Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment----

Mr. SIMPSON. The amendment can be read. That will save you trouble. It is one line.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I did.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, in line with the Senator from Arizona, perhaps just a unanimous-consent request could be made that debate be concluded and the majority and minority leader set the time for the vote on the amendment tomorrow at a time certain.

Mr. SIMPSON. I move that.

Mr. SIMPSON. I leave it to the discretion of the leader.

Mr. SIMPSON. I incorporate that within it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act for myself and my friend, Senator Thomas. This is a minor amendment in the greater scheme of legislative matters which we wrestle with in this body, but nevertheless, it is quite a very important matter for the Wyoming Army Guard and all Guard soldiers who train in Wyoming, and we train a good many soldiers in Wyoming from around the United States. The amendment would authorize $4.1 million in funding for the first phase of construction of a combined support maintenance shop at Camp Guernsey, WY. The existing critical facility is a 47-year-old, 26,000- square-foot multipurpose repair building where all of the Wyoming Army National Guard wheeled and tracked vehicles and equipment, light trucks, the self-propelled howitzers are repaired and overhauled. The primary problem with the existing facility is inherent electrical and ventilation deficiencies that have not been able to be adequately corrected, despite some $270,000 in retrofits and repairs over the last 11 years. Additionally, the National Guard Bureau and industrial hygiene team conducted an evaluation of this facility in March of 1995 and concluded that numerous hazards exist. Of seven discrepancies and hazards that exist, four have been assigned a Risk Assessment Code, or RAC, of 1, and the other three have been rated RAC 2. These ratings reflect the severity of the conditions of the facility. RAC 1 indicates always a critical problem and has the possibility of causing permanent, severe, disabling, irreversible illness or even death. RAC 2 reflects a serious condition also. Mr. President, the National Guard Association of the United States strongly supports this project. In a letter dated June 6, the executive director of the National Guard Association wrote: Since 13 March 1990, the soldiers working in this shop have seen every day a warning on the front door that reads in part-- And here is what the warning says: Unsafe or unhealthy working condition. Carbon monoxide level exceeds the OSHA ceiling limit. The only solution to protect the health and life of National Guard soldiers in Wyoming is to replace this building. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the secondary problem with the existing facility is the wholly inadequate amount of space, as I said. They need 70,000 square feet instead of the current 26,000. Clearly, this is a quality equipment repair facility and is critical to the function of the combined support maintenance shop that directly impacts the Wyoming Guard's top goal of military readiness and those who train there, and there are thousands from across the United States. Finally, the number of specialized jobs in the combined maintenance shop, such as welding and fabrication operations, painting operations, brake shop, brake shoe rebuilding, small arms repair, and electrical and mechanical repairs, cannot be performed. These other operational attitudes cannot be performed at smaller outlying maintenance facilities. But, more importantly, you have health and safety as more of a concern. Since repeated efforts to repair the facility and correct the inefficiencies have been unsuccessful, closing the facility may be the only alternative. It is used, as I say, by thousands of people in the Guard units from all the surrounding States. The Wyoming Guard have compromised and curtailed their request for military construction funding to include only this critical program. It is an urging I make to support this amendment for $4.1 million in funding for phase 1 of the project, and $4 million in funding for the next fiscal year. I also cite to my colleagues, on May 6, 1996, in a letter from William A. Navas, Major General, U.S. Army, Director, the Army National Guard, in a letter to the chairman, it stated, ``Thirty-three urgently required projects were inadvertently omitted from that list,'' which was received before the committee on March 21, 1996. ``A listing of those projects is enclosed.'' One of those is the project for which we seek the funds this evening. I yield to my friend from Wyoming. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have spent little time in my 18 years in the Senate wandering in here to talk about any project. In fact, I believe that this would be perhaps the first time because these things have usually been very well considered. This is something that did not get considered properly. That is why we are here, to seek an authorization to place it before the Senate on a priority. I believe that I am told that there are not more than four or five amendments that are out here that have to do with adding money or add-ons. So if the invitation is to come to the floor to bring in your favorite dog or cat, there have not been many people doing that. There are about five. That will not cause some breach in the diet that will create an onslaught on this measure. So I want that clear, if we can. And we have inserted the letter in the Record. I suggest to our colleagues that this is very necessary for one of the few Guard units in the United States that trains the rest of them from the rest of the United States. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona for helping us to resolve this issue. I appreciate his good faith assistance. It was important to resolving it. I am going to say that I am going to miss my friend from Arizona because we do communicate at the most earthy levels of discussion. Both of us have been trained in different fields. But there is no one I respect more and admire more. And I have said that. Sometimes this is but a sparrow gas in the midst of a typhoon compared to what the Senator from Arizona and I have been into in years past, especially with regard to senior citizens. But we will not go into that. So I thank him. I very much appreciate it. I thank Senator Nunn and Senator Kempthorne. This is a good resolution of an issue which was very tough for us on behalf of my colleagues. But I thank the Senator from Arizona very much.