[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25934-25942]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 SOCIAL SECURITY GUARANTEE ACT OF 2005

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Senator DeMint and I are here tonight to 
talk about an issue that has drifted to the back burner of American 
political discourse. It is unfortunate that it has. It is an issue that 
both the Senator and I, and I know many others on this side of the 
aisle, have worked to accomplish diligently now for many years, for me 
since 1995, trying to grapple with the shifting demographics and the 
changes that are coming to this country when it comes to the issue of 
entitlement programs.
  There is no more important entitlement program that we have to 
preserve and protect and save than the Social Security system. It is 
the bedrock upon which our seniors have the security to meet the needs 
they have in their later years in life.
  We understand this demographic timebomb of the baby boom generation, 
people living longer, lower birth rates, all of those things come 
together to create a demographic perfect storm that causes the Social 
Security not to be able to pay for the benefits promised to future 
retirees. We have tried to put forward solutions. I put forward 
solutions. Senator DeMint has put forward more than one solution. Other 
people on this side of the aisle have done so. The House has done so. 
The President has put forward ideas on how to address this problem. We 
have done so because we believe it is important for us to step up to 
the plate and be serious about addressing this serious concern that 
millions of Americans who are retired, near retirement, and even 
younger Americans have about their ability to collect their Social 
Security check.
  We fought hard to bring this debate to a head on the floor of the 
Senate. Unfortunately, we have not succeeded. We have not succeeded 
because we have been met with a partisan obstructionism that is as rock 
solid as the marble before me on the rostrum.
  The fact is, we have seen no cooperation at all from the other side 
of the aisle. Unfortunately, we have not seen any attempt to come to 
the table and try to solve the problems of Social Security that all 
sides of the spectrum admit is looming for future generations of 
retirees. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because we have had an 
opportunity this year to address an important issue before the crisis 
strikes.
  One of the great complaints that Americans have about Congress is 
that we wait until the problem is almost overwhelming us before we do 
anything to react to it and therefore end up with less-than-optimal 
solutions.
  We have an opportunity now, as the crisis looms but far enough away, 
to be able to address it in a way that can spread out the burden and 
create better opportunities for future generations of retirees, and 
just as importantly, future generations of taxpayers and American 
families trying to keep the quality of life and, in fact, improve the 
quality of life that we have in America. But we did not get that 
accomplished.
  What Senator DeMint and I have decided to do, in cooperation with our 
leadership in the Senate, is to try to take a first step. Using 
football analogies, which I know the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, 
loves to use, we tried to throw the long ball and march down the field, 
but we are going to try to run off tackle here and see if we can pick 
up a yard or two to move the ball down the field to get to the goal of 
providing retirement security for future generations and saving and 
strengthening the Social Security system.
  The first play in trying to accomplish that is legislation that I 
have introduced called the Social Security Guarantee Act of 2005. As I 
mentioned before, Americans work very hard and pay a lot of money. It 
is the biggest tax that most Americans pay. The overwhelming majority 
of Americans, the biggest tax they pay is the Social Security tax. From 
the tax they pay, they expect that benefit to be there when they 
retire.
  The point is, for those who are at or near retirement, the answer is 
that it will be there. In fact, in looking at the long-term problems of 
dealing with Social Security, there is nothing this Congress should do 
to affect the near-term retirees and those who are retired today. We 
have said over and over again, those of us who have been advocates for 
strengthening the system, whether it is the President or Senator DeMint 
or Senator Frist or others, that we do not want to do anything to 
impact those who are near-term retirees and those who are already in 
the system.
  The reason is twofold. No. 1 is we do not have to. The system is 
solvent. In other words, there is more money coming in than we need to 
pay out over the next 15-plus years. Therefore, we do not need to have 
any kind of fixes for those in the short term. The problem is out in 
the long term.
  The second reason is a matter of fairness and equity. To change the 
game literally before someone crosses the finish line, to move the 
finish line--or even the people who have already crossed that finish 
line and have ended up in Social Security, to move it back would simply 
be inequitable. People would not have the opportunity to plan for that, 
and it could be very disruptive to their retirement.
  So what Senator DeMint and I have suggested in the Social Security 
Guarantee Act is that we put in writing in the statute what everyone 
has sort of agreed to in casual conversation and even beyond casual 
conversation. If we can put that chart up, the Senate recently, March 
15 of this year, all 100 Senators, including every Senate Democrat, in 
a rollcall vote, voted for the Graham-Santorum amendment to the budget 
resolution. If we look at the language, I will point to the part A. It 
says that Social Security reform ``must protect current and near term 
retirees from any changes to Social Security benefits.''
  So what the Social Security Guarantee Act does, which I am proposing, 
is to actually make it a Federal law, not just a resolution, something 
that we all think is a good idea, which is what a resolution is, but 
actually put legislative language in place, put something in law that 
says that your benefits are guaranteed, your cost-of-living increases 
are guaranteed in the Federal law which, contrary to what most seniors 
believe, is not the case. There is a Supreme Court case from 1960 which 
says that there is, in fact, no legal right that you have.
  Obviously, there are claims that can be made in the political process 
to those rights, but as far as legal rights in the statute, there is no 
guarantee to that cost of living.
  It would be vitally important for us, as we head into hopefully a 
longer term and more complete look at the Social Security system and 
saving that system, that we start from the ground that we are not going 
to affect anyone who was born before 1950. That is basically people 55 
and older in our society today, we are going to say, If you were born 
before 1950, you are off the table; we are not going to discuss it. We 
are

