January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E13 

another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three 

programs today, you would be stuck with an 

$85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six 

times as large as the bill for Social Security. 

It is more than six times the annual output 

of the entire U.S. economy. 

Why is the Medicare figure so large? There 

is a mix of reasons, really. In part, it is due 

to the same birthrate and life-expectancy 

issues that affect Social Security. In part, it 

is due to ever-costlier advances in medical 

technology and the willingness of Medicare 

to pay for them. And in part, it is due to expanded benefits—the new drug benefit program’s unfunded liability is by itself onethird greater than all of Social Security’s. 

Add together the unfunded liabilities from 

Medicare and Social Security, and it comes 

to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. 

Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent 

and Social Security the remaining 14 percent. 

I want to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current 

payment scheme of Social Security payroll 

taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership 

fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and 

all other revenue currently channeled to our 

entitlement system will not cover under current rules. These existing revenue streams 

must remain in place in perpetuity to handle 

the ‘‘funded’’ entitlement liabilities. Reduce 

or eliminate this income and the unfunded 

liability grows. Increase benefits and the liability grows as well. 

Let’s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and 

every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided 

to fully address this unfunded liability 

through lump-sum payments from our own 

pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future 

generations could be secure in the knowledge 

that we and they would receive promised 

benefits in perpetuity. How much would we 

have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the 

math is painful. With a total population of 

304 million, from infants to the elderly, the 

per-person payment to the federal treasury 

would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 

million per family of four—over 25 times the 

average household’s income. 

Clearly, once-and-for-all contributions 

would be an unbearable burden. Alternatively, we could address the entitlement 

shortfall through policy changes that would 

affect ourselves and future generations. For 

example, a permanent 68 percent increase in 

federal income tax revenue—from individual 

and corporate taxpayers—would suffice to 

fully fund our entitlement programs. Or we 

could instead divert 68 percent of current income-tax revenues from their intended uses 

to the entitlement system, which would accomplish the same thing. 

Suppose we decided to tackle the issue 

solely on the spending side. It turns out that 

total discretionary spending in the federal 

budget, if maintained at its current share of 

GDP in perpetuity, is 3 percent larger than 

the entitlement shortfall. So all we would 

have to do to fully fund our Nation’s entitlement programs would be to cut discretionary 

spending by 97 percent. But hold on. That 

discretionary spending includes defense and 

national security, education, the environment and many other areas, not just those 

controversial earmarks that make the 

evening news. All of them would have to be 

cut—almost eliminated, really—to tackle 

this problem through discretionary spending. 

I hope that gives you some idea of just how 

large the problem is. And just to drive an important point home, these spending cuts or 

tax increases would need to be made immediately and maintained in perpetuity to 

solve the entitlement deficit problem. Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by 97 percent not only for our generation, but for our children and their children 

and every generation of children to come. 

And similarly on the taxation side, income 

tax revenue would have to rise 68 percent 

and remain that high forever. Remember, 

though, I said tax revenue, not tax rates. 

Who knows how much individual and corporate tax rates would have to change to increase revenue by 68 percent? 

If these possible solutions to the unfundedliability problem seem draconian, it’s because they are draconian. But they do serve 

to give you a sense of the severity of the 

problem. To be sure, there are ways to lessen 

the reliance on any single policy and the 

burden borne by any particular set of citizens. Most proposals to address long-term 

entitlement debt, for example, rely on a 

combination of tax increases, benefit reductions and eligibility changes to find the trillions necessary to safeguard the system over 

the long term. 

No combination of tax hikes and spending 

cuts, though, will change the total burden 

borne by current and future generations. For 

the existing unfunded liabilities to be covered in the end, someone must pay $99.2 trillion more or receive $99.2 trillion less than 

they have been currently promised. This is a 

cold, hard fact. The decision we must make 

is whether to shoulder a substantial portion 

of that burden today or compel future generations to bear its full weight. 

Now that you are all thoroughly depressed, 

let me come back to monetary policy and 

the Fed. 

