[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2150-S2154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. For some time now, we have had 
what we call a freshman/sophomore focus in which those of us who have 
come here in the last 2 to 4 years come to the floor to talk about some 
of the issues that we believe are the pivotal issues before this 
Congress and the American people, the ones that have the highest 
priority and are most difficult. We come again this morning to talk 
largely about the questions and problems associated with Social 
Security. All of us, of course, are dedicated to continuing to have a 
strong Social Security program. So that is the focus of our freshman 
focus this morning.
  I yield to the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning along with my colleague 
to make a few brief observations about Social Security and how we can 
preserve and strengthen it. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for 
reserving floor time so that we can address this critical issue.
  I was shocked by a recent poll revealing that Americans would rather 
put their Social Security money under their mattress than entrust it to 
the Government. According to that poll, 46 to 56 percent of Americans 
said they would prefer to put their retirement savings under their 
mattress--only 28 to 35 percent would rely on Uncle Sam. Why are so 
many Americans skeptical about the government-run Social Security 
program? The answer is simple: in its present form, the program is a 
raw deal for most Americans. It will not be there for baby boomers, and 
it will heavily burden our children and grandchildren.

[[Page S2151]]

  Mr. President, the American people's skepticism and worries about 
Social Security are well founded. Social Security's future is being 
challenged by a massive demographic shift now underway that will 
continue for the next 33 years. In 1941, there were approximately 100 
workers for every retiree. Today, there are only three workers for 
every retiree; that ratio will soon drop to two workers per retiree. 
Even though Congress has increased the payroll tax 51 times since 
Social Security's creation, the program is clearly headed for 
insolvency and the future tax burden on workers will be overwhelming.
  The Congressional Budget Office warns that if these problems are not 
fixed, federal deficits could shatter our future economy, placing a 
heavy burden on our children and grandchildren. The federal deficit 
would increase from $107 billion in 1996 to $11 trillion in 2035. The 
national debt would balloon to $91 trillion during that same period of 
time. Such rapid growth of federal debt and the deficit would bankrupt 
this nation, making any bailout impossible.
  Mr. President, I welcome the fact that the Administration has started 
to pay attention to the Social Security crisis. I am pleased we all 
agree that Social Security is facing serious financial and demographic 
challenges. It is a fiscal disaster-in-the-making, unsustainable in its 
present form. We desperately need reform to preserve and strengthen the 
Social Security program. The sooner we do it, the less pain we will 
suffer in the future. But the real question is, how we should go about 
it?
  It is obvious to me that simply funneling money back into Social 
Security won't help fix the problem. It will not re-build the fund's 
assets for current and future beneficiaries and it does not address the 
flaws of the current finance mechanism.
  The fundamental problem with the Social Security program is that it 
is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis. The Social Security payroll taxes 
are not directly invested in assets, and retirees' benefits are not 
paid from the sale of earlier invested assets. Instead, the current 
payroll taxes are largely paid directly to current retirees, and the 
federal government uses the remainder to fund other programs--stealing 
from the Social Security trust fund to pay for other programs. The 
Social Security's trust-fund ``assets'' consist of nothing but Treasury 
IOUs that can only be redeemed if Congress cuts other spending, raises 
taxes, or borrows from the public to raise the cash.
  Without fundamental reform, using general revenue to pay for Social 
Security is nothing but an increase in the payroll tax on American 
workers. I believe that reforming the Social Security program to ensure 
its solvency is vitally important, and the sooner we get about the task 
of doing it the better. Any projected budget surplus should be used 
partly for that purpose, using it to build real assets by changing it 
from pay-go to a pre-funded system.
  Yet, I also believe strongly that Congress owes it to the taxpayers 
to dedicate a good share of the surplus for tax relief. After all, the 
government has no claim on any surplus because the government did not 
generate it--it will have been borne of the sweat and hard work of the 
American people, and it therefore should be returned to the people in 
the form of tax relief.