[[Page 25935]]

not going to play politics with you. We are not going to scare you. We 
are not going to threaten you. We are going to take these benefits and 
we are going to enshrine them in the law to protect them from anyone 
playing politics with them or even trying to include them in any kind 
of reform down the road.
  This is a first step. It is a small step, but it is an important one 
for our Nation's seniors. I am hopeful we will be able to get that done 
maybe even this evening.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am not going to spend much time, 
frankly.
  (Several Senators addressed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator 
from South Carolina control the time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania if I 
may have 5 minutes. I have to leave very quickly.
  Mr. DeMINT. We have been waiting for several days to do this. We will 
keep the time.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to yield. I will yield 5 minutes to 
the Senator from Montana, the ranking member of the Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am not going to spend a lot of time on 
this because this is just ``kabuki'' tonight. Everyone knows this is 
not a serious effort. Everyone knows that this is an attempt, frankly, 
to make a statement to the press and the people back home. It is very 
disingenuous, in this Senator's view, because it is not serious, and it 
is playing with the lives of a lot of senior citizens who wonder what 
is going on.
  This consent asks the Finance Committee to be discharged of the 
legislation. I do not understand that at all. If this is such an 
important issue, why doesn't the Finance Committee deal with that? I 
think the answer to that is because there are not the votes in the 
Finance Committee. The majority of Republicans would not support this 
in the Finance Committee. They know privatization of Social Security is 
one of the worst ideas that has come out of this body by any group of 
Senators in a long time. Why? The DeMint bill increases the Federal 
debt held by the public by $1 trillion in current dollars in the first 
10 years. It increases the Federal debt by $1.7 trillion the first 20 
years. By 2080, the debt will be higher under current law by more than 
$800 billion. So it is a massive increase in the Federal debt.
  Secondly, it will cause a huge increase in the annual budget deficits 
for the same reasons.
  Third, what does it do? It means a reduction in benefits that would 
otherwise go to Social Security recipients. Why is that? Because the 
money taken out of Social Security would not be available to pay for 
Social Security benefits. That will reduce the benefit payments out of 
Social Security.
  The argument is private accounts would offset that. All studies show, 
at best, that is barely a wash, probably worse than that because the 
private accounts would be subject to the vagaries of the markets. Over 
the long haul, seniors would not be doing very well at all.
  Add to that, it usually creates a huge risk. More than that, it 
creates a very large administrative cost not recognized by the authors.
  Jason Furman, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
estimates the plan would have administrative costs of at least $25 
billion over the first 10 years. That is above what is paid now in the 
current Social Security system.
  Also, the DeMint proposal would treat individuals with different 
years of birth in different ways. It would cause an inequity among 
benefits of Social Security recipients.
  So I am not going to say much more about this. It is flawed. Frankly, 
it is a phony gimmick. One has to call a spade a spade around here 
sometimes and not be too deferential, not be too nice, too courteous, 
but to call it a spade. This is a fraudulent effort to play with 
people's lives, and at the appropriate time, it will be appropriately 
objected to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, while I was trying to be courteous in 
yielding to my colleague, I want to make a couple of comments about 
what the Senator from Montana said. I would hope he would go back and 
read the Social Security Guarantee Act of 2005 because it does not do 
anything the Senator from Montana spoke of. What this bill simply does 
is guarantee benefits in the law for people who were born before 1950. 
It does not set up any kind of personal account system. It does not do 
all of the things that the Senator from Montana said.
  The Senator from South Carolina will talk about his Stop the Raid 
bill, which simply takes money out of the surplus and puts it into 
accounts for holders to make sure that that money is spent on Social 
Security benefits but no administrative costs. All the things the 
Senator from Montana talked about do not apply to either one of our 
bills.
  I understand there may be an objection, but I would caution the 
Senator from Montana that the objection cannot be under those terms 
because the objections that the Senator from Montana cited are not in 
either one of the bills. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. I say to Senator Santorum, as he can tell, I was 
originally hesitant to yield to our distinguished Democratic colleague, 
but I am now so grateful that the Senator did yield because it made the 
case of why we need to guarantee benefits and why we need to stop the 
raid on the Social Security surplus.
  Practically all the information that we heard is untrue as it relates 
to my bill, but the misleading information is the best case for the 
Guarantee Act that Senator Santorum has proposed. It is so important, 
when people are getting untruths and so much misinformation that is 
intended to confuse them, that we reassure the American people that 
regardless of how we change Social Security to benefit future workers, 
that we are not going to change anything about the benefits of anyone 
who was born before 1950.
  I am honored to be presenting these ideas with Senator Santorum 
today. There is no one in this Congress and probably no one in this 
country who has done more to protect Social Security for this 
generation or the next than has Senator Santorum.
  I am also supporting this Guarantee Act because Americans know that 
we have a problem with Social Security. It is disingenuous for any 
Member of the Senate to suggest otherwise. So we must guarantee in the 
face of these folks knowing we have a problem, but we also must begin 
now the process of fixing the Social Security system so it will be 
there for younger Americans. We can do that by, first, stop spending 
Social Security on other things. That is what we are doing right now as 
I speak.
  Americans know why we have a problem with Social Security. Maybe 
Senator Santorum can add more later since he has done so many 
townhalls. There are many Congressmen and Senators who have gone out to 
talk about Social Security, and they have had many people stand up and 
say, Social Security would be fine if you folks in Congress would stop 
spending Social Security on other things. They figured out that every 
dime that comes in for Social Security that is not needed for today's 
retirees is spent on other programs.
  If we could look at the next slide, since the mid-1980s we have had 
$1.7 trillion of Social Security taxes that have come in that were not 
needed to pay benefits. Our colleagues will say that that is safe and 
sound in the trust fund but, frankly, if there is one fact that is true 
on this floor tonight, it is that every dime has been spent on 
something else. Not one penny has been saved for Social Security for 
today's retirees or for tomorrow's retirees.
  What we are proposing is to stop that raid on Social Security. We are 
not proposing a comprehensive change in the Social Security system. In 
fact, Americans would see no difference in

