Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, those that have suggested that the use of pesticides by producers of our food supply is not environmentally sound have missed the most important environmental benefit of modern farming: It produces more food from fewer acres, so it leaves more land for nature. The best possible agriculture for the environment would look amazingly like modern, high-yield technology supported farming. High- yield agriculture is the best available model--and the only proven success for a world that must triple its farm output over the next 45 years, and whose largest demonstrated environmental threat is loss of wildlife habitat. Our environmentally ideal agriculture must use monocultures, potent new seed varieties, irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides to get high yields. It must do this because high yields are the most critical factor in preserving millions of square miles of wildlife habitat from being plowed down for lower yielding crops. These technologies have more than doubled the yields on our farmlands. Since 1960, we have been able to get twice the amount of grain and oilseeds, and feed better diets to 80 percent more people on the same amount of land. If these new technologies had not taken place we would have lost 10 million square miles of habitat, about the land area of North and Central America combined. Pesticide bans would cause yield reductions that would themselves lead to significant loss of wildlife habitat. Several studies have been conducted to ascertain the yield differences between farming with or without pesticides. According to a Department of Agriculture Economics study, production in crops would drop between 24 and 57 percent without pesticides. Farming without pesticides would cost us 20 to 30 square miles of wildlife by the time world population peaks in the year 2040. Environmentally sensitive agriculture is one that uses the best possible use of our land--by technology supported fertilizer use and other high-yield methods which most efficiently produce our feed supply and hence protect wildlife species from habitat loss. Our goal must be to produce more food on fewer acres, leaving the rest to wildlife and for future generations to enjoy.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, my wife Bonnie and I were blessed with a new grandson on July 20 at 12:29 a.m. His name is Henry LeGrand Smith. He weighed 8 lbs. 6 oz. He is the fifth child of Bradley LeGrand Smith and Margaret Diane Smith. My namesake, Nick Smith is 9, Emily is 7 years old. Claire is 4 years old, and George is 2 years old. Bonnie and I join Henry's other grandparents, Neville and Jennifer Monteith from Orillia, ON, in welcoming Henry to this world. Like his brothers and sisters, Henry is going to have a tough time paying back all the money the Federal Government is borrowing. If we don't change our ways, Henry will have to pay $187,000 in taxes over his lifetime just to cover his share of the interest on the national debt. I would conclude by asking all the parents and grandparents now in Congress to work with me to minimize the debt which our children and grandchildren will have to pay back for our undisciplined deficit spending.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, today, this Congress can pass much needed campaign finance reform. While this legislation doesn't go as far as I think it should, it's a positive step in the right direction. I have supported campaign finance reform for a long time. I've introduced legislation in both this session and the last session of Congress that would have banned PAC contributions to congressional candidates. My proposals would also have required at least 50 percent of a candidate's total contributions come from within the congressional district. I'm pleased this important part of my proposal was adopted by the committee and is part of this legislation. Representatives shouldn't be beholden to any interest other than the peoples' interest. And for the past 15 years, since I first ran for the Michigan Senate, I haven't accepted any special interest PAC contributions. As a member of the Campaign Finance Reform task force, I am very concerned about the excessive amount of influence special interest political action committees [PAC's] have in Washington. During the last 19 months, as we've worked to rein in big Government lobbyists have become more aggressive in protecting their special interests. We must not let special interest PAC's with their huge political contributions decide legislation. We've made progress in this bill, but I believe true campaign finance reform will only be achieved when we remove the undue influence of special interest PAC lobbyists and their millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the political process. Some Members feel this bill goes to far, some think it does not go far enough. However, because of perception and because of the real undue influence of special interest lobbyists we must move ahead with campaign finance reform.