Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to pay tribute, and I am sure that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] and the staff now of the merchant marine panel of the Committee on National Security, wants to recognize the work of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] who helped to pioneer this work with the Merchant Marine Committee. Unfortunately this legislation, as has been noted at least indirectly in previous discussion, was killed in the other body, and so we find ourselves playing catch up today. Why is it so important then that we emphasize this bipartisan approach in the work that has been done by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] and others over the years? Three things. It revitalizes, helps to revitalize, the U.S. shipping industry. It keeps U.S. ships and American merchant mariners afloat and helps guarantee the availability of supplies of troops overseas. In June of 1992, Mr. Speaker, General Colin Powell said, and I quote: Since I became Chairman of the Joint of Chiefs of Staff, I have come to appreciate firsthand why our merchant marine has long been called the fourth arm of defense.... The war in the Persian Gulf is over, but the merchant marine's contribution to our nation continues. In war, merchant seamen have long served with valor and distinction by carrying critical supplies and equipment to our troops in far away lands. In peacetime, the merchant marine has another vital role- contributing to our economic security by linking us to our trading partners around the world and providing the foundation for our ocean commerce. As has been noted, the U.S. merchant maritime industry, once the world's leader is on the verge of being lost to foreign competition. That is why I regard this bill, Mr. Speaker, as only a first step, an interim step, and I am sure we are going to have bipartisan support to see that we extend this next year. We must move now to resuscitate, and that is the correct word, resuscitate, this vital national resource. In the time of crisis we cannot depend upon foreign-flag ships and crews for defense sealift and sustainment requirements. Mr. Speaker, this bill costs the taxpayers a fraction of what the Department of Defense would pay to build or charter the same amount of sealift. If we allow this industry to sink, and I mean that literally, we will lose more than just U.S.-flag ships. Our ability to effectively influence worldwide shipping standards which effect domestic and international trade will be diminished and, in fact, lost. A vital U.S. commercial fleet also means jobs for Americans. U.S. commercial fleet also means jobs for Americans. U.S.-flag ships abide by U.S. tax, environmental, safety, and labor laws and standards. American-crewed, American-made ships support U.S. interests. Mr. Speaker, I come here today to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say that we are just making the first step in seeing to it that we have a revitalized American merchant marine. I want to see American-built ships and American shipyards, American shippers with American crews, setting the standard for the rest of the world.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], my good friend, that the only reason that I am speaking is to try to correct the record because of the excellent presentation that has been made. I very much regret the observations made by the gentleman from Michigan, particularly the observation that this is somehow a handout and that it is corporate welfare and we are being asked to pay more in subsidies. I wish some of the people who come down on the floor and make these observations would be available during [[Page H 14077]] our hearings. On the contrary, I think if you attend the national security meetings, you find that we are spending in the neighborhood of $100 million to provide each ship for sealift capacity for the Department of Defense ships. Now in return for the $2 million that we will be paying to the ships under this bill, they must be made available in times of war for shipment. In effect we are contracting out with the merchant marine a position I presume the gentleman from Michigan would support. I think that that is a heck of a good investment, a $2 million investment. Now I am perfectly willing to build more ships. There is supposedly a struggle to reach a balanced budget. As the gentleman and I have discussed at other times, I hardly think that that is what we are going to be doing in this discussion about the budget. Balancing it is about the last thing we are going to do, and if my colleagues want to put the word ``balance'' into the equation, we have to balance the American interests involved in this investment. I do not see this as a subsidy at all, but rather an investment in American ships, in American jobs, to make sure that America can get the job done when it needs to do it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. [[Page H 14172]]

