[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1359-1362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    SUPPORT FOR THE SAFE COMMISSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 16, 2007

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, today I reintroduced legislation in the 
House of Representatives aimed at addressing the looming financial 
crisis facing the Nation, the Securing America's Future Economy (SAFE) 
Commission Act. The bill would establish a national bipartisan 
commission that will put everything--entitlement spending as well as 
all other Federal programs and our Nation's tax policies--on the table 
and require Congress to vote up or down on its recommendations in their 
entirety, similar to the process set in 1988 to close military bases. 
Mandating congressional action on the panel's recommendations is what 
differentiates this commission from previous ones.
  Support for the bill is coming from both sides of the aisle. I submit 
for the Record an op-ed by former Senators Bob Kerrey and Warren Rudman 
that ran in the Washington Post, an op-ed by former Congressman Tim 
Penny that ran in the Washington Times, columns by David Broder and 
Robert Samuelson, and editorials from the Dallas Morning News, and the 
Orlando Sentinel on the topic of entitlement reform.
  This legislation will be good for the future of America.

               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2006]

                     Securing Future Fiscal Health

                  [By Bob Kerrey and Warren B. Rudman]

       The economic and moral case for long-term reform of fiscal 
     policy is clear. Yet politicians refuse to act. If this 
     stalemate persists, it could end in catastrophe.
       Over the next 30 years, spending on federal programs is on 
     track to go up by 50 percent as a share of the economy. If 
     revenues remain at their historical level, the resulting 
     deficits will approach 20 percent of gross domestic product 
     by 2036--almost 10 times the current size. The debt will 
     surge to 200 percent of GDP--twice what it was at the end of 
     World War II.
       Political realities explain why nothing has been done about 
     this. Changing course would

[[Page 1360]]

     require substantial spending cuts from projected levels or 
     equivalent tax increases. Neither party wants to be the first 
     to propose these tough choices out of fear that the other 
     side would attack it. Similarly, neither side wants to 
     discuss possible compromises of its own priorities, out of 
     fear that the other side will take the concessions and run. 
     Unfortunately, these fears are justified.
       Since the regular legislative process seems incapable of 
     dealing with the impending crisis, some alternative has to be 
     found. President Bush has suggested a commission. Having 
     served on many commissions, we understand their potential 
     value. We also understand how they can go wrong. In our view, 
     a new commission could be very useful, but only if it 
     recognizes fiscal and political realities. It needs five 
     elements to succeed.
       First, it has to be truly bipartisan. Any perception that 
     the commission's purpose is to facilitate swift enactment of 
     a partisan agenda would doom it to failure. It must have 
     bipartisan co-chairs and equal representation. Doing 
     otherwise in the current partisan environment would be a 
     waste of time and money.
       Second, it must have a broad mandate. While it is critical 
     to control the growth of entitlements, particularly Medicare 
     and Social Security, the commission should examine all 
     aspects of fiscal policy.
       Third, all options must be on the table. If either side 
     sets conditions, the other won't participate. Republicans 
     cannot take tax increases off the table, and Democrats cannot 
     take benefit reductions off the table.
       Fourth, the commission needs to engage the public in a 
     genuine dialogue about the trade-offs inherent in realistic 
     solutions. When people are armed with the facts and given the 
     opportunity for honest dialogue, they are willing to set 
     priorities and make hard choices.
       Fifth, the commission's recommendations should be given an 
     up-or-down vote in Congress, allowing for amendments that 
     would not reduce the total savings. Absent that, the report 
     would likely join many others on a shelf.
       Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) 
     have put forward a proposal that satisfies most of these 
     elements. They would create a bipartisan commission with a 
     broad mandate to examine long-term fiscal challenges. All 
     policy options would be on the table. The commission would 
     solicit input from the public and develop legislation that 
     Congress and the president would be required to act on. Its 
     work would address four key concerns: the unsustainable gap 
     between projected spending and revenue, the need to increase 
     national savings, the implications of foreign ownership of 
     U.S. government debt and the lack of emphasis on long-term 
     planning in the budget process.
       A commission with these attributes could give all parties 
     the political cover they need to tackle the tough choices and 
     develop a bipartisan consensus for solutions. This would be 
     invaluable regardless of who controls Congress or the White 
     House.
       In the end, of course, elected representatives, not a 
     commission, will have to make the hard decisions. But a 
     commission that produced solutions with meaningful bipartisan 
     support would provide a catalyst for action. If Congress were 
     required to vote on the commission's recommendations, 
     opponents would be challenged to produce solutions of their 
     own.
       Advocates of extending tax cuts would be challenged to say 
     how they would restrain spending enough to avoid cascading 
     debt once the baby boomers begin to retire in large numbers. 
     Those who oppose reductions in current entitlement promises 
     would be challenged to say how they would fund those promises 
     without squeezing out other priorities or raising taxes to 
     unacceptable levels that could damage the economy.
       The Wolf-Voinovich proposal has been greeted with silence 
     or outright hostility. It deserves better. This is a serious 
     proposal by two leaders who regard the debt burden and 
     draconian policy options we are leaving to future generations 
     as a moral stain on our nation's character.
       To be sure, their proposal has shortcomings that must be 
     corrected. Two improvements that are critical to the success 
     of a commission are providing for bipartisan co-chairs and 
     dividing the membership more evenly between parties than the 
     current 9-6 split in favor of Republican appointments. These 
     problems are not minor technicalities, but they could be 
     fixed in negotiations with potential Democratic co-sponsors.
       Time is running out to enact reforms. Wolf and Voinovich 
     have come up with a credible way to get the process started. 
     Any takers?
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Sept. 4, 2006]