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is my great pleasure to comment about my friend Bob Dole. We have heard all of the facts and the extraordinary history of the man's life and his life in the Senate, and it indeed is extraordinary. We all have known that. He is the very best--the very, very best. I will be saying much about this man in the next months, for this is a leader, a real leader, not just in the title he held but way down inside, and that is a gift. That is the ability to lead, to engender trust and loyalty and the admiration--even grudging sometimes--of your toughest adversaries, and he has had that and it will serve him well. One of the great and singular honors in my life was to serve as his assistant for 10 years. I was his first lieutenant. He was the captain. We had a pretty good platoon, a good company, too, and a good battalion. It was one wonderful run. I must say that some joy of it was lost, was sometimes when we took our work too seriously--but we never took ourselves too seriously. When you have a couple of gentlemen with a rather spirited sense of humor, it does spark up and brighten the day. I love those types. I learned much from this man. I learned not to judge, to try to make things work, to have ultimate patience. That is what I really have not learned yet. It is out there though. He gave me some good tips. In those times, I found this man to be true, honest, and so natural, a very remarkable gentleman. By taking leave from here in this honorable way, the American people will come to see him as we do, as I do--fair, strong, firm, a man of great resolve. With this extraordinary woman Elizabeth at his side, Elizabeth Hanford Dole, they will surely captivate and unite this country in their quest, for she is a person of great personal faith and an inspiration to many of us. And his daughter Robin too, what a fine woman, making a fine impression all over America, as she is deeply involved in the campaign activities. Those are the things we will see the Bob Dole family doing in these months to come. A legislator, a listener, a loyalist. No one served President George Bush with more loyalty than Bob Dole. He was always supporting the man who defeated him, supporting him to the hilt. That is class. I have no sadness. No, I am excited to know that this man will be out there in America, and that the people of America will see what we here have always seen in this man, a man of deep, personal conviction, a man of deep moral fortitude, guts, always telling the truth, and the strong leadership--a man who can make a decision and stick with it. Bold and courageous are other examples of his leadership--purposeful, direct, and decisive. So here we go. He will seek this job in the same way he has sought everything in his life, with that great energy, from that spirit. He has great capability, so very competent, and we will all see this man as a deeply sensitive man, a decent--very decent--and caring man. I think America is longing for that. I wish him well, with this magnificent woman of charm and grace at his side. God bless them both for, indeed--he is all the man there is.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the presence of Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. He and I have had spirited discussions about Social Security, but we respect each other. I certainly do. I told him that. I told him whenever I had a pain in my bosom with regard to his activities, I shared it exactly and expressly with him, which I have always done. It is good that maybe the two of us have a moment to at least speak on an issue which surely cannot continue to go in this fashion, where two thoughtful people, as the Senator from North Dakota and I hope your loyal communicator here, are continually just totally in opposition while many who deal with the Social Security Program are telling us what is happening to the program and where the money goes. So, if I may, in a series of questions, and then let us have the debate which we never had, because I will come to the floor and do my thing and leave and get on to the seven committees I go to, and the Senator from North Dakota comes to the floor and gives his good and able presentation and then leaves the floor. Let us just, may I, go back to where you have been. You were on the House Ways and Means Committee in 1983. In 1983, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and company, a bipartisan group --I believe Senator Dole was part of that group; I do not recall all of the participants--they came together knowing that Social Security was going to go broke, totally broke, and that it would go broke within a very short time. So they met in good faith, in a bipartisan way, and they put together a package, as you described--and I address the Chair, as my friend addressed yesterday--they put together a package which provided for increased payroll taxes, it provided for some benefit restructure, it did something with the ``notch babies.'' Remember, we had to deal with that one for about 12 years, and it was an absolute phony argument. Talk about the froth that goes with Social Security. We finally, when that vampire came out of the silk casket one more time, drove the stake through it and through the lining, hopefully, and that is the end of it. We do not hear any more about it from the National Committee for the Preservation of Social Security and Medicare or the AARP or any other group, because it is a dead issue, staked through the heart. Yet, it created tremendous concern around America in what was happening. Because of the adjustment made in 1983, we found that the people who were born before that certain cutoff date had received much, much more than they ever should have received, far above the replacement rate of Social Security. We corrected that, and then had 10 years of background clutter and flak and shelling from these various groups. That is over. But what we did do--and we must all use the same facts. We do not have to share the same opinion, but we must use the same facts. If anyone will remember, you need only go to the report where we were told that when we did what we had to do in 1982 and 1983 with Social Security, it would ``save the system and make it solvent until the year 2063.'' If there is anyone within the range of my voice who says that that was not the final package--what we did, our stuff, tough political stuff, that when we did that, we would ``save the Social Security System till the year 2063.'' That is book, page and hymn number. Done. OK. What has happened in the next 13 years? It is now 1996, and each and every year that the trustees issue their annual report, we are told that Social Security is going broke faster than we ever would have dreamed. And yesterday--just yesterday--we have the 1996 annual report. This is a summary. The actual report is here. It is quite extensive. My staff has been through it. I hope that all of us will enjoy this weekend reading. It is just a joy. But I tell you what it does. It tells the truth, and I will tell you who is telling us the truth. The truth-tellers are Donna Shalala, a woman I have the greatest respect for and admiration; the truth-givers are Robert Rubin. He and I have not agreed on many things, but I admire him. Robert Reich, my fellow thespian--our line of work takes us away from this. We intend to ``trod the boards'' starting in Peoria. Robert Reich, a very splendid man. And then a citizen member of the trustees, Marilyn Moon; a citizen trustee, Stephen Kellison; and Shirley Chater, Commissioner of Social Security. What are they telling us? They are telling us that Social Security will go broke, flat broke, in the year 2029, I say to my colleagues. So in 13 years, we have moved the doomsday date of Social Security forward from 2063 to 2029. Thirty-four years of this cushion has been eaten up in 13 years, and everybody knows that. There is not a soul in this Chamber who does not know that. There is not a soul downtown who does not know that. Are we saying then, all is well? Of course, it is not well. Next year the trustees may come in and tell us that it will go broke in the year 2025. It has been happening in increments of 3, 4, 5 years a crack. That is reality. Yesterday, in a spirited little bit of dialogue, I presented a chart, a most unique chart. Let me do it one more time. This is the Social Security Act. I did not write this. This is section 201(d) of the act. If we are going to say that somehow we are looting, raiding, and