Chris John

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill with Mr. Tauzin and the entire Louisiana congressional delegation that will bring closure to an issue that has lingered long enough concerning our home State of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, the State of Louisiana and the Federal Government have a long history of working together to develop our abundant natural resources in a cooperative manner that protects our unique habitat and spurs economic development. I am pleased that we have been able to rectify our differences when they occur in order to reach sensible and judicious decisions that foster goodwill and the efficient use of our resource base. Mr. Speaker, there remains before this House an obligation on the part of the Federal Government to satisfy an authorization that was included in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This authorization was crafted to resolve a unique dispute between the State of Louisiana and the Federal Government over the development of the oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. Unfortunately, this authorization has never been satisfied and my home state has lost literally millions of dollars as a result. Today, I am joined by members from Louisiana, Texas, New York and Pennsylvania in introducing legislation directing the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to grant the State of Louisiana and its lessees a credit in the payment of Federal offshore royalties to satisfy the authorization contained within the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for oil and gas drainage in the West Delta Field. I will be brief with the history of this matter, but I feel compelled to clarify for all our colleagues why the language contained in OPA must be satisfied both out of concern for the treatment of the State and for the protection of our coastal environment. In November of 1985, the State of Louisiana began to notify the MMS that a federal lessee was draining the West Delta Field at the expense of the State and its lessees. The Governor made this request based on the entire history of cooperative development agreements between the State and Federal government. The State sought to ``unitize'' the field by allocating the appropriate shares of the field's resources to each lessee. Unitization is standard practice in cases where multiple producers share common reservoirs. Much to the State's amazement, officials at MMS disagreed with the State and the entire Louisiana congressional delegation regarding the need and availability of relief for the State. In order to bring some unbiased perspective to the debate, the Congress authorized an independent fact finder to review the situation and to determine if unauthorized drainage occurred and to what extent, if any, loss had been identified. In 1988, the Congress, in the Interior Appropriations Act for FY89, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to appoint an independent fact-finder to determine if Louisiana had been drained of its gas and oil reserves and, if so, the market value of those confiscated reserves. That independent fact finder reported to Congress in 1989 that drainage had indeed occurred and quantified the resulting loss. At that point, the congressional delegation sought and obtained an authorization of appropriations for compensation that matched the determination of the fact finder. It is important to note that during the 4-year period of study, the federal lessee continued to drain the sacred reservoir and actually continued to drain the field until the Federal wells ceased producing in 1998. Why is that important to note? Because the State is seeking compensation only for the drainage that can be empirically determined by the fact finder's report for those initial 4 years. All drainage that occurred for the next decade has basically been written off by my State although they would have every right to seek their share of those revenues siphoned by the Federal Government. In short, my State is knowingly leaving money on the table in order to make a good faith effort to resolve this issue. In addition, we believe it is important to point out that satisfying this obligation in no way opens the doors to a myriad of similar demands on the Federal budget. From early on, the uniqueness of this situation was recognized when the Department of Interior wrote to then- Senator Johnston on September 19, 1991, that ``To the best of our knowledge, the West Delta dispute is the only (emphasis added) situation in which the Department did not agree to unitization, or a similar joint development agreement on the Outer Continental Shelf when requested to do so by the Governor of a coastal State.'' To verify that this situation is unique, the State of Louisiana thoroughly reviewed its records and has confirmed that there are no other similar cases anywhere along the OCS boundary. In fact, in that same letter the Department wrote, ``The Department agrees with your understanding that Section 6004 (c) of the Oil Pollution Act does not create a precedent for the payment of any funds to any parties other than the State of Louisiana and its lessees.'' As for the environmental concerns raised by the Federal government's inappropriate actions, the record is clear. In OPA 90, the Congress specifically reiterated the harmful effects of ``unrestrained competitive production on hydrocarbons from a common hydrocarbon- bearing geological area underlying the Federal and State boundary.'' The logic behind this language is simple. Why would we encourage the construction and operation of more oil and gas wells in U.S. waters than are necessary? If a field can be produced with one well, having two only doubles that chances of an accident. The concept is common sense and has been at the root of all Federal and State policies for decades. I see no reason to abandon that intelligent precedent now. Mr. Speaker, after years of waiting, my State is interested in putting this issue behind us and moving on. What makes that statement so intriguing is that is the exact line the MMS stated in a letter to the dean of the Louisiana delegation over 9 years ago when they too wrote, ``We are also very interested in putting this matter behind us.'' Our legislation is simple. It will allow the State and its lessees to recover a portion