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman kindly yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] for yielding to me. The point that the gentleman was making and has been making so clearly about the minimum wage and the necessity for having a living wage in order to be able to sustain one's self in today's world is more than amply demonstrated if we consider the budget negotiations now underway. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have appeared on the floor on this subject, but obviously you and other colleagues and other citizens, friends tuning in to our proceedings, may not have heard everything it is that is at stake. You see and hear the headlines about balancing the budget, but Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you today, and I am not the only one, that that is not what is taking place. The budget is not being balanced. I feel very, very strongly that every time the national media in particular, whether linear or in newspapers or electronic with radio and television, report the balanced budget negotiations going on, they are doing a disservice. I do not want to say it is a question of lazy journalism. It may simply be the fact that not sufficient homework is being done or that we have moved into a situation in which news is reported simply on the basis of what is said by one side and another on an action-reaction basis, and then no one bothers to research any more as to whether anything anybody says is true or not. Mr. Speaker, let me put forward to you the simple proposition that I am contending is the actual situation with the nonbalancing of the budget. I do not know if we want to call it a truth-in-budgeting proposition, but we most certainly do not have a balanced budget. Very simply, very plainly, I want to state, and so far there has been no repudiation of this whatsoever by anyone in the majority, that there is in fact no balanced budget, that the budget that is printed has been available to us right straight through from the beginning from the majority, does not contain a balancing by the year 2002. I can understand why the Speaker of the House said that he arrived, or is reported to have said that he arrived at the 7-year number by intuition. I can understand that, because it is all guesswork. The No. 7, the 7 years, 2002, is something that was picked out of the air because they were able to balance the budget on paper, but on paper only. It is a charade. It is an illusion. What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is as follows: Every year, including this year, there is going to be a deficit, and the deficit will be here this year to the tune of some $245 billion; and the deficit in the year 2002 will be in the neighborhood of $105 to $108 billion, all assuming that there are no bumps in the economic road. In order to mask, in order to mask those deficits put forward by the Republican majority, put forward by the Speaker of the House, they are going to take from the Social Security trust fund billions upon billions upon billions of dollars, starting in the neighborhood of $63 billion this year and billions upon billions every year thereafter, up until the year 2002, in which they will take approximately $115 billion. So you see, Mr. Speaker, that if the deficit in the year 2002 is approximately $105 billion and you borrow $115 billion, you can claim on paper that you have a $10 billion surplus. So I am stating yet once again today--and I hope the proposition will attract some interest at some point--that the negotiations now going on between the White House and the Republican majority are not geared toward balancing the budget. No one who examines this budget can come to that conclusion. Now it is going to be said that it is balanced, but it is not. Because on the day that the budget is supposed to be balanced, we will need an explanation from Mr. Gingrich as to how we are to pay the approximately $636 billion that has been taken from the Social Security Trust Fund, plus interest. My calculations and those of Senator Hollings and Senator Dorgan in the other body indicate that that will probably be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion owed to the Social Security trust fund by the people who say they are balancing the budget. Now I have been a single voice so far, at least on the floor of this House, trying to bring out what the truth of all of these budget negotiation shams are all about. But I can assure you I am not the only one and will not be the only one by the time this process is over. I am going to continue to speak out; I am going to continue to bring to this floor the quotations from columns and observations by others who are beginning to catch on to what this is all about. Does anybody out there, do any of our colleagues really believe that if it was possible to balance the budget in 7 years that it would not have been done already? In time to come I will show how this kind of proposition has been put forward before. President Reagan said he was going to do it. President Bush said he was going to do it. President Clinton indicated he would certainly like to do it. President Reagan was unable to balance the budget. He put forward a plan on paper; never worked out. President Bush said he wanted to do it. Put forward a plan on paper, never worked out. President Clinton has been unable to do it. President Clinton, to give him credit, as a result of his first budget proposition, has been able to bring down both the rate of the deficit as well as the deficit itself, since his first budget came to the Congress and since we passed it in 1993. But the plain fact is that bringing down the deficit, either in absolute numbers or the rate of the