        Taxes and Spending--Support Wolf's Bill on Entitlements

                         (By Timothy J. Penny)

       Every American is familiar with the story of the ``Boston 
     Tea Party.'' In 1773 the British parliament passed the Tea 
     Act, which then inflamed the colonial issue of ``taxation 
     without representation.'' In response to the ``tea tax'' 
     dozens of courageous colonists who called themselves the 
     ``Sons of Liberty''--boarded three British ships and dumped 
     45 tons of tea into the Boston Harbor.
       I have come to believe that we need a modern day equivalent 
     of the Boston Tea Party. Here is why I have arrived at this 
     conclusion: Our nation's current fiscal policies are creating 
     a mountain of debt that our grandchildren will be forced to 
     repay through higher taxes. The unfunded promises we have 
     made to recipients of Social Security and Medicare and other 
     entitlement programs will almost certainly lead to higher 
     taxes on today's children and those yet to be born. In my 
     view, that amounts to ``taxation without representation.''
       The British parliament paid no heed to the American 
     colonists because the Americans had no vote or voice in the 
     halls of government. Similarly, today's Congress seldom 
     considers the long-term consequences of its budget decisions 
     because kids don't vote.
       Part of the problem lies with the current congressional 
     budget process. On Capitol Hill the bulk of time and 
     attention each year is devoted to the annual appropriations 
     bills. While these bills--which fund defense and domestic 
     programs--are important, they constitute only about one-third 
     of all the money spent by the federal government. The other 
     two thirds of spending goes to so-called ``mandatory'' 
     programs: interest on the debt and entitlement programs, such 
     as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Though 
     representing the vast majority of dollars spent every year, 
     these ``mandatory'' spending programs receive little--if 
     any--debate on Capitol Hill The expenditures are essentially 
     automatic. That is not right.
       Why shouldn't every dollar of expenditure come under close 
     review every year? More attention must be paid to these 
     mandatory programs because of their long-range costs. Before 
     long, Social Security and Medicare alone will consume 
     virtually all the taxes paid by working Americans. It is not 
     fair to the next generation to saddle them with enormous 
     costs for entitlement programs and leave them no alternative 
     except to reduce spending for other priorities or to pay ever 
     higher taxes.
       Unlike our patriot forbears, we do not have to resort to 
     extreme measures. But we do need an uprising of the American 
     public demanding that our elected representatives do their 
     jobs. By e-mail, letters, phone calls or speaking out at town 
     meetings, we must make our voices heard. We must speak out 
     for those who are too young to speak for themselves.
       When we speak out, we can specifically ask legislators to 
     join their colleague, Rep. Frank Wolf, Virginia Republican, 
     in sponsoring legislation to create a bipartisan entitlement 
     commission. Mr. Wolf is a member of the appropriations 
     committee, and understands that entitlement spending deserves 
     closer scrutiny than is provided in the current budget 
     process. He realizes that the difficult decisions required--
     if entitlement spending is to be brought under control--can 
     only be achieved through a bipartisan effort. He also 
     believes that all options must be on the table. Finally, and 
     most importantly, he sees that as a matter of morality and 
     fairness to future generations.
       So, during the coming weeks as legislators wrap up their 
     work in Washington and return home to campaign, speak out for 
     your children and grandchildren. If, after hearing from us, 
     our elected officials refuse to endorse Mr. Wolf's reasonable 
     approach, then, like the Boston Tea Party, we should throw 
     them overboard this November.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 21, 2006]