of what was lost by the unauthorized development of the West Delta Field and will do so in the most benign of methods. The State and its lessees have proposed an alternative method for providing compensation by foregoing payment of federal royalties due by the lessee on other federal leases and distributing those withholdings to the State and lessee until the federal obligation is satisfied. Upon restitution, the lessee will resume their payments to the Federal Government. By withholding royalty payments and sharing those revenues proportionately between the State and its lessees we expect the Federal obligation will be satisfied within 2 to 3 years. After more than a decade, it is time for the federal government to settle this outstanding obligation and, at the same time, protect the rights of my home State. In addition, we must reaffirm that this Congress does not support policies that may well create precedents that would needlessly and recklessly endanger our coastal environments.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, today, 35 days into the fiscal year, we have not finished but only half of our appropriations bills up to this point. The majority leadership up to this point has been fairly innovative and clever at trying to maneuver around the balanced budget agreement caps and making sure they are not spending Social Security surplus money. But I tell my colleagues today that they failed miserably. Even their own appointed CBO director says that they have broken the caps and spent $17 billion of Social Security money. Truly it is time that we be honest and straightforward with the people of America. The Blue Dogs in the spring of last year introduced a budget proposal that fit then, and it fits now. It says take 50 percent of the surplus over 5 years, pay down the debt, use those savings to shore up Social Security, take 25 percent in a targeted tax cut, whether it is a State, marriage penalty, or capital gains, take the other 25 percent for priority spending on veterans or education or defense. Let us stop playing games with the American people. Follow the blueprint of the Blue Dogs. It saves Social Security; and most of all, it is responsible and honest.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 514, I was inadvertently detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the chairman and the ranking minority member of the full committee, Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the subcommittee, Mr. Ewing and Mr. Condit, for their leadership in crop insurance reform this year. Having served on the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I have been vested in this crop insurance reform effort for many months. I am pleased to say that I rise in support of H.R. 2559 and that it addresses most of the needs of my constituents in south Louisiana. Moreover, it is a tremendous improvement from the current program. As you know, Mr. Chairman, many of my farmers are rice producers. Most rice producers have traditionally not participated in the Federal crop insurance program because premiums have been viewed as too expensive relative to the minimal coverage the program offers. For example, during the 1998 crop year only 43 percent of the 3 million rice acres planted was covered by catastrophic (CAT) policies while another 20 percent of the acreage was covered by buy-up policies. The 20 percent level of participation in the buy-up option for rice is significantly lower than the 47 percent for wheat, 44 percent for corn and cotton and 37 percent for soybeans during the 1998 crop year. In general, the low level of participation by U.S. rice farmers has occurred because: (1) coverage for CAT policies is low and premiums for buy-up policies are too high given the level of coverage; (2) serious problems exist with the actuarial data used to calculate both premiums and coverage, and (3) rice producers, due to a relative low level of yield variability, want price/revenue protection versus traditional yield insurance. With the risk management challenges facing the rice farmer listed above, H.R. 2559 goes a long way toward addressing them. First and foremost, this crop insurance reform bill does not replace the current farm program. With respect to addressing the low level of participation in the program, H.R. 2559 makes CAT or similar policies more attractive. Though the structure of the current CAT program does not change in H.R. 2559, a Group Risk Plan (GRP) policy may provide a higher yield and price protection on a uniform national basis, which a producer can choose as an alternative to CAT. The actuarial soundness of the program is addressed in H.R. 2559 by requiring the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to adjust rates by the 2000 crop year if they are found to be excessive. In addition, rice producers will benefit from H.R. 2559 because revenue and price coverage is strengthened in this bill. Policies protecting production and/or revenue would receive an equal percentage of assistance on total premiums as MPCI policies. Finally, the FCIC Board of Directors is expanded to include additional producer participation that reflects different crop growing regions. With all this in mind, I believe H.R. 2559 is a good first step toward addressing the problems in farm country. However, Mr. Chairman, this bill does not solve the larger problems associated with the lack of a safety net for America's farmers, but is an important component of a comprehensive solution. There are many farmers in my district that can not secure financing for next year's crop because we have yet to address the farm crisis. In fact, I've heard from just as many community bankers as I have farmers about this crisis. There are many farmers who will not benefit from the advancements made in H.R. 2559 because they will not be farming next year unless this Congress acts soon to address the ongoing crisis. Let us pass H.R. 2559 and let us immediately address the Agriculture appropriations bill that includes emergency disaster assistance from our country's farmers.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for his past support for the Jennings, Louisiana, biomass ethanol plant. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that it will be possible to explore ways to complete the Federal funding of this plant in fiscal year 2000.