deficit, is not the same thing as balancing the budget. Now, everybody in the country, when they are told by the Speaker of the House that we are to use honest numbers in balancing the budget in 7 years, expects that that will be a reflection of the budgets that they understand. Mr. Speaker, in your home and my home I think we know what we mean by balancing our budget at the end of the month or at the end of the year. We have so much revenue come in; we have so much revenue go out. And if those books balance at the end of the year, we say we have balanced our budget. But you do not balance your budget, Mr. Speaker, I am certain that you do not balance your budget in your household any more than I do in mine, by telling your spouse that you have balanced the budget, your family has balanced your budget for the year by stealing your mother's and father's Social Security. I am going to emphasize that. Maybe stealing is a bit of a harsh word, because it is only being borrowed, but some people might call it stealing if they did not know that it was being borrowed; and I do not think the average American taxpayer knows that that is what is happening. I am frankly surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the American Association of Retired Persons has not gotten on this, the AARP. The various committees to protect Social Security seem to be silent. I notice that the Consumers Union and some of the tax groups, tax justice groups have been very vocal with respect to Medicare and Medicaid cuts and expenditures, but in this area of actually balancing the budget, they have all been strangely silent. I wonder about those among our colleagues and across the Nation who are paying dues to these organizations. I wonder whether they might begin to inquire of the leadership of some of these organizations that say they are trying to protect Social Security and provide tax justice, some of these people that supposedly analyze what is going on in government, Common Cause. There is a whole range of organizations out there that seem to be silent on this. Why is it that they have not come forward to indicate that we are not balancing this budget, unless someone has put forward a proposal that I am unaware of that indicates how we will pay more than $1 trillion that will be owed in the year 2002 to the Social Security trust fund in order to make up for the money that, on paper, is supposedly balancing the budget? Just bringing down the deficit does not balance the budget. And robbing--there I go again--I suppose I should not use that word-- borrowing is perhaps the more appropriate term as far as accountants are concerned. But I can assure you as far as the average taxpayer is concerned, he or she is going to feel a little bit upset about the idea of taking their Social Security trust fund dollars and putting that money toward so-called balancing the budget. I have here in front of me the National Journal's Congress Daily from Wednesday, yesterday, November 29. Budget negotiators must close a $730 billion gap. And I read through this learned publication. It is depended upon by you Mr. Speaker, and I, I think, as a source, a reference point, depended upon by other members of the public as being reliable. It says here the Democratic and Republican budget negotiators began meeting Tuesday night, face the daunting task of trying in a few weeks to bridge the differences totaling at least $730 billion in entitlement savings, discretionary spending levels and tax cuts if they are to agree on a 7-year balanced budget path this year. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that you have heard that phrase, the glide path to a balanced budget. It keeps coming up. But I notice the more time I spend on this floor talking about the fact that there will not be a balanced budget, there is no glide path, except to budget oblivion in 7 years, the greater the silence that accompanies it. I have invited over and over again the Speaker to come down and refute what I am saying, but I understand he is probably over at the White House or in touch with those people who are at the White House doing the negotiating on this illusory, phony, 7-year nonbalanced budget. Now I do not think they are going to be able to fool Senator Dorgan with it. I will at some point in the near future be reading into the record some of the points that Senator Dorgan has made, a Democratic Senator from North Dakota who is on top of this and understands it as well as Senator Hollings. But the fact is, is that Senate Budget Chairman Domenici says, ``We're making progress. We will meet every day this week including Saturday. This is a serious effort.'' If it is a serious effort, I would like the good Senator to indicate whether or not they are negotiating how much money they are going to take out of Social Security to mask the budget deficits that they in fact have in this budget and have in the next budget and the budget after that all the way up to the year 2002. Has anybody come forward to explain what happens in 2003? Do we suddenly disappear? Is there some Biblical implication from this that I am unaware of? Is there something in the book of Revelation that says that the world as we know it and particularly the budget of the United States ends in the year 2002 and somehow we will not have to pay that $1 trillion in principal