[[Page 25936]]

the Social Security system. What we would start doing is to take the 
money that is not needed for Social Security today and save it so that 
it would not be spent on other things.
  Here is the proposition: Between now and 2017, we are going to spend 
another $775 billion of Social Security money on other things unless we 
pass this Stop the Raid on Social Security bill. We can see it year to 
year. This year it is almost $70 billion that came in for Social 
Security that was spent on other things. Next year it will be well over 
$80 billion, and it will continue until it disappears in 2017. At that 
point, there will not be enough Social Security taxes to pay benefits, 
and we will have to start moving money from the general fund to make 
sure every American gets their Social Security check.
  The Stop the Raid bill would take all of this money, $775 billion, 
and put it in Treasury bills so that it could not be spent on other 
things. Instead of the government owning it, the people who send the 
money for Social Security would own it.
  My Democrat colleagues oppose ownership. They do not want the 
American people to own their own Social Security system. They want the 
Government to own it, and they want the Government to continue to spend 
it on other things. We want to stop that raid on Social Security. The 
Democrats, as we have heard tonight, will say that if we stop spending 
this Social Security money on other things, it is going to increase the 
deficit. Again, that is not true. All it does is make us honest with 
our accounting.
  Right now, the $1.7 trillion we have already spent, and this 775 
billion additional dollars is spent without any recognition that we are 
creating a debt. If we save this money in Treasury notes where there is 
no risk to the American people, we have to start counting it as debt if 
we continue to spend it. This is a secret slush fund that Congress has 
used for many years--$1.7 trillion plus $775 billion. Congress, every 
year, spends this money on other things and does not count it as debt. 
If we start saving it for Social Security, it will be a debt if we 
continue to spend it.
  Only in Washington--and I am afraid only my Democrat colleagues--
could say that saving money creates a debt. I am afraid only a 
Democratic colleague at this point could say that saving $775 billion 
of Social Security money for Social Security actually weakens the 
program. Their intent is to oppose ownership by the American people who 
should own Social Security. Their intent is to spend this $775 billion 
on something else.
  I have heard my Democrat colleagues over the last couple of weeks 
talk about stopping the raid. They want to stop the raid by increasing 
taxes. They have said that they stopped the raid. That has never 
happened, and that is not true because even when we were in surpluses 
as a nation a few years ago, every dime of Social Security was spent. 
Some of it was spent to pay down debt, but it was all spent. And not 
one penny, even when the Nation was in surplus, was saved for Social 
Security. We need to stop that practice and be honest with the American 
people.
  My Democrat colleagues have said interesting things about stopping 
the raid. Our distinguished minority leader has said he supports the 
raid. He called stopping the raid a ``bad idea'' that will ``threaten 
benefits and increase the debt and weaken Social Security.'' Get that. 
We are going to save Social Security for Social Security and that 
weakens Social Security. It is amazing.
  Let's look at another comment from Democrat leaders. This comes from 
our colleague in the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

       There is nothing wrong with Social Security lending money 
     with the prospect of returning it.

  One more quote, and then I know Senator Santorum has probably some 
questions for me. This is from our colleague, Charlie Rangel, the House 
Ways and Means ranking member. When talking about the raid, he says:

       There is nothing wrong with that.

  But let be read his whole statement. He said:

       Would you have any problem if you put your money into a 
     bank and they just took your money and invested it and you 
     went to the bank and they gave you your money when you needed 
     it? There is nothing wrong with that.

  The problem is, that is the core of the misinformation we are hearing 
from Democrats, that our money from Social Security is actually saved 
in a bank; that it is actually there. But that is not true. It is not 
fair to tell the American people that it is true. There is no bank. 
There is no money. We need to start today to stop the raid on Social 
Security money.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from South Carolina, one of the 
things I hear, and I think you were alluding to this, is that some 
people believe that they actually have an account at Social Security 
where this money they contribute is sort of there--that is maybe what 
Congressman Rangel was alluding to--for them to sort of pay their 
benefits out. Is that the fact, first and foremost? Then I will ask my 
followup.
  Mr. DeMINT. I have had people back home, when we are talking about 
saving Social Security and putting it in personal accounts, tell me 
that is what they thought was already happening. They thought we were 
saving their money because we talk about a trust fund. But the more 
people find out about the truth, when we say there is not any money in 
the trust fund, first people smile and think I am not telling them the 
truth. We need to tell Americans the truth.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator got into something that is a rather complex 
concept, but it is really important for understanding the difference 
between what he wants to accomplish and what goes on in the current 
system. That is, what your bill does is it creates an explicit debt. 
How is that different? What is the difference to the average person, 
that they have a specific account with that money as opposed to just 
sort of the general money that is owed to the Social Security trust 
fund? What is the difference?
  Mr. DeMINT. Right now the largest tax most Americans pay is the 12.5 
percent for Social Security. That is thousands of dollars for the 
average American family every year. It comes into the Social Security 
system. It is credited to a trust fund. Then it is spent either on 
Social Security benefits or spent on other things.
  We have made Americans believe we are saving that money for them, but 
it is all passing through. The only thing that is in the Social 
Security trust fund is IOUs. Our President, who has been a leader on 
this issue, actually went and opened the file cabinet where these IOUs 
are.
  The problem, Senator, as you know, is we cannot pay future benefits 
from IOUs. But we can from real money if we start saving it. There is 
nothing risky about saving this money in Treasury notes so it cannot be 
spent on other things. But you asked an important question. Right now, 
the Government owns the Social Security benefit and politicians control 
it. If we start saving Social Security in personal accounts--we are not 
talking about taking it out of the Social Security system. It is still 
just as much a part of the Social Security system as what we have 
today, only it is real money and people own it, which means they have a 
legal right to it, which they do not today. In the future, politicians 
cannot build their whole election campaign around frightening seniors 
that we are going to take their Social Security.
  Mr. SANTORUM. What is the impact? Let's take it a step further. Let's 
assume we were successful tonight in getting the Stop the Raid bill 
passed and every American would have their own personal retirement 
account with the money from the Stop the Raid bill, and 15 years go by 
and that money has built up. What is the practical effect on the 
average citizen of what your bill does versus the current system?
  Mr. DeMINT. This bill alone would not change anyone's benefits. In 
fact, it includes, as yours does, a guarantee. People will continue to 
get the benefit they have been promised. Only part of their benefit 
would be paid by the traditional system and part from real money. Our 
hope is, as you mentioned

