[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2483-2485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are about to embark on a 1-week recess. 
Many of us will be back in our home States next week. I expect that 
most of us will hold some kind of event or meeting to talk about Social 
Security with our constituents. I want to talk about that a bit today.
  In the Senate, we deal with all kinds of issues, some big and some 
small. Sometimes we treat the big issues in a manner that suggests it 
is a rather small item. Sometimes we take a very small item and blow it 
up into something we suggest is very large.
  On the issue of Social Security, my feeling is people on all sides of 
this debate understand this is a very big issue with very big 
consequences for the American people.
  It will not be surprising that we will have very aggressive 
differences of opinion on how we should handle this issue of Social 
Security. The reason it is brought to our attention at this point is 
the President is offering a proposal. He says the proposal is not 
specific, and I agree with that, but it is specific enough for us to 
understand what he wants to do.
  What the President has been saying--and the Vice President as well 
and others in the administration--is that Social Security is about to 
be bankrupt, broke, flat busted, and any number of other words to 
describe that Social Security is about to fail.
  As a result, the President says we should do the following: We should 
borrow a substantial amount of money now, anywhere from $1 trillion to 
$3.5 trillion or more, invest it in the stock market in private 
accounts, change the indexing of Social Security, reduce Social 
Security benefits, and with a combination of the remaining Social 
Security and his private accounts, people will be better off in the 
long term.
  Social Security was created in 1935. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
signed that legislation, he talked about

[[Page 2484]]

