[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 2755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               THE SURPLUS, SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just left a hearing of the Senate Budget 
Committee, and I thought it was ironic that we are now in a debate over 
the disposition of America's surplus. I am sure the President will 
recall that 2 years ago, almost to the day, we were here on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate where the chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, brought out virtually every 
budget report from the last 30 years that he believed to be in deficit, 
in red ink, and stacked them up. They were higher than the height of 
the Senator from Utah, and he is a tall man, making the point that we 
had been embroiled in deficit spending for so long we had no recourse, 
nothing we could do, other than to amend the Constitution of the United 
States and to give the Federal courts the authority to force Congress 
to stop spending, to stop deficits, with the so-called balanced budget 
amendment. That amendment lost by 1 vote 2 years ago. It was the 
hottest item on the Senate calendar 2 years ago.
  Today, we are deeply embroiled in a debate in the Senate Budget 
Committee on how to spend the surplus. We have turned the corner as a 
nation, and the President has come forward and said, ``I think we 
should take this surplus and use it in a sensible way for the future of 
America.'' I hope we engage in debate here in the 106th Congress, House 
and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, in a way to do that responsibly.
  I think we should take the President's advice that at least 62 
percent or so of this surplus be dedicated to Social Security, to 
retire the debt in Social Security, to give it a longer life. But then 
we seem to break down after we kind of reach that agreement on 60 
percent or so of that surplus, and it is that breakdown I would like to 
address for just a few moments on the floor of the Senate this morning.
  One of the things that concerns me is that there are other programs 
in need of help, not just Social Security, not the least of which is 
Medicare. And after we have taken some 60 percent of the surplus and 
spent it to solidify Social Security, the President is suggesting we 
take some 15 percent of that surplus and invest that in Medicare, 
adding about 10 years to the Medicare Program.
  We have to do more. Just putting that money in may buy some time. We 
know the fundamentals of the program need to be addressed. And if I am 
not mistaken, this week, or soon, we will have a report from a 
bipartisan commission on what to do with the future of Medicare. It 
won't be easy, whatever it might be.
  But I am concerned that the Republican Party, in addressing this same 
surplus, does not speak to the need for more money into Medicare. 
Instead, what they are proposing is $776 billion in tax cuts. I cannot 
think of two more popular words for a politician to utter than ``tax 
cuts.'' People just sit up and listen. ``Are you going to cut my taxes? 
I want to hear about it.'' It is a very popular thing to say.
  But I hope we will step back for a moment and realize that a program 
like Medicare needs an infusion of capital to make sure it can survive. 
Gene Sperling, the economic advisor to the President, said the other 
day, in a bipartisan meeting, he is hoping the Republican leadership 
will join us in not only dedicating surplus to Social Security but also 
to Medicare because so many millions of Americans are dependent on 
that.
  I might also say that I think there is need and room for some tax 
cuts after we have taken the surplus and put it into Social Security 
and Medicare, things we need to do. But I do not believe the tax cut 
which has been proposed, at least initially, by the Republican Party is 
one that is fair, because, frankly, it is not progressive. Inasmuch as 
it is not progressive, this chart demonstrates what happens.
  For the bottom 60 percent of wage earners in America, those making 
$38,000 a year or less, a 10-percent across-the-board tax cut means a 
savings of $99 a year, about $8.25 a month--hardly enough to pay the 
cable TV bill, let alone change a lifestyle--$99 in tax cuts for the 
bottom 60 percent of wage earners in America.
  The same Republican tax cut, though, for the top 1 percent of wage 
earners, those making over $833,000 a year--over $833,000 a year--for 
them the Republican tax cut is worth $20,697. Ninety-nine dollars for 
60 percent of America; for 1 percent of America, $20,000 in tax breaks.
  That offends me. And I think it is worthy of a debate. I think it is 
more sensible for us to focus tax breaks on working middle-income 
families--families who are trying to pay for day care, families who are 
trying to save a few dollars for their kids' college education, 
families who are trying to get by. Keeping this kind of a tax break for 
the wealthiest of Americans may make them happy but I do not think it 
is good for this country.
  I think the single best thing for us to do with this surplus is to 
retire our public debt. The President's proposal of focusing 62 percent 
of it in retiring the debt in Social Security and another 15 percent 
into Medicare is eminently sensible. Before we take the money that 
could be used to save Medicare and give it away in tax cuts that really 
benefit the wealthiest of Americans, I hope we will stop and think 
twice and remember that only 2 years ago we heard passionate speeches 
on this floor that, without an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States giving the Federal courts the authority to clamp down on 
Congress' runaway spending, deficits would loom for generations to 
come.
  We have turned that corner. With the leadership of the 
administration, with the cooperation and leadership of a bipartisan 
Congress, we are here today discussing surpluses. Let us do it in a 
sensible way--retire the national debt, take that burden off future 
generations, put the money into Social Security and Medicare, so that 
those programs will be sound for generations to come.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________