[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4293-S4294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments of my 
colleague from the State of Wyoming and the discussion about the Senate 
agenda. I could not agree more. There are certain issues the Senate 
should take up and take up as quickly as possible. We face some serious 
challenges, not the least of which relate to Social Security and 
Medicare.
  The Social Security trust fund, which many of us made solemn oaths 
and pledges never to touch, is about to be invaded by both political 
parties at this point in time because of the deficit we face.
  We are in a deficit situation after several years of the good 
experience of surpluses and reducing our national debt and reducing the 
debt of the Social Security trust fund because, frankly, we have run 
into some bad situations and also some bad decisions.
  We could not have anticipated the recession would go on this long, 
but it has. We certainly didn't anticipate September 11, which has been 
very costly to our Government. Last year the President convinced a 
majority of the Senate and the House to vote for a tax program which, 
in fact, has virtually decimated the surplus which had been predicted. 
The President said at the time we had $5.2 trillion in surplus so why 
not give the money back to the people? Cut the taxes. Why does it stay 
in Washington?
  Some of us who lived through the deficits of the Reagan-Bush era said 
go slow, be careful, because the deficits could return any day. You 
just can't tell what's around the corner. But the White House insisted 
we needed tax cuts--primarily for wealthy people. We did that last 
year. It turns out this year, instead of a projected $5.2 trillion 
surplus over the next 10 years we are down to $1.2 trillion. We lost $4 
trillion in projected surplus in 1 year.

  How did we lose it? For those three reasons: the recession, the war 
against terrorism, and the tax policy. So we find ourselves now trying 
to put together a budget and not raid the Social Security trust fund. 
That is why we are tied up in knots. It was a tax program pushed by the 
President which came too fast, without enough thought. It took away our 
surplus. It took the money out of our hands to deal with the challenges 
facing America.
  I did not vote for it. I think that is fairly obvious from my 
comments. But now, as many other Members of the Senate, I am facing the 
reality we have to try to put the budget together, even with this 
deficit situation. The President comes to us and says we need 
additional resources to fight the war against terrorism. He is right. 
He will get support from Congress for that, both for the Department of 
Defense and for homeland security.
  Of course that money is going to come out of the Social Security 
trust fund because we are in a deficit situation again. Many of us are 
concerned, too, because the President has said: Incidentally, I want 
more tax cuts. The ones last year were not enough. We should take last 
year's tax cuts and add on to them. If you look at the President's 
proposal, what it would do is once again threaten the Social Security 
trust fund.
  That does not make sense because we are just facing the possibility--
in fact the reality--of the baby boomers showing up for Social 
Security. Should we not be thinking ahead, making certain Social 
Security is strong when all of these thousands and millions of 
Americans who have paid into Social Security their entire lifetime show 
up and say: I am here. I want to retire. Where is my Social Security 
check?
  No, the President says: Think, instead, of additional tax cuts.
  Take a look at those tax cuts, incidentally. If you happen to be 
making over $300,000 a year, those tax cuts for you average about 
$40,000 a year in the President's new tax cut round, but if you are 
making, say, $100,000 a year, it is worth $200 or $300 a year. So there 
is a great disparity in who will benefit from this tax cut.
  But we know who will lose. The American families who have been 
counting on Social Security are not going to have as strong a Social 
Security trust fund as they should have because of the President's last 
tax cut and his proposed tax cut. You cannot keep going to the same 
well again and again at the expense of senior citizens, at the expense 
of workers today who, dutifully, every paycheck, put their money down 
for Social Security and now face the real possibility that when they 
need Social Security, the system will not be as strong as it should be.
  Let's reflect for a moment also on Medicare. The Medicare situation 
is one that is very troubling. I have traveled across my State of 
Illinois talking to doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. I 
have talked to people who are on Medicare. They are concerned. They 
need to be concerned. For reasons I cannot explain, this White House 
will not take a serious look at the dangerous state of affairs when it 
comes to Medicare. In fact, the House of Representatives recently 
proposed not only cutbacks in Medicare reimbursement for doctors but 
also further cutbacks to pay for a prescription drug program.
  Not surprisingly, hospitals have said if you are going to cut more 
deeply into Medicare, many of us will be forced to close. So in both 
Social Security and Medicare we have crisis situations looming and the 
administration refusing to show leadership. In fact, when it comes to 
Social Security, the administration is moving in the wrong direction, 
calling for permanent tax cuts which would additionally threaten Social 
Security in the future.
  I will take just a moment on prescription drugs, if I can. As I 
travel around my State of Illinois, I find a lot of people, senior 
citizens in particular, cannot afford prescription drugs. It is 
understandable if you have taken a look at some of the costs of the 
drugs now being prescribed. The average American has a hard time paying 
for them. Certainly a person who is retired cannot come up with the 
resources to make it work, so many people are making hard choices as to 
whether they fill prescriptions that the doctors recommend or ignore 
them or take half of

[[Page S4294]]

what they are supposed to take. These are tough calls for a lot of 
senior citizens.
  When we take a look at the issue of prescription drugs, it is not 
just a question of whether a senior under Medicare would have 
accessibility to these drugs; it is a question of the price of these 
drugs. Consider this for a minute. The pharmaceutical companies are 
spending a lot of money--you see it everywhere you turn--advertising 
their industry and their product. They advertise their industry by 
saying: We put good research into new drugs and we find cures.
  They are right. Thank goodness they do, and we want to encourage 
that.
  Then they go on, of course, to advertise specific drugs.
  Take this drug and you will be able to hop through a field of flowers 
without sneezing.
  Take this drug and you will not be depressed.
  Take this drug and it will deal with osteoarthritis.
  Take this drug and it will deal with pulmonary seizures.
  Take this little purple pill and go to our Web site and you'll feel 
better already.
  Take this Viagra--
  And so on and so on.
  How much are these drug companies spending when it comes to 
advertising? They are spending two to three times as much as they do on 
research. They are spending more money on advertising their drugs than 
on research on finding new drugs.
  To put it in comparison, do you remember Claritin, the drug for 
allergies? Schering-Plough spent more money in 1 year advertising for 
Claritin than Pepsi-Cola spent advertising Pepsi the same year; or 
Anheuser-Busch spent advertising Budweiser. Merck did the same thing 
with Vioxx.
  So when the drug costs keep going up and up, it is reasonable for us 
to ask the question whether these companies are putting too much money 
into advertising and not putting enough into research; whether the 
costs are out of control.
  I think it is something we have to address. We have to address the 
accessibility of drugs and their affordability as part of a 
prescription drug program. We certainly cannot go the route of the 
House Republicans of raiding Medicare in order to pay for a 
prescription drug program. That is what they have suggested.
  These are challenges we face. They are challenges which we are going 
to have to live up to, to make certain we keep our contract with 
seniors and others who are counting on Social Security and Medicare to 
be there when they need it.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________