the legislation being able to lift people out of a poverty-ridden old 
age. At that point, one-half of our elderly were living in poverty. 
That is what was happening to our grandparents: 50 percent in poverty; 
now it is less than 10 percent. Why? Because Social Security has lifted 
tens of millions of Americans out of poverty in the last 70 years.
  The President says Social Security needs to be changed because it is 
about to be bankrupt. With respect, I say to the President that he is 
wrong. Social Security is not about to be bankrupt. Social Security has 
some problems that are born of success.
  What is the success? In a century, we have increased life expectancy 
in America from about 46 years of age to 76 years of age. We ought to 
celebrate that fact. What a successful thing to have happen. Since 
people are living longer, better lives, we have some strain on the 
Social Security program. But it is not about to be bankrupt, and it 
does not require major surgery to fix it. It will require some 
adjustments as we proceed ahead, but it is not about to be bankrupt or 
flat busted. And it is not a cause to take apart what I think is one of 
the most successful programs we have ever developed in this country to 
lift a large group of Americans out of poverty.
  The President is not new to this position of private accounts. In 
1978, he ran for Congress in Texas. President George W. Bush, then a 
candidate for Congress, said in 1978: Social Security will be broke in 
10 years. That is when he was a candidate for Congress. What was his 
remedy for that in 1978? Private accounts. Some things never change 
very much.
  The fact is, the President was wrong in 1978. Social Security did not 
go belly up in 1988 as he predicted. And the fact is, he was wrong then 
calling for private accounts in Social Security, and he is wrong now.
  I happen to support private investment accounts such as IRAs and 
401(k)s. I have them and so do many Americans, and we have incentivized 
them with tax incentives because we believe in encouraging people to 
invest in the market and to save for retirement. But I do not believe 
we ought to take a portion of the core insurance program--and that is 
what Social Security is, an insurance program, not an investment 
program--that provides the bedrock financial security for retirement.
  We pay for Social Security principally through a paycheck deduction 
called FICA. That is your FICA tax. The I in FICA is for insurance, not 
investment; insurance, that is what it stands for. It creates an 
insurance program for which you pay. Yes, part is retirement old-age 
benefits, some is disability. Another part is for dependents, should 
the wage earner die.
  So it is more than just an old-age benefit. It has always been an 
insurance program, and never an investment program.
  The President says let's try to create an investment program out of 
Social Security and begin to take it apart. The suggestion is, of 
course, that the investment portion of Social Security would always be 
wonderful.
  Will Rogers once said his daddy told him how to do really well. He 
said his daddy said you should buy stock and hold it until it goes up, 
and then you should sell it. And he said if it does not go up, do not 
buy it. So that was Will Rogers's description of how his dad suggested 
he handle the market.
  I suppose there is an element of that suggestion in Social Security 
because of those who say if one takes Social Security apart and creates 
private investment accounts, things will be just Nirvana, just fine. 
But we all know better than that.
  I believe there ought to be two major parts to a retirement program. 
One is Social Security. Make sure it is there--it always has been. Make 
sure it works. We can do that. The second is the private investments 
that we now incentivize to the tune of $140 billion each year in tax 
incentives to encourage people to invest in IRAs and 401(k)s and 
private pensions. I support both. Strengthen, improve, and keep Social 
Security, and provide additional incentives for private savings in 
401(k)s and IRAs.
  I just described President George W. Bush's prediction about 
bankruptcy in 1978. He said Social Security would be bankrupt in 10 
years, by 1988. We have plenty of people who say it is going to go 
broke, flat busted, on its back, bankrupt. They remind me of the 
economists who predicted ten of the last two recessions. It is easy 
enough to walk around and claim these things. However, it is just not 
accurate to suggest that Social Security is about to go belly up.
  What is true is that the taxes collected for Social Security this 
year are expected to exceed the amount of money we will need to pay out 
in Social Security by $160 billion. We will have a surplus this coming 
year in the Social Security accounts of $160 billion. That money will 
be invested in U.S. Treasury securities.
  The President has a fiscal policy that suggests we have large 
deficits. I understand there are a lot of reasons for it, but I do not 
understand why we were not a bit more conservative earlier. I stood on 
the Senate floor 4 years ago, and when the President said, We are going 
to have 10 years of surplus and we need to start doing big tax cuts 
right now, I and some others said maybe we should be a little 
conservative. Maybe we will not have 10 years of surplus. Maybe things 
will change. Maybe something will happen we do not anticipate. Maybe we 
ought to be a little conservative. No, Katey, bar the door, let us pass 
these tax cuts.
  What happened? We had a terrorist attack. We have had a war on 
terror. We have had a war in Iraq. A whole series of things have 
occurred that have changed the economic fortunes of this country. We 
went from the largest surpluses in the history of this country to the 
largest deficits. We are now the biggest debtor country in the world. 
We have a budget in front of us with budget deficits that I believe are 
predicted at $427 billion this year. But that is not accurate at all 
because there is zero money in the budget for Iraq and Afghanistan. I 
will be going to a hearing in about 10 minutes with Secretary Rumsfeld. 
They are asking for $82 billion in emergency funding now.
  So in the next fiscal year add another $82 billion for Iraq and 
Afghanistan--we are spending $1 billion a week--and that gets us to 
roughly a $500 billion estimated deficit next year. Then take the 
Social Security surplus out of it because we cannot use those surplus 
funds against the rest of the budget. It ought to be put in a trust 
fund, not counted. So then there is an honest deficit next year of 
about $660 billion or so. That is where we are. That is where we start.
  So the discussion is not just about Social Security. It is a 
discussion about values. I think most of us would agree that there are 
a couple of things in life that are of primary importance to us. One, 
we will do almost anything for our kids. If there is anything more 
important to any of us than our kids, I would like to hear what it is.
  Second, we care a lot about what happens to grandpa and grandma. When 
they reach that point in their life where they cannot work anymore, 
they are dependent on what they might have saved, dependent on Social 
Security, the question is, How do we as a society make sure that they 
are not living in poverty as 50 percent of them were in 1935?
  Some say there needs to be adjustments in Social Security and we 
cannot afford that. I say there will need to be some adjustments in 
Social Security, but it is not major surgery. It is not major 
adjustments. The question is, if we cannot afford that, it is a matter 
of priorities. We are going to afford $82 billion just like that in 
funding, I will hear from Secretary Rumsfeld about in a few moments. We 
can afford funding for the one I saw this morning that piqued my 
interest, Television Marti. This is unbelievable.
  This morning I was looking through the budget. With Television Marti, 
for people who do not know it, we broadcast signals to Cuba with an 
aerostat blimp called Fat Albert. The purpose of using this blimp, Fat 
Albert, to broadcast television signals into Cuba is to tell the Cuban 
people how good things are in our country. Of course, they know that 
from listening to Miami radio stations, but they still want to send 
them the television signal.