[[Page 25937]]

before, this is a first step. We need to move past the first step of 
saving the $775 billion and go back and get the Government to pay back 
what they have already borrowed from Social Security, invest that in 
those accounts and let them earn interest, and it grows. It is a large 
step toward solving the future problems of Social Security.
  It is going to take several steps to fix it, but this is the most 
important first step. If we cannot stop spending Social Security on 
other things we cannot go to the American people and honestly tell them 
we have a solution, not if we cannot even stop spending it on something 
else.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would just ask the Senator from South Carolina, this 
bill has something to do with something else I hear a lot about, which 
is honest accounting. One of the things I hear a lot of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle talk about is that the deficit is really 
much bigger than the deficits reported because the Social Security 
surplus hides the deficit.
  Will your bill cure that problem?
  Mr. DeMINT. Only if we slow our spending as a government.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Would it cure the problem of hiding the deficit?
  Mr. DeMINT. It is definitely an honest accounting bill. Right now 
this money goes on the table and the Government secretly sweeps it away 
and spends it.
  Mr. SANTORUM. And lowers the deficit as a result, correct?
  Mr. DeMINT. Right. We are going to take it off the table and save it. 
So the whole point is, if you want to keep spending that money as a 
Congress, we are going to have to recognize it as debt and admit to the 
American people that we are spending more than we told them we were 
spending.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So this is not just a Stop the Raid bill. This is a 
truth in accounting bill? This basically says: Here is how much money 
we are taking in. Here is the obligations that the Federal Government 
has with this money we are taking in. In fact, we are taking that 
obligation and realizing it, in other words putting it into an account 
that actually could pay that obligation. Is that correct?
  Mr. DeMINT. Exactly right. We will also be honest about telling the 
American people we have not been saving the money, but we are going to 
start saving their money and we are going to figure out a way to go 
back and get what has been borrowed from Social Security and put it 
back so that Social Security will be there for your children and mine 
and our grandchildren.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for, not just 
the work he has done on the Stop the Raid bill, but I want to thank him 
for the other ideas he has put forward. He is one of three Senators on 
this side of the aisle who have put forward comprehensive bills, along 
with Senator Sununu and Senator Hagel. They have put forth ideas to try 
to move the ball forward, down the field substantially. I will not 
speak for the Senator from South Carolina, but I think what he has 
realized is that the opportunity for us to do that this session of 
Congress is probably dramatically diminished. So we are both looking at 
trying to move the ball forward, trying to take a vital first step, or 
first two steps, in assuring the American public that those who are the 
most vulnerable, their benefits are safe; and for those concerned about 
the resources being there to be able to pay benefits in the future, we 
are going to make sure that money is set specifically aside and given 
to them to make sure that money is there and promised by the Federal 
Government to pay in the future.
  By the way, the Senator from South Carolina is not the only one who 
has introduced comprehensive legislation. Over in the House, 
Congressman Kolbe, Congressman Johnson, Congressman Shaw, and 
Congressman McCrery on our side of the aisle have put forward 
comprehensive proposals on dealing with the long-term issues.
  So we have made the case. We have worked hard to try to move this 
issue before the American public but have met a stonewall here on the 
other side. I suspect, unfortunately, tonight we will probably continue 
to see that stonewall appear when we ask for unanimous consent to move 
forward on this legislation. I will certainly make my commitment that 
this is an issue I feel very passionate about. This is a issue that is 
important to my State. We have the second largest percentage of seniors 
in our population. We have a little over 16 percent of our population 
who are people over the age of 65. That is second only to the State of 
Florida.
  It is important for my State to have the peace of mind for my 
seniors. I always say we may have fewer as a percentage of our 
population, we may have fewer seniors than the State of Florida, but my 
seniors need Social Security more than those in the State of Florida 
because all my rich seniors moved to Florida. The folks who are still 
in Pennsylvania are getting through those tough winters, in some cases 
they need and rely on their Social Security benefits.
  So as a Senator from Pennsylvania I will tell you that this is a high 
priority for me, to make sure that not only this generation of seniors 
gets the benefits they deserve but future generations of seniors get 
those benefits as well. I think this one-two of the Social Security 
Guarantee Act and the Stop the Raid bill will go a long way in helping 
create the atmosphere to get real long-term responsible reform of the 
Social Security system for future generations in place so they will 
have a strong and solvent system going forward.
  I yield for the close to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. I say to the Senator, I know you want to make a motion. 
But it is important that you and our colleagues know what we are asking 
for. We are not asking to pass a bill tonight. We are asking to move 
the bill into the debate process so that the American people can find 
out more about where we are and how this Guarantee Act and this Stop 
the Raid Act can secure their future.
  I yield back to the Senator to make the motion.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for taking the 
time to have this important debate. I appreciate the indulgence of the 
Democrat leader for his time.
  What this unanimous consent will do, as the Senator from South 
Carolina has just stated--it will not be to pass the bill tonight. This 
is not an idea and we are just going to have unanimous consent and pass 
the bill. What we want to do is engage in a real debate about these two 
very important issues. So we are going to ask consent, at the time to 
be determined by the leader, to have a full debate. I am suggesting in 
this unanimous consent request that we have 10 hours of debate on both 
of these bills before we move forward and pass them, and obviously here 
in the next few weeks the chances of finding time to do that is going 
to be pretty limited. We will be happy to schedule it in January or 
February of next year so there is plenty of time for the American 
public to participate in this debate and to have a real discussion 
about whether we want to protect the benefits that are promised to 
those who are born before 1950 and whether we want to create the 
opportunity for honest accounting and for stopping the raid on the 
Social Security system, to make sure that money stays in the Social 
Security system and is there to pay benefits for the people who pay 
money into the system.
  That is what this bill does. It stops the raid, it stops that money 
being used and taken by the Federal Government to pay for other 
programs and keeps that money--it is vitally important to understand--
keeps the money in the system but creates an explicit debt of the 
Federal Government that must be paid. It is a public debt. It is not 
one of these privately held little debt transfers from one pocket to 
another but an explicit debt that is owed to an individual. That is 
about as explicit as you can get. It is a debt that has your name on 
the assets--Treasury bills. It is vitally important to have that 
ownership because it guarantees a legal right to a benefit for those 
taxes that are being paid in excess of what we need to pay for the 
Social Security system.
  I see the Democrat leader is here. I will propound the unanimous 
consent.