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, in 1983, Congress and President Reagan formed the bipartisan Greenspan Commission which agreed on historic legislation to save Social Security. At that time, the Social Security Administration actuaries warned that the system had an unfunded liability equal to 1.82 percent of taxable payroll. The 1983 law was supposed to solve this problem through the middle of the next century. However, the actuaries now find that the unfunded liability is 2.19 percent of taxable payroll, 20 percent worse than in 1983. Expressed in 1996 dollars, this liability equals approximately $4 trillion. Put another way, under the current system every beneficiary for the next 75 years will have to absorb a 14 percent cut from baseline benefits for the system to balance. Alternatively, payroll taxes will have to go up by 16 percent to restore long-term solvency. The actuaries say even larger benefit cuts or tax increases will be needed the longer Congress delays. Traditionally, Congress waits until the last moment to solve such problems, using a crisis environment to convince our constituents and ourselves that sacrifices have to be made. But this approach is unconscionable when waiting until the last minute will force us to adopt a solution that will damage the economy and the lives of vulnerable workers and retirees. Under current law, there will only be two workers paying into the system for each retiree drawing benefits early in the next century. There were 42 workers for every retiree when Social Security was started. On May 15, former Social Security Commissioner Dorcas Hardy estimated Social Security could have insufficient funds as early as 2005. Without meaningful reform soon, very large benefit reductions or tax rate hikes are unavoidable. Fortunately, I believe we can legislate a happy ending. The Social Security Administration has scored my bill, the Social Security Solvency Act, and found that if everyone participates each worker could invest between 1.81 percent and 10.11 percent of his paycheck in a personal retirement savings accounts while Social Security benefits continue to flow unimpeded. My bill may not be perfect, but it offers a way out and I believe Members of Congress and the President can no longer avoid working on a solution to save Social Security. This proposal holds harmless low and medium income workers and also existing retirees. Part I of the bill eliminates the unfunded liability by slowing the growth in benefits in two basic ways. Initial benefits will still rise, after inflation, but they won't almost double as they do under current law. It also imposes some modest means testing of benefits. Further, it gradually raises the retirement age 2 years longer than existing law. Together, these reforms more than eliminate the unfunded liability of the system according to Social Security's actuaries. Under part II, and most importantly, my proposal creates personal retirement savings accounts for working Americans that will be funded from the surplus after all benefits are paid. Over time, the assets in workers' accounts will grow very rapidly, producing genuine retirement security. The balances in the private accounts are the personal property of the workers. Worker/investors will still receive Social Security checks, although they will be smaller to reflect the amount personally invested. However, the benefits flowing from their personal retirement savings accounts will more than make up the difference. Furthermore, account balances will belong to workers and can be passed on to their heirs, improving the financial security of wives, husbands and their children. Personal retirement savings accounts can be ``cashed-out'' as early as age 60. With some safeguards, it would be up to each worker to determine how his funds will be invested or whether to fund a personal retirement savings account at all. In fact, workers may elect to remain in the existing system if they wish and collect only Social Security benefits. It will be their option alone whether to place a portion of their paychecks in the hands of professional money managers. However, funds must be invested under the legal limits of the Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA's]. Also, under the proposal managed investment accounts will have to meet some additional investment and reporting requirements. Another important benefit of this proposal is that it will stabilize fiscal policy. This year, Social Security will take in $64 billion more than it distributes. By 2002, the annual surplus will rise to $104 billion. But in 2025 and beyond, there will be annual cash deficits of $330 billion and rising as far as the eye can see. Under this plan, cash flow in and out of the Social Security System will always be equal. Pressure to cut other spending or to raise taxes will not be required by cash flow problems. Social Security will be depoliticized-- as it should be. Together, we can restore the solvency of America's most popular program and make it even better. H.R. 3758 does that.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of the better kept secrets in Washington, and that is the fact that the Social Security trust fund has no money in it. There is a lot of current retirees that would like to expect that the promises on Social Security are going to stay there for the rest of their life. There is a lot of individuals that are going to be retiring in the next several years, and certainly young workers today that hope that there is some way that Social Security that they are now paying for will have something to offer them when they retire. The predicament is that Social Security is going broke. The recent Social Security Administration estimate that they are going to be out of money earlier than they expected should be a red flag, should alert, Mr. Speaker, not only the Members of this body, but certainly the American people that we need to deal with Social Security. No longer can we put our heads in the sand and pretend that this very serious problem does not exist. I introduced a bill last week, H.R. 3758, that deals with the problem of Social Security solvency. This bill is the only bill that has been