  Washington and bureaucrats should not be first in line to take any of 
the surplus and spend it. It should go back to the taxpayers.
  Should we save Social Security first or provide tax cuts first? My 
answer is we should do both. We had a similar debate last year about 
whether we should balance the budget first and provide tax cuts later. 
The truth is we can absolutely do both at the same time, as long as we 
have the political will to reform Social Security.
  The President is maintaining that not one penny of the surplus should 
be used for spending increases or tax cuts--that every penny should go 
to save Social Security. But in his FY 1999 budget, he has already 
proposed to spend some $43 billion of the surplus. That's an obvious 
contradiction.
  Moreover, in the next five years, the President will have to use more 
than $400 billion out of $600 billion from the Social Security trust 
funds surplus to pay for his government programs.
  If we're serious about saving Social Security, we should first stop 
looting the Social Security surplus to fund general government 
programs, return the borrowed surplus to the trust funds by cutting 
government spending, and begin real Social Security reform.
  Mr. President, several other recent polls prove that Americans are 
increasingly concerned about the future solvency of the current Social 
Security program. A USA Weekend poll showed that one out of two 
Americans fear they would have inadequate Social Security benefits.
  In a survey conducted during a Social Security conference I hosted 
recently in my home state of Minnesota, we found that 73 percent of the 
participants fear they may not achieve a secure retirement from Social 
Security.
  Eighty-five percent believe America's young people will be facing a 
major financial crisis and significantly higher taxes because of 
current and future spending on older generations.
  Eighty percent believe most people could make more money investing 
their retirement funds in the private sector than they get from Social 
Security.
  Seventy-nine percent would support conversion of the current pay-go 
system to a prefunded system.
  Again, 79 percent, or 8 out of 10 Americans, would support the 
conversion of the current pay-go system to a prefunded system.
  Clearly, the American people want reforms to ensure that any 
retirement benefits continue to be available to all Americans. And I 
believe we should consider any Social Security reforms that will 
provide a better retirement safety net for all Americans by allowing 
compound interest to work.
  Mr. President, the success of Social Security reform depends on 
informing and educating the American people. Only a knowledgeable 
public can make a sound decision about how we should go about saving 
Social Security.
  As a first step in this effort, I have introduced a bill to require 
statements providing the American people with essential information on 
their future Social Security benefits. The information provided by the 
Social Security Information Act will give us a better idea of what our 
Social Security benefits will be at retirement age, as well as a 
comparison to what those retirees would get if Social Security dollars 
had been invested privately. They need to have that information. They 
need to have that comparison. Americans need to know up front what they 
can and can't expect of the Social Security System compared against 
what they are paying into it and what their employer is contributing.
  Giving individuals an honest accounting of that information serves, I 
think, the very fundamental objectives of the Social Security Program 
by enabling workers to judge to what degree they should supplement 
their contributions with other forms of retirement savings such as 
pension plans, personal savings, and investment. The Social Security 
Information Act is a good first step in the fundamental reform that 
needs to be undertaken.
  Mr. President, in closing, I am looking forward to working with my 
colleagues and the administration in exploring every possible solution 
that we can to strengthen Social Security and to help provide better 
benefits for today's recipients and also provide better benefits for 
future generations.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from 
Wyoming, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota, who 
has worked very hard in the area of deficit reduction and strengthening 
Social Security. And I know he continues to feel strongly about it.
  One of the interesting things--and I suppose it is true of any 
institution, and it seems more particularly true of government--is the 
difficulty in making changes. I doubt that there is anyone who is 
knowledgeable at all about Social Security who wouldn't agree that 
there needs to be some changes made; who wouldn't agree that if we do 
not make changes, the results will not be what we want, and, 
conversely, if we expect some different results, we have to do some 
things differently. But it is very difficult to do. So I think it is 
important for us to continue to talk

