 16 years.
  Finally, while ignoring the needs of the Social Security System and 
its financial viability, the Republican leadership, through tax breaks, 
provides for the wealthiest and special interests, and that amount 
would come to close to $1 trillion.
  As a freshman Member of Congress, I have had an opportunity over the 
past year to get to know some of my Republican and Democratic 
colleagues. I am confident that through working together, through 
strong leadership, we can arrive at a resolve for the Social Security 
System. And that resolve is in saving Social Security dollars, putting 
it aside, investing it, paying down the dilemma that we are in in terms 
of debt as a country, and moving on to dealing with the other issues 
that impact the people of these United States.
  Again I would like to congratulate the gentleman from North Dakota on 
his leadership on this issue, and I yield back.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentlewoman very much for her comments.
  There have been, in the course of our discussion, some comments made 
as to a series of ads, and among the places they are being run is in 
the State of North Dakota. I would just read for my colleagues the text 
of this ad, to put in context what we are dealing with as we try to 
make difficult decisions at the end of a legislative session. The 
majority party has unfortunately decided to launch, as a political 
strategy, apparently some sleight-of-hand way to disguise what they are 
doing on Social Security.
  This is the text of the ad that has already run in North Dakota. It 
begins with a fadeup of shots of threatening criminals looking at the 
camera. Cut to the criminals. He looks to the camera and smiles, and 
here is the text: Imagine a world where there's no punishment for 
committing a crime, where thieves can steal from unsuspecting victims. 
It is hard to imagine, yet it is about to happen in Washington. The 
Democrat and the President's budget could raid Social Security and 
spend our retirement money on big government programs. Protect your 
family's future. Insist every penny of the Social Security trust fund 
go to the people who paid into it.

                              {time}  1645

  ``Call Congressman Pomeroy. Tell him keep his hands off Social 
Security.''
  This ad, run to the people that I have lived with all my life, 
actually implies that somehow I am engaged in criminal activity 
involving a raid of the Social Security Trust Fund. It is run by the 
same majority that the Washington Post has analyzed has already spent 
Social Security surplus, ``CBO notes planned use of $18 billion.'' That 
is the crew that paid for that television ad. So they have done what 
they are actually buying advertising to accuse others of doing.
  This is a House operating under the GOP budget. It is a GOP majority. 
Those are GOP appropriations bills. It is their control of this chamber 
that would result in spending that Social Security-derived revenue.
  But the question, the broader and most important question, is has 
anyone in the majority offered on this floor a plan to strengthen the 
trust fund? And on that one, regrettably, we must conclude, no, there 
has not been a plan to strengthen the trust fund.
  Any plan that does not call for an additional infusion of resources 
to strengthen Social Security for the long haul is going to rely 
instead on benefit cuts, higher retirement age, or higher FICA taxes. 
There is just no other way around it.
  So when the Republican tax plan took all the available general fund 
revenue and kicked it out the door, going primarily to the wealthiest 
people in this country, it was a plan that would have savaged Social 
Security and required steep benefit cuts after the year 2034 because 
there would have been no way to make the fund solvent for the long 
term. That is their record.
  Not only have they done that which they accuse us of doing, they have 
passed a tax bill, fortunately vetoed, never to become law, that would 
have taken the means to strengthen Social Security and taken away from 
us instead forcing us to rely on benefit cuts.
  We are now in the final minutes of this presentation, and I have a 
request that has come in from the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton) who has experienced a situation I am very familiar with, 
disastrous flooding for her neighborhoods. And so, for the concluding 5 
minutes of this special order, I yield to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) to bring us up to date as to the heartache and 
the tragedy her folks are experiencing.
  I would just say to my colleague in yielding, representing the City 
of

[[Page 27114]]

Grand Forks, the city that was inundated in 1997 and is clawing its way 
back now thanks to the strong support of Federal disaster aid, we would 
not have made it without disaster aid programs.
  I will listen closely to the description of the problems of my 
colleague. And if we can help, we need to help with a similar Federal 
response so that her brave constituents can similarly make the tough 
road back.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton).


