Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the fact is the President promised to save 100 percent. Then he came back with a plan that saved 62 percent. Then he proposed a budget that was only saving 52 percent. The fact is what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my Democrat colleague and good friend, is saying just is not the case. The fact is they wanted it both ways. They say they want it tougher, but then they oppose it. But now they think it is not tough enough, and they oppose it then, too. Let us vote out what we have today. Let us begin with what we have today which does bring about a point of order both in the House and the Senate, requires 60 votes in the Senate. Let us at least move forward with something now; and perhaps in the future, we can come up with something tougher.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, protecting Social Security is one of the most important challenges this Congress will face. Social Security is facing a crisis. By the year 2014, the amount of benefits provided to our seniors will exceed the amount of payroll taxes taken in. Mr. Speaker, current and future beneficiaries, after years of hard work, deserve the independence that comes from financial security, and that financial security ought to be the one thing they can count on. Every penny that is taken out of Americans' paychecks for Social Security should be locked up so it can only be used to pay for Social Security benefits. This legislation will help ensure precisely that. This legislation represents a continuation of our commitment to save Social Security as outlined in the budget resolutions passed by both the House and the Senate last month. This lockbox legislation that is shown here will protect the Social Security surpluses through several mechanisms. First, H.R. 159 protects Social Security surpluses by blocking the consideration of any budget resolution or legislation that dips into Social Security. This bill creates a new point of order in the House and requires a supermajority for passage in the Senate for measures that attempt to use Social Security surplus funds. Secondly, it ends the deceptive practice of masking deficits and inflating surpluses by prohibiting the Congressional Budget Office and the President's Office of Management and Budget from reporting Federal budget totals that include Social Security surpluses. This bill stops this budget shell game and allows only non-Social Security surpluses or deficits to be reported. Thirdly, H.R. 1259 locks up the Social Security surpluses and only allows them to be used for Social Security and Medicare reform. The first step toward saving Social Security is to stop spending it on non-related government programs. Once this legislation does that, we as a Congress can continue to move forward on real Social Security and Medicare reform, and may use the money in the Social Security Trust Fund only to accomplish that goal. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has a unique opportunity to help protect Social Security and place ourselves on the path to substantial Social Security and Medicare reform. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this most important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is really incredibly misleading, if not completely incorrect, to say that this legislation is weaker than current legislation. That is clearly not the fact. The budget resolution that passed is only for this budget. What we are doing is putting into law the fact that we cannot spend this; that before we do, Members are going to be held accountable in their districts for knowing that they actually spent Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 186, I call up the bill (H.R. 1259) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to protect Social Security surpluses through strengthened budgetary enforcement mechanisms, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that while the party of my good friend from Texas was in control for some 40 years before we took over, there was not a single dime of Social Security that was saved. At least now we are taking that first step to begin saving Social Security. And it is something that I would urge all of us to begin doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), my good friend, a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand what is going on here. H.R. 1259 saves 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years or $100 billion more than the President proposed in his budget for saving Social Security and Medicare. Under our safe deposit box, none of that money can be spent on anything else until we actually save Social Security and Medicare. For those who say that is not enough, Mr. Speaker, not enough, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) have already offered a proposal to save Social Security for 75 years and beyond, that costs far less than the $1.8 trillion over the next decade, leaving hundreds of billions of dollars for Medicare reform. But in their zeal to prevent any tax relief for American people, the Democrat proposal would also freeze budget surpluses that have nothing to do with Social Security and Medicare. Apparently what that means is that the fiscal policy of the House Democrat leadership is that hard- working Americans who have paid too much in income taxes cannot get any of their money back. It all has to stay trapped in Washington until the government agrees on how to save Social Security and Medicare. The longer that takes, the less money there is to return to the taxpayers. This proposal does not just prevent excess taxes from being returned in the form of income tax cuts, it also blocks the money from being spent on building a stronger military, improving public schools, or protecting the environment. The President said in his State of the Union address, we need to use the surplus wisely, including for such purposes. Is the Democrat leadership now telling the country those important goals do not matter? Or are the Democrats saying that, to the degree that issues other than Social Security and Medicare matter, we have to raise taxes to pay for them? Or are they suggesting we cut current government spending to pay for any new spending? I seriously doubt it. Finally, the Democrats' motion states any legislation opening the safe deposit box must save Social Security for at least 75 years. I welcome their use of this standard which the Social Security Administration says the Archer-Shaw plan achieves. Since the President's plan the Democrats are drafting falls short of this 75-year standard, saving Social Security for only about 55 years, I look forward to hearing how the Democrats would fill in those final 20 years. Until then, we should defeat the Democrat motion and get on with saving the Social Security surplus, to strengthen Social Security and Medicare without tying the rest of the government in knots. In closing, our H.R. 1259 saves $100 billion more than under the President's budget for Social Security and Medicare. My colleagues from the other side of the aisle were in power here in the House for 40 years, and guess how much money was set aside for Social Security? Zero. Nada. Not a single penny. Mr. Speaker, this lockbox in H.R. 1259 is good legislation. It is good for Social Security. That is why H.R. 1259 is supported by the United Seniors Association, the Seniors Coalition, the 60 Plus Association, the Concord Coalition, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, last month the House and Senate passed the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution which committed to locking up 100 percent of Social Security. Now it is time to put that commitment into law. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion to recommit and vote yes on H.R. 1259 and lock up Social Security for current and future generations.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Responding to the comments of the gentlewoman from Florida, her comment was that Social Security is good until the year 2034. The fact is we begin losing money, we begin spending, paying out in Social Security more than we are bringing in, in the year 2014. Not 2034, but 2014. After that, we begin pulling out the IOUs that have been written, the bonds that have been written. How is that paid? That is not money off a tree. That comes from taxpayers. Our young people are going to have to pay for that. So we are in a problem, and we are beginning to address it. This is only the first step. As you mentioned, we have other steps we are going to have to take after that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, we have to work together. As the gentlewoman from Michigan said, the only way we are going to solve this problem is by both sides of the aisle working together. I would like to urge us today to allow this to be the first step in doing that, in working together on this. Could we do more? Sure. But this is a first step and the next step will be a little more. Mr. Speaker, this debate is very simple. This House has an opportunity today to make it much more difficult to spend the Social Security surplus. We have a choice before us. We can take the almost $1.8 trillion of Social Security surplus and spend it as we have been doing for the last 40 years, or we can take that same $1.8 trillion and protect it, put it in a lockbox so it can only be used to save Social Security and Medicare. No matter what some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle may say about this bill, they would be hard pressed to say it does not make it dramatically more difficult to spend Social Security surpluses. Let us lock it away as a first step. Then we can move on to reform Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important first step of saving and preserving Social Security.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from New Jersey, who mentioned how the Concord Coalition was endorsing his legislation, I would like to mention that the Concord Coalition is also endorsing this piece of legislation as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller). (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, today, I join with a bipartisan coalition of original cosponsors to re-introduce two important pieces of legislation--The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part II and The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part III--which will help prevent the needless waste of taxpayer dollars. Because of the original Criminal Welfare Prevention Act--legislation I introduced during the 104th Congress which was enacted as part of welfare reform in 1996--an effective new incentive system is now in place that enables the Social Security Administration (SSA) to detect and cut off fraudulent Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security (OASDI) benefits that would otherwise be issued to prisoners. That provision established monetary incentives for state and local law enforcement authorities to enter into voluntary data-sharing contracts with SSA. Now, participating local authorities can elect to provide the Social Security numbers of their inmates to the Social Security Administration. If SSA identifies any ``matches''--instances where inmates are fraudulently collecting SSI benefits--SSA now cuts off payment of as much as $400. Participation in these data-sharing contracts is strictly voluntary; they do not involve any unfunded federal mandates. According to an estimate by SSA's Inspector General, this initiative could help save taxpayers as much as $3.46 billion through the year 2001. While we should certainly be proud of this achievement Mr. Speaker, our work in this area is far from finished. During the 105th Congress, the House passed by follow-up legislation, The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part II (H.R. 530), as part of The Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Act (H.R. 3433). This proposal would encourage even more sheriffs to become involved in fraud-prevention by extending the $400 incentive payments to intercepted Social Security (OASDI) checks as well. Regrettably, this proposal was not taken up by the Senate. For this reason, I am re-introducing The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part II today, and will continue to push for the enactment of this important initiative. At the same time, I will also be working to enact a somewhat broader proposal. The Criminal Welfare Prevention Act, Part III, which I first introduced during the 105th Congress as H.R. 4172. This legislation would simply require SSA to share its prisoner database with other federal departments and agencies--such as the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Labor, and Veterans' Affairs--to help prevent the continued payment of other fraudulent benefits to prisoners. While we do not have reliable information about how many prisoners are receiving food stamps, education aid, and VA benefits for which they are ineligible, it is likely that many do. SSA's prisoner database provides us with the perfect tool to help identify and terminate inappropriate benefits issued through other federal and federally- assisted spending programs. While SSA already has the authority to share its prisoner database with other agencies under a provision of the original Criminal Welfare Prevention Act--and while President Clinton has issued an executive memorandum ordering the SSA to do so--I believe it is important for Congress to codify this requirement into law. Because fraud prevention has not historically been a top priority at SSA, Congress should act swiftly to ensure that we permanently stamp out inmate fraud in all its forms. After all, taxpayers already pay for inmates' food, clothing, and shelter. It is simply outrageous that prisoners may be receiving fraudulent ``bonus'' checks each month as well. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to cosponsor both of these important pieces of legislation. I hope that Congress will not promptly on these proposals to help remind inmates that crime isn't supposed to pay.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget proposal puts more money aside for Social Security and Medicare than does the Clinton administration's plan. Let me repeat that. Our budget proposal puts more money aside for Social Security and Medicare than does the Clinton administration plan. In fact, the President spends $52 billion of the Social Security surplus in 2000 and $247 billion of that same Social Security surplus over the 5 years. But do not just take my word for it. I urge concerned American citizens to verify for themselves the truth of these facts. The Republican proposal puts 100 percent of the retirement surplus aside for Social Security and Medicare. Our proposal puts that money aside in a lock box so that 100 percent of that money goes for Social Security and Medicare. The President's proposal, on the other hand, puts only 62 percent surplus aside for Social Security. American seniors deserve better.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Mr. Matsui, and our cosponsors--Mr. McCrery, Mr. Camp, Mr. Foley, Mr. Weller, Mr. Neal, and Mr. Thomas--to announce the introduction of H.R. 1731, The Biomass Energy Equity Act of 1999, legislation that will help sustain the economic and environmental benefits provided to the public by the biomass power industry in the United States. This bill is a new and improved version of H.R. 4407 that we introduced in the 105th Congress. Also, I am pleased to announce that a companion bill, S. 984, has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Collins and Boxer. The biomass power industry is a unique source of renewable electricity. It generates electricity by combusting wood waste and other nonhazardous, organic materials under environmentally controlled conditions as an alternative to disposal or open-incineration of these materials. In effect, the biomass power industry makes constructive use of waste materials that would otherwise become a public liability. Mr. Speaker, the organic materials used as fuel by this industry are gathered from the agricultural and forest-related sectors of our economy and from our urban waste streams. In addition to the jobs that are generated by this activity, a range of quantifiable benefits arise: the risk and severity of forest fires is diminished, air pollution from open burning of agricultural residues is avoided, and landfill space is preserved. In the absence of this $7 billion per year industry, the nation would face a series of negative consequences above and beyond the loss of the renewable electricity itself. Congress recognized the importance of the biomass power industry when it enacted a biomass energy production tax credit in 1992. Unfortunately, the production tax credit provided by this code section--due to expire this year--has never been accessible to the biomass power industry due to excessively narrow drafting. Our legislation corrects this defect in order to recognize and retain the public benefits, including the national security and system reliability benefits, of this important industry. Mr. Speaker, when I introduced this bill last year I truly believed that this is a ``good government'' issue whose clear merits and environmental benefits transcend partisan and regional politics. Today, as I reintroduce the Biomass Energy Equity Act, I remain convinced of the merits of the proposal, and I would urge all of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to cosponsor this important and much-needed legislation.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Coburn amendment that will completely offset this supplemental. Failure to offset this spending will result in a raid on Social Security. President Clinton has created a national security emergency by cutting our military while stretching our troops around the world. Providing for our troops, however, does not mean the abandoning of fiscal discipline and taking from Social Security. The Coburn amendment calls for the President's Office of Management and Budget to perform an across-the-board cut of all fiscal year 2000 nondefense discretionary spending equal to the amount of this appropriation. Make no mistake about it, voting against the Coburn amendment is a vote to raid the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for this spending. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Coburn amendment.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, Speaker Hastert, and the other members of the leadership for their invaluable assistance in reaching a final compromise for our California area flood control. The compromise that is included in this bill is a win for those of us who have sought sincere dialogue and consensus in California flood control issues. More importantly, however, this legislation is also a partial win for northern California. I can testify from personal experience that California has a very real need for increased flood protection. For example, just two years ago the district I represent in norhtern California suffered a horrendous tragedy as a result of an inadequate flood control system. On January 2nd, 1997, a levee in my district near the community of Arboga suddenly broke, and as a result, three people drowned. This tragedy could have been avoided if flood control officials had been allowed to complete repairs on the levee when the problem was first acknowledged six years earlier. In 1955, almost directly across the river from the Arboga break, another levee broke and this time flooded Yuba City. However, instead of three people losing their lives 37 people died. Mr. Speaker and members, we have a natural phenomenon in California where heavy snowfall in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, followed by warm rains results in an overwhelming amount of water that flows into our Sacramento River Valley. There is no levee system in the world that can handle this kind of extreme flows. Until we build a flood control structure that can hold back this overwhelming flow of water and release it in a controlled manner, our levees are set up to fail. As California's first State Engineer, William Hall, said, ``There are two types of levees, those that have failed and those that will.'' This legislation provides $26.6 million to complete flood control repairs along the Yuba River basin, but regrettably, it won't be enough. I hope and pray that it will not take another great tragedy before we are allowed to proceed with the development of a structure that can hold back these waters. Next time, it may not be just three or even 37 people who drown, but rather, if a levee breaks in Sacramento or in my Marysville and Yuba City area, we could be talking about thousands of people drowned by this type of flooding. I do, however, want to commend my colleagues, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Pombo and Mr. Ose for their hard work in reaching this historic compromise for further flood protection in our northern California area in a responsible manner. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation and vote in favor of the 1999 Water Resources Development Act.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget brings honesty back to the budget process and ends a 30-year assault on our Social Security system. For the first time, every single penny of Social Security taxes will be locked up for Social Security and Medicare. Over the next 10 years, this budget saves $1.8 trillion for these two critical programs for our seniors and future generations. As my colleagues can see on this chart, while the Republican budget saves every penny, 100 percent, of the Social Security surplus, the President's budget saves only 62 percent of Social Security over the next 10 years. Mr. Chairman, saving just 62 percent of the Social Security surplus is not good enough. The President's budget spends $341 billion of this very Social Security surplus over 10 years and provides no Social Security reforms or protections. Mr. Chairman, not a dime of the Social Security dollars Americans pay should be used for unrelated programs. Locking up the entire Social Security trust fund will help save, strengthen and preserve Social Security and Medicare, not only for seniors today but for future generations as well. We must repair Social Security forever, not just put a band-aid on the problem. This Congress cannot allow the Social Security program to be bankrupt. We cannot stand by and allow anyone, even the President, to raid Social Security just to pay for more Washington-run programs. Save Social Security. Vote ``aye'' on this Republican budget.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 63, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have noted ``yes.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, if one were to believe the White House and all they are saying regarding the debt of our Nation, one would be convinced that the President's recently released FY 2000 budget is good fiscal policy for future generations. Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true. The White House would like the American people and this Congress to believe that the national debt is going down under their budget, but page 389 of the President's own budget from his Office of Management and Budget shows a very different picture. Looking at the chart, we see that the total national debt goes up from $5.394 trillion in 1998 to $5.576 trillion in 1999, and to almost $5.8 trillion in the Year 2000, and the red ink continues to rise every year under Clinton's budget. The truth is, the total Federal debt under the Clinton plan does not go down, as the President would like the American people to believe. In fact, the total Federal debt goes up to the tune of over $1.3 trillion over the next five years. I asked the President's Budget Director, Jacob Lew, during a recent Committee on the Budget hearing about this discrepancy, and he was evasive about the fact that the President's own budget called for a $1.3 trillion more in debt on our children and grandchildren. I then asked Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin the next day during a Ways and Means hearing the same question, and Secretary Rubin refused to answer a simple yes or no question about whether the total debt is going up. Regardless of where the debt is placed, it will still need to be paid, and guess who will pay it? The answer is the American taxpayer. Debt is debt is debt is debt. The Clinton Administration only wants to speak in terms of the publicly held debt going down. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton and his administration are misleading the American people when they say the public debt is going down. They are telling half a truth. The President and his administration are correct in saying the public debt will go down over the next few years, but what they are not telling you is that the debt held by the Social Security and other trust funds is going up, and that it is going up at a faster rate than the public debt is going down, which means the total debt goes up by, yes, $1.3 trillion over the next five years under President Clinton's budget. No matter if debt is held by the public or in the various trust funds, it is still debt, and must still be paid back at some future point. The Clinton Administration is doing future generations no favors in this budget. It is dishonest and disingenuous for the Clinton-Gore administration to tout huge surpluses on the one hand, when on the other their budget places even more debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, this Congress and this President have not achieved true fiscal discipline and responsibility until our total national debt begins to go down. Furthermore, as if forcing $1.3 trillion in more debt on future generations was not enough, the President's budget called for a net tax increase of $45.8 billion and requests $150 billion in new spending over the next five years. Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of this Congress to stop this assault on our future generations and all taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to reject the President's budget.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, it is time we really take social security off-budget. While this Congress has worked hard to balance the budget under the manner we currently count Federal dollars, we have only done so by using the social security trust fund surplus. Let us now raise the bar and balance the budget by walling off the social security surplus. Why should this Congress be content with a budget that is only balanced because we are borrowing from social security? Everyone here knows it is morally wrong to use the social security surplus to mask our deficit, and our constituents know it, as well. Let us end this shell game. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my legislation, which will wall off social security by removing it from the unified budget calculations.