[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5670-5678]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments and then I 
will yield to Senator Dorgan a couple of minutes as respective chairmen 
of the policy committees of both parties to describe what is going to 
happen briefly.
  Sometimes, people watching C-SPAN will see a lone Senator giving a 
speech on the floor of the Senate and that passes for debate, and they 
ask, Where is the debate? Where is the joinder of the issues with one 
side asking the other a question and one side responding to the other's 
questions?
  As a result of the fact that we don't have enough of that real debate 
in the Senate, what Senator Dorgan and I and our respective parties 
have agreed to is to conduct real debate, such as high school or 
college debates that many are familiar with, where there is a set 
time--in this case, 70 minutes--and each of four speakers, two on the 
Republican side and two on the Democratic side, have a few minutes, in 
this case 6 minutes, to make a presentation. Then when those 
presentations are over, each will ask the other questions. They will 
take a minute to ask the question with 2 minutes to respond; then, when 
the questions are over, there will be a brief summing up period of 
time. That can allow the positions of the parties to be articulated 
well and yet permit an exchange of rebuttal and surrebuttal, which 
actually enables the parties to question each other, to challenge each 
other's premises and then to respond; in effect, conduct a real debate. 
The exact time limits are known to the parties.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent, without reading the agreement 
which has been agreed to by both parties respecting the relative time 
and order of presentation, that the agreement be deemed read and agreed 
to, and that it be deemed self-executing in the event that either 
Senator Dorgan or I should not be on the floor for purposes of yielding 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for the next 70 minutes, as soon as Senator 
Dorgan is done with his preliminary comments, we will conduct this 
debate on the subject of Social Security. I invite those who are 
watching C-SPAN, as well as our colleagues, to tune in here because 
this may be one of the few real debates that we have until this subject 
actually is taken up on the floor of the Senate.
  Finally, the subjects are chosen by mutual agreement, and we hope to 
have more of these debates this year and the following year, conducted 
roughly in this same kind of format so we can engage on other subjects 
as well.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. We are the chairmen 
of our respective policy committees, Republican and Democratic parties. 
We have on previous occasions decided to arrange some debates on the 
floor of the Senate about some significant issues. I participated in 
previous debates. For this evening, however, the debate will occur 
between Senator Durbin and Senator Stabenow on the Democratic side, 
Senator DeMint and Senator Santorum on the Republican side. This debate 
is about Social Security, the larger issue, and also the merits of 
private accounts in Social Security.
  I assume this will be a spirited discussion because it is a 
discussion that has been moving around the country at a very 
significant pace in recent weeks. It was said once that when everyone 
in the room is thinking the same thing, no one is thinking very much. I 
happen to think debate strengthens this democracy of ours.
  I recall several years ago I picked up the Washington Post and there 
was a big debate going on about something very controversial, and 
someone was quoted in the Washington Post. They said, This whole thing 
has degenerated into a debate about principles. I read that, and I 
guess that is why I came here. I hope so. I hope that is what debate is 
about.
  Tonight, we will one more time begin a discussion and a debate, in 
this case on a subject that is very important in this country. I thank 
the two Republicans and the two Democrats, distinguished colleagues, 
who have agreed to participate in this debate. As my colleague Senator 
Kyl indicated, this debate will be self-executing. The rules are known 
to all participants.
  With that, let me turn this debate period over to the participants 
who have agreed to begin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader or his designee is now 
recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank both chairmen for 
structuring this debate.
  I am here to talk about the problems confronting the Social Security 
system. Then my colleague Senator DeMint will talk about in more detail 
the solutions we are putting forth--many of us on the side of the aisle 
are putting forward.
  The problem with Social Security is it is driven by demographics. 
Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. That means the people 
working pay into the system for those who are retired. The system 
worked well when you had a lot of people working and only a few people 
retiring. But that has fundamentally changed over the years. As a 
result of that change, what you see in the red line is a dramatic 
increase in taxes--from 2 percent, which is what the tax was on Social 
Security in 1936, now up to 12.4 percent. It was 2 percent on the first 
$3,000 you made. That is the green bar. Now it is up to 12.4 percent of 
the first $90,000 you make. If you are working in the system now, that 
is when you start, high based; in other words, almost every dollar most 
people make is going be taxed at a very high rate.
  This is a big tax burden on future generations of America as we stand 
today. But this tax right now doesn't pay for the benefits that are 
going to be provided for future generations. Why? Demographics are 
changing.
  The first thing to happen is the fact that we are not having as many 
children. There are some exceptions to that. But we are not having as 
many children as we had in previous years. You see the baby boom 
generation, 6.3 children of women of childbearing age.

[[Page 5671]]

We are now going to be below a sustainable birth rate. But for 
immigration, we would be losing population in America.
  We see a gradual decline in the number of workers going into the 
system. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, we have a problem--a good problem. People are living longer. 
Life expectancy at the time Social Security started was age 61. Truly, 
at the time, Social Security was an old-age program. What does that 
mean? It was for people who could no longer work. People didn't live to 
age 65 back in 1936. Now we are seeing seniors living to age 77, and 
increasing 1 month every 2 years.