It is only natural to cast about for a solution—any solution—to avoid the fiscal pain 

we know is necessary because we succumbed 

to complacency and put off dealing with this 

looming fiscal disaster. Throughout history, 

many nations, when confronted by sizable 

debts they were unable or unwilling to 

repay, have seized upon an apparently painless solution to this dilemma: monetization. 

Just have the monetary authority run cash 

off the printing presses until the debt is repaid, the story goes, then promise to be responsible from that point on and hope your 

sins will be forgiven by God and Milton 

Friedman and everyone else. 

We know from centuries of evidence in 

countless economies, from ancient Rome to 

today’s Zimbabwe, that running the printing 

press to pay off today’s bills leads to much 

worse problems later on. The inflation that 

results from the flood of money into the 

economy turns out to be far worse than the 

fiscal pain those countries hoped to avoid. 

Earlier I mentioned the Fed’s dual mandate to manage growth and inflation. In the 

long run, growth cannot be sustained if markets are undermined by inflation. Stable 

prices go hand in hand with achieving sustainable economic growth. I have said many, 

many times that inflation is a sinister beast 

that, if uncaged, devours savings, erodes consumers’ purchasing power, decimates returns 

on capital, undermines the reliability of financial accounting, distracts the attention 

of corporate management, undercuts employment growth and real wages, and debases the currency. 

Purging rampant inflation and a debased 

currency requires administering a harsh 

medicine. We have been there, and we know 

the cure that was wrought by the FOMC 

under Paul Volcker. Even the perception 

that the Fed is pursuing a cheap-money 

strategy to accommodate fiscal burdens, 

should it take root, is a paramount risk to 

the long-term welfare of the U.S. economy. 

The Federal Reserve will never let this happen. It is not an option. Ever. Period. 

The way we resolve these liabilities—and 

resolve them we must—will affect our own 

well-being as well as the prospects of future 

generations and the global economy. Failing 

to face up to our responsibility will produce 

the mother of all financial storms. The warning signals have been flashing for years, but 

we find it easier to ignore them than to take 

action. Will we take the painful fiscal steps 

necessary to prevent the storm by reducing 

and eventually eliminating our fiscal imbalances? That depends on you. 

I mean ‘‘you’’ literally. This situation is of 

your own creation. When you berate your 

representatives or senators or presidents for 

the mess we are in, you are really berating 

yourself. You elect them. You are the ones 

who let them get away with burdening your 

children and grandchildren rather than yourselves with the bill for your entitlement programs. 

This issue transcends political affiliation. 

When George Shultz, one of San Francisco’s 

greatest Republican public servants, was director of President Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget, he became worried about 

the amount of money Congress was proposing to spend. After some nights of tossing 

and turning, he called legendary staffer Sam 

Cohen into his office. Cohen had a long memory of budget matters and knew every zig 

and zag of budget history. ‘‘Sam,’’ Shultz 

asked, ‘‘tell me something just between you 

and me. Is there any difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to 

spending money?’’ Cohen looked at him, 

furrowed his brow and, after thinking about 

it, replied, ‘‘Mr. Shultz, there is only one difference: Democrats enjoy it more.’’ 

Yet no one, Democrat or Republican, enjoys placing our children and grandchildren 

and their children and grandchildren in 

harm’s way. No one wants to see the frightful storm of unfunded long-term liabilities 

destroy our economy or threaten the independence and authority of our central bank 

or tear our currency asunder. 

Of late, we have heard many complaints 

about the weakness of the dollar against the 

euro and other currencies. It was recently 

argued in the op-ed pages of the Financial 

Times that one reason for the demise of the 

British pound was the need to liquidate England’s international reserves to pay off the 

costs of the Great Wars. In the end, the 

pound, it was essentially argued, was sunk 

by the kaiser’s army and Hitler’s bombs. 

Right now, we—you and I—are launching fiscal bombs against ourselves. You have it in 

your power as the electors of our fiscal authorities to prevent this destruction. Please 

do so. 

f 

CONDEMNING HAMAS ATTACKS 

HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 

Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I rise 

today to strongly condemn attacks against 

Israel in recent weeks. I deeply regret the loss 

of innocent civilian life in Israel and Gaza and 

urge Hamas, for the sake of its own people 

and those in the region, to immediately cease 

the attacks and agree to a lasting truce with 

its democratic neighbor. 