[[Page 25938]]




                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader after consultation with the 
Democratic leader, the Finance Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 1750, the Social Security Guarantee Act of 2000; 
provided further that the Senate then proceed to its immediate 
consideration and there be 10 hours for debate equally divided in the 
usual form, no amendments or motions be in order, and that following 
the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time, and 
the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following that vote, the Finance 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1302, the Stop 
the Raid on Social Security Act of 2005, and the Senate then proceed to 
its consideration; provided further that there be 10 hours of debate 
equally divided in the usual form, no amendments or motions be in 
order, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be 
read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the 
bill, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, first of all, 
I will say regarding S. 1750, I will use different words than the 
distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. My words are as follows: This legislation is a sham, s-h-
a-m. Social Security benefits are guaranteed today in the United States 
Code, the law of the land. To meet that legal commitment, we are saving 
enough in Social Security to pay full benefits for a long time into the 
future. The only threat to that guarantee is posed by Republicans who 
want to undermine Social Security, slash benefits, and privatize the 
program.
  I object to S. 1750.
  I reserve my right to object to S. 1302 as follows:
  Mr. President, I heard my friend, the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina, talk about raiding the Social Security trust funds. 
This message should be delivered at 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue. 
During the Clinton years, remember, we weren't doing that. We weren't 
using the Social Security surplus to mask the deficit. So he should 
direct those remarks to this administration.
  Do not be fooled. This is simply another bill to privatize Social 
Security. The American people have already rejected this tired 
approach, and for very good reason. Just like President Bush's 
privatization plan, the DeMint bill would require deep cuts in benefits 
and a massive increase in debt. Under the bill, those who divert funds 
into privatized accounts would have their benefits cut automatically 
through a privatization tax--even if the value of their account has 
collapsed. The bill would also require $1.7 billion in additional 
borrowing over the next 20 years. The bill would do nothing to 
strengthen Social Security--quite the contrary--and it certainly 
wouldn't extend the program's solvency. In fact, diverting money from 
the trust fund accelerates insolvency and makes matters worse.
  Despite the claims of its proponents, this bill itself amounts to a 
massive raid on Social Security and would cut the funds available to 
pay guaranteed benefits. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if I may address just briefly the 
comments made by the Democrat leader before I propound one final 
unanimous consent request, the Senator from Nevada suggested that there 
is a legal right to Social Security benefits in the law. The fact is 
that a Supreme Court decision--Nestor v. Fleming, 1960--said that 
``Americans have no legal right to their Social Security benefits.''
  While the Senator from Nevada can say those rights are guaranteed, 
there may be, certainly, a claim on those benefits, and the claim is a 
political one for anyone in Washington, DC, who would try to change 
those benefits. But there is no legal right in the law to payment of 
those benefits. There is no guarantee in the law to the payments of 
those benefits. The Supreme Court has said so. This would change that.
  This particular group of retirees that is being frightened that 
somehow or another any change in Social Security will mean their 
benefits are going to be reduced--even for those who are in retirement 
at this point--we want to take that tactic as well as the fear that 
goes with it off the table for our seniors and near-term seniors.
  With respect to the Stop the Raid bill, the characterization that 
that bill somehow is taking money out of the Social Security system, I 
think I made it very clear in the discussion, the fact that the bill is 
crystal clear with respect to the money that is going into these 
personal accounts is invested in Treasury bills. They are obligations 
of the Federal Government and will be used to pay benefits to the 
extent that is humanly possible. This money is legally bound to the 
individual who put the money there, and they have their name on this 
account. They own the Treasury bills that are in that account. That is 
about as rock-solid a commitment to pay benefits--more rock-solid 
commitment than promises by future generations of politicians who do 
not pay them.
  When you have an obligation of the Federal Government with your name 
on it, that is a pretty good obligation and it would require a default 
of the Federal Government not to have it paid, as opposed to Social 
Security benefits in a Social Security trust fund, which is a promise 
to pay by future generations of politicians. I suggest that this idea 
that somehow or another this would cut benefits--in fact, you could 
make the argument that the benefit created by these accounts is the 
only real guaranteed benefit that an individual has going forward in 
the system. Nevertheless, the Democrat leader objected, and I certainly 
respect that.
  I will make one last attempt to see if we can get an agreement on 
just one bill.
  I remind Members here that earlier this year, in March, we passed the 
resolution that every Member of the Senate--Democrats and Republicans, 
all 100 voted for--which said that Social Security reform must protect 
full-term and near-term retirees--I will underscore that, italicize 
it--from any changes to Social Security benefits. This bill 
accomplishes what we voted for.
  I assume we voted for it because we thought we needed to communicate 
a message--that it was important that we wanted to communicate a 
message--to the American public that we meant this, that we actually 
believed we should not do this. And the way to accomplish that, 
contrary to what the Senator from Nevada said, is to put a guarantee in 
law.
  Mr. President, I renew my request just for S. 1750, the Social 
Security Guarantee Act. I can ask unanimous consent, but it is 
identical to the request which I read earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, 
understand that when the Constitution was written, it didn't talk about 
Social Security in the Constitution. But we in Congress have given 
Social Security to the American people. We did it back in the 1930s 
under the direction of Franklin Roosevelt. That is the Court decision 
to which my good friend referred. The Court didn't question Americans' 
rights to Social Security benefits. In effect, the Court said Congress 
can change the law if it chooses. But there is no question that under 
current law, Americans do have a legal right to the benefits they have 
earned. There is no question about that.
  I simply say that these are some of the old arguments--I guess the 
President is out of town, and they dug up some of his old stuff and 
brought it up to Capitol Hill today--the old stuff on Social Security 
that the American people have determined is not good for them. 
Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Dakota.

[[Page 25939]]