  What we are going to be asking future generations of Americans to 
do--these workers, fewer of them--is to support seniors up to almost 
one-third of their lifespan in ``retirement'' on Social Security.
  People are living longer, fewer people paying benefits, and the final 
big blow to the demographic perfect storm is the number of people 
turning 65.
  If you look back over the last 40 years, back and beyond 1982, the 
average number of people turning 65 in America was 2 million. When 
boomers start to retire, as you can see in the year 2011, the average 
going out over the next 40 years is going to be 4 million people. We 
are going to double the number of people retiring, and they are going 
to be living longer, and fewer people are coming into the workplace to 
pay for those benefits. As a result of this combination of three 
factors, we see this very important distinction. This is what is 
driving the personal accounts. That is what is driving the need for 
changes in the Social Security system. It worked fine when you had a 
lot of people paying 42 to 1.
  Now we have a system where almost one person is paying for one person 
in retirement; it is two to one. Franklin Roosevelt would never design 
a system where workers were paying for retirees if you only had two 
workers paying for one retiree. No one designing a system today would 
design a system with demographics looking like this. In a sense you are 
almost paying for one person's retirement.
  If you do that, anyway, why not have a personal account? Why not have 
the money paid to you and accrue that money over time, earn interest, 
have the miracle of compound interest being used to benefit from the 
taxes you are paying, instead of simply paying it to someone who is 
getting a transfer payment from you as you work today.
  Franklin Roosevelt was right; Members never thought a Republican 
would say that. He was right to design a system such as this because it 
made sense. There was a very small burden on taxpayers. But we have 
changed. America has changed. And as a result of that change we need to 
look at the system differently.
  Here is what happens now because of this demographic. Huge deficits 
in the future. Why? Fewer people paying and more people retired live 
longer. We have a short window of 10 or 12 years when we are paying 
more into the system than we need to pay benefits.
  Why don't we lockbox that? How do you lockbox it? You can't lockbox 
it. Every Senator I have ever talked to says the money goes to pay for 
other Government programs. The answer is right. How do we lockbox it? 
Put it into personal savings accounts for their benefits in later 
years. That is how you lockbox Social Security today. That surplus that 
is there right now, put it into personal accounts. If we don't do that, 
we will have a cashflow problem in our ability to pay benefits. We 
cannot pay benefits with IOUs. The President showed that today in 
Parkersburg, WV. You have to pay benefits with cash. That is the cash 
deficits we will be running in the Social Security Program alone: $63 
billion in 10 years, $250 billion cashflow. What does that mean? 
Someone will have to pay more in taxes in 10 or 15 years, someone will 
get less benefits, or we will have huge borrowing to pay current 
benefits--not doing anything about saving money, not doing anything 
about having a better benefit, just to pay the current benefits being 
promised and that we cannot deliver on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleagues.
  Sometimes by accident the Senate lapses into something which 
perilously resembles debate. This may be one of those moments.
  For those who are following it, welcome to the Senate as I hoped it 
would be. I congratulate my colleagues on the Republican side and my 
colleague Senator Stabenow for engaging in this debate.
  The first question the American people ought to ask is a very basic 
question: Congress, if you did nothing, if you didn't change one word 
in the Social Security law, how long would the Social Security system 
make payments to every retiree with a cost-of-living adjustment every 
single year? To listen to my colleague from Pennsylvania, it sounds as 
though doomsday for Social Security is right around the corner. But the 
professionals tell us it is 35 to 45 years away; 35 to 45 years if we 
do nothing.
  President Bush and Senator Santorum and others have said, but what 
about beyond that date? That is a legitimate challenge to all of us. 
When I came to Congress in 1983, I faced that challenge on a bipartisan 
basis. We met that challenge. We extended the life of Social Security 
for 59 years with commonsense changes. That is what we should do again.
  Yet the President comes to us and proposes privatization. Now I have 
said it. I said the word which drives the Republicans into a rage. They 
don't want to use ``privatization.'' It is as Senator Bumpers said, 
they hate privatization like the devil hates holy water. But the fact 
is when the Cato Institute dreamed up this scheme, that is exactly what 
they called it.
  So now the Republicans have a softer side of privatization; they call 
it personal accounts. But it comes down to the same thing. If you are 
going to take money out of the Social Security trust fund to invest it 
in the stock market, the first and obvious question you have to ask is, 
does this strengthen Social Security? The President has already 
answered that question: It doesn't. It weakens Social Security. It 
means the Social Security trust fund will run out of money sooner. That 
is obvious. You are taking money out of the trust fund.
  What else does it do? It forces you to cut benefits for Social 
Security retirees. There is less money in the trust fund. You cannot 
pay out as much in a pay-as-you-go system. That is fairly obvious.
  How would they achieve that? The White House memo that was released 
said they would move to this new price index. Wage index to price index 
does not mean much to the average person until you sit down and ask, 
what does that mean in realistic terms? So we ask, what does that mean 
for today's retirees? What if we had dealt with a price index instead 
of a wage index?