[[Page S2152]]

about it, continue to stress it, and continue to point it out.
  Social Security is a major component of senior citizens' income. 
Thirty-seven and one-half million senior citizens depend at least 
partially--and many times totally--on Social Security payments. In many 
cases, it is the only source of retirement income. That is unfortunate, 
of course, because it isn't designed to be a retirement program, it is 
designed to be a supplemental program.
  So there is something to the idea that we need to deal with taxes and 
Social Security simultaneously so that we encourage people to save on 
their own and have opportunities to do that through IRAs, or whatever 
technique, and at the same time strengthen Social Security, because 
they do, in fact, go together. All of us, I think, on the other hand, 
recognize that the system as it is now set up is not simultaneous. In 8 
years, the system will begin to feel the pinch of retirement and the 
baby boomers, and this idea of having a surplus will begin to go away, 
and by the year 2012 it is expected that we will be running a deficit 
in terms of revenues.
  What does this mean? It means, of course, that the Government will 
not be able to pay the benefits that are due without making some other 
kinds of changes.
  There is some talk about taking the money and spending it for 
something else, which, of course, is true. But the fact is that under 
this system, the surpluses can only be invested in Government 
securities. And, therefore, when the Government needs to borrow money, 
for whatever the reason, it borrows from somewhere, and if it didn't 
borrow from Social Security, it would borrow from us as individuals. 
But the problem is, when we take $100 billion a year out of Social 
Security and put it into debt, then, of course, when the time comes for 
that debt to have to be repaid, we have to do something quite different 
than what we have been doing in the past.
  It seems to me that the real clincher is, it is pretty clear that the 
longer we wait, the more difficult it will be and the more severe the 
changes will have to be. If we can make those changes as soon as 
possible, they can be more incremental and, hopefully, less painful. 
And change always has a certain amount of pain.
  During the State of the Union message, of course, the President 
brought up this notion of Social Security, and, of course, he said, 
``Social Security first,'' which is good. And I think it is fine that 
this thing was brought up there. I think it is fine that the White 
House has committed itself to this being the issue. The unfortunate 
part of it is, I think, that primarily a political statement is one 
that people like to hear --``Social Security first.'' But, 
unfortunately, the President does not have a plan to do anything about 
it.
  Someone--I think Kevin Kearns from the Council of Government Reform--
indicated that it is a little like the captain of the Titanic who saw 
the distress signals from the Titanic but didn't do anything about it. 
That is kind of where we are.
  So it is a responsibility and an opportunity for the Congress, I 
think, to step up to the plate and to do something about changing the 
way that we fund this program. There are some very hard questions to be 
answered. Let me just share a couple of the things that are talked 
about--certainly the surpluses, as I mentioned; and Social Security 
will be about $105 billion in 1999. So the $10 billion surplus that is 
applied there is a relatively ineffective remedy in that it doesn't 
really amount to very much compared to the kind of lending that is 
taken.
  First, there are several ways to make changes. The idea of putting 
some of these funds into an investment that grows and compounds has a 
number of advantages. One is, we would remove the excess payroll taxes 
from the unified budget. In other words, if we sent 2 percent over into 
this investment program, those would not be available as trust funds to 
be loaned to the Government as expenditures. That would be a plus. The 
second is, the amount that was invested would almost surely return a 
higher return than maybe Government securities. Whether the market goes 
up or down, it also moves that way, and the private sector also, at 
least from the point of view of some. If we set aside a portion of this 
to be dedicated to our retirement funds, it would be a fund that would 
become an asset and, if not exhausted by the user, would be a part of 
transfer to heirs. That again may or may not be the case, but that is 
one of the arguments that we hear.

  The Washington Post, on the other hand, interestingly enough, some 
time ago said there are only three possible answers: Tax increases, 
spending cuts, or borrowing from the public. I don't believe the 
analyses of the answers are complete. Some of the answers are different 
kinds of investments, different kinds of returns, and perhaps something 
about age. So the idea of simply more taxes, I think, is not the 
answer.
  The fact is that taxes, as my friend from Minnesota indicated, have 
been raised, I think, some 63 times over the course of Social Security. 
The 15.3-percent tax rate we now have is the most burdensome tax, after 
all, to most taxpayers. Seventy-two percent of all Americans pay no 
more than 15 percent in income tax. This means that this payroll tax is 
the largest tax, as a percentage to Americans, that Americans pay.
  If, in fact, we don't do something, the National Center for Policy 
Analysis says the rising cost of Social Security and Medicare will 
raise the payroll taxes 53 percent by the time today's college students 
are ready to retire. Obviously, that is an unacceptable alternative.
  Some talk about age differentials. In 1940, the labor force 
participation rate for men 65 years of age was 70 percent. Seventy 
percent of men 65 years of age were in the work force. Today, 33 
percent are in the work force. So, obviously, we have less input and 
more outgo in this program.
  So there are a number of things, all of which will be kind of new, 
all of which, I suppose, will be difficult. But, unfortunately, it is 
difficult to make change. The Social Security Program is not treated 
like a pension. Our contributions don't go into assets like stocks and 
bonds or mutual funds that increase in value over time, as we know. In 
the 1950s, there were 16 workers for every retiree, and Social Security 
taxes could be low and the benefits relatively high. Because of the 
number now, there are approximately three workers per retiree. This 
decline, as I mentioned, has resulted in 63 tax increases over this 
period of time.
  So I think the evidence that we have a problem is clearly there. Now 
the question is, What are we willing to do about it? One of the 
suggestions, of course--and I think is a good one--is to put you and me 
as workers in charge of some of our own funds, not simply to raise 
taxes but rather to make Social Security financially sound. The program 
was originally financed on the 6-percent payroll tax. Today, of course, 
the tax rate is 12.4, plus Medicare, which makes it 15 percent. In 
order to keep this, as I mentioned, solvent, payroll taxes will need to 
be 18 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2075.
  What are some of the ideas? Of course, to allow workers to divert a 
portion of their current payroll taxes to personal investment accounts; 
investing these funds into private securities; providing some ownership 
for this portion of that fee that goes there; and investing, of course, 
in private securities. I think it is important, on the other hand, that 
we continue to ensure that everyone is involved, that everyone makes 
some effort to prepare for their own retirement. And Social Security 
needs to be a concept that we continue to have.
  So both of these options--of diverting it into a personal account, 
investing the budget surplus funds that we might have now into private 
securities, as opposed to the way we do it in Government securities--
are an alternative, and both of these can go hand in hand. I think it 
is fair to say that the investment of the current surplus into private 
securities will not, in fact, solve the problem but will move us 
forward. But can you imagine young people, such as the young people who 
are here today as pages and as interns, when they come into the work 
force and are able to invest immediately 2 percent of that fund? Over a 
period of time, it will amount to a great deal of money.
  So that is kind of where we are, Mr. President. We have a problem. We 
have some difficulties, of course. One of them that we are talking 
about this morning in another context is the unified budget. There is a 
great debate