                     Bailing The Future Out of Debt

                          (By David S. Broder)

       Almost forgotten in the rush events these past four months 
     is the proposal President Bush offered in the State of the 
     Union address for a bipartisan commission to examine the 
     future of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other 
     entitlement programs.
       But that idea is due for a rebirth next month--in the form 
     of legislation to create such a commission. Its sponsor, Rep. 
     Frank Wolf, a veteran Republican from Virginia, is well aware 
     of the hazards facing any such enterprise. But unlike the 
     president, he is explicitly prepared to remove one giant 
     roadblock by signaling that everything--including taxes--
     would be on the table.
       The need for such a bipartisan approach is evident. As 
     Charles Blahous, the White House aide who has been pursuing 
     the commission idea, told a Concord Coalition forum last 
     week, Medicare and Medicaid are growing far faster than 
     inflation and will consume an ever-larger share of the budget 
     as the baby boomers reach retirement age, starting in just a 
     couple of years. Social Security and veterans' pensions are 
     moving in the same direction.
       ``We cannot wait until 2040,'' when those programs could 
     crater, Blahous said. ``And we can't just do incremental 
     reform.''
       Bush took his first stab at fixing Social Security last 
     year with a proposal to create private accounts, but it ran 
     into a buzz saw of opposition led by AARP and congressional 
     Democrats and never came to a vote.
       The commission, idea seemed a safe fallback when Bush 
     floated it in January, but his overtures to Democrats were 
     not accepted.
       House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly ridiculed the 
     idea, and former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, approached 
     personally by the president, said that the mandate

[[Page 1361]]

     of the commission would have to be broad enough to include 
     revenue before he would consider participating.
       Months later, the White House insists it is still seeking 
     partners for the project, and a spokesman told me that, 
     ``there is no litmus test'' for participants.
       But I have talked with many of the backstage players in 
     this drama, and their sense is that Bush will not allow his 
     tax cuts to be weighed along with any savings on the benefits 
     side--at least not before this November's midterm election.
       Enter Frank Wolf, known as ``the conscience of the House,'' 
     because of his involvement in humanitarian causes here and 
     overseas. ``The issue is not just economic, it's moral,'' he 
     told me. ``We have 11 grandchildren, and I cannot square my 
     generation laying off our debt on them.''
       ``I supported all the president's tax cuts,'' Wolf said, 
     ``but I look down the road and I see just a very bleak 
     situation.''
       Wolf will propose a bipartisan commission that would hold 
     hearings around the country and report back in six to nine 
     months on steps to deal with the long-term budget crisis. His 
     legislation, modeled on the procedure now used for closing 
     surplus military bases, would require the House and Senate to 
     hold a vote on the commission proposal--but allow each body 
     and the president to submit an alternative that achieves at 
     least as good a result.
       Wolf's hope is that the commission would attract such 
     figures as former representatives John Kasich, an Ohio 
     Republican, and Charles Stenholmm a Texas democrat, or former 
     Treasury secretaries Rubin and James A. Baker III.
       His proposal meets most of the criteria set forth at last 
     week's panel by David Walker, the head of the Government 
     Accountability Office, as critical to a successful 
     commission. But Walker said presidential support and 
     leadership are also vital to success.
       Wolf told me, ``You'd hope the commission members wouldn't 
     look at taxes first, but they have to look at everything.'' 
     That was emphatically the view of everyone on the concord 
     Coalition panel, including Walker, Stenholm, and two rather 
     liberal economists, Isabel Sawhill and Maya MacGuineas, as 
     well as Joseph Minarik of the business-backed committee for 
     Economic Development.
       The most conservative panelist, Stuart Butler of the 
     Heritage Foundation, said that he accepted the idea that 
     revenue would have to be open to discussion for the Democrats 
     to ``buy in.''
       But he proposed that conservatives could be mollified if 
     the commission's mandate included an instruction that any 
     changes in the tax code must help simplify the system and 
     increase economic growth. ``That way, it's win-win,'' he 
     said.
       The White House had scheduled a meeting for the president 
     with some of the experts on the Concord Coalition panel to 
     walk through the plans for such a commission. That session 
     was postponed, and it has not been rescheduled.
       But if the president is interested--and if he is willing to 
     put ``everything on the table''--the Wolf initiative could 
     become his action-forcing device.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 10, 2007]