  The yellow line on the chart suggests current law; the red line price 
indexing. What it tells us is 20 or 30 years from now, under the 
President's approach, we would see a 40-percent cut in benefits paid to 
Social Security, forcing millions of seniors below the poverty line. 
That is part of privatization. The other part, the part which they hate 
to talk about, is that as you drag these trillions of dollars out of 
the Social Security trust fund, the only way to make it up is to add it 
to our national debt, $2 trillion to $5 trillion of national debt over 
20 years, debt that is financed by Japan, China, Korea, and Taiwan, 
debt our children would carry.
  So there we have the perfect storm. All three have come together: A 
privatization plan that doesn't strengthen Social Security but weakens 
it; a privatization plan that is going to cut benefits dramatically in 
the outyears; and a privatization plan that is going to create a 
deficit of $2 trillion to $5 trillion.
  If we moved to the President's plan immediately, the Social Security 
system would go bankrupt even sooner, be insolvent even sooner. How can 
that be the right approach?
  Now, let's get down to the politics of this situation. This is all 
about

[[Page 5672]]

choices. We have made some choices. We had a vote as to whether we were 
going to cut taxes in America or save Social Security. Look at these 
Bush tax cut votes where we asked our Republican friends who wanted to 
join us in saving Social Security, are you willing to sacrifice a penny 
in tax cuts to make Social Security stronger. Time after time after 
time, to amendments offered by Senator Byrd, Senator Harkin, Senator 
Conrad, Senator Reid, Senator Hollings, they have said no, we would 
prefer tax cuts even for the wealthiest people in this country rather 
than to strengthen the Social Security trust fund. The reason the 
Social Security trust fund may be in peril in the outyears is we have 
taken so much out of it to finance tax cuts.
  I have a chart which shows what the tax cuts mean, the Social 
Security shortfall and the cost of other administration politics over 
the next 75 years. The Social Security shortfall is about the same as 
the President's tax cuts for the top 1 percent of Americans. If we took 
the money we are giving in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America 
and put it back into the Social Security system, we would not be having 
this debate. We would be talking about other issues that are equally if 
not more important.
  Look at this chart. As a percentage of gross domestic product, Social 
Security will be at 48 percent in the year 2075. Look at Medicare and 
look at Medicaid. As we talk about this light at the end of the tunnel, 
35 or 45 years from now, there is a locomotive looming, about to run 
over us, called Medicaid and Medicare and cost of health insurance.
  So why aren't we sitting down on a bipartisan basis as we did in 
1983, working out commonsense solutions that don't privatize Social 
Security, weakening it, cutting benefits, creating a massive debt for 
our children? Why don't we work on a bipartisan basis to make it 
stronger?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired. There is 6 
minutes for the minority.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. First, thanks to my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle for arranging in this incredibly important debate, Senator Kyl 
and Senator Dorgan, for bringing us together in this way.
  Social Security is a great American success story. Senator Durbin and 
I, while we were not around when it was created, are very proud of the 
fact that we as Democrats led the way to create a great American 
success story. Our goal today is to keep the security in Social 
Security. That is the fundamental issue, I believe, for each American 
family.
  We are very proud of the fact that Social Security is a great 
American success story because prior to Social Security, half of the 
seniors in our country, half of older Americans, were in poverty. Today 
it is about 10 percent. We still need to work on the 10 percent but 
this is a great American success story. We want to make sure nothing is 
done to unravel this.
  It is important we have this debate, though, and we talk about the 
fact that Social Security is America's insurance policy. It is our 
families' insurance policy because it is more than just retirement, 
which is so critical. But it is also a disability policy. Most of us do 
not have a private disability policy. In fact, 75 percent of us do not. 
It is a disability policy; it is a survivors policy.
  Heaven forbid if mom or dad lose their life, where they are not there 
to care for their children. In fact, in my husband's own family, when 
he was 10 years old, his father died. His mom was older and not well, 
and he and his mom literally survived on Social Security.
  This is a great American success story. Anything we do that pulls 
dollars out of an insurance policy will cut those who are left. No 
matter how forcefully the President or our colleagues say that somehow 
some folks can be protected, when you pull dollars out of an insurance 
system, it is not possible. I think it is very important for us to 
understand that as well.
  Also, we can each have our own opinions but not our own facts. There 
are a couple of different numbers floating around, but I would suggest 
to you that the folks whom we are obligated to look to, the 
Congressional Budget Office--the folks where nobody is appointed by the 
President, such as the Social Security trustees--those who are the 
nonpartisan folks we refer to all the time, they tell us, as has been 
said, that the trust fund can pay 100 percent of its obligations until 
2052, and after that, if nothing was done, it would be about 80 
percent, maybe 78, 80 percent the trust fund could pay.
  There is no question there is a gap, and we are here to say we want 
to work with you to address that gap. That is what we ought to be 
doing.
  What we know, and the President has already admitted, as have others, 
is the privatization scheme proposed does nothing to fix this; nothing. 
It does not add a day, does not add an hour to 2052. In fact, it makes 
it worse.