Mr. JOHN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. JOHN. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I would like for my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the 8-year-old Sulphur All Star Baseball Team which has earned a trip to play in the Little League World Series this July 22-25. The Sulphur All Stars have won their last three tournaments to reach this point. In the process, the All Stars placed 2nd in the State of Louisiana and was also awarded a trophy for the ``Best Defensive Team.'' Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of these young men and I wanted to briefly recognize the players and coaches at this time. The All Star players are Brady Landry, Tyler Kuykendall, Jon Thomas Chargois, Jeremy Abshire, Sha Hale, Charlie LaBoeuf, Phillip Ivey, Keith Lemelle, Jonathon LeBlanc, Mackenzie McGuane, Corbett Reed, Evan Harris, Kade Guillory, and Jacob Theriot. The All Star coaches are Terry Kuykendall, Eugene LeBlanc, Von Chargois, Mike Evans, Len Lemelle, Shannon Theriot, Buckie LeBoeuf, Jamie Guillory, Jim McGuane, and Don Hale. I want to wish the Sulphur All Stars all the best in the World Series and I will be rooting for them from Washington!

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, since last night and all during the day today, we have heard a lot of rhetoric and a lot of numbers being tossed around; who could one-up the other. But what the real question here is, what the real question that we are embarking on today is about our debt and our obligations. Those are two words that you and I in our business, in our household we deal with every day. The interest that we pay on our debt is 17 percent of our budget. $5.9 trillion. The best gift that I could give financially to my two twin sons Hayes and Harrison is to pay down that debt. We pay $280 billion in interest on that debt. That is our debt. Our obligation is Social Security and Medicare. Those programs have been good, they are going to be here. This is our opportunity to do it. The Blue Dog budget that we have talked about so often does those two things and provides 25 percent of the surplus for targeted tax cuts. That is the common sense way to go about handling the surplus. That is the way we should proceed tonight. Vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for yielding this time to me. Many parts of rural America have had a difficult time in sharing the prosperous economic times that we have all enjoyed due to declining farm prices and farm income and the natural disasters. And to make matters worse, many of our rural schools have been struggling with limited tax bases, and some simply do not have the resources available to compete competitively with other school districts that have more students and more resources. I think that it is time that this gentleman bring this amendment in front of us today because it is important for our rural schools. I look forward to working with him to address the problems of limit shrinking and disappearing tax bases, hiring and retention of qualified teachers which is so very important, high transportation costs, crumbling buildings and limited course offerings and limited resource. I have introduced in Congress the Rural Education Development Initiative, a bill very similar to what has been talked about here, a bill that shoots right at the heart of what I think is very important for our educating of rural schools, to help our needy students that live in the rural impoverished schools across America. I want to thank the gentleman also from Tennessee for bringing this issue to the floor today, and I think that it makes great strides in addressing some of the most important issues, I believe, that can be, and that is addressing educating our rural schools.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in a brief colloquy with the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the National Wildlife Refuge Fund, also known as the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund, and this fund reimburses local governments for the burdens that the presence of the U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Service acquired lands place upon them. Since Fiscal Year 1996, Congress has appropriated only $10 million for this fund, while at the same time has increased funding for the Service to provide for increased land acquisitions. These actions have caused a reduction in the funding for local governments, resulting in the loss of much-needed and very critical services. Let me be very clear that I do support our Nation's refuges and the benefits that they provide. In fact, I have several refuges in my district alone. However, I do not believe that this is good policy to continue this trend that ultimately places an undue burden on our local governments across America. Last year I testified in front of the Subcommittee on Interior regarding how initial transfers within local government accounts led to significant erosions of services in a parish which I represent, Cameron Parish, which is one-third owned, it has Federal refuges on them. When I testified last year, I also predicted that the percentage paid to local governments would fall below 70 percent of what we owe, of what Congress owes, unless Congress steps up to the plate. If enacted today, counties and parishes across America will receive only 56 percent of what they are entitled to through the National Wildlife Refuge Fund of Fiscal Year 2000. I appreciate the subcommittee chair and ranking member and all the budget pressures that they are under when they are drafting and crafting this bill, but I respectfully request that during the conference committee that they be mindful of the impact that this trend has had on our local governments and work to seek additional funds for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund during the conference negotiations.