    Entitled Selfishness--Boomer Generation Is in a State of Denial

                        (By Robert J. Samuelson)

       As someone born in late 1945, I say this to the 76 million 
     or so subsequent baby boomers and particularly to Bill 
     Clinton and George W. Bush, our generation's leading 
     politicians: Shame on us. We are trying to rob our children 
     and grandchildren, putting the country's future at risk in 
     the process. On one of the great issues of our time, the 
     social and economic costs of our retirement, we have adopted 
     a policy of selfish silence.
       As Congress reconvenes, pledges of ``fiscal 
     responsibility'' abound. Let me boldly predict: On retirement 
     spending, this Congress will do nothing, just as previous 
     Congresses have done nothing. Nancy Pelosi promises to 
     ``build a better future for all of America's children.'' If 
     she were serious, she would back cuts in Social Security and 
     Medicare. President Bush calls ``entitlement spending'' the 
     central budget problem. If he were serious, he, too, would 
     propose cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
       They are not serious, because few Americans--particularly 
     prospective baby-boom retirees--want them to be. There is a 
     consensus against candor, because there is no constituency 
     for candor. It's no secret that the 65-and-over population 
     will double by 2030 (to almost 72 million, or 20 percent of 
     the total population), but hardly anyone wants to face the 
     implications:
       By comparison, other budget issues, including the notorious 
     earmarks, are trivial. In 2005, Social Security, Medicare and 
     Medicaid (the main programs for the elderly) cost $1.034 
     trillion, twice the amount of defense spending and more than 
     two-fifths of the total federal budget. These programs are 
     projected to equal about three.quarters of the budget by 
     2030, if it remains constant as a share of national income.
       Preserving present retirement benefits automatically 
     imposes huge costs on the young--costs that are economically 
     unsound and socially unjust. The tax increases required by 
     2030 could hit 50 percent, if other spending is maintained as 
     a share of national income. Or much of the rest of government 
     (from defense to national parks) would have to be shut down 
     or crippled. Or budget deficits would balloon to quadruple 
     today's level.
       Social Security and Medicare benefits must be cut to keep 
     down overall costs. Yes, some taxes will be raised and some 
     other spending cut. But much of the adjustment should come 
     from increasing eligibility ages (ultimately to 70) and 
     curbing payments to wealthier retirees. Americans live longer 
     and are healthier. They can work longer and save more for 
     retirement.
       Because I've written all this before, I can anticipate some 
     of the furious responses from prospective retirees. First 
     will be the ``social compact'' argument: We paid to support 
     today's retirees; tomorrow's workers must pay to support us. 
     Well, of course they will pay; the question is how much. The 
     alleged compact is entirely artificial, acknowledged only by 
     those who benefit from it. My three children (ages 16 to 21) 
     didn't endorse it. Judging from the e-mail I receive, neither 
     did many 20- or 30-somethings.
       Next I'll hear that the Social Security and Medicare trust 
     funds, intended to cover future benefits, have been 
     ``plundered.'' Blame Congress and the White House--not us. 
     This is pure fiction.
       Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are pay-as-you-go 
     programs. Present taxes pay present benefits. In 2005, 86 
     percent of Social Security payroll taxes went to pay current 
     retiree benefits. True, excess taxes had created a 
     ``surplus'' in the Social Security trust fund (it hasn't been 
     ``plundered'') of $1.66 trillion in 2005; but that equaled 
     less than four years' worth of present benefits. More 
     important, Medicare and Medicaid represent three-quarters of 
     the projected spending increase for retirees by 2030.
       All the misinformation bespeaks political evasion. With his 
     rhetorical skills, Clinton might have raised public 
     understanding. Instead, he lowered it by falsely denouncing 
     the Republicans for attempting to ``destroy'' Medicare. The 
     first refuge of good Democrats is to accuse the Republicans 
     of conspiring against old folks by trying to dismantle Social 
     Security and Medicare. And Bush's credibility is shot, 
     because he made the problem worse. His Medicare drug benefit 
     increases spending, and though it could have been justified 
     as part of a grand bargain that reduced other benefits, its 
     isolated enactment was a political giveaway.
       The failure to communicate also implicates many pundits and 
     think tanks, liberal and conservative. Pundits usually speak 
     in bland generalities. They support ``fiscal responsibility'' 
     and ``entitlement reform'' and oppose big budget deficits. 
     Less often do they say plainly that people need to work 
     longer and that retirees need to lose some benefits. Think 
     tanks endlessly publish technical reports on Social Security 
     and Medicare, but most avoid the big issues. Are present 
     benefits justified? How big can government become before the 
     resulting taxes or deficits harm the economy?
       Opportunities for gradual change have been squandered. 
     These public failings are also mirrored privately. I know 
     many bright, politically engaged boomers who can summon vast 
     concern or outrage about global warming, corporate 
     corruption, foreign policy, budget deficits and much more--
     but somehow, their own Social Security and Medicare benefits 
     rarely come up for discussion or criticism. Older boomers 
     (say, those born by 1955) are the most cynical, hoping their 
     benefits will be grandfathered in when inevitable cuts occur 
     in the future.
       Our children will not be so blind to this hypocrisy. We 
     have managed to take successful programs--Social Security and 
     Medicare--and turn them into huge problems by our self-
     centered inattention. Baby boomers seem eager to ``reinvent 
     retirement'' in all ways except those that might threaten 
     their pocketbooks.
                                  ____