[[Page S2153]]

over the unified budget. As you know, all of the money that comes to 
the Federal Government goes into the unified budget, even though it may 
be in a trust fund, such as Social Security, such as a highway fund. 
Some say we ought to take those out of the unified budget and let the 
Social Security be off budget and let the highway fund be off budget. I 
suppose you have to say let the airport fund be off budget, and about 
50 others be off budget. We would end up a bit like my State 
legislature, which I think has control of about 30 percent of the funds 
that come to the State, and all of it is earmarked for certain things.
  I understand there is merit in that. I don't favor that, however. But 
that is one of the debates that goes on. The other one, of course, is 
as we spend more than we take in, we borrow from someone. And 
obviously, since the law requires that Social Security has to be 
invested in Government securities, you borrow there. You borrow there 
first, which makes a pretty good deal for the rest of the programs, if 
you are going to spend more than you take in. But it is not a good deal 
for those people who have their money set aside in the trust fund such 
as Social Security.
  So we have, I think, a great deal to do. We have some hard topics to 
undertake. One of them is age. Obviously, we live longer than we did 
before. I already mentioned the work force at 65. We are moving towards 
the 67 age limit rather than 65. But I believe it is 2020 before we 
reach that level of gradually moving up 1 month a year.
  So that needs to be reviewed. It is very difficult. It is true that 
things need to be done prospectively so that people who have paid in 
based on one set of circumstances are not affected, particularly during 
their time of benefits, but that those who come into the program more 
recently may come in under a different set of circumstances. So if ever 
there was a program, it seems to me, where you really have to decide, 
is this something we want to go on in the future, is this something you 
begin at age 22 to pay into to expect to enjoy the benefits, it is 
Social Security.
  Polls have indicated that people in the 20 to 30 age bracket do not 
expect to have any benefits come to them. I think that is unfortunate. 
I think we have a responsibility to see that they do, so that it is not 
strictly a pay-go, that they are paying in for someone else with no 
hope of benefits. I think it can be done. I really think it can be 
done, and I think it can be done with relatively modest changes if we 
will move quickly to make those changes. The longer we wait, the more 
severe those changes will have to be and the more difficult they will 
be to obtain.
  Mr. President, I think we are going to be joined in a moment by 
another one of our colleagues. In the meantime, I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been joined now by our other 
associate, the Senator from Colorado, to conclude our comments this 
morning with respect to our focus on Social Security. So I yield to the 
Senator from Colorado 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for giving me an 
opportunity this morning to talk a little bit about Social Security 
reform. It is a delight to be able to work with the senior Senator from 
Wyoming on this and many, many other issues.
  One of the most important challenges that we face as elected 
officials is the reform of Social Security. This issue, I think, is a 
test of our concern for future generations. The problem is far enough 
into the future that we could get away with doing absolutely nothing, 
but I do not believe this is acceptable. I am committed, and I think a 
majority of Members of both parties are committed, to the reform of 
Social Security, and doing it now.
  Currently, Social Security payroll taxes exceed the level of benefits 
that are paid out. We, therefore, have a temporary surplus in the 
program. This will continue to be the case until around the year 2013 
when we begin to run Social Security deficits. Unfortunately, none of 
the current Social Security surpluses are saved. They are spent on 
other Government programs. If a private company established a pension 
system like this, the administrator would be sent to jail.
  With each passing year, we lose valuable time. Several years ago, the 
bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform forecast where they 
thought the budget would be headed over the next several decades. The 
most startling fact was that unless we reform entitlements such as 
Social Security and Medicare, those entitlements will consume virtually 
all tax revenues by the year 2030. Obviously, taxes would either have 
to be increased dramatically or spending would have to be cut 
dramatically on critical Government functions such as defense, law 
enforcement, transportation, and education.
  This is a future that we simply must avoid. But we can only do this 
by moving now to reform Social Security. In my view, it is time to 
begin the transition from an exclusively tax-financed system to an 
investment-based system. This will take time. Any transition will 
probably have to be implemented over a period of 25 to 30 years. That 
is why it is so critical that we begin the transition no later than the 
year 2000.
  Obviously, under any transition, we must guarantee current retirees 
the return that they have been promised. However, younger generations 
should be given the option of setting up some type of personal 
investment account similar to an IRA for a portion of their payroll 
taxes. Currently, the payroll tax on wages that is dedicated to Social 
Security is 12.4 percent. Half of this is paid by employees and the 
other half is paid by the employers. An initial transition might permit 
2 percent to be invested in a mandatory account held by the taxpayer. 
These funds could be invested in common stock, bonds, Treasury notes, 
money markets, or any mixture desired by the taxpayer. The principal 
difference between this and the current system is that the personal 
investment account would be real money. This type of system is 
gradually being put into place in countries around the world. 
Australia, Chile, and Great Britain have also begun the transition to 
an investment-based pension system.

