Byron Dorgan: “I accept that. In many respects, I sat here and listened to a debate that, if you won, it was a debate we were not…”

“I accept that. In many respects, I sat here and listened to a debate that, if you won, it was a debate we were not having. I accept much of what you say. But that is not the framework of the debate that we have ventured on the floor with. Let me try to understand and describe the debate as between what you were describing earlier and what I am saying. If you are right--and I think you are, because I was part of the team, as you were, that said let us deliberately begin saving money, so that when the baby boomers retire, or the war babies, more appropriately, retire after the turn of the century, we will have built up some reserves. That was a deliberate, sober reflective action on the part of the Congress. I think it was an appropriate and courageous won. Now, if in the year 2002, we have said we want $103 billion more to come in in Social Security than we are going to spend, and if in the year 2002 the majority's budget provides a balanced budget in 2002, but, they say, we are $108 billion short in their paper, but say to the American people we will balance the budget, is it not the case that they claim that they have balanced the budget because we have not had enforced savings of the $103 billion that year, which should have been above what is necessary to balance the budget if you are going to have an enforced national savings pool, but, in fact, they have taken that $103 billion and said, by the way, we are using it over here so we can say we balanced the budget.”