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, Louisiana is indeed the sportsman's paradise. Many of us have grown up there hunting, sports shooting, and have grown up comfortable and have learned to respect firearms. I rise today in strong support of the perfecting Dingell amendment. I believe that it has a common-sense approach to two very important objectives. The first objective is to close the loopholes at gun shows. It is an objective that every one of the amendments here tonight go to and shoot at. The second objective only the Dingell amendment provides, and I think it is most important that it protects and preserves the right for us to bear arms at gun shows. The amendment puts a high priority on instant background checks from participants at a gun show. I repeat, this amendment only applies to gun shows. I support instant background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of felons. Do we have the technology, does the national instant check system have the technology, the personnel capability to handle this? I say, yes. We appropriated $200 million to do so. We have that technology. Mr. Chairman, the Second Amendment to our Constitution is only 27 words. Mr. Chairman, please let us close the loophole and not infringe upon our constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. Vote for the Dingell amendment.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special group of young athletes. These young boxers, along with their coach Beau Williford, comprise Lafayette, Louisiana's Ragin Cajun Amateur Boxing Club. Over the Memorial Day district work period, I had the privilege of visiting their gym and witnessing first-hand the remarkable program that Mr. Williford leads. Everyday after school, Mr. Williford's gym becomes a training ground for the next generation of boxers. He not only provides these youngsters with a place to train, but he also provides the life instruction and guidance that many of these kids so desperately need. My experience at his gym convinced me of just how vital the need for such programs is in communities throughout the United States. In fact, research has shown that students who participate in after-school programs exhibit higher levels of achievement in reading, math, and other subjects. These students also exhibit improved grades, reading ability, attendance levels, homework completion, and increased graduation and enrollment in post secondary education. In 1982, Beau Williford opened Beau Williford's Boxing Academy and began the Ragin Cajun Amateur Boxing Club. Mr. Williford's Boxing Academy soon became a place where young people could productively spend their after school time under the wing of an inspirational coach. Indeed, nine gold medals were recently won by young athletes who competed at the 1999 Junior Olympics and Under 19 competitions in Natchitoches, LA, on May 14-16, 1999. Beau Williford deserves special acknowledgement for his devotion to the physical and personal development of the youngsters he takes in. A former boxer and trainer of six boxing champions, Mr. Williford offers these kids a place where they can relieve stress through exercise while socializing with others their age. Several of the young people he trains were troubled youths without motivation, discipline, or direction. Under Mr. Williford's guidance, their lives have been turned around. Those who were once making failing grades in school are now making straight A's. In addition, the parents of these young athletes claim that not only are their children doing great as boxers, but they are doing much better as children. They are more disciplined and have gained a sense of self-respect. Mr. Speaker, I would like to individually recognize these outstanding youths who have worked hard to earn the title of ``champion.'' Please join me in extending a warm voice of recognition to Jared Hidalgo, a sixteen year-old Carencro High School junior who won the 178-pound division gold medal; to Harold Breaux, a seventeen year-old Northside High School junior who won the 165-pound division gold medal; to Mark Megna, an eight year-old Woodvale Elementary School student who won the Gold in the 60-pound bantam division; to John Ross Prudhomme, an eleven-year old Westminister Academy student who won the Gold in the 85-pound junior division; to Jacob Carriere, an eleven year-old Edgar Martin Middle School student who won the Gold in the 65-pound junior division; to Clay Johnson, an eleven year-old S.J. Montgomery student who won the Gold in the 95-pound junior division; to Michael Carriere, a fourteen year-old Edgar Martin Middle School student who won the Gold in the 156-pound intermediate division; to Darren Johnson, a fourteen year-old Lawtell