and interest that we have taken from Social Security? Now, if it is indeed a surplus, and so we can borrow from it and keep it, as the budget wizards say, off-budget, now think about that, Mr. Speaker. How many of us in our lives when we talk about a balanced budget to our families are able to say, Oh, by the way, that credit card payment? Well, that's off-budget. We're not counting that, because that credit card came in the mail. I didn't really solicit that, so even though I've spent money, even though I've used that card, in this instance the Social Security trust fund card, I'm not going to count it. That's just a surplus. Well, if it is a surplus, why do we not give it back? If it is a surplus that is not needed to pay Social Security to those who are eligible for it, then why do we not give it back? Why does a bill not come forward tomorrow from the Speaker's office saying, We're going to give that surplus back. We don't need it? I will tell you why. Because we want to give a tax cut. I hear everybody saying they want a tax cut on the Republican majority side. They want a tax cut. Well, let us give a tax cut to those people who really need it, the people who pay into the Social Security trust fund. We have increased taxes before on Social Security. Why? to make it solvent. We did that in the early 1980's as a result of the Greenspan Commission report which said unless we increased the amount of taxes that we pay out of our paychecks every week to Social Security, we would not have that trust fund, the trust fund would not be sound, it would flounder. We would be unable to make our obligations to Social Security recipients. And so we raised the taxes on ourselves. Take a look. It is called FICA on your paycheck every week. Just take a look down, when you get all of the deductions, your State taxes, your Federal taxes and all the other deductions that you have, FICA. That is your Social Security tax. Well, if there is a surplus in there, why not give that back? There is your middle-class tax cut, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker. There is your middle-class tax cut. Cut that Social Security tax. Well, this is not original with me. Senator Moynihan and others previously have indicated, ``Well, look, if you indeed have this surplus, let's give the money back.'' Well, the hue and cry that went up when Senator Moynihan first broached the subject was something to behold. No one wanted to give it back because no one believes for an instant that there is in fact a surplus there that we will not need to call upon. So what we have is a situation in which a supposed surplus is available for the picking. And so if you want the illusion of having a balanced budget, why not go to the Social Security fund, take the money, promise at some vague time in the future to pay it back with no plan as to how that is to occur, and then be able to claim to the voting public that you have a balanced budget? There is the real tax cut. No, what do we propose? What does the Republican majority propose instead? No, let us have a tax break for the wealthiest people, and let us take away the tax incentives that we have at the very bottom, the so-called earned income tax. If your wages are below a certain level for a working family, your taxes are cut in order to give you more money to spend to increase your prosperity. No, we take billions from them, at the bottom, and give it to those at the top, when the real tax cut if we wanted to do that would be to give back the Social Security surplus. But if you gave back the Social Security surplus, then you could not borrow from it, could you, to try and fool people into thinking you have balanced the budget. And so the policy hurdle, it says in the Congress Daily, negotiators have to scale after they finish process issues is evident in six big ticket items. Tax cuts, which I just mentioned, and savings from Medicare, Medicaid, welfare reform, agriculture, and reform of the aforementioned earned income tax credit. Now, do you think that you are really saving money if you cut Medicare, if you cut Medicaid? And the welfare reform does not include that which is already available to those who can go to work in terms of child care, in terms of health insurance, in terms of education credits? Of course not. These are no savings. This is going to be tremendous pain inflicted on people. And for what? In order to achieve the illusion of a balanced budget when no balanced budget exists. How is it possible for us to raid Social Security on the one hand, and at the same time make a claim that taking money from Medicare and Medicaid, those people least able to help themselves, is in fact a step forward toward the balancing of that budget? Some of my good friends, my Republican friends have indicated, well, if what you say is true, and one or two of them even indicated they would do a little homework on it, and I am pleased that they have that kind of attitude, that they are always willing to learn as I hope I am. They have indicated that if it is in fact the case that we are going into Social Security, into the trust fund, and that that could be construed as a breach of good faith, if you will, with the public in terms of actually balancing the budget, if that is the goal, then they indicate, ``Well, we'll have to make even deeper cuts.'' And I