[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 15, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRA- TION INDEPENDENT ACT

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, on March 2, the Senate approved by 
voice vote legislation, S. 1560, which would establish the Social 
Security Administration as an independent agency. Although I did not 
object to the passage of this legislation, I do wish to make my views 
known. I have listened carefully to the advocates of this proposal and 
I share their strong commitment to preserving the integrity and the 
efficiency of the Social Security Administration. But I am not 
convinced that this legislation would do anything to accomplish these 
important goals.
  However well-intentioned this bill may be, I am disappointed that it 
fails to address those aspects of Social Security that the American 
people seem to care about the most. Whenever I visit senior citizen 
centers or hold ``town meetings'' in Wyoming, issues relating to Social 
Security are always raised by my constituents.
  The concerns they express cover a wide range of issues: the annual 
cost of living adjustment, the long-term solvency of the Social 
Security trust fund, the so-called ``notch baby'' issue, the Social 
Security payroll tax, the investment of surplus Social Security 
revenues, the taxation of Social Security benefits, the ``earnings 
test'' that limits benefits for seniors who work in their retirement, 
spousal and dependent benefits and the list goes on and on. People 
speak with great clarity and power on all of these issues--because they 
care about them. And, yet, no one has ever come to me and said: 
``Simpson, we need to `restructure' the Social Security bureaucracy.'' 
I do not recall having ever heard that from a constituent.
  So I think it is curious that--of all the issues that may arise in a 
serious discussion of Social Security--this issue is one that is hardly 
even mentioned by the American people. I know that some of the 
``special interest groups'' have indicated their support, but the 
people themselves have not spoken with any great energy or enthusiasm 
on this matter. The reason is simply that this bill does not accomplish 
anything of great significance.

  I think we should acknowledge very clearly that S. 1560 does nothing 
to address the long-term fiscal problems of Social Security. Nor does 
it change in any way the status or treatment of the Social Security 
trust funds. Nor does it prevent future Congresses from enacting 
changes in Social Security.
  I make these observations simply because some of the rhetoric and 
debate accompanying this proposal might lead the casual observer to 
believe that the Senate may have acted in some extraordinary way to 
forever protect Social Security from certain unknown evil forces. That 
would surely be an overly dramatic description of what was done, so I 
think it is important to set the record straight in that respect.
  While it is clear that this bill is nothing more than a symbolic 
gesture, it would be a serious mistake to assume that there is no harm 
in pretending to do something magnificent for the American people. As 
much as I understand the great desire to ``do something''--indeed, to 
just ``do anything''--I did not agree with a proposal that would so 
seriously disrupt and complicate the range of services that are 
presently available to our Nations' elderly.
  It is not my intention to be an alarmist, but I do want to call 
attention to the serious concerns that were expressed to me 2 years ago 
by Dr. Louis Sullivan who served so ably as Secretary of Health and 
Human Services in the Bush administration. I visited personally with 
Dr. Sullivan at that time and we discussed the implications of 
isolating Social Security from other Federal programs that serve the 
elderly. Under existing law, the Department of Health and Human 
Services--also administers such vital programs as Medicare, Medicaid, 
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP], and a number of 
other services that fall under the Older Americans Act.
  Because the department is involved in the coordination and delivery 
of all of these services, seniors have ready access to information on 
any of them simply by calling or visiting their local Social Security 
office. This convenience should not be taken for granted or casually 
discarded. Yet that is exactly what this legislation would do.
  With the passage of this bill, the existing network of information 
will be disrupted and replaced by a statutory requirement that orders 
the Commissioner of Social Security and the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to ``consult with each other'' to assure that 
information about Medicare and Medicaid is available to the public. The 
bill does not specify how this will happen, nor does it provide any 
mechanism for achieving this coordination. Instead, it removes the 
structure that has coordinated these services for so long--and then 
hands down a mandate from on high that basically says, ``coordination 
shall continue, regardless of what we have just done.'' In my view, 
that is a most remarkable display of wishful thinking and naivete.
  Another truly fascinating thing about this debate is the manner in 
which the buzz word ``independence'' has been thrown around. I have 
heard some magnificent claims about what a glorious thing an 
independent Social Security Administration would be, but I have not yet 
heard one specific example of how independence, as defined by this 
bill, would benefit our Nation's seniors. I have just commented on the 
inconveniences that will result and it is clear that they are, indeed, 
very real. But the advantages, if there are any, have nothing to do 
with strengthening the Social Security system. This is a matter of 
highest concern, not only to today's retirees, but to future retirees 
as well. Millions of young Americans, who may be--and should be--
concerned about the long-term solvency of the trust fund, are not going 
to find anything in this bill that addresses their concerns. I 
seriously doubt that this so-called independence will be of much 
comfort to them in the year 2030 when there will be only two people 
paying into the system for every one person receiving benefits.
  Now this latter point is surely an issue that deserves our most 
thoughtful attention. But it is too difficult to address and not very 
PC, so we will just ignore it and pretend instead to ``do something'' 
great for seniors by giving them an independent--or an isolated--Social 
Security system. This is a phony and useless gift that I believe we 
should have rejected.

                          ____________________