Middle School student who won the Gold in the super heavy weight intermediate division; and to Wesley Williford, a fourteen year-old Lafayette Middle School student who won the Gold in the 156- pound senior division. These youngsters are guided by an outstanding group of coaches who also deserve our recognition. In addition to the guidance of Beau Williford, Coaches Gene Hidalgo, Walter Dugas, Mark Peters, Sean McGraw, Lenny Johnson, Harold Breaux, Sr., and Deidre Gogarty work with these kids on a daily basis. Along with team manager Christian Williford, this outstanding group of adults is committed to the direction and success of these young athletes. The hard work and discipline that Mr. Williford and his team inspire in these young people not only produces athletic growth, but personal growth as well. Studies have shown that sustained positive interactions with adults contribute to the overall development of young people and their achievement in school. At a time in our country when youth violence is on the rise and we are searching for answers, Mr. Williford and the Ragin Cajun Amateur Boxing Club have found their own solution. He and his young boxers were an inspiration to me, and in recognizing them today I hope that his story will inspire others to take an active role in the lives of our youth.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I also appreciate the Committee on Rules for making the Blue Dog budget in order. The title of my remarks are: Honest Projections and No Phony Bones, and that may seem a little humorous to my colleagues, but I think it is very important that we go through this exercise. Mr. Chairman, I support wholeheartedly the Blue Dog budget for a myriad of reasons, and my remarks today are going to focus on what I think is one of the more important reasons to support the Blue Dog budget, and the issue concerns economic projections. I am referring to the fact that the Blue Dog budget is a 5-year budget with projections over 5 years, and the Republican budget is a 15-year budget. As a new Member of the 105th Congress, I came in during the balanced budget agreement, and the debate was about tackling the deficit before we tackle the debt. We have enjoyed a very strong economy since that point in time, even though back then the projection said that we would not reach the surplus that we have until the year 2002. While I am optimistic that the economy today will continue, we must prepare now for a downturn in our economy because it is realistically going to happen. That is why I believe, the Blue Dogs believe, that it is irresponsible to rely on 15-year projections that no one really honestly believes will come to fruition. To give an example, in 1993, before I was even a Member of this body, the CBO projected that this year, 1999, that we would have a $404 billion deficit. I think that it is very, very important to look at these projections. It is irresponsible to go out and look at the numbers over a 15-year period. The Blue Dog budget is about real numbers. It is no phony numbers, and I urge support for this budget because it is the fiscally responsible budget that we can deal with today.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also extend my thanks to the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas, and also the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture who have brought this measure in an expeditious manner to us. This is a very important piece of legislation for the district of south Louisiana of which I represent, the rice capital of the world. This is a situation that has cropped up and that has occurred by no fault of any of the producers, where they have acted in good faith to try to obtain the kinds of coverage they need, to make sure that they are covered for the problems that may incur similar to what happened last year. What this bill does, very simply, is open the time in which the farmers could actually reapply for some insurance and some other federally-covered insurance to protect them in this crop zone, so I urge final passage of this piece of legislation that is so important and was not brought upon by any of the producers' fault at any point in time. So I commend the gentleman from Texas for bringing this legislation, again, and I urge strong support. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for HR 1212. I am a co-sponsor of this legislation and I have worked constantly on this problem since it surfaced approximately one month ago. Mr. Speaker, before discussing the merits of this particular legislation, I would like to commend the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member on the House Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm, for their leadership in ensuring that this issue received the prompt attention that it deserves. We are here today, Mr. Speaker, because of a recent development concerning a private crop insurance policy provided primarily for rice. Namely, ``CRCPlus'' is a supplemental insurance product available only from America Agrinsurance (AmAg). This policy allowed producers to increase their Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC) revenue guarantee to provide a higher level of protection against major crop loss or a decline in market price. After the sales closing date for federal crop