said, well, maybe that's your solution. I'm not sure how much more pain you want to inflict on people than that which would already occur if we adopted the proposals that are forthcoming right now. But I can assure you in order to do that, you are going to have to come up with some $636 billion in addition just to make that number come out in 7 years. That may be the proposal. The sentiment was expressed to me by freshman members of the Republican majority, and inasmuch as at least a reputation of some sort has grown in the media that freshman representatives in the republican majority are trying to work together, perhaps they can figure out a way to add an extra $636 billion to at least attempt to bring the budget into balance in 7 years. How they are going to do that without inflicting the pain that I have mentioned, I have no idea. That is not my problem. After all, I am not in the majority right now. that may change by 1996. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, if and when the public makes a determination that when you tell them you are going to balance the budget and take their Social Security money instead, that they are sorely afflicted by that notion. Now, I have had discussions with a great many people in their thirties and forties and those in their fifties as well, but particularly the younger voter, that they fear they will not have their Social Security available to them when they get into their sixties, 62, 65, or whatever number we set as being the number at which you would be eligible to collect Social Security, if we change it. Now, think about it. if you are in your thirties out there, and you are working hard, you are in your forties and you are beginning to think about, gee, maybe I have had a career and I am going to be moving down the road towards a pension and I am counting on my Social Security. How many of those people, Mr. Speaker, do you believe would like it that their Social Security trust fund is going to be raided over the next 7 years in order to accomplish the illusion of a balanced budget? So I say to those of my colleagues here, some of whom have made it quite clear that they do not intend to make Congress their career, although as I understand if the Constitution is still operative, none of us can make it a career past 2 years, every 2 years we have to renew our license or the people renew a license for us in order to sit here, none of us have a right to be here except by leave of our constituents. And those constituents may take offense if they believe that we have abused the privilege of our office by saying to them that we have balanced the budget in 7 years and taken their Social Security funds in the process. I think some questions are going to start to come up for people when they have to answer those questions. Senator Gramm of Texas, from the other body has said, I am quoting again from the National Journal. He is concerned the way it is going to be breached--he is talking about the balanced budget in 7 years-- concerned the way it is going to be breached is by assuming away the problems by changing the economics so negotiators have to cut less to get to balance. That very well may be. Maybe Senator Gramm knows more than some of the other negotiators over there. I wish he would be a little more specific about it. The National Journal seems to say that, seems to feel that the GOP, and I am quoting again, the GOP reconciliation bill over 7 years calls for the savings, again, of $270 billion in Medicare, $163 billion in Medicaid, $75 billion from welfare reform, $32 billion from the working poor and the earned income tax credit, $13 billion from agriculture, plus the $245 billion in tax cuts. We keep seeing those numbers. Why did we not see in all of these reports that come out the $636 billion in Social Security that is being taken? Mr. Speaker, I think that if our good friends in some of the organizations that I mentioned previously would examine the issue, they would find that what I am talking about is, in fact, taking place. Now, it may be said that in the past, and going back as far as Mr. Truman's administation, let us go back to World War II, and I have the figures here in front of me, courtesy of Senator Hollings, it may be said that as far back as in 1945 and 1948, the last said that as far back as in 1945 and 1948, the last year of Mr. Truman's administration before his election in 1948 over Mr. Dewey, that they actually ran a surplus, and I may say to you that in 1948 the U.S. budget outlays in billions of dollars was $29.8 billion, $3 billion of which came from trust funds. The real deficit was nonexistent. We had a $5.1 billion surplus in that year, and the gross Federal debt, as opposed to the deficit, for that year, the debt that we owed was some $252 billion. Now, do not forget we had just concluded World War II. Obviously, the investment that had to be made by this country in advancing the cause of World War II was such that our debt, our national debt, was $252 billion. We were on our way toward moving on that debt, reducing the deficit by not only balancing the budget but by actually producing a surplus of $5 billion. By the time we got to the end of President Bush's time in office, by the time in 1992 we finished that particular year, the budget for the year in terms of outlays had risen to $1,381,000,000,000. Trust funds we were into to the tune of $113 billion. The real deficit was $403 billion, and our gross Federal debt had moved to $4 trillion. The interest alone, Mr. Speaker, at that point had come to $292 billion. I submit that we are not making any changes in that except for the budget that President Clinton put forward. Whatever fault President Clinton may be assigned by the Republican majority, they can not deny, or rather should not deny, obviously they can if they wish, but it would be a political statement as opposed to a statement which is borne out by the facts, the fact is that the budget deficit and the rate of the deficit has gone down under President Clinton. We can have arguments about that, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing in terms of the overall prosperity of the Nation. On the whole, there seems to be agreement that it has been a good thing. The economy as a whole has prospered, if this has not been shared, as my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], has indicated in remarks just previous to my own, but that remains another issue to be resolved. The facts are that in terms of the deficit, in terms of the rate and the absolute numbers of the deficit, President Clinton has succeeded to this point. So now comes Mr. Gingrich with his contract, saying the budget will be balanced and picking this number. Now, it may be fair. And, Mr. Speaker, at this juncture to indicate that in future discussions, hopefully with other Members who feel as I do, that I will be indicating to you how it might be, how a genuine deficit reduction, debt reduction and balancing of the budget can take place. There are no magic formulas involved. There is no sleight of hand, no legerdemain, no David Copperfield illusions to it. It is a tough, hard road to go, and it is lengthy. It will take discipline of many Congresses, not just whatever time the good people of this country might give to you or to me, Mr. Speaker, to be here. It involves separating capital expenditures from operating expenditures, just the way you do in your own family, just the way we do and did and do now in the city council in Honolulu on which I served, just the way we did and do now in the State legislature in the State of Hawaii, and I am sure you do in your area, Mr. Speaker. I guess my timing was pretty good then as I got to my conclusion about what is to be done. We will be bringing forward that proposition, Mr. Speaker, about the sensible way to solve the problem of long-term debt, of balancing the budget with using true and honest figures and not raiding or embezzling money, as the late Senator John Heinz put it, money from the Social Security trust fund. With that, Mr. Speaker, it remains only to say this: that if we are going to use honest numbers and we truly want to balance the budget, let us do it forthrightly, let us do it honestly, let us not try and fool the American people. Let us see to it that we are able to bring forward a budget that we can stand here and say with veracity to the American people: We have truly acted in your interest.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] raised the issue of whether there is, in fact, a Balanced Budget Act before us. I had spoken about the fact that, and I say ``the fact'' that the budget proposed by the majority, by the Republican majority, by Speaker Gingrich, is going to take $636 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to so-call balance the budget. I want to quote at this point, so it is not just coming from me, but from Senator Hollings in the other body: You will expend another $636 billion of the Social Security trust fund. We said we were raising the Social Security taxes to make certain there was trust in the trust fund through the year 2050. That is why the FICA taxes, your Social Security tax, was raised previously, to make sure the trust fund was solvent. Now we are taking it. Again, quoting Senator Hollings: When you put together the borrowing from the trust funds that must be replenished, you get the real deficit, the gross Federal deficit, and the gross interest costs. Finally, again from Senator Hollings: Wait a minute. When you take the revenues in, the outlays out, and you look at [[Page H 13773]] that figure, that is too high for me to run on in the next election, so we will take an amount of money out of the right pocket, put it into the left pocket, we will take $636 billion from Social Security in this budget that we have under consideration, and put it in the general fund to make it appear we are balancing the budget. You will have to pay back Social Security with interest and at the end of the 7-year budget period, you will owe. At the end of the 7-year period, we will all have to pay back supposedly over $1 trillion into the Social Security trust fund, and no one has any idea, not any Senator or House Member, who is going to introduce the increase in taxes to refund the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, I wish the Speaker would come here and answer that question.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. To enter into a dialog with you on this, then, is it your position that the budget as put forward by the majority at the present time is not going to balance the budget if at the end of 2002 we have almost $1 trillion owing to the Social Security trust fund?