pillaging, then please tell me, please, where is this taking place? If we mean looting or raiding to put the Social Security surplus into T- bills, which are then sold by the Federal Government, and the general revenue goes into the General Treasury, and when the interest on the T- bills comes out and is paid on the T-bills to those who own them, if that is looting or raiding, we need a new definition. If we defeat the balanced budget amendment--which is what has occurred--is it not true that the Social Security surplus will still be put into T-bills? The answer is, it does not matter one whit whether we pass or defeat a Social Security amendment to exclude it. This will go on like Old Man River, and no one can stop it unless they wish to change this section. So what does the section say? ``It shall''--shall--``be the duty of the managing trustee to invest such portion of the trust funds as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals.'' Stop there. There is a surplus in Social Security. Some say it is $29 billion, some say it is $69 billion. Forget what they say. It easily could get to $2 trillion by the year 2010. Then, in the year 2012, it starts its tremendous swan song. We all know that. The trustees are telling us that. So it matters not whether the reserves get to $1 or $2 trillion. There is nothing that is going to change whether you pass a balanced budget amendment or not with regard to those funds. I will go on quoting. ``Such investments may be made only'' --there is no option, no election process--``in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed to as to both principal and interest by the United States * * * Each obligation issued for purchase by the trust funds under this subsection shall be evidenced by a paper instrument in the form of a bond, note, or certificate of indebtedness issued by the Secretary of the Treasury * * *'' I do not think that is too much mumbo-jumbo for all of us to deal with the issue of Social Security. That is what it says. That is what we do with it. That is what FDR and the Congress had in mind for us to do with it. But now one more subsection. The Social Security Act, section 201(f). We must hear this. We must all follow the law. That is our duty. That is really maybe the only duty we have here, to follow the law and try to craft laws that are understandable to the American people. ``The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall''-- shall--``be credited to and form a part of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, respectively.'' And then this, if we can all hear this. We do not have to agree. We do not have to fire up each other. Payment from the general fund of the Treasury to either of the trust funds of any such interest or proceeds shall be in the form of paper checks drawn on such general fund to the order of such trust fund. That is what it says. And this section has been addressed in the report which came to us yesterday. Let me read from the summary. This is the summary of the Social Security trustees. Here is a very precise, small paragraph that says this, if I can share this with my friend from North Dakota. In all trust funds assets that are not needed to pay current benefits or administrative expenses (the only purposes for which trust funds may be used) are invested in special issue U.S. Government securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. That section is not changed one whit whether we include or whether we exclude Social Security from a balanced budget amendment. Every penny, every single penny of the trust fund is left in exactly the same condition, whether you pass a balanced budget amendment or not. It is most extraordinarily remarkable to suggest that we can ``save'' or ``protect'' Social Security from this by simply separating it from a balanced budget amendment. Here is the language--I hope this is not a surprise. I want to be sure my colleague hears this language. If I could get the attention of my friend from North Dakota. I think it is very important that I share this language. I do not want it to be a surprise. This is language from yesterday's report. I do not know if the Senator's staff has read this. My staff went through it during the night. I have to do this kind of work because they have made me the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy. I did not really seek that task, but like all of us who do good work--and the Senator does with his subcommittees and my good friend from Kentucky does with his--we try then to keep absolutely current. Here is the language from the report of yesterday. It is very important. This, yesterday, became open to the American public. Here is what it says: ``As noted in section 2(b), the portion of the OASI trust fund that is not needed to meet day-to-day expenditures is used to purchase investments, generally in special public debt obligations of the United States Government. The cash''-- this is a quote from yesterday's 1996 annual report, page 78 and 79-- ``The cash used to make these purchases becomes part of the general fund of the Treasury . . .,'' ladies and gentlemen. We all know that. We have known it since Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote it and put it in section 201. ``The cash''--that is cash that is not needed. That means the surplus. That means the excess. That means whatever you want to call it. ``The cash used to make''--I am quoting-- ``The cash used to make these purchases becomes part of the general fund of the Treasury and is used to meet various Federal outlays.'' Does that mean that we have looted it or raided it or pillaged it? I think not, not when we are looking at the specific language of the act and the trustees' report. I am continuing to quote. Interest is paid to the trust fund on these securities. And when the securities mature or are redeemed prior to maturity, general fund . . . If I may get the attention of my friend from North Dakota. We never get to get this done. I am going to stay, too, because I think it is very important that he and I do not leave the Chamber until the American people know a little more than they do now about how we are looting or pillaging or raiding the Social Security system, which is not taking place under any scenario known to man or woman. Quoting again. Interest is paid to the trust fund on these securities. And when the securities mature or are redeemed prior to maturity, general fund revenues are used to repay the principal to the trust fund. Thus, the investment operations of the trust fund result in various cash flows between the trust fund and the general fund of the Treasury. And currently the excess of tax income to the OASI trust fund over the fund's expenditures results in a substantial net cash flow from the trust fund to the general fund. Finally the quote: Sometime after the turn of the century, as shown in the following subsection, this cash flow will reverse. It is detailed in horrendous, horrendous factual figures. ``This cash flow will reverse as trust fund security''--let me show you how it will reverse. This is the annual operating balance of the Social Security trust fund in billions of dollars. If that is not a reversal from today's $60 billion surplus. I think it is more today--my colleague may disagree-- and then it drops like a rocket through the basement. This is the annual operating balance of the Social Security in billions of dollars. In the year 2000 it is $1 trillion operating balance. This is the figure. This is from the Social Security Administration, 1995.