insurance policies had passed, AmAg changed the terms of the CRCPlus plan for producers that had applied for the supplemental coverage. This situation, and the events that followed, has called into question the integrity of the Federal crop insurance program. The good faith efforts made by farmers to hedge their risk by participating in the crop insurance program, combined with the actions of AmAg, placed my rice farmers in a bad position--leaving them heavily and unnecessarily exposed or having them pay higher premiums for coverage they could have received elsewhere. Allowing this situation to proceed is the wrong message to send, especially at a time when many of us in Congress are attempting to strengthen the crop insurance programs. Passage of this legislation will reopen the time period during which farmers who applied for CRCPlus insurance may buy additional federal crop insurance. This is intended to allow farmers who were affected by the decisions of AmAg concerning CRCPlus to adjust their crop insurance policies and obtain substitute insurance. Under this measure, these farmers would be eligible to buy federal crop insurance from other federally-approved insurers, with coverage up to the level of protection they would have had under the original CRCPlus policy in which they had applied. These farmers would also be allowed to transfer to other insurers any basic federal crop insurance they have obtained through AmAg for other crops. Without this legislation, farmers would not only remain heavily exposed, but would also be less trustful of crop insurance reform in the future. With this in mind, I urge Members to support HR 1212 and give the farmers the legislative fix that they need to address their risk concerns.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, it is with true pleasure that I stand up here today to talk about a program that is so important to America, and that is our Social Security program. I come from southwest Louisiana, Cajun country, bordered on the west by the State of Texas and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. I have in my district some 100,000 citizens and families and individuals that are receiving some sort of benefits from our Social Security program. They are the disabled, they are the retired, and they are the children who have lost a parent. The program was established back in 1935. It was established as a response to the economic changes of the Great Depression. Back then, the average life- span was only 61 years old. Today, the average life-span of Americans is 76 years old and steadily rising. History has shown that deliberate alterations of this program have been very beneficial to our great Social Security program. It is a program that is very popular. It is a program that is going to be around here. Because what it has done for the American people, what it has done for our elderly population has been incredible. We have the most healthy, the highest quality of life of elderly population, not even arguably, than anywhere else in the world. It is because of the commitment that this Congress should make and other Congresses have made to saving Social Security and taking care of it in times that are just like today that are very good. It has only been many years since this Social Security program has been around. It seems like so long ago, but it truly has not been. Throughout the 1950s, Congress altered the structure of Social Security to try to meet the needs of the changing American people. They raised the Social Security benefits by some 77 percent throughout the 1950s. They altered means testing and also raised the payroll taxes. In the 1960s, for the first time, they allowed disabled workers to receive compensation that was only for retirees up to that point in time. The 1980s saw some changes in the fiscal structure of Social Security. Congress passed legislation to gradually, back in the 1980s, increase the minimum age of Social Security and the benefits. But, clearly, this program has survived time, has survived the challenges that have accompanied and have faced Americans. Because this program is so greatly used and needed for the betterment of the American people, it has risen to those challenges. One in six Americans today receive some sort of Social Security benefits. Three million children are the beneficiaries of this program. Currently, Social Security needs to increase its revenues in order to address the financial obligations to the rapid increasing number of retirees, the baby boomers. If you look at it and look at the demographics of the American people, they are changing dramatically. Today, there are approximately 3.2 workers paying into the Social Security system and only one beneficiary. That is going to change in a few short years as America gets older, as the baby boomers start to retire. That ratio is going to be narrowed to only a two to one margin. We cannot simply sit back in good economic times that we are seeing today and let this program go unnoticed and let this program run into more financial difficulties, because if you look at the numbers, it is very, very clear that, soon, the revenues that are coming into this program will not be enough to take care of the beneficiaries, not only the increase, but also the larger number of people that