  There is a solution. In fact, there are a number of things we can 
talk about. But 2 weeks ago we had a vote on the floor on the budget 
resolution. This was a vote based on an amendment that Senator Kent 
Conrad and I had to put Social Security first. I know people are 
concerned about Social Security, those who support continuing it. But 
the reality is, we had a vote 2 weeks ago on an amendment that simply 
said, before we permanently extend tax cuts predominantly to those most 
blessed in our country, who are the least worried about Social 
Security, or before we add new mandatory spending, we should secure 
Social Security first.
  It is staggering when we look at the differences in values and 
priorities in this Congress and with the administration. Mr. President, 
$3.7 trillion is a lot of money; $3.7 trillion would secure Social 
Security for 75 years. That is, what, a third, a third maybe, of what 
we are going to be asked to vote on later this year and beyond to 
extend tax breaks predominantly for the wealthiest Americans for 75 
years.
  What are our values? What are our priorities? What does this say 
about us as a country? We can easily, by putting Social Security first, 
fill that gap for 75 years. And I believe we ought to do it.
  Specifically, on why privatization is something that does not make 
sense. Privatization does three things we are concerned about: It 
increases the national debt drastically; it increases administrative 
costs; and it adds deep benefit cuts. No matter who says, ``We'll 
protect this group or that group, these folks will be OK,'' if you take 
money out of the insurance system, everybody gets cut. That is the 
reality.
  The first thing is the budget deficit, the deficit for the country. 
When we look at what is happening right now, it is astounding. We have 
the largest Federal deficit right now in the history of the country. We 
should all be extremely concerned about it. It is $4.6 trillion, 
projected. This adds, over 20 years, another $4.9 trillion. It more 
than doubles the national deficit in order to do privatization.
  One of the things I am particularly worried about, both as a member 
of the Banking Committee and a member of the Budget Committee, is who 
is buying that debt? Who is buying that debt from us? This is at a time 
when we are concerned about national security and trade deficits and 
what is happening around the world.
  Well, the top two folks buying it are Japan and China. But can you 
imagine, South Korea and OPEC own some of our deficit. What happens 
when we add more to that deficit? And what happens when foreign 
countries buy more and more of our debt? This is a bad idea to add more 
to our debt.
  Let me add a couple of points.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. I will do that later. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority is now recognized for 6 minutes.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues as well.
  This is a great opportunity to discuss such an important program. I 
appreciate all three of my colleagues who have spoken who have stressed 
how important it is that we keep the promise

[[Page 5673]]

of Social Security. We have heard a lot of numbers and different 
information. If I could, I would like to try to make it a little 
simpler so at least I could understand it.
  I am reminded, as I hear some of the information, of a TV commercial 
I have seen that the AARP has sponsored. Some of you may have seen that 
commercial. The Presiding Officer may have seen it as well. In the 
commercial they have a wrecking ball that is tearing down a house and a 
Caterpillar tractor tearing down the walls and a family fleeing, and 
they are saying: This is what the President is trying to do to our 
Social Security system, to tear it down completely when all it takes is 
a few simple adjustments.
  I think the real truth here is the house is more like one I saw on 
the news during the rains and the mud slides in California: a beautiful 
big house sitting on the mountainside, and from the front it looked 
perfect. It was perfect in the inside. The roof was perfect. It did not 
leak. But when you looked around the back, from the air with a 
helicopter, you could see that half of the foundation had been washed 
away, and it was precariously perched there on the side of the 
mountain. But it looked perfect from the front. A few hours later they 
showed a clip from the air where the whole house went down the side of 
the mountain.
  Unfortunately, what we have happening today is we have a Social 
Security program that has worked, and it looks good, just like that 
house, but the foundations have been eroded for many years, and we are 
coming to the point where we have to rebuild those foundations.
  I appreciate what the President is doing. This President has been 
willing to confront the most difficult issues of our generation. He has 
confronted terrorism head on. He is the world leader now in exporting 
freedom and democracy. He has taken the education issue on, recognizing 
we were leaving children behind, and made it more accountable. He saw 
that seniors were not able to buy prescriptions, and he has worked with 
the Congress to make sure they could. He sees that Social Security is 
like the house on the cliff and that we need to fix it.
  Now, I am afraid my Democrat colleagues and the AARP and some other 
groups are still showing people around the house and telling them it 
looks fine. And it does. But, folks, the real truth is, the foundation 
of our Social Security system has been eroded. The President is trying 
to show us the truth, that we need to rebuild the foundation.
  Senator Santorum painted a clear picture. The foundation of our 
current Social Security system was based on a lot of workers and few 
retirees, a lot of workers putting in $60 or less a year. Today, we 
have the average family putting in over $5,000 a year. The problem with 
that foundation and why it is being washed away by today's demographics 
is there is no savings. We have not saved 1 penny. Even though the 
average American family puts in over $5,000--some dual-income families 
over $15,000 a year--we are not saving any money in the Social Security 
system.
  I am afraid while the trust fund is a nice idea, it is no more real 
than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. The President today pointed out 
that the trust fund is simply a file cabinet with a bookkeeping record 
of how much the Federal Government has borrowed from Social Security. 