  The long-term benefits are significant. This system would gradually 
reduce the claim on the U.S. Treasury that exists with the current 
system. Taxpayers would get a better return on their payroll tax 
dollars. Each and every American would become a shareholder in the 
economy. The economy would benefit from the higher level of national 
savings by forcing everybody to save for their retirement.
  Mr. President, this is just one of a number of ideas being considered 
for Social Security reform. The important point is that we need to 
begin a national debate on this issue right now. We need to set to work 
now in devising a retirement system for the 21st century.
  Mr. President, I now yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The distinguished Senator from 
New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am sure that the distinguished Senator from Colorado 
has other appointments he has to meet and will have to leave the floor 
shortly.
  But could I congratulate him on his remarks, and to say that we are 
about to introduce a bill, the Social Security Solvency Act of 1998, 
that is almost precisely the one he contemplates, or is in that range 
of reference. For his particular concern, we reduce the present 12.4 
percent payroll tax by 2 percentage points, to 10.4. That puts us on a 
pay-as-you-go system, which with other adjustments, particularly the 
cost-of-living adjustment, means we will never go much above 13.4 
percent, and we stay at 12.4 all the way to the year 2045. And then we 
give to each worker-employee the option of having 2 percent, the 
reduction in tax under our bill, put into a personal savings account--
not very different from the Federal Thrift Savings Plan in which you 
have a whole catalog of mutual funds of various kinds in which you can 
invest.
  The magic of compound interest is extraordinary. The Wall Street 
Journal

[[Page S2154]]

this morning comments on this proposal and notes that--well, I will 
just read it:

       Why shouldn't working stiffs have the same chance others 
     have to exploit the magic of compound interest? Mr. Moynihan 
     shows that workers earning $30,000 a year--

  Which is not a high income at this time--

     can at a modest 5 percent return amass $450,000 in savings 
     after 45 years.

  By just shifting that 2 percent.
  And this gives workers something they have not had in the past. It 
gives them an estate they can pass on to their children. Oh, heavens, I 
am about to say something which I suppose should be stricken from the 
Record, but it will make them all Republicans. Still, it is very much 
in line with the Senator's comments. I very much appreciate what he has 
said, and I congratulate him on doing so.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Wall 
Street Journal be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 18, 1998]

