[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 87 (Monday, June 27, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7402-S7403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, soon after President Bush won reelection 
last November, he made it clear that the top priority of his second 
term would be the privatization of Social Security. This is something 
the President had thought of long before his second term. In fact, when 
he ran for Congress in the late seventies from Texas, he talked then 
about the Social Security plan going broke and that it should be 
privatized. So this is something he has thought of a long time. But 
since he was elected the second time, he and other members of his 
administration have organized a massive campaign, given countless 
speeches, and crisscrossed the country all in an effort to sell the 
American people privatization.
  It has been a tough sell, though. The polls show that people have 
accepted this whole Social Security agenda about 25 percent. When he 
started it was in the 70s. Now it is down to 25 percent. It has been a 
tough sell because the President's privatization proposal is flawed in 
many ways. It would require deep benefit cuts, even for workers who 
don't choose to privatize accounts. It would require massive borrowing 
from countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, where we borrow about 40 
percent of the money we borrow for this year's deficit, which will be 
in the hundreds of billions of dollars, probably closer to half a 
trillion than not. It would turn Social Security from a guarantee into 
a gamble. And his privatized accounts would not strengthen Social 
Security's finances at all. In fact, it would make the long-term 
challenge worse, not better. The President has said the privatization 
plan will not stabilize Social Security.
  It is important to remember that even if we do nothing, which no one 
here is advocating, Social Security will pay 100 percent of promised 
benefits until about 2055 and about 80 percent thereafter. In fact, 
President Bush will be about 108 years old at the time Social Security 
would start paying 80 percent of benefits.
  While claims of a crisis are obviously false, it is also true that we 
face a long-term challenge, and we as Democrats need to address that, 
as we have said we would.
  Unfortunately, the President has other ideas. His goal is not to 
bolster Social Security. To the contrary, he went all the way to West 
Virginia, arguing that the trust fund is nothing more than an 
accounting fiction. And you can't argue for strengthening something if 
you don't believe it exists.
  No, the President's goal isn't to strengthen Social Security. His 
goal is to privatize it. Privatization, with its deep benefit cuts and 
massive debt, would undermine Social Security, and as a matter of 
principle we Democrats will never go along.
  Social Security is based on the best of American values. It promises 
Americans if they work hard, contribute, and play by the rules, they 
can retire and live in dignity, and their families will be protected if 
they become disabled or pass away. A third of the benefits paid out by 
Social Security are not, as my grandmother referred to it, old-age 
pensions. They are for people who are disabled, widows, orphans. Social 
Security is not a handout. It promises benefits that people earn 
through their hard work. That is as it should be, and we need to do 
everything we can to make good on that promise.
  Fortunately, the American people agree with us. Along with several of 
my Democratic colleagues, I have traveled the country on behalf of 
Social Security and against privatization. Everywhere we go, whether 
rural areas, suburban settings, or big cities, the response is the 
same: Americans don't want Social Security privatized. Middle class 
workers don't want their benefits cut. They don't want our Nation to 
get even further in debt to the Chinese and Japanese and Saudis. They 
don't want to adopt a risky scheme that could undermine the retirement 
security they have worked so hard to earn.
  According to one poll, as I have mentioned, only 25 percent of 
Americans support the President's handling of Social Security. The 
opposition to privatization is as broad as it is deep. From those 
numbers, it is very obvious that it is not only Democrats throughout 
the country who oppose this, Republicans oppose it, also. Most 
Americans in rural areas who are especially reliant on Social Security 
voted for President Bush last year, but they strongly oppose his 
privatization plan. In fact, among those rural residents who know a 
great deal about the President's plan, opponents outnumber supporters 
by almost 40 percent.
  That certainly seems to be the prevailing view among my neighbors at 
home in Searchlight. Whenever I am home, folks tell me the same thing:

[[Page S7403]]

Protect Social Security and stop privatization. It is a message my 
colleagues are hearing from their constituents in every part of the 
country.
  Because of this widespread opposition, some here in Washington have 
apparently concluded they could not pass this proposal on the Senate 
floor in an open and public debate. Rather than give up on this 
unpopular proposal, they are, instead, adopting a stealth strategy. It 
has been widely reported that many in the minority party are now 
seeking to move a bill through the Senate without the private accounts 
or painful benefit cuts included in the President's plan, not because 
the President has abandoned privatization or benefit cuts but, instead, 
because they recognize this is the only means available to them to get 
their flawed plan adopted by Congress.
  Under this bait-and-switch strategy, what the Senate says or does on 
private accounts or benefit cuts during its consideration of 
legislation would be largely irrelevant. The Senate would pass a bill 
lacking private accounts or significant cuts and send it to conference 
with the House, which would be controlled by a handful of privatization 
supporters. These supporters would work behind closed doors to ensure 
that private accounts emerge in the conference report.

  We will not allow that to happen. In recent weeks, we have seen new 
evidence that this is, in fact, the administration's strategy. Last 
week, for example, bills were introduced in the Senate and the House 
that were advertised as establishing private accounts with no pain 
whatsoever. But these proposals are nothing more than political 
gimmicks. In truth, they still would threaten benefits, they still 
would require massive borrowing from foreign countries, and they would 
still fail, at one day, Social Security's solvency. In fact, like the 
President's plan, the private accounts they propose would make matters 
worse.
  No one is going to be fooled by this type of gimmickry, and Democrats 
are not naive or foolish enough to fall for a bait-and-switch strategy 
that has been widely advertised in advance.
  So I call on the President and his supporters to face reality and 
give up on privatization. Rather than continuing to push for this 
radical and ideologically driven proposal, which is a buzzword for 
getting rid of Social Security, I propose they listen to the words of 
another Republican President from 50 years ago, Dwight D. Eisenhower. 
This is what General Eisenhower said back then--This is not some 
Democratic Senator, Democratic Governor, Democratic State legislator, 
or Democratic Member of the Senate. This is President Eisenhower:

       Should any political party attempt to abolish Social 
     Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws 
     and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in 
     our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of 
     course, that believes you can do all these things. Among them 
     are H.L. Hunt . . . and a few other Texas oil millionaires, 
     and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. 
     Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

  President Eisenhower.
  As I have said, I want to make sure these words are not coming from 
me. These are President Eisenhower's words. But if President 
Eisenhower's view is not persuasive to our current President, I would 
propose he listen to the words of another Republican President, his 
dad. In 1987, the first President Bush called privatization, ``nutty.'' 
As he said at the time: ``It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one.''
  That is what two Republican Presidents said about privatization. They 
are right.
  So I hope we can move beyond privatization, move beyond gimmicks, 
move beyond the attempt to secure private accounts through a 
transparent strategy of bait and switch. Instead, let's agree to 
strengthen Social Security and to do it on a bipartisan basis. That 
would be the right thing to do for America's workers and our country.
  Is it my understanding the distinguished Senator from Texas wants to 
speak in time that has been reserved to the minority?
  Mr. CORNYN. That is correct. I will need about 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I don't think we have anyone coming, so you are sure 
welcome to use our time.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cornyn, relating to the introduction of S. 1313, 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.)
  Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________