introduced in the House that has been scored by the Social Security Administration, and it has been scored in a way that Social Security will continue to exist at least for the next 75 years, and the way it is written, Mr. Speaker, Social Security will continue to survive. Now let me first say what the predicament is that is causing the problem in Social Security. In the early 1940's there were 42 people working and paying for the retirement benefits of every one Social Security retiree. In 1950 there were 17 people working and paying in their Social Security tax to support each one retiree. today Mr. Speaker, here is the problem: There is only three people working, supporting, paying in for each retiree, and when the baby-boomers retire, there is only going to be two working people in this country supporting that retiree. You know what we have done? With the fewer number of workers for the larger number of retirees, we have continued to increase their taxes. Since 1970 we have increased taxes on those workers 34 times. So we continue to increase the tax on a fewer and fewer number of those working, and in terms of the demographic problems, we have an aging population. When we started Social Security, the average age of mortality, the average life expectancy, was 63 years old. Today it is 72 for a man and 76 for women. If you are lucky enough to reach age 65, you can expect to live until you are 84. So we have an aging population on the one hand, fewer people working, and, you know, there is no trust fund, there is no reserve, it is a pay-as-you-go program where the workers today pay their money in and immediately when the Social Security Administration gets that money, they pay it out to existing retirees. If there is anything left, the Federal Government grabs the rest of that money for general fund spending. Some people would like to believe that, look, as long as government has got those IOU's in the trust fund that somehow government can come up with the money to pay that trust fund back. I do not know how they are going to do that. How would they do that? They do it either by increasing taxes on those working to increase the burden on those individuals, and, Mr. Speaker, do you know, do the American people realize, that 70 percent of the American people today pay more in the FICA tax than they do in the income tax? And so I say tax increases are out, so I have gradually increased the retirement age 2 years beyond the existing 67, gradually decreased the benefits for those higher income people, and what it has done is increase the solvency of Social Security to the extent that we allow those surpluses to be invested by each individual worker. So that individual worker now can take some of that FICA tax, they can take that dollar; it is going to be their own dollars, it is not going to be somebody else's dollars, and they can say, look, I am investing this in my fund, in my passbook savings account so I am assured of that money. And when you consider the fact that Treasury has had a real return of 2.3 percent on every dollar that the Treasury has taken from Social Security, and when you consider that the average equity investment is 9 percent, we end up with a bill that is going to give today's workers even greater benefits in their retirement than they would have under the existing system, plus it keeps it solvent. Let us take our head out of the sands. Let us start dealing with the problem of Social Security.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and I have both offered freestanding bills on this. I hope we can move forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in this bill, there is $363 million appropriated for legislative representative office expenses. Let us make a commitment today, now, that we are going to manage and safeguard those funds to the greatest extent of our managerial ability to make sure that taxpayers get their money's worth from the operations of our individual offices. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is not a giant step in the way we are changing business in the United States Congress. Maybe it could be akin to the baby step forward. But still, if every Member of Congress knows how much they are spending for the carts, for the computers, for everything they buy in that office, and we start running our offices like a business, it will help save tazpayer dollars. Last year, for the first time in history, we had made a decision in this Congress to return this money to Treasury to go toward deficit reduction. That is our goal. Balancing the budget needs to be ever on our minds as we strive to make sure that our economy and jobs expand. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Many Members of this body who come to Congress come with the goal of saving taxpayers money, being frugal with their own office spending accounts as is possible. Since entering Congress, many of us try to save for the taxpayers and keep our office expenses to a minimum. Over the last 3 years in our Michigan's 7th District office, we have saved $636,000. After my first year of cost cutting and making the effort to be conscious of spending. I was appalled and disturbed that a Member's savings did not save money; that the money would go automatically into other accounts and add to those accounts to expand spending. In my first year in Congress, like many first-year Members, we were striving to make sure that we do not buy more than what is needed in stationery, that we do not waste the money by overspending on computers or any other items only to find out that someone else spent the money that was saved. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, like the amendment that we put in last year, for the first time allows the savings to go to the Department of the Treasury for deficit reduction. This amendment is identical to the amendment that we passed last year, and I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. Last year this amendment was passed by a vote of 423 to 21 margin as an amendment to the legislative appropriation bills to return these unspent funds to the Department of the Treasury. If we do not have some consideration, some incentive for Members to be careful on how they spend taxpayers' money, then we are not as apt to do it. So I say let us pass this amendment, let us notify each office of how much they have under spent, how much they have saved taxpayers, and let us make sure with this amendment that that money will be going toward deficit reduction rather than simply into another account.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished cosponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and that he be allowed to control that 5 minutes of time.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, our hearts and our prayers go to Bill's wife and daughter, certainly to all of his constituents, as well as his good friends. Bill was my big brother when I came into Congress in 1993, and he just contributed so much time and so many hours in helping me learn how to adjust to Washington and to Congress. So I wanted to be part of, if my colleagues will, this honor guard, thanking Bill again for all that he has done for many of us, certainly all that he did for me personally. Bill was a friend. I served with Bill on the Committee on Agriculture. I mean his dedication, his willingness to study and learn and work with both Republicans and Democrats is not only to be admired, it is to be a good lesson for all of us. Bill Emerson was a great American. Bill, we hope you continue to guide us, and our prayers are with you.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. The bald eagle was by DDT.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in this Chamber agrees we should not carelessly cause the extinction of animal or plant species. Unfortunately, this amendment, our current policy, makes it harder to save endangered species. I think it is important to realize that just because something is called an Endangered Species Act, it is not automatically effective in saving endangered species. In fact, over the last 20 years, that act has not been credited with saving a single endangered species. Now, the reason is the act creates the wrong incentives. The most effective way to preserve a threatened species----

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 19, 1996, Capt. Donald A. Hempson, Jr. (USN) will retire from the Navy and his post as Commander of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service [DRMS]. A retirement ceremony will be held at 1:00 p.m. in Battle Creek, MI at DRMS headquarters. Although my duties in Congress prevent my attendance, I would like to take this opportunity to honor Captain Hempson for the outstanding work he has done to improve the efficiency and overall performance of DRMS during his tenure in Battle Creek. Captain Hempson and dedicated DRMS employees have revitalized DRMS by adopting a variety of management practices similar to those used in private industry. Among the highlights have been the creation of an Internet site to describe surplus items for sale, computer tracking of surplus property to reduce recordkeeping costs, the initiation of toll- free phone lines for improved customer service, and new advertising practices to increase sales. The results have been impressive. Between fiscal years 1993 and 1995, DRMS has increased its annual reutilization, transfer, donation, and sale of excess Defense Department property from $2.9 billion to $3.5 billion. At the same time, it has moved from a net loss of $120.7 million in fiscal year 1993 to a net profit of $254.4 million in fiscal year 1995. By adopting strategies to put customers first, make use of innovative technologies, and increase efficiency and productivity, DRMS and Captain Hempson have provided an example of how much can be achieved through the reinvention of Government agencies. I salute Captain Hempson and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors. And to the employees of DRMS, I say keep up the good work.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon and evening we have discussed a budget resolution in our goals to eventually achieve a balanced budget. It makes me think, after listening to much of the discussion of what we should do, of the Nike running shoe ad that says, ``Just do it''. We hear a lot of rhetoric about the fact that we should cut down on some of the wasteful spending. I say just do it. We hear a lot of discussion about let us lower some of those overwhelming taxes that we have imposed on the American working people. I say let us just do it. We have heard a lot of talk about how we change welfare, how we admit that welfare programs have been unsuccessful for the last 40 years and they need changing because we have taken the spirit away from people by giving them something for nothing. In changing the welfare program, I say just do it. It is like the Nike ad on just doing it. It is not easy, it is going to be tough, but we have to just clench up our fists, we have to tighten up our stomachs and tighten up our dedication and just do it.