  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have listened with some interest and 
curiosity over in my office to this fascinating discussion about Social 
Security, especially the chart about the trust fund.
  I would like to take my colleagues on a short visit back to the year 
2001 when, in fact, we had surpluses. The surpluses came from a fiscal 
policy that looked truth straight in the eye and put this country back 
on track. Big budget surpluses were beginning to develop, and my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: You know something, 
even before these surpluses exist, for 10 years let us pretend they do, 
and let us start getting rid of the money and give big tax cuts, most 
of which will go to wealthy Americans, by the way. And now we end up 
years later with very large deficits.
  We will borrow $550 billion this year. My colleague seems surprised 
by that. Somehow it didn't work out quite the way it was supposed to, 
and somebody is now using the Social Security trust fund.
  Interesting. I know who is using the trust funds. It is when the 
President sends a budget down here with the biggest deficit in history, 
and he is taking Social Security trust funds to finance the tax cuts. 
Yes. He is taking money from Uncle Harold and Aunt Gladys to provide 
some of the biggest tax cuts ever given to the wealthiest Americans. 
That is the fact. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions in this 
Chamber. Not everybody is entitled to their own set of facts.
  I wish to spend a little time talking about the history because I 
think it is important for people to know. There are important 
statistics, useful statistics, truthful statistics.
  I remember I was at a town meeting once, and I used kind of a 
throwaway piece of information. An old fellow in the front row stood 
up. I said to this group of senior citizens: Do you know that there are 
4 women for every man over the age of 85 living in the United States? 
Some old codger in the front row got up, leaned forward on his cane, 
and said: Young man, that is the most useless statistic I have ever 
heard given.
  Well, there are useless statistics and then good statistics. There is 
the truth, and then there is stretching the truth.
  Let me talk a moment about where we find ourselves and why. What 
fascinated me is these charts coming from people who want to take apart 
the Social Security system, the chart that comes to the floor this 
evening that suggests somehow they are the ones that really support 
this.
  I will tell how the Social Security system got started and 
supported--a man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
  By the way, when he died, there was a poignant story written about 
the long lines of people waiting to see the body of Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt then lying in State. It was written that a news reporter 
walked up to a man, a working man who had waited hours in line with his 
hat in his hand, and the reporter, as this man was waiting to file past 
the coffin of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said to this fellow: Did you 
know the President? Do you know Franklin Delano Roosevelt? This man 
said: No. I didn't, but he knew me. He knew me.
  What he meant is this President knew the American people, knew and 
understood working men and women, cared about retired folks.
  Yes. He knew me.
  It was under this President that we decided to stop what was 
happening with senior citizens in this country. They reached retirement 
age--and at that point one-half of the senior citizens in America were 
living in poverty. They reached that age where their incomes declined, 
they could no longer work, and one-half of them were living in poverty 
in this country, this great country.
  Franklin Delano Roosevelt and others said, We can do better than 
that, we can do something about that, and created Social Security. 
Controversial? You bet your life it was controversial. There were some 
in this Chamber who said it is socialism, it is going to wreck this 
country, it is going to throw this country into bankruptcy. Guess what. 
Now less than 10 percent of our senior citizens live in poverty; 90 
percent of them don't. Do you know why?
  Social Security. The word ``security'' means something. It is there. 
It is what they can count on when they retire. We have folks all around 
this Senate, particularly the other side, who think we should privatize 
it, take it apart. Some of them never liked it. Take it apart and 
privatize it and stick it in the stock market, in fact.
  There are a lot of people in this country who rely on Social 
Security, whose lives are enriched and made better by Social Security. 
There aren't perhaps many in this Senate who understand its value 
because perhaps none here will find themselves at the end of their 
income-producing years having to rely only on Social Security. I know 
plenty of people who do. I wish more people understood the consequences 
of that in this Senate.
  Someone once asked a question: If a person died and you knew nothing 
about them, had never met them, and you only had their check register 
as a piece of information about their life, what could you write as an 
obituary about that person? What would a check registry tell you about 
a person you have never met if you had to write the obituary? It would 
tell you plenty. What did they think was important? What did they spend 
money on? What were their investments? How did they live their life?
  The same can be said of a country. Look at what we do, what we think 
is important, what we invest in, what we spend money on. It will tell 
something important about the character of this country. What do we 
support? Do we support the fundamental promise of Social Security? Do 
we stand for it and believe in it? Do we believe it has strengthened 
this country?
  I see Members serving who do not believe that. They come to the 
Senate with big charts, save the Social Security trust fund. Really? 
Perhaps the time to have thought about that was when they were called 
on to vote in the Senate and they decided to provide very substantial 
tax cuts for the highest income Americans with money we did not yet 
have. And now we have very large Federal budget deficits.
  Let me give a couple statistics. Twenty years ago American 
corporations paid one-sixth of our income taxes. Twenty years later, 
they are bigger, much bigger, and more profitable, and they now pay 
one-tenth of this country's income taxes. Guess who makes up the 
difference. Yes, real people.
  Let me give another statistic. There are 400 Americans who are the 
wealthiest Americans--who file income tax returns, in any event--and 
their average yearly income is $110 million. About 8 years ago their 
tax rate was 30 percent to the Federal Government. Now it is 22 
percent. It has dropped nearly 25 percent. I am talking now about the 
wealthiest of all Americans, those who have been most generously 
treated by this country, many of whom are brilliant, I am sure. They 
make a good deal of money. Good for them. I hope they expect and want 
to pay taxes to pay for the common needs of this country--defense, 
roads, bridges, education; you name it.
  The point is, those very people who now say they are the ones who 
care about the trust fund of Social Security are the ones who voted to 
be able to take money out of the Social Security system, take money out 
of the Social Security trust fund so they can provide a tax cut for 
somebody who gets $110 million a year in income.
  It is unbelievable. Just own up to it, in my judgment. If that is 
what you did, own up to it. Do not bring a big chart to the Senate 
saying save the trust fund. There was a time to save the trust fund, 
and you did not do it.
  Let me take you back to 1993. This country inherited then the biggest 
debt, which is now small by comparison from the first President George 
Bush. I recall that President Bush came to office and he proposed a 
very controversial fiscal policy. It was cut some spending, it was 
raise some taxes. It raised taxes, by the way, on the wealthiest 
Americans. But it was tough. It was a hard vote for a lot of Members. 
Incidentally, in this Senate,