                          Public Trust Busting

       When Senator Pat Moynihan speaks, liberals listen. So it 
     just might mark a watershed in the Social Security reform 
     debate that the New York Democrat this week embraced private 
     investment retirement accounts.
       Mr. Moynihan's welfare state credentials are impeccable. He 
     helped to expand it during the Johnson and Nixon years and 
     he's been its most intellectually nimble defender since. He 
     bitterly opposed President Clinton's decision to sign a 
     welfare reform law. And only last year, writing in the New 
     York Times, he seemed to rule out any significant change in 
     Social Security.
       Well, he's now revising and extending those remarks. On 
     Monday at Harvard, he said Social Security can be saved only 
     by changing it. And not merely with the usual political 
     kamikaze run of raising taxes and slashing benefits. He's 
     also endorsing a redesign that would allow individuals to 
     invest two percentage points of their payroll tax as they 
     please, presumably in stocks, bonds and other private 
     investments.
       This is a big breakthrough, ideologically and politically. 
     The idea of a private Social Security option has until 
     recently been the province of libertarians and other 
     romantics. When Steve Forbes talked up the concept in 1996, 
     he was demagogued by fellow Republicans. Even such a free-
     marketeer as Ronald Reagan was forced to accept a Social 
     Security fix in 1983 that relied mostly on tax hikes.
       What's changed? Only the world, as Mr. Moynihan admits. The 
     weight of the looming Baby Boom retirement has caused a loss 
     of public faith in Social Security's sustainability. Few Gen-
     Xers even expect to receive it. More and more Americans also 
     began to see the virtue of private retirement vehicles like 
     IRAs and 401(k)s, which grew like Topsy as the stock market 
     boomed.
       ``In the meanwhile the academic world had changed,'' Mr. 
     Moynihan also told the mostly liberal academics at Harvard. 
     ``The most energetic and innovative minds had turned away 
     from government programs--the nanny state--toward individual 
     enterprise, self-reliance, free markets.'' (No, he wasn't 
     quoting from this editorial page.) Privatizing Social 
     Security suddenly became thinkable, in many minds even 
     preferable.
       In short, the same economic and political forces that have 
     remade American business are now imposing change on 
     government. Global competition and instant information 
     have forced industry to streamline or die. Now those 
     forces are busting up public monopolies--the public 
     trusts, to adapt a Teddy Roosevelt phrase--that deliver 
     poor results.
       In the U.S., that means breaking a public school monopoly 
     that traps poor kids in mediocrity or worse. And it means 
     reforming a retirement system that gives individuals only a 
     fraction of the return on their savings that they know they'd 
     receive if they invested the money themselves. These are 
     ultimately moral questions, because in the name of equity 
     these public trusts are damaging opportunity for those who 
     need it most.
       The rich have known for years how to exploit the magic of 
     compound interest, for example. Why shouldn't working stiffs 
     have the same chance? Mr. Moynihan shows that a worker 
     earning $30,000 a year can, at a modest 4% annual return, 
     amass $450,000 in savings over 45 years by shifting just 2% 
     of the payroll tax into a private account. Thus do even 
     liberals become capitalists.
       Now, let us acknowledge that ``privatizing'' Social 
     Security is not what Mr. Moynihan desires. His political goal 
     is to reform Social Security just enough to be able to save 
     its universal guarantee. He fears, sensibly enough, that if 
     liberals oppose any change they may find the debate has moved 
     on without them. ``The veto groups that prevented any change 
     in the welfare system,'' he says, ``looked up one day to find 
     the system had vanished.''
       No doubt many conservatives will want to go much further 
     than the New Yorker, us among them. If investing 2% of the 
     payroll tax rate is desirable, why not more? Workers ought to 
     be able to decide for themselves if they want to trade lower 
     taxes now for a lower Social Security payment at retirement.
       We also disagree with Mr. Moynihan on some of his details. 
     To defray the cost of reducing the payroll tax, he would 
     increase the amount of wages subject to that tax--from 
     $68,400 now to $97,500 by 2003. This is a large increase in 
     the marginal tax rate for many taxpayers that would defeat 
     reform's very purpose. He'd also raise the payroll tax rate 
     down the line as the Boomers retire--something that needn't 
     happen if the reform were more ambitious than the Senator 
     says he wants.
       Yet for all of that, Mr. Moynihan moves the debate in the 
     direction of more individual control and more market sense. 
     Along with his pal and co-sponsor, Nebraska's Bob Kerrey, he 
     has broken with liberal orthodoxy. Maybe their daring will 
     even give courage to Republicans.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly to the 
senior Senator from New York. I compliment him on his leadership on 
this particular issue. Obviously, those of us who are just new to the 
Senate appreciate the background and wealth of information that he 
brings to this issue and actually look forward to working very closely 
with him on these issues. A lot of what he says I agree with, and I 
think it is an issue that needs to be addressed today. With people like 
the Senator from New York working on this problem, I feel even more 
confident we will be able to address the problem in the near future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
York, Mr. Moynihan, and the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey, will 
have 30 minutes to speak.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum 
awaiting the arrival of Senator Kerrey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New York is recognized.

                          ____________________