[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23130-23131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 WE SHOULD NOT SPEND SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS MONEY ON OTHER GOVERNMENT 
                                PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we have significant challenges 
before this legislature, possibly more than any of the 7 years that I 
have served in Congress. That challenge is to hold the line on 
spending. The question before this body is should we spend the Social 
Security surplus money for other government programs.
  And, Mr. Speaker, everybody should understand that when Congress 
spends more money, most often they are more likely to be reelected. 
They take home pork barrel projects, they do more things for more 
people with taxpayers' money, and they end up on the front page of the 
paper or end up on television cutting the ribbons; and so part of the 
problem is that there is a lot of Members of Congress supported by a 
lot of bureaucrats that work within Federal Government, all of whom 
would very much like to spend more money and have a bigger government.
  The challenge facing us this year is a budget resolution decision not 
to spend the Social Security surplus funds coming in. We are now 
approaching the new fiscal year. Day after tomorrow the new fiscal year 
starts for the United States Government. In that budget we now 
anticipate $148 billion coming in surplus from the FICA tax, from the 
Social Security tax. We now estimate approximately $14 billion coming 
in surplus from the on-budget surplus or, if you will, from the income 
tax.
  In our budget resolution we said we were not going to spend the 
Social Security surplus. We passed what was called a lockbox bill on 
the floor that says that we are going to put all of the Social Security 
surplus into a lockbox and not use it for anything except Social 
Security.
  Now we have got a lot of individuals, including the President, 
suggesting that we should have more spending; but everybody needs to 
understand that more spending means that we use the Social Security 
surplus money. The President suggested that we take 66 percent of the 
Social Security surplus and set that aside and do not spend it, but 
that we go ahead and we spend one-third of the Social Security surplus. 
This side of the aisle, the Republicans, said, no, let us try to do a 
little better than that, let us put a hundred percent of the Social 
Security surplus, trust fund surplus, aside and make sure that we do 
not spend it for other government programs.
  I mean it is tough. We have not done this before. It would be history 
making if we are able to do this. Before the Republicans took the 
majority in 1995, for the 40 years before that the Democrats had the 
majority in this chamber for most every one of those years. Any time 
there was a surplus coming in from Social Security, it was spent for 
other government programs.
  I chair a bipartisan task force of the Committee on the Budget on 
Social Security. In those hearings we learned that the Social Security 
Administration may be very well underestimating life span, especially 
how long an individual is expected to live after they reach the age of 
65. Futurist medical experts were guessing that within 25 years anybody 
that wanted to live to be a hundred years old could make that decision 
to do so, and they guess that maybe within 35 years anybody that wanted 
to live to be 120 years old, it was within a realistic realm of 
possibility that they could live that long, Mr. Speaker.
  See the huge consequences this will mean for any pension programs, 
for any government program, whether it is Social Security or Medicare 
or whether it is Medicaid with a huge cost, increasing cost, of nursing 
home care if

[[Page 23131]]

individuals are going to live that long, because what we are faced with 
is a declining number of workers paying their tax in that immediately 
is spent out in benefits.
  I mean Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go program ever since it 
started in 1935. In other words, current workers pay in their taxes to 
pay the benefits of current retirees. When we started in 1935 and up 
through the 1940s, we had about 41 people working, paying in their 
taxes, for every one retiree. Today there is three people working 
paying in their taxes for every one retiree. By 2030 we are expecting 
that there is only going to be two people working. That means that 
those two people have to earn enough to provide for their families plus 
one retiree.
  Huge challenges. Let us be careful. Let us rededicate ourselves not 
to spend the Social Security surplus. It is a good start.

                          ____________________