[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10536-H10537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for that introduction.
  This represents the bleak future of Social Security. Because of the 
substantial tax increase on American workers, the FICA tax increase in 
1983, there is now more money coming into Social Security than is 
needed to pay out benefits. And again a reminder that Social Security 
is a pay-as-you-go program. Current workers pay in their tax and it is 
almost immediately sent out to current beneficiaries.
  Because of the tax increase in 1983, an extra surplus is coming in 
from the higher tax. After 2015, we go into a bleak future of somehow 
coming up with the funding necessary to pay benefits.
  Let me just comment on this short term surplus. During this surplus 
over the next 10 years, there is going to be $7.8 trillion. I know this 
gets into statistics but bear with me. In the next 10 years, there is 
going to be $7.8 trillion coming into the Social Security; $5.4 
trillion is going to be used to pay benefits. That leaves a surplus 
over the next 10 years in Social Security of $2.4 trillion.
  Governor Bush has suggested that we take $1 trillion out of that $2.4 
trillion and use it as a transition to set up personal retirement 
savings accounts. Unlike the Vice President, he is not using the same 
trillion twice. What he does is take $1 trillion out of the $2.4 
trillion surplus. Benefits are already going to be paid. There is $2.4 
trillion left over.
  In contrast, the Vice President has suggested that we increase 
spending over the next 10 years by $2.3 trillion. So he is using that 
extra money to increase spending. I think in terms of the implication 
for our kids and our grandkids, it is much better to start solving the 
Social Security problem than expanding government and making these huge 
promises of increased spending.
  Let me comment briefly on the Vice President's suggestion for saving 
Social Security. He is suggesting that if we use this extra money 
coming in in surplus, on- and off-budget a 2nd time we can pay down the 
debt held by the public. That is $3.4 trillion. Again the total debt, 
what we owe Social Security plus the other trust funds combined with 
the $3.4 trillion, amounts to a $5.6 trillion debt that we are going to 
leave our kids if we do not start paying it down.
  So everybody agrees, let us start paying the $3.4 trillion of debt 
held by the public, down. But the Vice President is suggesting that 
somehow paying this $3.4 trillion down and the savings of the interest 
that we are paying on this amount, to about $260 billion a year, it is 
going to accommodate the shortfall of $46.6 trillion between now and 
2057.
  Let me say that again. Mr. Gore is suggesting that if we pay off this 
$3.4

[[Page H10537]]

trillion, the interest savings is $260 billion a year. I think it is 
reasonable to say, start using that $260 billion a year saving to apply 
to the shortfall in Social Security. The blue line at the bottom 
represents the $260 billion a year. But what is left of the shortfall 
even if we have the guts, if we have the intestinal fortitude to use 
all that interest savings and apply it to Social Security, there is 
still a shortfall of $35 trillion.
  It is fuzzy math. It does not work. It is a tremendous disappointment 
to me. I have been chairman of the bipartisan task force on Social 
Security in this Chamber. It is a disappointment that in the last 8 
years we have not moved ahead to solve Social Security. Because the 
longer we wait, the longer we put off a decision to fix Social Security 
more drastic the solution is going to have to be.
  We failed in the last 8 years to move ahead on that proposal because 
of the lack of leadership coming out of the White House.

                          ____________________