[[Page 25940]]

when the roll was called--because we were off track and headed down the 
wrong direction with budget deficits that were increasing that had now 
reached the highest level in history--when the roll was called, there 
wasn't one Member of what is now the majority party, not one Member in 
the Senate of that side of the aisle who was willing to vote for it. It 
passed by one vote. A new fiscal policy, a new direction got one vote--
One vote in the Senate and one vote in the House.
  Guess what. With all of that controversy--and man, there was plenty--
8 years later, we were on track. Instead of having record Federal 
budget deficits, we had no budget deficits. We had surpluses. Those 
budget surpluses gave us the opportunity to begin putting this country 
on a solid foundation, a solid financial foundation for Social Security 
and for many other needs. The estimate was we would have surpluses as 
far as the eye could see. In fact, Alan Greenspan, who is about to 
retire as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, was worried we would 
have too much of a surplus. I remember what he said because I thought--
I know he is not a drinker so I was trying to figure out where this 
came from. He said: I worry we are going to pay down our debt too fast.
  Oh, really? Where does that worry come from? Do you have a crystal 
ball, a strange-looking sort of crystal ball? He was an enabler. As an 
enabler, he gave permission, gave aid and comfort to the majority that 
said, you know what, let's take surpluses for the long term that do not 
yet exist, that are simply projections, and decide we will give them 
away in the form of tax cuts tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. 
And they did. So here we are, now 5 years later, borrowing $550 billion 
this year to this country's debt.
  The other day I went through the speeches I made at that time. I 
said, what if something happens and we do not get the surpluses, if 
there is an unforeseen event? Should we be a bit conservative? Don't 
worry, the sky is the limit. Things are fine. Be happy.
  So what happened? They passed their big tax cuts tilted toward the 
wealthy Americans and then all of a sudden we had a recession. Then we 
had a terrorist attack; a war in Afghanistan; a war in Iraq; natural 
disasters. Things went off track. Now we have very large Federal budget 
deficits.
  Then we are told, one of the ways to deal with that is to privatize 
Social Security. The President said, I am taking Air Force One, I am 
getting that old plane up and I am going across this country. I am 
going to sell this program. Privatize Social Security. And it did not 
sell. It did not sell. Because people know better. The word 
``security'' means something to people. Social Security works. It has 
worked for decades, and it will work for decades to come.
  One of my colleagues says the genesis of this notion of privatizing 
Social Security is the phrase ``we're all in this alone.'' But in fact 
we are not. As a country, part of the genius of Social Security is to 
understand we are all in this together. We have real challenges to try 
to hang on to the Social Security system with a President who wants to 
privatize it, with Members of the Senate who come to the floor with big 
charts talking about raids on Social Security.
  I didn't bring a chart tonight because I wasn't aware we were going 
to talk about raids on Social Security. But I would love to give a 
history lesson on who has been raiding Social Security. Paint that 
money purple and I will point you to the purple pockets in this Senate. 
I will tell you who has been raiding Social Security funds right along. 
It is a fact that hooking up a pipe to the Social Security trust fund, 
hook up the pipe on one end and hook it to pockets at the top of the 
income ladder for corporations, because that is where the money is 
going--big, old tax cuts.
  The philosophy is trickle down. Pour it in on top and somehow it all 
trickles down and even the people at the bottom are helped. One day a 
fellow said to me, I have heard about this trickledown for 8 or 10 
years and I ain't even damp yet.
  I happen to think there is a better approach called ``percolate up.'' 
Give the American families something to work with, good jobs and an 
economy that expands opportunity, and things do pretty well in this 
country.
  It is fascinating to watch this discussion, especially given the 
history of where we have been in recent years, a discussion about 
people who have embraced a fiscal policy that has injured the 
foundation of this country's finances, who now suggest they are the 
ones who want to protect Social Security. That is a curious thing to 
watch. It is a little like an illusion in an amateur magic act. It is 
an illusion that is attempted, but you can see all the moves so it does 
not look like magic, does it?
  My understanding is the President has now parked Air Force One, at 
least with respect to Social Security, and has decided not to continue 
to try to push that. My hope is that we as a Congress will decide, 
Republicans and Democrats together, that Social Security is something 
worth saving. Should we stop the raid on the trust fund? You bet your 
life we should. We have been trying to do that for a long time. But 
those who aid and abet the raid on the trust fund by hooking that hose 
up to the trust fund and giving it out in big tax cuts do no favor to 
senior citizens.
  This country has many challenges. It will not be made a better 
country by taking apart the Social Security system. Let me say those 
who come to the Senate and say the Social Security system is broken, it 
is bankrupt, it is busted--in fact, President George W. Bush said in 
1978 when he ran for Congress, Social Security is busted and it will be 
bankrupt in 10 years, so we have to privatize it. That was in the year 
1978, which tells you this is not about economics, it is about 
philosophy. Those who say Social Security is bankrupt or busted should 
remember this: Social Security will pay full benefits under every 
circumstance without any alteration or any change of any type until 
George W. Bush is 106 years old. That is hardly a crisis.
  People are living longer and healthier lives. Does that mean we have 
to make some adjustments in Social Security from time to time? You bet. 
Of course we do. We have, and we will. But the basic framework and 
promise of Social Security, if we have the people with the courage and 
strength in this Senate to protect it, will be there for the next 
century and the century beyond.
  I understand part of the success of Social Security and Medicare in 
our country has been the increased longevity of people living longer. I 
have spoken of my Uncle Harold before in the Senate. My Uncle Harold 
did not discover he could run until he was 72 years old. But at age 72 
he went to these State meets where you have races in various events for 
people of different ages. He discovered there was a category age 70 and 
above. He entered three races. He entered the 400 meter, the 800 meter, 
and the 3K. He entered three events. The first time he and his wife 
Evelyn took the RV and parked it and he entered three races at age 72. 
He won all three easily. And he thought, this is amazing. I am faster 
than people my age. So pretty soon he started going elsewhere to run. 
He went to Minnesota. He entered the Minnesota Senior Games Races. He 
went to South Dakota. He entered South Dakota races. Pretty soon he was 
running in California, running in Arizona. He became a 400 meter 
specialist, and at age 82 my uncle had 43 gold medals and can probably 
outrun about 80 percent of the Senators--at age 82.
  People live longer, healthier lives. Thirty years ago he would have 
been on a Lazy Boy because at age 65 you are supposed to retire, get a 
Lazy Boy recliner, and stay at home--and do not drive, by the way. 
Things have changed. People are leading active, wonderful lives. That 
is born of success, success by increasing the longevity of the American 
people. My Uncle Harold is one example of that.
  Are there some strains on Social Security and Medicare from time to 
time? Yes, a few. Nothing we cannot handle, and nothing that would 
justify anybody coming along and saying, by the way, let's take Social 
Security apart. That is a philosophy rooted half