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If you could be so kind, would you try and answer my question. Is it the Republican budget position that in the year 2002 when you have ostensibly balanced the budget that you will owe the Social Security trust fund $636 billion plus interest, approximately $1 trillion will be owing to the trust fund?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, do I have time?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I very much appreciate the honesty of the gentleman from Georgia. I will indicate to him and to the rest of the House that if they go back and do their homework as he suggests, they will find that in the year 2002 we will owe almost $1 trillion to the Social Security trust fund, and in the time to come, Mr. Speaker, over the next couple of weeks I am sure we can explore this issue at greater depth. I thank the Speaker very much and the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will yield briefly because I have got a long way to go and you folks are on the floor every single day with this line and you have hundreds of people saying the same things, and we are just a couple of us here right now. But I will yield for the moment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, following up on Mr. Taylor's comment, as you know, yesterday I started what I said would be a series of discussions as to what constitutes a balanced budget in the context of the Speaker's admonition to us that we use honest numbers. I invited the Speaker to come down and discuss that if he wants. He is not here today. I do not know whether he will be here tomorrow. I am going to be here right through the 15th. He may be in negotiations right now, I do not know, about this so-called balanced budget. But every time we see on television or hear on radio or read in the newspaper the Speaker talking about a balanced budget in 7 years and using honest numbers, I submit to you and I submit to him and would be very happy to have a discourse with him that this is illusionary. This is entirely illusory in nature. These numbers do not reflect an honest balanced budget. As the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] indicated, every single budget proposed from the years 1996 through 2002 has a massive deficit attached to it in the Republican plan. Every single one of those budgets is going into the Social Security trust fund. It is stated right in the budget documents of the Republican proposals, and I do not object at any time to someone coming forward with the idea of saying let us get to a balanced budget as I indicated yesterday. In time to come, I will come on this floor and propose the kind of alternatives that some of us are putting together and are willing to get behind that which will achieve that in an honest way. This is dishonest in the sense that you are putting forward, or we are having put forward to us by the majority the idea that somehow they have exclusive claim to a balanced budget. I will indicate that this year alone, and I may be off $1 or $2 billion, a couple of billion dollars depending on what the final figures come out to be, but the proposal is that they take $63 billion from a so-called surplus in the Social Security system.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand. I thank the Chair. I have the time, Mr. Speaker, is that correct?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry before we go on. I understand what is at stake here. But is the ruling of the Chair about continuing because, if we start this process, that means those who have signed up will have to wait a longer time? Is that the reason for proceeding this way?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is very kind because I will focus on Bosnia. I realize what you are saying. Obviously if this moves forward we have to find more money to deal it. That is one of the problems with Bosnia. My point is that there are alternatives. I will not take the gentleman's time tonight. It includes capital budgeting, and I do not consider it Republican or Democrat in that context. I am considering it in the context of America, the way the rest of American Government and business and families run their budgeting. We separate capital budgeting from operating expenses and I think we can get to a balanced budget. We do not have to put a timetable right now but I would be happy to discuss with the gentleman and my good friend from Georgia ways that we can deal with honest numbers. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman kindly yield a moment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin a series of, I do not know if they can be called lectures, tonight; this is by way of introduction; but certainly a series of observations on what is ostensibly taking place tonight, which is presumably the first meeting with respect to balancing the budget. Mr. Speaker, I have been on the floor here previously indicating to you and to my colleagues and to the American people that the budget that has been presented to us is not going to be a balanced budget, certainly not a balanced budget in the sense that most Americans understand it to be. This is because we are going to have a category called off-budget spending. Now the average person and the average household who has to deal with their