[[Page 2485]]

  The fact is, Castro jams the television signals. So we broadcast 
signals to no one. Cubans cannot get it. We have done that for many 
years. We have spent nearly $200 million, and this year, to broadcast a 
signal no one receives in Cuba, the President is proposing we double 
the funding in the budget.
  We cannot afford Social Security, we cannot afford this, cannot 
afford that, but we can double the funding for Television Marti to 
broadcast signals to no one?
  My point is, this is about values and priorities. I noticed in the 
playbook on the Social Security debate that was given out to those who 
are supportive of the President's position says--this is the 
instruction on communication: Do not say that Social Security lifts 
seniors out of poverty. People do not appreciate all that Social 
Security does.
  That is what one is not supposed to say. But I said that earlier 
because I believe that is the fact, that Social Security lifts millions 
of seniors out of poverty. However, for those who support the 
President's program to take apart part of the Social Security system 
and go to a privatization system, they say do not say Social Security 
lifts seniors out of poverty because people do not appreciate all that 
Social Security does.
  I do not see it right here but another piece of the playbook that I 
found interesting was, do not try to destroy myths. People have certain 
myths about Social Security. One of the myths that bounces around the 
Internet every day all day and talk radio is that Members of Congress 
do not pay Social Security taxes. In fact, that is one of myths that 
this playbook mentions. When one hears that from people, do not 
demolish that myth, let them think that. That tends to mess things up a 
little bit.
  There was a leaked memorandum from the White House about 3 weeks ago 
by the architect of the Social Security plan. The person in the White 
House who is working on this plan had drafted this memorandum to all 
the stakeholders in the administration saying, here is what we are 
wanting to do. The key point to it was this:

       For the first time in six decades, the Social Security 
     battle is one that we can win . . .

  The implication of that is quite clear. There are some who have never 
liked Social Security, never wanted Social Security to exist. They have 
never had the opportunity to take it apart or repeal it, and this is 
the first time in six decades that the Social Security battle can be 
won.
  One of the leading spokespersons on the far conservative rightwing 
said: Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state.
  It is not, of course. But that philosophy describes that there are 
some who simply never liked Social Security, do not believe it ought to 
exist, and will support any effort to begin taking it apart.
  My feeling is what we ought to do is decide as a Congress that there 
are two responsibilities with respect to retirement security. One is to 
preserve, protect, and strengthen the Social Security system for the 
long term. According to Social Security actuaries, the Social Security 
program will pay full benefits from now until the year 2042. According 
to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if there are no changes 
made, the Social Security system will pay full benefits until the year 
2052.
  According to the analysts, the Social Security program will need no 
adjustments in the next 75 years if we have the kind of economic growth 
that is predicted by the President and others, when they say you can 
get a 6 or 7 percent return in private accounts. If you have the 
economic growth that produces that kind of return in the private 
accounts, you have the economic growth that means Social Security will 
exist without adjustments for the next 75 years. You can't have it both 
ways. Either we are going to have, as the actuaries predict, 
dramatically lower economic growth than we have had in the past 75 
years, and that is about 3.4 percent average real economic growth, or 
we are going to have the more pessimistic view of the Social Security 
actuaries in their recommendations, about 1.9 percent growth. If we 
have 1.9 percent growth, you would not be able to pay full benefits--
you would only be able to pay 73 percent of the benefits after 2042. 
But if that is the case, you don't have the economic strengths to 
produce the corporate profits to lift the stock market to provide the 
return in private accounts. You can't argue both sides in the same 
question.
  My belief, again, is we should preserve, protect, and strengthen the 
Social Security system. It works. We know it works. It has lifted so 
many millions of Americans out of poverty.
  Second, yes, in retirement security we ought to do everything 
possible to say to all Americans who are working: You need to do more 
than rely on Social Security. It will be there when you are ready to 
retire, but you need to do more than that. We want you to invest. We 
want employers to offer retirement plans and we will provide incentives 
for them to do that for their employees. We want employees to invest in 
IRAs, we want employees to invest in 401(k) programs, and we are 
already providing significant incentives there. But I suggest we 
increase them because it will be a complement to keeping Social 
Security as the core retirement insurance.
  So, as I indicated, there are small matters and big issues before 
this body. The question of what we do with the Social Security program, 
strengthen it, preserve it, and extend it as a core social insurance 
program, or begin to take it apart and change it from an insurance 
program to an investment program--is a big issue. I stand on the side 
of believing that Social Security works. It has enriched the lives of 
senior citizens in this country for decades and will continue to do so 
for decades.
  I also stand here saying that it is in my judgment a meritorious 
issue for all of us to care a lot about retirement security beyond the 
Social Security program itself.
  The one thing we should do and must do is all begin from the same set 
of facts. My colleague, the late Senator Moynihan, used to say everyone 
is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their 
own facts. I hope as we work through and think through this great 
debate on Social Security that we will at least agree on the basic set 
of facts. Those facts, I think, if read in a manner that represents a 
level look, will tell us this Social Security program has been an 
enormous success for this country and will be in the future as well, if 
we have the strength and courage to do what is right to preserve it and 
strengthen it.
  I yield the floor and I make the point of order a quorum is not 
present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________