[[Page 25941]]

a century ago. It is one that those who never liked it cannot seem to 
overcome.
  There was a fellow at a meeting I held some months ago with Senator 
Reid, the minority leader. At the end of this meeting on Social 
Security, this old fellow, in his eighties, blind, aided by someone 
walking beside him holding his arm, came up to me and he said: I am 
old, I am blind, and Social Security is the only thing I have. This 80- 
plus-year-old man came to that meeting just to deliver that message: I 
am old, I am blind, and Social Security is the only thing I have.
  It is so important. This is not just some usual debate. This debate 
about Social Security is about who we are as a country; about whether 
we will stand up for things that matter; whether we are going to stand 
up for people who have lived their lives in this country and helped 
build America and now reach declining income years and are told they 
can count on Social Security. Yes, they can count on it, as long as we 
don't let those who come along and decide they want to privatize it 
begin to take it apart because they never liked it in the first place.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague is waiting to speak. I was not even 
intending to come over until my attention was piqued by a big, old sign 
that said, ``Stop Raiding Social Security Trust Funds,'' and I thought: 
Well, that is a curious message from those who supported a fiscal 
policy that helped drain the trust funds in the first place. I thought 
I would mention that and talk a little about how important this Social 
Security fight has been and why the American people--not the Congress, 
why the American people--have said no to the President and others who 
want to privatize this important program.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I join my colleague in coming here to 
speak for a moment about Social Security. Just as my esteemed colleague 
from North Dakota said he had not originally intended to speak tonight, 
I did not intend to speak as well. But for all of us who are so proud 
of the great American success story called Social Security, and for all 
of us who understand how it does represent the best about us, we want 
to have an opportunity to say that tonight because there has been a lot 
of misinformation, unfortunately, I believe, a mischarac-
terization on the other side of the aisle.
  The fact is, Social Security is based on what is best about us: You 
work all your life. You pay into a system. And then you know you have 
dignity in your retirement. You also know, because this is really an 
insurance policy, that if you become disabled, Heaven forbid, Social 
Security can step in for you, for your family. If the wage earner in 
the family loses their life, Heaven forbid, their children, their 
spouse are able to receive assistance to be able to help them from 
moving back into poverty, because it is an insurance system. It is 
basically an economic insurance policy. And it has been one of the 
great American success stories.
  The reality is, without Social Security, about 48 percent of those 
who are now on Social Security would be in poverty. Today, with Social 
Security, about 9 percent of older Americans and the disabled are in 
poverty. We know this number needs to be lower. But this is a great 
American success story.
  At a time when there is so much upheaval in so many people's lives--I 
know in my home State of Michigan, my great State of Michigan, there 
are so many families today that feel the rug is being pulled out from 
under them because the jobs they have had and worked hard at all their 
lives are either going overseas or they are being told they are going 
to have to work for $9 or $10 an hour. Their health care costs are 
going up or maybe they are losing their insurance. Their pensions are 
threatened or maybe gone because of the bankruptcies of companies that 
have then dumped the pensions into a pension guaranty fund.
  With all of this insecurity and challenge families face in fighting 
to keep the American dream and the American way of life, the one 
constant we have had is knowing that there is Social Security, that we 
have paid into a system, and that it will be there for us. There is 
absolutely no reason that Social Security will not be there for us, as 
long as we do not privatize it or undermine it, as has been proposed by 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  We are in a situation today where Social Security and the security of 
Social Security is needed more than ever. I will never forget talking 
with a group of people who were mid-level executives at Enron--I know, 
unfortunately, this story can be told and will be told across Michigan 
as well--folks who worked all their lives, invested in the company, as 
they were told to do, did all the right things, they are near 
retirement, and now it is gone.
  One gentleman, with tears in his eyes, said to me: Thank God for 
Social Security; that is all I have left. Too many Americans find 
themselves in that situation now. I believe we should be doing 
something about that as well. Earlier this evening, I spoke on the 
floor about what we need to do to turn that around: enforcing trade 
policies, changing the way we fund health care, investing in education 
and innovation, protecting the pensions of those who have worked hard 
all their lives. But the reality is, Social Security is a very 
important part of that picture.
  Now, it is a value as well as a program. It represents what is best 
about us. And we have choices about whether we want to keep it secure 
and keep it as a priority. Back during the budget debate this year, our 
ranking member, Senator Conrad, and I offered an amendment to secure 
Social Security first before going on with other tax cuts that have 
been proposed for those most blessed in our country, those, in fact, 
who do not have to worry about whether Social Security will be there 
for them.
  We indicated, as you can see by looking at this chart, that in order 
to keep Social Security secure for the next 75 years, it will cost $4 
trillion. That is compared to the President's tax cuts: If they are 
made permanent--the overwhelming majority of them going to the top 
``incomers,'' those most blessed economically in our country--it will 
cost $11.6 trillion, if we decide as the majority, our Republican 
colleagues, appear to be doing, to extend these tax cuts permanently.
  If we instead were to say, wait a minute, we are going to fully fund 
Social Security first before any of this happens--even if we said to 
those most blessed in our country, instead of $11.6 trillion in tax 
breaks, let us take $4 trillion off of that--they would have $7.6 
trillion. It seems to me, at a minimum, that would be a choice worth 
making in order to make sure every single American knows that Social 
Security is secure.
  All of the decisions we make in this Chamber are based on our values 
and our philosophy. Social Security represents our basic belief that we 
are in it together as a country, that it does matter what happens to 
other people. We are not in it alone.
  I believe the efforts being proposed on the other side of the aisle 
represent a very different philosophy that says: You are on your own, 
buddy, unless you are our buddy.
  The reality is that Social Security represents a value that says we 
are in it together and that together America can do better. That is 
what Social Security is about. It has worked. It has proved the 
philosophy that together America does better.
  So I am hopeful our colleagues will choose, in the waning days of 
this session, to move on to join us in the great debate of keeping 
American jobs in America, supporting our American businesses, our 
American manufacturers that need our help now, and making sure we have 
a pension bill that works for all of our businesses and all of our 
workers, showing that we value and want to make sure the promises of 
pensions, which so many workers have paid into all of their lives, are 
kept. Let's work on that rather than undermining a great American 
success story called Social Security.

[[Page 25942]]



                          ____________________