budget does not begin to accept this kind of terminology, and the fact is that Speaker Gingrich has indicated over and over again that he wants to have a balanced budget in 7 years, and he wants honest numbers. Well, I am perfectly willing to deal with that situation. I would like to approach it from a different perspective, and I will be discussing that in the days to come as well as to what that might be as an alternative. But what is before us now very frankly is not honest numbers, not honest numbers as people understand them. I hope that we will be able to get a much broader discussion under way throughout the Nation as to what constitutes this balanced budget. If the Speaker wants to have honest numbers, then I think he needs to come down here on the floor and indicate that he is going to take money from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to do this balancing. That is where it is going to come from. I will use the figures of the Congressional Budget Office. This is not something that I am going to be making up because it suits me. There has been an insistence that the Congressional Budget Office figures be used. Now, I will indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Congressional Budget Office will confirm that in order for the budget, as presented by the majority, to be balanced that it must take from the Social Security Trust Fund upward of $636 billion plus interest, so that in the year 2002, 7 years from now, when the majority is saying that the budget will be balanced, those of you who expect to be able to draw on Social Security will find that there will be a gigantic IOU for almost $1 trillion. Now I am only one person so far, but I believe, if you have the truth on your side, that it will out. Dozens and dozens and dozens of Members can come down on this floor and say they are going to balance the budget in 7 years, and I will maintain that unless they can explain how they are going to pay the almost $1 trillion that they have taken from Social Security to pay for it, they cannot do it. You need only look at the budget document itself and it will show every year a deficit. The budget document of the House indicates that starting this year there will be a deficit, and each year that deficit has to be accounted for. No. 4; this is from the conference report of the 104th Congress, first session, concurrent resolution in the budget proposal for that year, 1996, presented in June of this year. The fourth sequence, deficits. For the purpose of the enforcement of this resolution the amount of the deficits are as follows: Fiscal year 1996, $245 billion, listing on up to the year 2002, $108 billion. How is it possible for the Speaker or anyone else presenting the budget formula for the press, for the American people, to say that the budget is going to be balanced if by the conference report itself there is a $108 billion deficit? Very simple. You take $115 billion from Social Security, from the trust fund, and wonder of wonders, you come up with a $10 billion surplus. In the days to come, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be examining what this is all about and what it means. Now the average family, when they are being told that the budget is going to be balanced in 7 years and told that that is a good thing for the United States, has no idea that Social Security is being attacked, and as I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate [[Page H 13708]] this opportunity to make this introduction, in the days to come I will detail for you and for my colleagues and the American public how there is no balanced budget, how we are raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to mask the deficit that will actually exist in 2002.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, at a time when proponents and opponents of the measure have time, to ask the proponents to yield to such a question? Would that be in order?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is based on an inability to get an answer yesterday. Is the measure before the House the same measure which excludes the cost-of-living increases for military retirees for fiscal year 1996, 1997, and 1998, under the national security provisions?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier this year we had to fight off the high one provision that would have taken away what we promised to our veterans. I am inquiring, I would like to inquire and will yield to the Committee on the Budget spokesperson, as to whether or not it is true, as Congressional Quarterly is now reporting, that the cost of living increases for military retirees for 1996, 1997, and 1998 have been removed from this budget? Is it a fact, and I will yield to anyone on the Republican side who represents the committee, is it not a fact, as Congressional Quarterly is now reporting, that they are taking away the equity payments of cost-of-living for our military retirees starting this year, after promising they would have it because civilians had it? Mr. Speaker, has there been an answer to my question? So we may take it that military retirees will not get their cost of living adjustment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. An item of nominal value such as greeting cards, baseball cap or T shirt.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Page 9?