As our strongest ally in the Middle East, I 

believe Israel has the right to defend its citizens from the constant barrage of Hamas 

rocket attacks from inside Gaza. For too long, 

Hamas has used terrorism against Israel to 

destabilize the region and prevent peace for 

the people of Israel and the Palestinian territories. As long as Hamas continues to attack 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with REMARKS
E14 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks January 6, 2009 

innocent Israelis and use ordinary Palestinians 

as human shields, I will continue to support 

Israel’s right to self-defense and its stated goal 

of preventing Hamas from firing rockets into 

Israel. 

I remain hopeful that the United States and 

its allies can help bring a sustainable ceasefire 

to the region through diplomacy and create 

the conditions necessary for a durable peace. 

f 

HONORING DENNIS MCCARTHY 

HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to my friend, Dennis 

McCarthy, a renowned journalist, veteran, and 

the first Grand Marshal of the annual San Fernando Valley Veterans’ Day Parade. Dennis is 

being honored by the Los Angeles Valley College for his many good works. 

An award winning columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News, Dennis is a diligent crusader who tirelessly works to protect the rights 

of veterans and their families. His popular column is widely read in the San Fernando Valley and neighboring suburbs. It is not only well 

written, but it is often so compelling that it stirs 

people to take action. 

Dennis obtained his degree in Journalism 

from California State University at Northridge. 

In addition to writing for the Los Angeles Daily 

News, Dennis has written for the Glendale 

News Press and South Bay Daily Breeze. He 

is extremely prolific; he has written nearly 

3,000 columns in his 25-year-career including 

many columns about Los Angeles Valley College and its vital role in meeting the educational needs of our community. 

He has demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to issues involving senior citizens, 

veterans, and the disabled. He uses wit, 

humor and solid reporting to spark the interest 

of community leaders. 

I am grateful to Dennis for serving as the 

first Grand Marshal of the annual San Fernando Valley Veterans’ Day Parade—a parade I helped put together and care deeply 

about. Dennis not only took on the Grand Marshal role with his customary great dignity, but 

he helped communicate the spirit of the parade through his columns. He has also used 

his column to help prompt other projects I 

have undertaken to help improve the lives and 

the health of our veterans. 

Madam Speaker and distinguished colleagues, I ask you to join me in saluting Dennis McCarthy for his impressive career and 

dedication to the people of the San Fernando 

Valley, and to congratulate him on being honored at the Los Angeles Valley College President’s Annual Gala. 

f 

SAN GABRIEL BASIN 

RESTORATION FUND 

HON. DAVID DREIER OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise today 

to introduce legislation that will continue to 

provide safe drinking water to Southern California. Identical legislation was approved by 

the House in 2007 but was still awaiting consideration in the Senate when the 110th Congress adjourned. It is my sincere hope that we 

can move quickly to see this bill enacted. 

In 2000, Congress created the San Gabriel 

Basin Restoration Fund after the discovery of 

perchlorate and other harmful contaminants in 

the basin’s groundwater. The San Gabriel 

Groundwater Basin covers more than 160 

square miles in Los Angeles County and is the 

primary source of drinking water for over 1.2 

million people. 

The fund initially authorized $85 million in 

Federal funding to assist the state and local 

government agencies as well as the private 

companies found responsible for the contamination to effectively implement a comprehensive clean up plan that would protect the safety of our region’s drinking water supply. After 

evaluation, it is evident that an increase in this 

authorization is necessary. That is why this bill 

extends the current authorization of the San 

Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund by a total of 

$61.2 million—$50 million for the San Gabriel 

Basin Water Quality Authority, WQA, and 

$11.2 million for the Central Basin Municipal 

Water District (Central Basin). 

