[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H8605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   BALANCING THE BUDGET ON THE BACK OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this body about the 
condition of the budget resolution that Congress is supposed to have 
passed several months ago. Indeed, it was supposed to have been 
completed on April 15th, and, here we are, we are in the last seven 
days of September, and we still have no budget.
  Now, there are some that say, what is the worry? Is the budget not 
balanced? Can we not forget about having a Federal budget resolution 
that sets the spending levels for the various programs that we operate 
as a government? I submit we cannot.
  There is good news. It does appear that if you only look at what is 
called the unified budget, which includes some surplus in the Social 
Security program, indeed we will have a surplus. But if you back out 
this borrowing from the Social Security program rather than the 
surplus, it now appears that we will have a deficit in the neighborhood 
of $70 billion.
  It does not make sense, Mr. Speaker, for us to continue to borrow 
from the Social Security Trust Fund, to take those payroll taxes that 
Americans are paying into the Social Security program and that their 
employers are matching, and to use part of that to operate the Federal 
Government.
  When we say we have a surplus, we should reserve that phrase for the 
situation where we are no longer borrowing from the Social Security 
program.

                              {time}  1845

  No, we do not have a surplus. We have a deficit this year. We need a 
budget resolution. We cannot simply brush this off as a formality that 
is not important.
  There is another reason that we ought to have a budget resolution 
this year. That is because we are considering a reduction in taxes. I 
think every Member of this body would like to see us reduce taxes. The 
question is not should we reduce taxes, but the question is, when 
should we do it? A budget resolution would help us make this decision 
in a more rational fashion.
  The proposal that we will be considering later this week will require 
an $80 billion tax cut or provide for an $80 billion tax cut over a 
period of 5 years. Many of us feel that this tax cut ought to be 
conditioned on first balancing the budget without using Social 
Security. We ought to say that we are not going to somehow take money 
from the payroll tax program and use that to support a tax cut. 
Instead, let us make sure that we either cut Federal programs to 
support that tax cut, or we truly have a surplus, and then have the tax 
cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for all of us in this body to call 
upon our leadership to appoint a conference committee so that the House 
and the Senate can get together and finally adopt a budget resolution.
  When we adopt that budget resolution, we will know and this Nation 
will know that, No. 1, we do not have a surplus yet this year; and No. 
2, they will know that if indeed we are going to talk about a tax cut, 
the only responsible way to discuss that tax cut is with full awareness 
that it is being financed with payroll taxes that otherwise ought to be 
set aside and protected for the Social Security program.

                          ____________________