[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[House]
[Page 6300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           ON SOCIAL SECURITY

  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, I first want to yield to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).


                    Tribute to Corporal John T. Weed

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is to honor a young man who, 33 
years ago on May 14, 1967, was a corpsman in the Navy, fought with the 
Marines in Vietnam, served his country extremely well, and on that 
particular date put his own life in danger to save my life while in an 
operation called ``Union'' in the northern part of South Vietnam.
  That young man, who went to Vietnam in 1966, in November, stayed more 
than a year and not only served his country well, not only served the 
Marines very well, but he acted responsibly as an American and was a 
fine example of this country to that war-torn region and to the people.
  That young man is with us today, Mr. Speaker. His name is John T. 
Weed from Texas. And I wanted to make this statement to salute his 
effort, his commitment, his courage, his grace, and his skill.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and 
for his patience.
  I just talked to former Corporal John T. Weed, who is with us today, 
and the gentleman who took care of our good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), when he was badly wounded in 
Vietnam as a Marine Corpsman.
  But what he said, which the gentleman from Maryland did not say, was 
that, in fact, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) saved his 
life twice. The gentleman from Maryland always manages to pass over 
that when he is talking about John Weed.
  I have just had an opportunity to talk to him, and I have to agree 
with my colleague he is a great American, truly. And he mentioned 
another thing, and that is that the platoon sergeant, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), was the most stabilizing influence on 
his life as an 18-year-old trooper in the Marines.
  So I wanted to add my two cents worth and add the rest of the story 
to the story told by the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
those announcements by my colleagues.
  I have been working on Social Security for the last 5 years. I am 
very concerned that we are putting off tough decisions that are going 
to mean that we either, in the future, substantially raise social 
security taxes on workers or we cut benefits.
  And we have done that before. In 1977, when we were short of Social 
Security funds to pay benefits, we both cut benefits and increased 
taxes. We did that again in 1983, when money was short in the Social 
Security Trust Fund. We again in that year cut benefits and raised 
taxes. So some people are suggesting that we add giant IOUs to the 
Social Security Trust Fund and assume that the Government is going to 
pay that money back at a later date.
  Let me briefly review a pie chart that shows the budget of the United 
States for this year. As we can see, the bottom green pie is Social 
Security. It represents 20 percent of the total budget. Defense only 
represents 18 percent of the total budget. The 12 appropriation bills 
that we spend most of the year arguing about is even smaller than the 
Social Security budget, with 19 percent.
  If we take all of the entitlement programs, it represents a little 
over half of the Federal budget. And here is what is projected by the 
Social Security Administration actuaries. They are suggesting that if 
we do nothing, social security taxes, taxes to cover our senior 
programs, will have to increase from the current 15-odd percent up to 
40 percent within the next 38 years. That is if we do nothing. Two 
choices: either taxes are going to substantially be increased or 
benefits are going to have to be cut by over one-third.
  That is why I think it is so appropriate in this presidential 
election year that we have an articulate discussion on how to save 
Social Security. I was disturbed last night when Al Gore started 
criticizing Governor Bush's proposal that he has not even made yet. So 
demagogueing this issue is not going to help come to a final solution. 
It is going to jeopardize being able to work together. Look, we are not 
going to do this unless Republicans and Democrats work together.
  Here is a quick snapshot of the bleak future of Social Security. We 
have a short-term surplus coming in for the next 11 or 12 years on 
Social Security. After that we reach into somebody else's pocket to 
come up with the funds. The estimate from the actuaries is $120 
trillion that we are going to be short in terms of our commitment to 
Social Security over and above what is coming in in taxes.

                          ____________________