[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2485-2487]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today we were visited on Capitol Hill by 
Alan Greenspan. Alan Greenspan is the head of the Federal Reserve and 
is considered the economics guru who comes to Washington periodically, 
to Capitol Hill, and gives us advice. Sometimes that advice is very 
wise and sagacious, and sometimes I think it is totally political--the 
same Alan Greenspan who helped President Clinton with the task of 
reducing the deficit, the right thing to do.
  President Clinton came up with a proposal which in fact reduced the 
deficit, a deficit which through previous administrations of President 
Ronald Reagan and President George Bush finally came to an end at the 
end of the Clinton administration. For the first time in modern memory, 
we were generating surpluses in the Federal Treasury. All of that red 
ink finally ended. We moved into the black. Mr. Greenspan was the 
inspiration for this initially, saying to the Clinton administration, 
get serious and get real about

[[Page 2486]]

the deficit. We were anxious to listen to Mr. Greenspan in following 
years about what his advice might be.
  Along came the Bush administration 4 years ago proposing dramatic tax 
cuts. The argument for the White House was, if you have a surplus, more 
money in the Treasury than you need, for goodness sakes, give it back 
to the people who paid it. That was the argument for the tax cut.
  Many of us warned that sometimes the economy turns around, and things 
happen you don't anticipate. If we are going to have tax cuts, we 
should have some sort of a safety valve there. If things go badly, the 
tax cuts will not continue and drive us into deficit. Mr. Greenspan 
didn't argue for that kind of caution at all, and the Bush White House 
rejected that notion.
  What happened? Exactly as we anticipated--unforeseen circumstances; 
the surplus disappeared, the tax cuts were there. Along came a 
recession, followed by a war on terrorism, followed by the invasion of 
Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to the tax cuts still being on the 
books. That grand surplus disappeared into a deficit--the biggest 
deficit in the history of the United States.
  Now comes the President with a new plan. He says let us privatize 
Social Security. Let us create private and personal accounts, knowing 
full well that to do that you have to take money out of the Social 
Security trust fund so people can invest it in mutual funds. Some say 
that is too risky. Regardless of whether it is risky, it does take 
money out of the Social Security trust fund and adds to the deficit.
  In comes Mr. Greenspan today for more words of advice. We welcome him 
to Capitol Hill, but we wait patiently and anxiously to hear that same 
deficit fighter of years ago comment on what we are seeing today. Where 
is Mr. Greenspan when it comes to these tax cuts that have driven us 
into this deficit? Where is Mr. Greenspan when it comes to privatizing 
Social Security that will make it worse? Sadly, he understands that 
deficits are not healthy, but Dr. Greenspan is afraid to prescribe any 
serious medicine.
  One of the concerns we have with the Social Security trust fund is 
after the surplus has ended and the Bush administration's tax cuts 
brought us into this new era of deficits, more and more money is being 
pulled out of the Social Security trust fund.
  The President, who tells us he is worried about the Social Security 
trust fund, has been the biggest problem the Social Security trust fund 
has run into. His tax cut plan and his privatization plan attack 
literally the balance in the Social Security trust fund. Congress has 
joined in this.
  Every time Congress voted for the tax cuts, it voted to raid the 
Social Security trust fund. Since 2000, the Social Security trust fund 
surplus has lost $800 billion--$800 billion taken out of the Social 
Security trust fund since the year 2000 when President Bush came to 
office.
  Now the President tells us he is worried about Social Security's 
future. The obvious question is, Why weren't you worried when you were 
taking all of this money out of the Social Security trust fund?
  How much of that surplus was paid back to strengthen the Social 
Security trust fund since President Bush took office? Zero. The 
President has been taking their money out of the Social Security trust 
fund. That means workers have paid $800 billion more into Social 
Security in taxes than were necessary to pay out benefits and the 
Social Security trust fund turned around, and that money was removed by 
the President's policies.
  The Bush administration has borrowed $800 billion from the American 
public over the last 5 years--money that was paid to the Government for 
the Social Security trust fund, for their tax cuts, and to fund the 
war. Instead of paying it back, the Republicans have called the bonds 
on the Social Security trust fund ``meaningless IOUs.'' How is that for 
respect for the Social Security trust fund.
  Now to draw attention away from the Republican idea of cutting 
benefits instead of paying the trust fund back, the Republican Policy 