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, when I am back in Michigan in our 7th Congressional District, around Battle Creek and Jackson and Hillsdale and Adrian, not a day goes by but a young mother or a young father comes up to me and says, you know, we are working very hard and we can hardly get by. We are both working now. Or sometimes it is a young mother, all by herself trying to support her kids, and they say why is it so difficult now when my mom and dad, when I was growing up, only one of them worked and we still ended up with enough money to go on vacations, to have good food, and to have good housing? You know what I have concluded, Mr. Speaker, a large part of today's problem is? The tax trap. Back in the 1950's and the 1960's the taxes only took a small part of our earnings, but today taxes take almost 50 percent of what we earn. Taxes at the local, State and national level take 41 percent of what we earn. And then, if we earn more money and work harder, and we get into those higher tax brackets, in addition to the 15 percent that goes into FICA, we can go as high as 39 percent on our income tax. I call it the tax trap because people may remember that old song that says the more you study, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you forget; the more you forget, the less you know; so why study? It is sort of true on taxes. The harder you work and the more you earn, the higher your taxes are and the more you have to pay the Federal Government to spend the money that you worked so hard to earn. I wonder if people know that today we spend more on food and clothing and shelter. The taxes that we pay to the government is more than we spend on food and clothing and shelter. I wonder if people know that there is about 70 percent of the hard-working American people that pay more in the FICA taxes, that 15 percent that is tacked on to our wages, than they do in the Federal income tax. Let us look at the FICA taxes a minute. Most of that, 12.4 percent, goes to pay Social Security taxes. How many of the people under 40 today think that Social Security is going to be around when they are ready to retire? We have got some real problems with Social Security. Back in the early 1980's and 1982, they appointed the Greenspan Commission because at that time they published reports that the unfunded liability of Social Security was 1.82 percent of payroll. In other words, taxes would have to be raised that much more to cover the unfunded liability of Social Security. Guess what it is today. Today the unfunded liability of Social Security is 2.17 percent. So when we hear people say, ``Don't worry about Social Security because it is going to have enough money until the year 2029,'' what happened is the actuaries just recently came and said it is not going to be 2030, but it is going to be 2029, but the fact is that is only if somehow Government pays back all the money that it has been taking out of the Social Security surpluses. Since we changed the Social Security taxes in 1983, and at that time the estimate was that they would be solvent for 65 years, well, guess what one of the former commissioners, Dorcas Hardy, said a couple of weeks ago? She estimated that sometime during the year 2005 there would be less money coming in for Social Security than was required for the payout. There is no trust fund. There is no reserve. The Federal Government has taken every cent of the surplus every year, written out an IOU, and spent that money for general fund spending, expanding Government spending, expanding programs, taking more of Americans' individual decisionmaking away from them and putting it in this Chamber and over in the Senate Chamber and having Government make the decisions that they used to decide. So when that young mother and young father come to me and say, ``What are your suggestions, what are we going to do,'' my suggestion is to slow down on the borrowing and eventually balance this budget. Slow down on those taxes. Let people keep some of that hard-earned money in their own pockets and decide how to spend that money, rather than sending it to this kind of Chamber to let Government decide how to spend your hard-earned dollar. Somehow, Mr. Speaker, we have got to have a tax system where the people that work hard and try and save, end up better off than those that do not. That is the goal of our budget resolution, and our budget projection for the future of saying cut spending, do it now, do not put it off and let us get to a balanced budget. Let us quit borrowing and taking the future away from our kids.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a lot of Americans know talk is cheap with a lot of politicians. I think it is good that we review what has actually happened in the last couple of years. Two years ago, nobody on the other side of the aisle was talking about the need for a balanced budget. They were saying, it was reasonable to borrow and spend for investment. Mr. Speaker, let me review for the American people what happened about a year and half ago. Republicans took the majority. They cut $9 billion out of the 1995 budget. Then in 1996 we had a budget that was $23 billion less than the 1995 budget. This budget deficit has come down for these last 2 years largely because of tough decisions on spending cuts. The deficit was reduced in 1993 and 1994 because of a huge tax increase. Let us review for the American people what is happening in terms of the real reduction in the size of the Federal Government. I think one way to measure that is as a percentage of GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. If we look at what happened in 1995, we had about 22 percent of GDP. In 1996 we had about 21 percent of GDP. This resolution that came out of conference