This money was being borrowed before our tax cuts. It is being borrowed 
today. This year, there is $75 billion in Social Security surpluses. It 
is being spent. And if we had not had the tax cuts, it would have all 
been spent because there is no way in our current Social Security 
system to save real money. That is all the President is talking about, 
rebuilding the foundation of our Social Security system with real 
savings. And that is what we are trying to do.
  I will put up a chart. I want to point something out that is very 
important. So much has been said that we are taking money out of the 
Social Security system. But what we are doing with personal accounts is 
welding them to the current Social Security system.
  As you will see with the first bar on the chart, this year, in 2005, 
all of the benefits to today's retirees are being paid from the current 
system. But what we are proposing, since the current system is running 
out of money, is to begin to add personal savings within the Social 
Security system. By 2025, over half of the benefits that will be paid--
and it is important to see that the benefits will be the same--will be 
paid in part by personal savings and in part by the traditional system.
  Now, by the time my children retire, in 2045, all of the benefits 
will be paid from a funded Social Security system, from real savings, 
and people will actually get better benefits in the future than they do 
today.
  Let me point out on a second chart, it is important to recognize no 
money is going out of the system. It is all part of a system that has a 
new foundation of real savings.
  This is something we require of every corporation in the country that 
offers a pension plan, that they have real money in it. That is what we 
need to do to Social Security.
  One of the benefits of this--in addition to structuring a program 
where we can guarantee benefits; we don't change disability; survivors 
benefits can be even better--is the average American worker, if you 
look at 2035, average median income at 35, it is already close to 
$400,000 that they can work with their current system. The benefit 
there is that if you die before you are 65 instead of today when you 
have nothing, it is left to your heirs. It is part of your estate. More 
people can inherit wealth.
  We can continue to talk about this as we go through the questions and 
answers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority is now recognized and has 1 
minute to pose a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will ask the first question. If you take 
up to 2 percent out of the Social Security trust fund--and it is a pay-
as-you-go system--it is clear you don't have enough money to pay the 
benefits. The White House memo suggested that the way to deal with this 
is to reduce the amount of benefits paid to Social Security retirees. 
So I would like to ask my Republican friends if they support the White 
House memo that called for the price index that would cut benefits for 
Social Security retirees in years to come up to 40 percent.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would answer that and say that as you see, we have a 
surplus right now that can be used to fund these accounts for the next 
10 years. After that we run a deficit in the Social Security Program, 
and we would have to come up with a way of financing that deficit.
  What the President has suggested is that with Social Security, if we 
fix it the old-fashioned way, the way you did in 1938, which was 
increase taxes and cut benefits, workers would be paying more and 
getting less. With personal accounts, you have the opportunity of 
getting more because you use the compound interest, you use the miracle 
of the markets, and a balanced investment portfolio that is being used 
by pension funds all over the country to fund their accounts. And so 
what we would suggest is you initially use the surplus money and then 
you balance for future workers--again, no reduction in benefits today, 
but you balance for future workers.
  What the President has talked about is a promise, a lower promise of 
benefits but a better opportunity for a return because you have the 
personal savings accounts which can exceed the promised benefit. So you 
have at least the opportunity to do as well as the current system 
promises but cannot pay--promises but cannot pay--and you have the 
opportunity of not having to have future tax increases, again, because 
you are able to compensate with the amount of money that is earned in 
these accounts, again, because of the compounding of interest and 
because of the diversified portfolio of investments you have.
  To me, this is a balanced approach. It takes the good part of the 
Social Security system which is the security of having money go into 
this old system, keeps that in place for about two-thirds of the money, 
and a third of the money will be able to offset what

[[Page 5674]]

would have to be a future reduction of benefits with the growth in the 
personal account.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
majority is now recognized for 1 minute to ask a question.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. I would like to ask a question about 
the 6 percent of the workforce that does not participate in Social 
Security. They are State and local workers. My first question is, Do 
you support requiring--just as you did in 1983 by requiring Federal 
workers to participate in Social Security--those State and local 
workers to participate in Social Security? And if you do not, then why 
would you deny current workers who are in the Social Security system 
the opportunity to have a personal account like those workers do and 
allow them to continue to have their funded pension system and funded 
Social Security system, not allow current workers to have at least a 
partially funded Social Security system?
  Mr. DURBIN. I might say that many of these people are teachers and 
firefighters and policemen who pay into their pension systems. They 
understood the arrangements when they went in and usually pay as much 
or more than Social Security requires. And for us to now change their 
system and bring them into Social Security fails on two counts. First, 
it doesn't solve the Social Security solvency problem. It is worth 
about 20 percent of the total that we are dealing with. And second, it 
is going to demolish their own pension plans. So you are going to find 
these people who are being interrupted into their current employment 
paying into pension plans who will now either pay more into Social 
Security and/or less into their pension plans.
  Is that what we want to achieve? Do we want to take pension plans 
that people paid into for a lifetime and weaken them? Is that our way 
to solve the Social Security crisis? I don't think so. I listened to my 
friends on the Republican side likening the Social Security trust fund 
to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a file cabinet. They may not 
recall it, but it hasn't been that long ago, 6 or 7 years ago, when we 
generated surpluses in the Federal budget. The Social Security Program 
was stronger. We were borrowing less money from it.