Mr. SIMPSON. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. SIMPSON. I always enjoy a spirited discussion.

Mr. SIMPSON. It will be before we finish.

Mr. SIMPSON. I enjoy that because he and I, even as deputy assistant leaders for 10 years or near that amount--there was not anybody that I treated with more deference, or who dealt with me more fairly, honestly, and directly. Where I am, Mr. President, is this: We are being told in this debate that these funds are being looted or raided. This may not be your debate, but this has been part of a continual debate about the looting or raiding or using this. I am saying, based upon the law of the United States, that any surplus in these funds is ``used'' and goes directly to the general fund, that there is no trust fund in that to be looted, to be raided. It is a series of great stack of IOU's. That is what we have here.

Mr. SIMPSON. That is correct.

Mr. SIMPSON. I did not say that.

Mr. SIMPSON. I believe I have the floor, if you are asking an inquiry.

Mr. SIMPSON. If you could, I would like that.

Mr. SIMPSON. I am trying to do something for my grandchildren.

Mr. SIMPSON. If the Senator would pose the question, I would appreciate it.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I cannot see any format where a constitutional amendment, which would take years to ratify--all we are doing is sending this to the States, if we did do it, and let them decide. I know of nothing in my background that would lead me to believe that we would have done anything with section 201 of the Social Security Act, either F or D or any provision therein.