[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Page 3846]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




SENATE RESOLUTION 230--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT CONGRESS 
    SHOULD REJECT REDUCTIONS IN GUARANTEED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS 
  PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance:

                              S. Res. 230

       Whereas Social Security was designed as a social insurance 
     program to ensure that Americans who work hard and contribute 
     to our Nation can live in dignity in their old age;
       Whereas for \2/3\ of seniors, Social Security is their 
     primary source of income, and for \1/3\, Social Security is 
     their only source of income;
       Whereas in fiscal year 2001, the annual level of Social 
     Security benefits for retired workers averaged approximately 
     $10,000;
       Whereas $10,000 per year is insufficient to maintain a 
     decent standard of living in most parts of the country, 
     especially for seniors with relatively high health care 
     costs;
       Whereas in 2001, President George W. Bush's Commission to 
     Strengthen Social Security (referred to in this resolution as 
     the ``Commission'') produced 3 proposals for Social Security 
     reform that included individual accounts and significant 
     reductions in the level of guaranteed benefits;
       Whereas the proposed changes to guaranteed benefits could 
     reduce benefits to future retirees by 45 percent;
       Whereas the Commission proposals also suggested reducing 
     benefits for early retirees, forcing many Americans to delay 
     retirement; and
       Whereas the Commission justified proposed cuts in 
     guaranteed benefits by pointing to long-term projected 
     shortfalls in the Social Security Trust Fund, however, the 
     Commission's proposals to divert payroll tax revenues from 
     the Trust Fund into private accounts would substantially 
     accelerate the date by which the Trust Fund would become 
     insolvent: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Congress 
     should reject the reductions in guaranteed Social Security 
     benefits proposed by the President's Commission to Strengthen 
     Social Security.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lieberman, I am 
submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that 
Congress should reject the reductions in guaranteed Social Security 
benefits proposed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social 
Security.
  The central purpose of Social Security is to ensure that Americans 
who work hard and contribute to our Nation can maintain a decent 
standard of living in their old age. The program provides a critical 
safety net. Only 11 percent of American seniors live in poverty, but 
without Social Security that figure would be 50 percent.
  It is hard to overstate the importance of Social Security in 
protecting seniors' retirement security. For two-thirds of the elderly, 
Social Security is their major source of income. For one-third of the 
elderly, Social Security is virtually their only source of income.
  Despite its critical importance for seniors, the level of Social 
Security benefits generally is quite modest. In fiscal year 2001, the 
average benefit for retired workers was about $10,000 per year. This 
clearly is insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living in most 
parts of the country, especially for seniors with relatively high 
health care costs.
  Unfortunately, even the modest level of guaranteed benefits under 
current law is now at risk. Last year, the President's Commission to 
Strengthen Social Security, appointed by President Bush to help promote 
his goal of partially privatizing Social Security, proposed a set of 
options for changes in the program that included significant reductions 
in the level of guaranteed benefits.
  The Commission's report included a proposal in which guaranteed 
benefit levels would be reduced by changing the way that benefits are 
adjusted over time. The details of this change are complicated, but the 
bottom line is not: compared to current law, the proposal could reduce 
the benefits provided to workers who retire in the future by about 45 
percent. The Commission's report also suggested changes that would 
reduce benefits for those who retire early, which could force many 
Americans to delay their retirement.
  The Commission justified proposed cuts in guaranteed benefits by 
pointing to long-term projected shortfalls in the Social Security Trust 
Fund. And it is true that as the baby boomers begin to retire, they 
will put significant new demands on our budget. However, the 
Commission's proposals for private accounts actually would make the 
Trust Fund's financial problems worse. By proposing to divert payroll 
tax revenues from the Trust Fund into private accounts, the Commission 
would only accelerate the date by which the Fund would become 
insolvent.
  Proponents of privatizing Social Security like to argue that the 
returns for assets held in private accounts are likely to be high. That 
may be true for some fortunate seniors, but others will suffer with the 
inevitable fluctuations in the market. In any case, we need to remember 
why we have Social Security in the first place, to provide a floor to 
ensure that seniors can live out their lives in dignity. The real 
question for the Congress is where to set that floor. And, in my view, 
$10,000 a year for the average beneficiary is, if anything, too low.
  It is important to keep Social Security's long-term problems in 
perspective. According to estimates by the Social Security 
Administration, the present value of the Trust Fund's unfunded 
obligations amounts to $3.2 trillion over the next 75 years. By 
contrast, the 75 year cost of last year's tax cut, if made permanent, 
has been estimated to be $7.7 trillion. In other words, the long-term 
cost of the tax cut is more than twice as large as the long-term 
deficit in Social Security.
  There is simply no excuse for making dramatic cuts in guaranteed 
Social Security benefits, as the President's commission has proposed.
  So, I hope my colleagues will support this resolution and join in 
rejecting the cuts in guaranteed benefits proposed by President Bush's 
commission.

                          ____________________