committee has 20.4 percent of GDP. That is the lowest percent of GDP since 1974. This is a budget that moves us aggressively in the right direction. In 1996 we passed a budget resolution that said we were going to have $4 billion more spending in 1997 than this conference report resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the tough guys as far as cutting spending. I voted for many more spending cuts in Budget Committee than were in this resolution. I said let us put pressure on this President and have the kind of budget that is going to be fair to our kids and our grandkids. That did not happen because the President vetoed our legislation to balance the budget. Fifty-four million dollars' worth of publicity by the liberals ended up leaving many Americans in doubt. Some Republicans and a lot of the Democrats decided it was not politically popular to cut spending. Today let us really roll up our sleeves and just do it-- this conference report in 6 years balances with a budget that is 18 percent of GDP--the lowest since 1965. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to vote for this budget. Let us move on and get to a balance. Be fair to our kids, do what's right for America.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, usually I am sort of a calm, old farmer from Michigan, and I take the ups and downs and the comments of what people say pretty casually. This afternoon, though, I was quite upset when I heard Secretary Rubin and Secretary Shalala and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Shirley Chater, in effect say that there was not very much trouble with today's report of the trustees on Medicare and Social Security. The report on Social Security said the fund would technically be broke by the year 2029, and the reaction from that group was that, look, that gives us a lot of time in the future to make the changes we need. Social Security has never been broke. I guess, Mr. Speaker, my problem is why are our heads in the sand? Why are they putting their heads in the sand? Why are Republicans, why are Democrats, not facing up to the issue of saving Social Security? Look. Let me tell you what happened back in 1983 before the Greenspan Commission started. At that time they said the unfunded liability of Social Security would take 1.82 percent of existing payroll to make Social Security solvent. Guess what it is today? Today it is up to 2.17 percent of existing payroll to keep Social Security solvent, and yet Secretary Rubin said, well, you know, we have approximately $500 billion in the trust fund. But there is no money in the trust fund. Every dollar of surplus money that comes into that Social Security trust fund automatically goes into the general fund and is spent for whatever we spend money for in the United States Congress. There is no trust fund. The money comes in one month from the FICA taxes from current workers, and it goes out immediately that month to existing retirees. Just think of this. Back in 1945, right after World War II, there were 42 people working for every one Social Security retiree. Guess what it is today? Today it is three. When the baby-boomers retire, around 2013, there is going to be about 2\1/2\ workers. And yet the reaction was from one of the questions of the press, ``What do you do you when the baby boomers start retiring around 2012 and there is no money in the fund? Where are you going to come up with the money,'' Secretary Rubin said, ``Look, that interest alone in a separate fund will last until 2019.'' My colleagues, Mr. Speaker, there is no separate fund. We have used up all of the money. If we were to start today to make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years, we would have to, if we just looked at reducing benefits or increasing taxes, we would have to increase the FICA taxes by 16 percent starting today, or we would have to start reducing benefits by 14 percent, starting today. Now, that is why some of us have decided to introduce a Social Security reform bill to gradually increase the retirement age, to allow individuals to invest some of that money in their own account. I know why they are saying there is no big deal. They do not want to disrupt the senior vote for this coming November election. But it is not fair to the future. I think the mistake they are making, Mr. Speaker, is thinking that senior citizens only care about their own economic welfare. Here is what I think American senior citizens care about, and that is leaving a good world, a good United States, to their kids and their grandkids.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. This Republican budget is the best one of the whole bunch that we have got, certainly much better.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, I think there are two things. Technically, if you take all revenues coming into the Federal Government and then you subtract what you spend and if that number is a plus or minus, maybe technically it is balanced, but honestly, the fact is you are exactly right, which we are still continuing to borrow, in the year 2002, $100 billion from the Social Security and other trust funds.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I balance it in 5 years. I think we should be even more frugal than this Republican budget. I think we should cut more spending. I think we should be more aggressive in our determination to end up with what you suggest, a true balanced budget, but it's the best we have got.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I would say the first thing I did when I came to Congress 3 years ago was introduce my own balanced budget.