  Since President Bush arrived we have borrowed $800 billion out of the 
Social Security trust fund. The so-called file cabinet has been very 
generous to the President when he wanted to finance his tax cuts. If he 
hadn't given tax cuts to the wealthiest people, that file cabinet would 
have been full of money for Social Security recipients, lengthening the 
life of this program.
  Also, this whole thing about the miracle of the markets,
  I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania. Thank you for finally 
saying the words. You said we are talking about lower benefits but the 
opportunity to do better. That is what it is all about. So there is a 
guarantee of lower benefits to Social Security and the possibility of 
making more money on your investment.
  Does the phrase ``past performance is no indication of future 
results'' ring a bell? That is what you see at the bottom of every ad 
for stocks and bonds and mutual funds. There is risk involved. Some may 
profit, others may not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority now has 1 minute to pose a 
question of the majority. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, to follow up on the fact that we are 
hearing that there is no money in the trust fund, I am quite shocked to 
hear that because back in the 1980s, when the decision was made to come 
together, President Reagan, based on Alan Greenspan's commission, with 
Bob Dole and Tip O'Neill, they came together and on purpose designed a 
system to create surpluses for all of us baby boomers so there would be 
more dollars available in a surplus. And, in fact, what the President 
looks at, of course, just like when you go to a bank, you don't look in 
and just see dollars because there are investments being made and so 
on.
  In the Social Security trust fund, individuals have been given 
secured bonds, the equivalent of a secured bond, an IOU, each one of us 
as individuals, with the full faith and credit of the United States 
behind it.
  My question is this: We are giving those same kinds of assurances to 
those who buy our foreign debt, that we have the full faith and credit 
of the United States behind it. Would you suggest that we would pay 
China back and Japan back and our foreign creditors before we would pay 
back the people of America who have paid into the Social Security trust 
fund and have been given a secured IOU?
  Mr. DeMINT. An excellent question. Those are legal obligations of the 
Federal Government which we have to honor. But the Supreme Court has 
said Americans have no legal right to a Social Security benefit. It is 
not their money. They don't own it. Unfortunately, the Social Security 
trust fund could not write one check to a Social Security retiree 
today. There is no money.
  The only place the money can come from for the trust fund is if it 
comes back from the general fund to the trust fund. In other words, 
these cash deficits that we have talked about are the money that has to 
come out of the General Treasury, out of our education fund, our 
transportation fund, out of our military, in order to pay these IOUs 
that are in this so-called trust fund. And we don't have the money to 
do that.
  And the talk of tax cuts hurting the Social Security trust fund, I am 
afraid, is ridiculous. The money was all being spent anyway. If we had 
not had a tax cut, more would have been spent. This year there is $75 
billion in a Social Security surplus that we are spending.
  My question to the Senator is, would the Senator support a proposal 
that actually saved the Social Security trust fund--that is all we do--
save the money that is surplus between now and the time that runs out 
in 2017--and that is when the program is in trouble because that is 
when we have to start pulling money out of the general fund. But my 
question to both of my Democratic colleagues is, would they support a 
proposal to save the Social Security surplus today?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I say to my friend and colleague, 
I am shocked to hear him say the people of America who have paid into 
the Social Security trust fund, the baby boomers, do not have a secured 
obligation by all of us. Is the Senator saying whether it is moral or 
whether it is legal, or is he saying we do not have to pay those 
benefits? He is actually saying that for the folks who have paid in as 
baby boomers that we are not obligated to pay those benefits?
  Mr. DeMINT. That is what the Supreme Court----
  Ms. STABENOW. I want to make it clear that we Democrats believe with 
all our hearts and souls we have a responsibility to pay and we will 
pay those obligations. To somehow say that it is different to pay a 
foreign country than it is to pay our own people the obligations when 
they are both secured obligations--this is not something written down 
on a little piece of paper. This is a secured obligation with the full 
faith and credit of the United States of America behind it.
  So I ask my colleague in return, the simple thing to do here, the 
very simple thing to do would be to go back and vote again on simply 
making a policy statement. Why didn't my colleagues, either of my 
colleagues, vote to say ``put Social Security first,'' let's make sure 
we secure the obligation, keep it secure for 75 years, and then we can 
give 70 percent of the tax cuts; to say to those most blessed in this 
country, will you take 70 percent of $11.6 trillion rather than 100 
percent so every single person cannot only have retirement, but have a 
disability policy, have survivor benefits?
  Isn't that based on the great values of America in terms of paying 
into a system, knowing it is going to be there, working hard all your 
life and creating a way for people to care about each other and have 
community? To me this would be the easiest thing, and we could do it 
tomorrow if we had the votes to do it.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the chart is not accurate. 
