[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 125 (Friday, September 18, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 18, 1998

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, along with many of my Democratic colleagues, 
today I am introducing a bill that contains many tax reduction 
provisions that have long been supported by many of the Democratic 
Members of this House. I am pleased that these provisions have been 
included in the tax legislation reported by the Committee on Ways and 
Means yesterday. The only difference between the bill that I am 
introducing today and the Committee bill is that my bill actually could 
become law. My legislation is consistent with the President's 
requirement that we save Social Security First, and therefore, unlike 
the Committee bill, it will not receive a certain Presidential veto.
  I am introducing this bill to demonstrate that our vigilance in 
protecting Social Security is not just an excuse to oppose tax cuts. We 
Democrats do not oppose tax cuts. We support tax cuts. Virtually all of 
us voted for significant tax cuts last year. the 1997 bipartisan tax 
bill included nearly $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years and the 
Democratic Members of this House supported a Democratic Substitute that 
would have provided even more tax relief for the middle class.
  Many of the provisions in the Committee bill and in the bill I am 
introducing today originally were sponsored by Democrats. Marriage 
penalty relief, 100 percent deductibility for self-employed health 
insurance premiums and simplifying minimum tax rules to ensure that 
those promised the $500 per child credit enacted last year will receive 
it, were provisions offered in the Committee on Ways and Means last 
year by Democratic Members. Unfortunately, the Republicans voted them 
down last year.
  We support fiscally responsible tax cuts, but unlike our Republican 
colleagues, we do not support using he Social Security surplus to pay 
for them. Therefore, any tax reductions that otherwise are not paid for 
will go into effect as soon as we have achieved the President's goal of 
saying Social Security First. The extension of expiring provisions and 
the phased-in increase in the Social Security earnings limit would 
become effective immediately, as under the Committee bill, since both 
bills pay for those provisions. Also, revenue-neutral and time-
sensitive provisions such as the technical corrections and treatment of 
certain farm program payments would take effect immediately.
  The Republicans have argued that the projected surpluses are 
sufficient to both cut taxes and preserve Social Security and that they 
are reserving 90 percent of the surpluses for Social Security. These 
assertions simply are not true.
  The Republicans admit that 10 percent of the surplus is being 
diverted from Social Security under this bill. Moreover, there is 
nothing in the Republican proposal that actually reserves the other 90 
percent for Social Security. In separate legislation, Republicans say 
they will ``protect'' Social Security. However, in that bill they 
merely require the Secretary of the Treasury to make several 
bookkeeping entries. They do not prevent the Congress from using the 
Social Security surplus for further tax cuts or further increases in 
spending. Under their plan, Congress could use the entire amount of the 
Social Security surplus next year for tax cuts or spending increases 
and there is nothing in the Republican proposal that would prevent it 
from doing so. With their bill they already have their noses in the 
Social Security tent. In this bill we propose to take the Social 
Security budget surplus truly off-budget so that it will not be spent 
until Social Security is solvent. This bill would take the entire 
amount of the Social Security surplus in each fiscal year and transfer 
it to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to be held in trust for 
Social Security.
  When we talk about future budget surpluses, we should be clear that 
we are speaking about projections. Hopefully, the projections will be 
accurate, but there are many unforeseen events in our global economy. 
It would be foolhardy to assume that we can predict all of them. That 
is why no less an authority that Alan Greenspan has warned this 
Congress that we should not spend money we may not have.
  Even if we assume the optimistic projections will come true, the so-
called surplus over the next 5 years is not really a surplus. It is due 
to the contributions that American workers have invested in Social 
Security. It already has been committed to the Social Security trust 
fund. If we treated those contributions like all businesses treat their 
contributions to their employees' retirement plans, we would have a 
$137 billion deficit over the next 5 years and only a $31 billion 
surplus over the next 10 years, even if the optimistic assumptions 
prove to be correct.
  Perhaps spending some of this money would not be so bad if it really 
was not needed to shore up Social Security. We all know the challenge 
that Social Security faces as the baby-boomers near retirement. The 
reality is that all of the money that Congress has committed to the 
Social Security program is needed, not only 90 percent of the surplus.
  We are pleased that the Republicans have adopted many of our ideas 
for inclusion in their tax bill. Those ideas can be enacted this year 
if we commit to taking action to ensure the solvency of Social 
Security. Enacting tax cuts now without that condition would violate 
our commitment to the Social Security program.




                          ____________________