The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, has done a tremendous job in administering the clean up program. In 1999, the 

WQA projected the cost of cleaning up the 

San Gabriel Basin at a total of $320 million 

based on the level of contamination of the five 

original Operable Units of Baldwin Park, El 

Monte, South El Monte, Whittier Narrows and 

Puente Valley. Since the initial authorization 

by Congress in 2000, dramatically increased 

contamination levels have been identified in 

the South El Monte and Puente Valley Operable Units. This discovery has significantly increased both the capital and operation and 

maintenance costs of the projects. With the 

cost of inflation. increased energy costs and 

the higher contamination levels found, the total 

cost is now estimated at $1 billion. Significantly, the WQA has a number of treatment 

plants that are already operating at full capacity with more coming on line in the near future. 

I am proud to say that this partnership is an 

example of good stewardship of taxpayer 

money. Congress created the Restoration 

Fund in 2000, with an initial authorization of 

$85 million, or a 25 percent investment. To 

date, over $70 million has been appropriated, 

with approximately 83 percent of the clean-up 

provided by local sources and responsible parties, with about 12 percent federal funding. 

With this modest increase of $61.2 million, 

bringing the total federal investment to $146.2 

million, or approximately 14 percent, the WQA 

and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can continue jointly administering this clean-up program. 

In working with the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation over the past decade on 

this regional solution, there is no doubt that 

this increase is warranted and will be utilized 

in the most effective way to continue to provide safe drinking water. The cost-effectiveness of the original authorization of the Restoration Fund is clear. And without a doubt, 

that cost-effective use of the Federal investment will be continued in this new authorization. The Federal partnership will continue to 

hold the coalition of local water agencies and 

private parties together to finish the job that 

we started a decade ago. 

I look forward to working closely with the 

House Resources Committee, and with the 

Water and Power Subcommittee Chairwoman 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, who is a cosponsor of this 

bill and has been a champion of regional 

water solutions. I am also pleased to have the 

support of Representatives GARY MILLER, LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, and ADAM SCHIFF who 

are also cosponsors of this legislation and 

have long supported the safety of our regional 

groundwater supply. 

f 

INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPTIVE 

PRIMATE SAFETY ACT 

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER OF OREGON

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, January 6, 2009 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today 

I am introducing a bill to prohibit interstate 

commerce in nonhuman primates as pets. The 

Captive Primate Safety Act, CPSA, would 

amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to 

treat nonhuman primates as prohibited wildlife 

species under that Act and to make corrections in the provisions relating to captive wildlife offenses under that Act. 

Nonhuman primates kept as pets pose serious risks to public health and safety. They can 

transmit diseases and inflict serious physical 

harm. These risks are increased by interstate 

transport of the animals. Currently, twenty 

states prohibit keeping primates as pets, and 

many others require a permit. Even in states 

where it is legal to keep primates, most people 

cannot provide the special care, housing, and 

social structure these animals require. 

Although the importation of nonhuman primates into the United States for the pet trade 

has been banned by Federal regulation since 

1975, these animals are bred in the United 

States and are readily available for purchase 

from exotic animal dealers and even over the 

Internet. Because of the importation laws, 

there remains an active domestic trade in 

these animals. 

The CPSA would amend the Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981 to add nonhuman primates to the list of animals that cannot be 

transported across state lines. It would prohibit 

the import, export, transportation, sale, receipt, 

acquisition, or purchase in interstate or foreign 

commerce of nonhuman primates in order to 

safeguard public health and safety and protect 

the welfare of monkeys, apes (which include 

chimpanzees and orangutans), marmosets 

and lemurs. The bill is similar to the Captive 

Wildlife Safety Act, CWSA, which Congress 

passed in 2003 to ban interstate commerce in 

lions, tigers, and other big cats for the pet 

trade. 

The CPSA would not affect trade or transportation of animals for zoos, research facilities, or other federally licensed and regulated 

entities. In the 110th Congress, the CPSA received strong support in the 110th Congress 

from Dr. Jane Goodall, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Association of 

Zoos and Aquariums, and The Humane Society of the United States. It easily passed the 

House of Representatives. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues 

to advance this bi-partisan legislation. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with REMARKS