[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 29118-29119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would also like to take a minute to talk 
about a companion program to Medicare, and that is Social Security.
  A Social Security beneficiary will say Social Security and Medicare 
are in the same program, indeed, in the same act, in the same law. As 
far as the beneficiary is concerned, one program serves the needs of 
the other.
  The General Accounting Office today released a public report which 
evaluates five plans that have been presented to the people, five plans 
that the people should look to and evaluate to answer the question: Is 
this a plan I support?
  Let me list what those plans are. The first plan is the status quo, 
what I call

[[Page 29119]]

in a nonpejorative fashion the do-nothing plan; the do-nothing plan 
calls for maintaining current law, waiting until manana, and fixing the 
program 10 years, 20 years from now. GAO evaluates the do-nothing plan, 
which, by the way, has 500 cosponsors at the moment in the House and 
the Senate. The GAO evaluated the plan that Senator Gregg, myself, 
Senator Grassley, Senator Breaux, and three others in the Senate have 
introduced. The bill number is S. 1383. The House companion bill to S. 
1383 is H.R. 1793, a companion bill which has nine cosponsors. The GAO 
evaluated that bill as well.
  The GAO also evaluated S. 1831. That is the President's reform plan. 
It has been introduced in the Senate. The GAO also evaluated the 
Archer-Shaw proposal, though Chairman Archer and Representative Shaw 
have yet to introduce their reform plan in the form of a bill. They 
evaluated the details of the Archer-Shaw proposal that were provided to 
them. And finally, GAO evaluated Representative Kasich's proposal. I do 
not know what its number is or how many people are on it, but it is a 
specific piece of legislation that has been introduced.
  The GAO has done a very useful service, in my view, for a couple of 
reasons.
  Reason No. 1 is that GAO finally identifies the status quo as a plan. 
In other words, you cannot not be for something. If you are not on a 
bill, you are supporting the status quo, you are supporting existing 
law. There are serious consequences to supporting existing law.
  The GAO evaluated all five of these plans.
  Secondly, GAO outlined for the first time the eight financial and 
budgetary criteria by which these five proposals ought to be judged by 
the American public. In the report, they ask:
  First, does it reduce pressure of Social Security spending on the 
budget?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERREY. How much time did I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator had 5 minutes under a unanimous 
consent agreement to proceed.
  Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, there were eight other questions on the 
financial side.
  Question No. 2: Does it reduce the national debt?
  Question No. 3: Does it reduce the cost of Social Security as a 
percent of GDP?
  Question No. 4: Does it increase national savings?
  Question 5: Does it solve the 75-year actuarial solvency problem? In 
other words, can it keep the promise to all 270 million beneficiaries 
both eligible today and out into the future?
  Question No. 6: Does it create new, undisclosed contingent 
liabilities?
  Question No. 7: Does it increase payroll taxes or place an obligation 
on general revenues?
  And question No. 8: Are there safety valves to accommodate future 
growth in the program?
  These are the key financial questions. The GAO has laid out an 
evaluation of the five dominant plans that have been offered by Members 
of Congress to the public.
  In addition, GAO attempts to do an analysis of the administration and 
implementation issues in each plan.
  Finally, GAO attempts to evaluate whether or not equity--generational 
equity--and progressivity have been taken into account in each plan. 
Equity and progressivity are always important. Social Security is a 
very progressive program to beneficiaries.
  I hope that this GAO report gets a little bit of air time and a 
little bit of consideration by Members. I hope that particular 
attention will be paid to the do-nothing, status quo plan.
  There are consequences to the do-nothing plan. The current status quo 
plan dramatically increases debt and interest costs in the future. This 
large debt will have a major impact on the tax burdens and interest 
rates of future workers. GAO comments very unfavorably when it measures 
the status quo approach against its eight financial criteria. There are 
very negative consequences for both current beneficiaries and future 
beneficiaries and the American taxpayers for doing nothing.
  I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at this GAO report--and to 
really understand the cost tradeoffs between different approaches to 
Social Security reform. The battle cry all year long has been to save 
Social Security first. We created an elaborate lockbox mechanism so we 
could do it. My hope is that next year, with the assistance of GAO and 
this report, we will see an increasing number of Members who are 
enthusiastic about putting their names on specific legislation to 
reform Social Security.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________