Committee has come up with a document criticizing a Democratic plan on 
Social Security that doesn't exist. We talked about that earlier this 
morning. In their document, the Republican Policy Committee says the 
Democrats want to use the Social Security trust fund surpluses for the 
next 13 years for new Government programs.
  We have been saying for years that we need to protect the Social 
Security trust fund. The Democratic position was well articulated by 
President Clinton in 1998. In his State of the Union Address, President 
Clinton said, ``What should we do with the projected budget surplus? 
Save Social Security first.''
  That has been the Democratic position--not the Republican position.
  President Clinton went on to say, ``I propose that we reserve 100 
percent of the surplus--that's every penny of any surplus--until we 
have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security 
system for the 21st Century.''
  In his campaign to succeed President Clinton, former Vice President 
Gore--they kidded him about this--talked about a lockbox to protect the 
trust fund for Social Security. But since President Bush was elected in 
2000, Democrats in Congress have been trying to preserve the Social 
Security trust fund. We have tried time after time to amend President 
Bush's reckless tax cuts and to protect the Social Security trust fund.
  Here is a chart which goes through the variety of votes taken on the 
floor of the Senate since President Bush took office. Each one of these 
six votes was an effort by the Democrats to protect the Social Security 
trust fund from tax cuts and spending by President Bush.
  Starting with the Bush tax cut in 2001, Senator Byrd, to forego tax 
cuts to extend Social Security, was defeated on a party-line vote--38 
Democrats, yes; 48 Republicans, no.
  The Harkin amendment to delay the tax cuts until we enact legislation 
that ensures the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, 
party-line vote, defeated; 45 Democrats voted yes, Republicans voted 
no, 49.
  The list goes on.
  The point is that repeatedly we have said to the Bush administration, 
if you keep taking money out of the Social Security trust fund, you are 
going to jeopardize the future. You have to protect it. Don't give a 
tax cut to the wealthiest people in America and endanger Social 
Security.
  Six different times, the Republicans in the Senate were given a 
chance to agree with this, and six different times they prevailed and 
voted ``no.'' Now they come before us today and argue it is the 
Democrats who want to take money out of the Social Security trust fund.
  Take a look at the reality of deficits under this administration. 
Take a look at the surplus, the black ink, inherited by President Bush, 
and then look at deficits that have been created. One-half of this 
deficit was created by tax cuts, primarily to the wealthiest people in 
America.
  Now look at how this deficit will grow, if the President's 
privatization plan on Social Security goes through.
  Mr. Greenspan came to Capitol Hill. He had a chance to talk about 
being fiscally conservative. He had a chance to tell us that 
privatizing Social Security was a bad idea because of the deficits it 
creates for future generations. But once again, he stopped short of 
that kind of sound advice.
  Today, Mr. Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee the single 
biggest tool the Government has to increase national savings is to 
reduce the deficit. We all agree with that. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Greenspan is not candid and direct when it comes to the President's 
privatization plan for Social Security, which adds dramatically to the 
deficit.
  Imagine, over 20 years we are going to add $4 or $5 trillion to the 
deficit so that President Bush can create the so-called private 
accounts. That is shortsighted. It is not going to help the country 
recover.
  After the President submitted a budget last week showing a dramatic 
worsening of the Nation's fiscal outlook, the President sent Congress a 
request for an additional $82 billion in

[[Page 2487]]

spending for the war in Iraq. The money to fund the war on terrorism, 
the money to fund this war in Iraq is not included in the President's 
budget. President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security was not 
included, either. The $2 trillion that is needed for this transition in 
Social Security is not there.
  The Republican Policy Committee wants to criticize Democrats on 
Social Security instead of answering the hard questions about the 
President's privatization plan. Where did the money go that Americans 
paid into Social Security? Where will the money come from to transition 
to any privatization system?
  Instead of criticizing the so-called Democratic bill that does not 
exist, the Republicans ought to produce their bill to privatize Social 
Security. Once the American people understand it doesn't add up, they 
will reject it.
  We are going to go back to principles and values which say we should 
protect Social Security first. That is what President Clinton said. 
That should still be our guiding value in this debate.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________