[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 131 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11780-S11781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FINALLY FIX SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I heard an exchange earlier between the 
Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Oklahoma who talked about 
raiding the Social Security trust fund. We have not been raiding the 
Social Security trust fund for the last 16 years. What we have--since 
1983--is a tax that generates revenue in excess of what we need. The 
law says we have to take that tax and purchase Treasury bonds. When the 
Treasury is purchasing Treasury bonds from itself, Treasury ends up 
with cash.
  The question is--since 1983--what do we do with that cash? We have 
been using it to fund general government, and the impact of that since 
1983 is that people who get paid by the hour are the ones who suffer. 
We make this appeal to people over the age of 65 for political reasons: 
Do not raid Social Security. But the people who suffer and have been 
paying the price since 1983 are the American taxpayers, people who get 
paid by the hour. For the median-income family earning $37,000 a year, 
they will pay $5,700 in payroll taxes and $1,300 or $1,400 in income 
taxes. Since 1983, they have shouldered a disproportionate share of 
deficit reduction. Now that the deficit is gone, guess what they get to 
do. They get to shoulder all the debt reduction. This does not save 
Social Security. What this does is save us from having to make a 
change. That puts a tremendous burden upon people who are paid by the 
hour.
  What we ought to be doing is debating reducing that burden, not, in 
my judgment, making a play for people over the age of 65 and saying we 
have been raiding the trust. We have not. We have not been raiding the 
trust fund since 1983. The trust fund has been building up, and those 
Treasury bonds are valuable. They earn interest. In fact, there is $40 
billion worth of interest added on to the Social Security trust this 
year as a result of paying for the interest on those bonds.

  The people who suffer as a consequence of Congress' delay on fixing 
Social Security are 150 million Americans under the age of 45. If you 
are under the age 45 and you are watching Congress say, ``Let's fix 
Social Security'' and do nothing, what you ought to be saying is: Mr. 
Congressman, when are you going to fix it?
  Why do we not fix it? You can see it. I was watching the news this 
morning. I saw Ken Apfel, the head of the Social Security 
Administration, in an interview with Katie Couric, proudly telling 
about a letter he is sending out to Social Security beneficiaries 
telling them what they are going to get when they retire. He left one 
thing out. If they are under 45 and they get a letter in the mail that 
says ``this is what your benefits are going to be,'' Mr. Apfel is not 
informing those beneficiaries that unless Congress increases taxes, 
there is going to be a 25- to 33-percent cut in benefits, according to 
the Social Security trustees. He is not informing them of that, and he 
is not informing them that Social Security, for that low- and moderate-
wage individual, is not a very generous program. If you live very long 
after the age of 65, God help you if that is all you have.
  Those of us who have been arguing we need to fix Social Security get 
a little irritated when we hear people say we have been raiding Social 
Security for the last 16 years and that the lockbox saves Social 
Security. It does not. What the lockbox does is say to people who are 
paid by the hour, the median family who has $5,700 in payroll taxes, 
after shouldering all the burden for deficit reduction from 1983 to 
1999, it is now their responsibility to pay down the debt. On behalf of 
those people, to keep Social Security as an intergenerational program, 
I beg my colleagues to finally decide: What will you support?
  I went to the University of Nebraska, graduated with a degree in 
pharmacy, and was trained in demolitions in the U.S. Navy. I do not 
consider myself to be an intellectual giant. I am neither a Rhodes 
scholar nor some sort of scholastic achiever. I do not consider myself 
to be intellectually superior to anybody in this place. An average 
staffer with an hour's worth of work can present to any Member of 
Congress the options that are available to us. This is not complicated. 
This is not youth violence. This is not the deterioration of the 
American family. This is not lots of issues that are complicated.
  We have a liability that is too big, and for 150 million 
beneficiaries who are now charged with the responsibility of paying 
down all the debt with their payroll taxes, they face a 25- to 33-
percent cut in their benefits. We are not keeping the promise to them, 
and we are making an appeal to people over the age of 65, saying: The 
lockbox saves you. Nonsense, it does not.
  I know how difficult it is to finally say this is what I choose 
because you either have to increase taxes or you cut benefits. There 
are no other magical choices. There is not any other choice. You either 
cut the benefits in the future or you increase taxes. I wish there were 
some other choice, but there is not.
  I hope Americans, as they hear this debate about raiding Social 
Security, will understand we are not, in my view, raiding Social 
Security. What we are saying is that we are going to postpone fixing 
Social Security because we are afraid of people over the age of 65. We 
are afraid they cannot stomach the truth. I believe that is wrong. They 
can stomach the truth. They want to know the truth. They want the 
facts. They are patriotic; they love their country; they love their 
kids and grandkids; and they want to make certain their future is 
secure and sound and that Social Security is going to be there for them 
when they become eligible.
  I hope we are able to take action on the Balanced Budget Restoration 
Act that Senator Daschle has introduced. But I hope in this budget 
debate as well, we will finally recognize the sooner we fix Social 
Security, the smaller the changes will have to be. The people who are 
going to suffer the consequences today may not be us. We may be able to 
get by the next election by fooling people about what we are doing. But 
the people who are going to suffer are 150 million Americans under

[[Page S11781]]

the age of 45 who are not going to be happy when they wake up on 
Christmas morning and go down and check the sock and find out there is 
a third less in it than they were told, by the Social Security 
Administration, was going to be in it.
  Mr. President, I appreciate your indulgence and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the state of the 
proceedings?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business with each Senator 
having 10 minutes to speak.

                          ____________________