According to the Congressional Budget

[[Page 5675]]

Office, extending the tax cuts would cost about .7 percent of the gross 
domestic product between now and 2050, whereas the Social Security 
deficit is 1.4 percent of GDP. Even if we repeal all the tax cuts, not 
just on the wealthiest but on everybody that we provided--that is child 
credit, that is marriage penalty, all of those things--if you take all 
of those tax reductions the President has put forward, they only make 
up half, according to the Congressional Budget Office, of the 
shortfall. It does not solve the problem, No. 1, and it also would be 
mixing apples and oranges.
  We have never in the history of this system had a general fund tax 
transfer to Social Security. We have always funded Social Security 
within the Social Security system through payroll taxes, and I showed 
the increases of taxes over time. So now we are talking about something 
fundamentally different. We are talking about general fund revenue to 
fund Social Security. I do not think most people would see that as an 
insurance policy anymore. I think they start to see it as a transfer 
program looking more like a welfare program than what has historically 
been a social insurance program.
  I do not think we want to head down that road. I think we want to 
keep the integrity of the Social Security system in place. That is why 
what we are suggesting, which is personal retirement accounts, where 
the money stays in the system--there is a lot of talk saying you are 
taking money out to put in these accounts. Remember, these accounts pay 
Social Security benefits. The money stays in the system. It does not 
come out of the system. It is used as a way of actually saving and 
capturing this money that right now is going to the Federal Government 
to spend, and in exchange we are getting this IOU.
  Is the IOU an obligation to pay? Yes. How does the Government pay 
benefits? It pays benefits on the ability to take either tax revenue or 
borrow money and pay out benefits.
  What we are suggesting with this chart of showing the cashflow 
problems is the deficits are going to be huge in the future, and that 
is going to be a problem of cash-flowing benefit payments in the 
future. It is not that we will not pay them; it is the deficits are 
going to be huge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The majority 
has 1 minute to pose a question to the minority.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask either of my colleagues, they have 
heard of the solution we have put forward, and I guess the question I 
have is, the Senator from Illinois suggested we can fix it the way we 
fixed it in the past. The way it was fixed in the past is we raised the 
payroll tax from about 10.4 percent to 12.4 percent and we raised the 
base and indexed it. And then secondly, we increased the retirement age 
from 65 to 67. Also, we taxed benefits for the first time on higher 
income individuals. We taxed benefits, increased the retirement age, 
and we raised taxes.
  So my question is: If my colleagues do not want to go the personal 
account route, and if they accept at some point--pick the time--at some 
point there will be a shortfall in the system, how are we going to 
solve this problem? What tax are we going to increase or by how much? 
How much are we going to cut benefits, or how much are we going to tax 
benefits?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I think it is an honest question, and it 
is one we should face honestly. The last time we did, in 1983, Mr. 
Greenspan's commission came up with a list of recommendations and said: 
Choose from this chart and you will lengthen the life of Social 
Security dramatically.
  Finally, we came up with a package, as the Senator from Pennsylvania 
described. A final vote in the House of Representatives included 81 
Republicans voting with 158 Democrats. When it came to the Senate, 
there were more Republicans than Democrats supporting the Greenspan 
Commission proposal.
  Yes, it gets down to basic math, and that is what troubles me about 
some of the statements made by my colleagues on the floor. It seems we 
think we can defy the laws of gravity and the laws of mathematics, and 
it simply gets down to this: If you want to strengthen a program such 
as this, you are either going to raise taxes, cut benefits, or find 
some new way to generate money into that system. My colleagues' program 
is not a way that puts money into the system. It takes money out of the 
system that then can be invested, that may have a good return, and if 
it has a very good return, you are going to be the winner. If it goes 
soft on you, if you happen to have a bad investment, you are a loser. 
You have fewer benefits under Social Security, less money from your 
investments. The risk is there.
  But I think we need to get down to basics. The Senator from South 
Carolina suggested earlier that we might as well have tax cuts; 
otherwise, we will spend the money. But in the years when we were 
generating surpluses under President Clinton, before President Bush was 
elected, we had the largest increase in longevity in Social Security in 
modern history. In a matter of 3 years, as we are building up 
surpluses, not spending the money on tax cuts or new programs, Social 
Security is getting stronger by 8 years because we are being fiscally 
responsible.
  Now with President Bush, with the largest deficits in the history of 
the United States brought on by a Republican President and a Republican 
Congress, Social Security is going the wrong way. The latest estimate 
says it has lost a year in solvency. They are connected.
  You cannot take the money and overspend on programs or on tax cuts 
and not have a negative impact on the Social Security trust fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 1 minute to address a 
question to the majority.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, given the fact the President has 
indicated that the privatized accounts do not solve the solvency 
problem for Social Security, and given the fact that at this point 
colleagues have said they are not interested in putting Social Security 
first before additional tax cuts or new mandatory spending, what would 
my colleagues' proposals be at this point? Assuming the privatized 
accounts, as has been said--that is a philosophical difference; folks 
may or may not wish to privatize Social Security, but it does not add a 
day to the solvency of the Social Security trust fund.
  I ask my colleagues, what would your proposals to protect and secure 
Social Security be for the future?
