[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11192-11193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the last item I want to address today is 
relative to a suggestion by the Vice President of the United States to 
create what is known as a Medicare lockbox. There have been many 
suggestions made during the course of this Presidential campaign about 
Social Security and Medicare. It is no surprise. There are hardly any 
programs in Washington, DC, that affect so many people and affect the 
quality of life of so many families across America. I am proud to be a 
member of the Democratic Party which, under Franklin Roosevelt, created 
Social Security.
  We took a group of Americans--our parents and grandparents, the 
seniors in America, who were literally one of the most impoverished 
classes in our society--and said: With Social Security, we will create 
for you a safety net. With this safety net, when you go into retirement 
in your senior years, you are going to have some peace of mind that you 
will not be destitute and poor and have to depend on your children for 
your livelihood.
  Social Security has worked. It has now become a very bipartisan 
program--and it should. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike 
understand that this safety net for seniors and for disabled people in 
our country really makes America a better place.
  In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson--another Democrat--came up 
with the idea of Medicare. It was not a new one. President Truman had 
proposed some version of it earlier, and others had talked about it. 
President Johnson, with his legislative skill, was able to pass 
Medicare.
  In Medicare, we said we would create for America a health insurance 
program for the elderly. This again was considered socialistic, 
radical, by its critics. They said America does not need this, that 
everything will be just fine.
  Yet we see what has happened since we introduced and passed the 
Medicare program. Seniors are living longer. They are more independent. 
They are healthier. They are active. They are leading great lives 
because of the combination of Social Security and Medicare.
  Many of us want to take care that in the midst of any Presidential 
debate about these two programs, we do not go on any risky escapade 
that could endanger the life of these programs. There are too many 
people who depend on them; and not just the seniors, but their children 
who expect Social Security and Medicare to be there.
  George W. Bush, the Governor of Texas, and soon to be the Republican 
nominee for President, has proposed changing the Social Security system 
so that there could be a private investment factor so that individuals 
could direct the investment of some of their Social Security funds into 
private investments.
  On its face, a lot of people who own stocks and mutual funds across 
America would say: Goodness, that gives me a chance to increase the 
amount of money I can put into these types of investments. Perhaps if 
the stock market continues to do well, I will profit from it. It is a 
surface reaction you might expect that is positive among some American 
families. But the real issue is, how would we come up with the same 
level of protection in Social Security if we started taking money out 
and letting people direct it as they care to in their own private 
investments?
  The basic benefits on which many elderly depend for almost all of 
their retirement income could be cut by as much as 40 percent. How can 
that be, if George Bush is only talking about a few percentage points 
of investment?
  Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. The amount of money we 
collect in the payroll taxes goes out to pay today's seniors. When I 
become a senior citizen, eligible for Social Security--if I live that 
long--I will be paid by the current wage earners in the payroll tax 
that is collected from them.
  It is a pay-as-you-go system. If at any point in time you want to 
remove some 2 percent, or whatever the number might be, of the money 
that workers are paying into Social Security, it has a direct impact on 
today's seniors because they do not have the pool of money coming in to 
sustain today's Social Security needs.
  So when there is a proposal made to cut back the amount of 
contribution by individuals to give them 2 percent of whatever it might 
be for their own self-directed investment, the obvious question is, Who 
will pay it? Who will pick up the difference?

[[Page 11193]]

  The basic Social Security benefit is pretty modest across America, 
but it is important. For workers with a history of average earnings who 
retired in 1999 at age 62--most people retire before they reach the age 
of 62, incidentally--their monthly benefit is $825. For the lower 
earner, the benefit is $501 a month. Despite these modest amounts, 
Social Security is the major source of retirement income--50 percent or 
more--for 63 percent of the older population.
  The whole point of having Social Security is to provide workers with 
a predictable retirement benefit.
  Mr. Bush's plan affects these basic retirement benefits in two ways.
  First, the program has a long-term deficit of about 2 percent of 
payroll. The deficit isn't Governor Bush's creation, by any means. It 
confronts anybody attempting to reform the system. But Governor Bush's 
proposal makes the problem worse by pledging not to add any new money 
to the Social Security system.
  Vice President Gore has said, let's take the surplus and pay down the 
national debt by paying off the internal debt of Social Security and 
Medicare. We collect $1 billion in taxes a day from businesses, 
families, and individuals to pay interest on our national debt.
  I think the most responsible thing we can do, in a time of surplus, 
is to take the extra dollars and reduce that debt and reduce the 
interest we pay and our children will pay for things we did many years 
ago. I know that is conservative. It isn't as flashy as proposing tax 
cuts. But I think it is sound. We do not know if these surpluses will 
be there forever, but as long as they are here, let us pay down the 
debt of this country. That is the position of President Clinton, Vice 
President Gore, and the Democratic side of the aisle.
  On the other side, from Republican Governor Bush, and many Republican 
leaders, we are told, no, no, no, take this surplus, as it exists, give 
tax cuts to certain people, and change the Social Security system, and 
do not address the fundamental concern about this $6 trillion national 
debt we continue to finance on a daily basis to the tune of $1 billion 
a day in Federal tax collections.
  I hope during the course of this debate on reforming Social Security, 
whether the proposal is from the Democrats or the Republicans, that 
families across America will look long and hard at whether these 
proposals are in fact honest, whether they use real numbers, whether 
they really affect the future of America in a positive way and can 
continue this economic growth we have seen, and whether they are in 
fact the kinds of things which reflect the values of this country.
  When we take a look at some of the proposals coming from the 
candidates in the Presidential race, particularly on Governor Bush's 
part, I do not think they meet that test.
  I am going to close now because I see my colleague from Arkansas has 
come to the floor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Lincoln.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________