are getting into the program. I believe that it is incumbent upon this Congress to take the surplus that we are experiencing, and have experienced in fiscal year 1998 that has just passed us, to shore up Social Security. In fact, I will go one step further. Do we really have a surplus? If we look at the numbers this year, fiscal year 1998, America had a $76 billion surplus for the first time in many, many years, through the efforts of a lot of people in this Congress. The balanced budget agreement was the big important piece of legislation that got us there. However, we borrowed $99 billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund to mask that deficit. Should we not ask ourselves, do we truly have a surplus in this country? I believe every American out there that pays FICA taxes and every employer believes these funds should be put into a Social Security Trust Fund and put back into the very system that it was intended to be in. Over the past few years we have borrowed somewhere upwards of $600 billion out of this trust fund. It is part of the unified budget. I understand, as a small business owner, I understand in a unified budget, where there are different revenue streams, that they are put all together to make a business run, to make government run. But now is the time to put up Social Security and make sure that we save this important program. Putting that money back into Social Security is not the only thing needed to help this program. This program is going to need other structural changes, changes that have been talked about. There are several commissions, lots of study groups, task forces and think tanks giving us advice in this Congress to talk about how we go about fixing the structure of the program. There are some things that are being tossed around. The President talked about investing some money in the stock market, investing some of the money for privatization of it; increasing the taxation benefits; means testing benefits; adjusting the CPI, the Consumer Price Index; also raising the retirement age. All of those things are being considered today as structural changes to save this program. I believe that while Social Security was never, ever intended to be the sole retirement system and the sole income stream of Americans, it has helped millions and millions of individuals and families from being at or below the poverty line in America. I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle recognize the need to save Social Security, recognize that, yes, we have a surplus but we need to infuse it back into the very program where the surplus is being generated from. Yes, we want tax cuts. I have voted for them, and I will continue to vote for them, but we must be able to put the money back into Social Security and make sure that we pay for tax cuts from other areas. I hope my colleagues will join with me in saving this program, because there are over 14,000 children, I repeat, 14,000 children in my district, the 7th district of Louisiana, that are counting on this Congress to make sure that this program is around for the next generations. As I look up in the audience, they just walked out, but there were a whole host of generation X'ers, the next generation of leaders, the next generation of Members of Congress who were here, who actually have a question about whether their Social Security is going to be there for them when they grow up and enter the work force and then retire. I can say that if this Congress and this gentleman from South Louisiana has anything to do about that, it will not only be there but it will be strengthened, because I think it is important for the quality of life for all of our seniors. The American people deserve it. Let us save Social Security now, do it the right way, and in a fiscally responsible way. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Marion Berry).

Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentleman from the panhandle of the Great State of Florida (Mr. Allen Boyd).

Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) my friend, the fellow co-chair of the Blue Dog Democrats here in the Congress.

Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a second for a question. When he talked about the Blue Dogs' positions that are being formulated today and he talked about taking the Social Security Trust Fund off budget, what exactly does he mean as it relates to that and the other ideas that are being floated around?

Mr. JOHN. I think it is important to note that, as we have been working through the Social Security problem, I think as my colleague gets to understand, of course being a second-termer and a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, we were very important and an integral part of balancing the budget, which I think is one of the most historic pieces of legislation that the past Congress could have done, and I think that is where we have made our mark as being fiscally responsible. And that is the same kind of approach that we intend to take as a coalition in solving the Social Security problem.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), my colleague to the east.

Mr. JOHN. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Next I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a distinguished member of the Blue Dogs.