              [From The Dallas Morning News, June 8, 2006]

  Deep in the Budget Hole--Bipartisan Panel Could Help Country Dig Out

       When you're almost $10 trillion in the hole, you've got to 
     call somebody, right?
       Fortunately, GOP Rep. Frank Wolf has a suggestion to 
     deliver us from the gates of budget hell. The Virginia 
     legislator introduced legislation yesterday that would 
     establish a bipartisan commission charged with presenting the 
     choices required to balance the budget.
       The panel would function like the commission that former 
     Texas GOP Rep. Dick Armey launched to close down unnecessary 
     military bases. An independent group would give Congress a 
     budget package, which legislators would vote up or down on 
     unless the House and Senate come up with better solutions.
       President Bush proposed a version of this approach earlier 
     this year when he called for a bipartisan commission to 
     recommend how Washington can control runaway spending on 
     Social Security, Medicare and other big guaranteed programs.
       But Mr. Wolf understands that the budget challenges are not 
     all about spending. They

[[Page 1362]]

     also involve taxes and how much revenue the Treasury needs to 
     pay for the services Americans demand.
       In an encouraging sign, White House economic adviser Allen 
     Hubbard recently acknowledged that any bipartisan panel 
     probably would look at taxes.
       He wasn't saying the White House is backing off its 
     fondness for tax cuts, but it was a Washington way of saying, 
     ``Let's look at the whole range of choices.''
       We encourage North Texas representatives to line up as 
     sponsors of Mr. Wolf's legislation and help get it through 
     the House this summer. (The delegation's chief deficit 
     fighter, GOP Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Dallas, told us last week 
     that he wants to look at the proposal.)
       It's time Washington reaches out for help.
       By the numbers: $9.6 trillion: The amount of debt Congress 
     recently authorized the Treasury to borrow (the limit was 
     $6.4 trillion four summers ago); $2.8 trillion: The likely 
     2007 federal budget; $399 billion: Next year's interest 
     expense on the federal debt; $27,000: What every man, woman 
     and child would owe to eliminate the federal debt; 37.4 
     percent: How much of the gross domestic product the federal 
     debt consumes.
                                  ____


               [From the Orlando Sentinel, June 12, 2006]

                             Get On With It

       Our position: A panel on Medicare and other issues would 
     get needed talks started.
       Finally, someone in Congress has taken up President Bush's 
     call for a bipartisan commission on the looming financial 
     crisis if no changes are made to Medicare, Medicaid and 
     Social Security.
       Unchecked growth in the cost of these programs in coming 
     decades will devastate the economy by forcing some 
     combination of huge tax increases, drastic spending cuts or 
     massive borrowing.
       This past week, Republican Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia 
     proposed a panel aptly named SAFE, to secure America's future 
     economy. Its bipartisan experts would deliver a package of 
     recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
       Mr. Wolf says he is open to suggestions on his proposal. 
     Members unwilling to support it have a moral obligation to 
     come forward with something they deem better.

                          ____________________