Date: 1982-05-12
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Not yet. I will be glad to yield and I will yield to the Senator for a question before I yield to anyone else. Many of us did not want to see the DOD bill brought up. for that matter. before the Budget Committee resolution was acted on by the Senate. But the DOD bill was brought up and it is before the Senate now. We want to say for the Senate that $40 billion is not going to be taken out of the pockets of the old folks of this country to balance the budget. We are not questioning the fact that some action will have to be taken to resolve the problems facing social security. and we will join In that. Some of us may disagree as to this or that or something else. but we recognize there is a problem. but we want to debate that problem on its merits. rather than as a pawn in the budget process. We want to take whatever action has to be taken to resolve the problems of the social security system. but we want to consider them on the merits of the Commissions recommendations. I say that our friends on the other side are trying to becloud the issue. We are not saying that the social security problem does not have to be solved. but we are saying it cannot be resolved by taking $40 billion out of the pockets of social security recipients. and before we get the recommendations of the Commission established by the President. The American Association of Retired Persons is opposed. as we Democrats are. the $40 billion in cuts in social security. Are they demagogs? We Democrats in the Senate are called demagogs because we reject the $40 billion in cuts in social security in the upcoming budget resolution. We are said to be demagogs. What about the American Association of Retired Persons? They. too. have rejected the cuts. Are they demagogs? That is the larget retired group. Is it demagoguery to argue that we should first see a specific proposal. see specific recommendations. made by the Presidents task force? He stood before the American people last September and in a televised address asked Congress to reverse its action on the minimum social security payments. He asked Congress to restore the minimum social security payments to 3 million people which he himself had earlier asked be eliminated and. at the same time. he. too. spoke of demagoguery. In that same speech. he also said he was going to appoint a task force on social security to report back after the election in November of this year. That task force has nut yet reported its recommendations. When it makes its recommendations. then let us study those recommendations. let us then consider the problems that confront the social security system and the recommended solutions to those problems on the merits. Let us not come in here with a budget resolution on Friday that is going to have a provision that means $40 billion in social security cuts. Is it demagoguery to argue that we should see the specific proposals from the Presidents Commission before agreeing to $40 billion in cuts in social security? I do not believe that Congress should consider any changes in social security at all as part of the budget debate. That Is all we are talk. ing about. The budget resolution is going to be up here Friday. and there is a 50hour time limit on that resolution. And we do not think that any changes in social security. in order to resolve whatever problems may exist there. should be a part of the budget debate. Where are we going to find the solutions? Just reach into thin air and pull out the solutions to the problem during the debate on the budget resolution? Our friends on the other side of the aisle would have the people believe that only theymy friends on the other side of the aisleonly they are interested in the solvency of the social security system. Look. The Democrats created the social security program. Franklin D. Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress created the social security system. And we are not going to see that system go broke. We Democrats are committed to that. That is our baby and we are not going to see it die on the doorsteps of insolvency. So. we Democrats are committed. too. to the solvency of the program. We are not Johnnycomelatelies as supporters of the social security program. We intend to see that its funds are solvent. The American people can rest assured that Congress is not going to let the social security system go broke. But let us not take $40 billion out of the pockets of the people who are depending upon social securitywhich amounts to an average of more than $1.000 per person over the next 3 yearswithout debating the matter of solvency on the merits and with the benefit of the Commissions study and recommendations and viewpoints. Now. the New York Times editorial is a good editorial. It has been quoted here on the floor by my friends on the other side of the aisle. The editorial is correct in some respects. but it is also May 1f. 1982 S.1928 incorrect. We are simply saying that Congress should not consider any changes in social security as part of the budget debate next week. Now we are demagogs. our friends across the aisle say. What about our Republican friends in the House? Are they demagogs? Our friends on the other side of the aisle. who quoted the editorial from the New York Times. have they failed to read the front page? They left out that part of the New York Times. It is an article by Martin L. Tolchin. one of the most respected of news correspondents. And it is in the second column on the front page. "GOP"-what does that mean?"GOP in House Opposes Budget by Senate Panel." Are the House Republican leaders demagogs? "Social security changes prove key objection." WASHINGTON. May 11.-House Republican leaders today rejected the budget plan endorsed by President Reagan and the Senate Budget Committee. objecting to proposed changes In the Social Security system and to a major tax increase in a recession. Specifically. they rejected the Senate Republican proposal to commit Congress to find $40 billion in savings In Social Security outlays before a bipartisan study commis sion makes its recommendations at years end. Now that is what we Democratic Senators have been saying. So we socalled demagogs have been joined by those House Republicans demagogs who happen to believe as we do that the Senate Republican Budget proposa! to commit Congress to find $40 billion in savings in social security outlays should not become effective before the Presidents bipartisan study commission makes its recommendations at years end. That is the whole thing. That is it. pure and simple. That is all we have been saying. We are for solvency. We socalled demagogs are for solvency in the social security system. We socalled Democratic demagogs created that social security system. and we demagogs are for solvency in that system. But we and our Republican friends over in the House. we are all demagogs. I suppose. We reject the idea of making a $40 billion cut in the budget resolution. even though the President has embraced the proposal.