                          Federal Disaster Aid

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy) for yielding and thank him for his offer to help.
  By the way, my citizens also are concerned about Social Security 
spending. I want my colleague to know that. But, in addition to being 
fearful of how they will have Social Security or how we will manage it, 
they must now manage this disaster.
  My colleague knows well how this sort of disaster not only unsettles 
the community but frightens human lives. It puts everything in 
uncertainty and fear and the anxiety that prevails and the lack of 
hope.
  I have come to just raise with my constituents and I am so pleased 
that my colleague is willing to assist and I want to tell my 
constituents they need additional help.
  This is a picture of Tarboro taken some weeks ago. It is not flooded 
like that now. But I will have my colleagues know that 68,000 persons 
have now called the FEMA line for assistance. 68,000. More than 46,000 
homes have been damaged. The governor has now brought his figures 
thinking that maybe 10,000 of those homes will not be able to be built 
back again.
  So we are now wanting Congress to begin helping us just move beyond 
just the relief and have a recovery fund. And what we are doing, by the 
way, as Members of Congress, many of us are going to North Carolina to 
give a hand, to share our concern, but also to express our personal 
participation. Members from Congress, on November 6, will be going on 
buses with their staff and other public officials to eastern North 
Carolina, working in five selected communities helping to remove 
debris, clean up, give hope, have discussion with the local leaders 
and, in the afternoon, to have a rally of hope.
  There will be gospel singers and inspirational singers, B.B. Weiner, 
C.C. Weiner, Shirley Caesar and our former Member. And Bill Hefner, who 
was a Member with us here who sings gospel, has agreed that he may 
come. We want to make sure Bill Hefner hears us and comes on down. And 
the Phelps brothers. We have a Member from Illinois, and he is going 
down.
  So we have a strong delegation of American citizens for us, yes, 
Congresspersons, but American citizens too who want to identify and 
say, beyond just thinking about you or looking at these pictures. 
Because you see, now the stories have ceased, we do not see the 
cameras, but the mud is there. The flood has done devastation.
  There is one other final piece I want to show my colleagues. This is 
showing the devastation to infrastructure where roads have been just 
devastated, bridges, the waterway, the environment. This is showing a 
hole in the road in 301. By the way, the railroad came across this way, 
too. So it has not only interrupted the water and the travel by car, 
but also the railroad system had to be rebuilt.
  So the power of water first sustains life, but also we saw the power 
of water where it has taken life.
  Finally, more than I think now 51 persons have died because of this. 
Life indeed is precious. But what we want to do is to make sure those 
who are living and those who are struggling with that will have a sense 
of hope.
  So I am urging my colleagues to consider a bill before we end this 
session so we can show a sense of passion, not only the resolution we 
passed, but having the monies. We need the money to go build the 
houses.
  And my colleague is right, FEMA is that relief that the Federal 
Government has, but we need those extra resources to allow individuals 
to build their homes back, to have structure.
  By the way, more than 2.5 million chickens were killed, 120,000 hogs. 
I mean, the wildlife suffered just tremendously. And the environmental 
impact, we are still assessing that. We do not know what it will mean 
to our beaches and our waterways and our fishermen. Because if we do 
not mitigate this harm and do it very rapidly, we will be paying a 
severe price.
  I would say more than just have relief, we need opportunity for a 
major recovery for more than 18 counties who are involved.
  I thank the gentleman for both sharing his time but, more 
importantly, understanding the need for support for the people in North 
Carolina.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  Clearly, the initial disaster package added to the agriculture 
appropriations bill does not begin to compensate the economic loss that 
North Carolina has sustained.
  I just know from again my own flood experience in North Dakota, 
everything that filthy water touches it destroys. And so, once that 
water recedes it leaves your families' belongings, some of their most 
treasured things, in a distorted, grotesque, and disgusting condition 
requiring removal. And then you build back starting from scratch. We 
are going to have to have a bigger Federal response helping your people 
off the floor, just as the Federal Government helped Grand Forks, North 
Dakota off the floor; and I stand to help my colleague.

                          ____________________