[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5054-5055]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND, THE SECURITY AMERICANS NEED

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak out on a subject 
that is both timely and extremely important to the American people. A 
few hours ago, the House of Representatives, showing an unimaginable 
indifference to the retirement security of American families, and 
further undermining the integrity of the Social Security trust fund, 
made permanent the tax cuts that were enacted last year.
  The bill they passed really frames a stark choice for the American 
people: Do we take payroll tax revenues that working people, working 
Americans, thought were being dedicated to the Social Security trust 
fund and use them instead to pay for this huge new tax cut, a tax cut 
that really goes to

[[Page 5055]]

the wealthiest of Americans or should we be using Social Security 
revenues, payroll taxes, for their intended use, securing the Social 
Security trust fund for this and future generations?
  It is a pretty fundamental choice. It is pretty starkly laid out by 
the nature of the tax cut that was endorsed by the House Republicans 
today. It is a choice that will impact all Americans.
  I believe if Americans were asked, they might come up with a 
different answer. I think they would choose security, Social Security, 
not tax breaks that would take the security out of Social Security.
  I want to give one perspective. The tax cut that was implemented 
today in the House is about $400 billion more in the next decade, and 
60 percent of that upcoming tax cut goes to those with incomes over 
$500,000. That is hard to believe. Of the additional $400 billion, 60 
percent is going to people with incomes over $500,000. I have a hard 
time understanding why we are taking payroll taxes and the Social 
Security trust fund to fund that kind of tax cut.
  The effort to make that tax cut permanent is not only misallocating 
resources, but in my view it is draining the resources that are badly 
needed to protect Social Security in the years ahead for those millions 
of baby boomers who will be retiring in the coming decades. It is 
really quite substantial.
  Right now, Social Security has about 46 million folks retired. In 
another 20 years, that will be 72 million. So it is a big change in the 
population. That is what the demographic bubble is all about. How are 
we going to pay for it if we are going to implement tax cuts that are 
going to take as much as $4 trillion away from the ability of the 
American public to have revenues to pay for Social Security in the 
years ahead in the second 10 years? It is hard for me to understand.
  More importantly, I want to consider two numbers. The 75-year cost of 
the tax cut is $8.7 trillion. That is a lot of money. It will take 
awhile to count that far. By contrast, the shortfall in the funding to 
maintain the currently guaranteed benefits for Social Security 
beneficiaries, of all generations over the next 75 years, is only $3.7 
trillion. So we have more than two times coverage by the tax cut that 
was implemented. If it were to be followed in the way the House did it, 
we would be giving up those revenues to cover the needs of Social 
Security. I do not get it. We have the resources, if we have the will, 
to make sure that Social Security is there for each and every 
generation.
  So that is part of the trouble. Unfortunately, these drains on Social 
Security revenues that are caused by this tax cut are step 1 in the 
administration's plan to undermine the security of Social Security. 
Step 2 is to privatize that program; that is, taking $1 trillion out of 
the trust fund--it is actually a little more than $1 trillion, but for 
round numbers, and it is a big number--in the next decade so we can 
provide funding for these private accounts. That is going to lead to a 
dramatic cut in benefits which are absolutely necessary.
  If one has any doubt about it, they just have to look at the report 
released by the President's Commission on Social Security. They talk 
about it themselves. That, when it gets translated into individual 
lives, as we move to the next chart, will reduce benefits for a 30-
year-old about 20 percent when they retire in about 2032.
  For those who are a little younger than that, it will be almost 45 
percent by 2075, a cut in Social Security benefits, 20 percent for 30-
year-olds, 25 percent for people who are starting in the workplace, and 
about 45 percent for younger Americans.
  If one thinks Social Security benefits are lavish, I think we all 
have another review to go through. That 25- to 45-percent cut, that 
goes against benefits that average about $10,000 a year for most Social 
Security beneficiaries. For most seniors, Social Security is their only 
source of income, about two-thirds of them. I do not know what happens 
in Florida, but in my State of New Jersey $10,000 is not a princely 
sum. It is not going to allow our seniors to have a tremendously flush 
lifestyle.
  To the President's commission, that $10,000 looks like too much 
because they are instituting a program that, in fact, will undermine 
the ability to maintain those guaranteed benefits at that level. I 
think that is hard to believe as well. That is step 2.
  They do not want us to have the ability to maintain those guaranteed 
benefits. What they want to do is have that tax cut that I talked about 
before.
  So I have to say that both for myself and for my colleagues, most of 
us on this side of the aisle, we have a different view about protecting 
Social Security. We think protecting the security of working American 
families must be our top priority. We are going to fight long and hard 
and steady to make sure Social Security is not undermined--not today, 
as was done through the passage of this tax bill in the House, not 
tomorrow, or in the years ahead, not ever.
  Today's choice that was put in front of us is whether Social Security 
is really about the security of all Americans in their retirement 
years. I do not think we should be taking the term ``security'' out of 
Social Security. We ought to stand firm with it. That is what this 
debate will be about as we go forward day after day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nebraska be 
recognized for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska.

                          ____________________