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the question because I 
actually do have a proposal. The fact is, if you add personal savings 
within the current system, you do fix the system permanently. The 
example on this chart is while right now the traditional benefits are 
paying 100 percent of our promise, and Social Security is a promise we 
need to keep--Republicans are committed to it, and the President is, 
and that is why we are looking at this house that is on a cliff. We 
want to figure out how to build a foundation that will keep it there 
for our children and grandchildren.
  But if we allow personal accounts to work with the traditional 
system, when we get out to the year 2045, we not only have a 
permanently solvent system, we have one that is completely funded. In 
other words, it would meet the legal criteria of pension plans today.
  I think all of my colleagues know that if corporate America asked us 
to set up a plan such as Social Security where we take workers' money 
today, we spend it all, and then we try to pay benefits out of future 
revenues, we would say no and we would probably put them in jail.
  The plans we are talking about eliminate risks. They guarantee a 
future benefit and they are slanted toward giving the poor a better 
deal than they have had under the current system. We can design a 
Social Security system with personal accounts that eliminate risk and 
help the poor more than this current program and make the program 
permanently solvent.

[[Page 5676]]

  My question back to the Senator would be, if the Senator is not for 
personal accounts--and I guess if the Senator is thinking the trust 
fund is going to pay benefits after 2017 even though last week the 
Social Security actuaries in their report said in 2017 payroll taxes 
will no longer be enough to pay promised benefits, so we will have to 
start pulling money from the general fund--my question to the Senator 
is if the Senator does not want to put personal accounts into the 
system, which we continue to stress we are not taking money out, we are 
adding new money to the Social Security system, we are saving it in 
personal accounts, we are welding it to the traditional system so that 
it will be stronger in the future, how is the Senator going to fix 
Social Security and pay benefits in 2018?
  Ms. STABENOW. With all due respect, I am trying to figure out the new 
math in my head because the math that the Senator is talking about 
certainly does not add up to anything that I have seen. I would 
encourage folks who are watching to go to democrats.gov and use the 
calculator based on a 6-percent rate of growth that some financial 
folks put together where they can put in their date of birth and their 
average yearly earnings and find out for themselves how they would do. 
So far we have not found anybody who does better under these privatized 
accounts.
  So when one is talking about what we ought to do, we need to start 
with the reality that the privatized accounts turn Social Security from 
a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble, No. 1. Secondly, there 
is nothing in what the Senator is talking about that has a relationship 
to what we are hearing about these private accounts.
  I said to Secretary Snow in a committee hearing that I understand 
folks have to pay some of this back, so let me give an example. My 
daughter is 25. Let us say I give her $1,000. At retirement I tell her 
I want the $1,000 back, 3-percent interest, plus inflation. Is that 
what you are talking about? And he basically said yes. He did not 
disagree with that.
  What we are seeing is a lot of hocus-pocus, a lot of where is the pea 
on the table moving things around. Of course, we have nothing 
specifically in writing yet from the President, which is one of the 
problems. But what we are seeing is a lot of talk that does not have a 
relationship to reality. The reality is that for the first time, in 
2017 we begin to dip into the surplus that the Senator and I have been 
paying into as baby boomers all of our working lives. It is a 
commitment. It is a secured obligation and we are going to pay that to 
folks.
  So the question is, what happens in 2052 when that surplus is no 
longer available? And if we can take privatization off the table, the 
Senator has very willing and able colleagues on this side of the aisle 
who want to work with the Senator to do those things that will secure 
it for the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The minority now has 1 minute to pose a question to the majority.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. President Bush created a commission that was stacked to 
be for privatization and personal accounts, but notwithstanding that 
the closest option to what the President has described, option 2 from 
that Commission, says in the first 10 years $2 trillion would be added 
to the national debt, in the second 10 years $4.9 trillion to the 
national debt. We have asked the administration repeatedly how are they 
going to deal with doubling America's national debt, doubling our 
indebtedness to the rest of the world. How can they believe America 
will be stronger in years to come when America's mortgage grows and 
America's mortgage holders, Japan, China, OPEC, Korea, and Taiwan, if 
they end their love affair with the dollar, will sink us by demanding 
higher interest rates to continue to finance our debt? How can this be 
fiscally conservative, I ask my Republican friends?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. This is really an interesting 
question, and I think everyone admits that there is a gap between the 
amount of money coming in and the amount of money that we are going to 
need to pay, and that is shown by this cash deficit. The fact is, we 
have to somehow or another in Social Security bring these two lines 
together. I think everyone would agree that is the option.
  Right now, the shortfall over the life of the program is $11 trillion 
between the revenue line and the benefit line--the benefit line being 
up here, the revenue line down here. How do we bring those lines 
together, and how do we keep it solvent in the future?
  What the President suggested is that if we do some--let us assume it 
is all borrowing. We cannot make any spending cuts. We borrow up to--
again, according to Alan Greenspan--$1 trillion to $2 trillion over the 
next 15 to 20 years to prefund Social Security, just like we prefund 
every other retirement system in America. In fact, they are required by 
law to prefund. We put the money into a diversified portfolio of 
investments and then that borrowing at the beginning creates an 
elimination of the $11 trillion long-term problem. So I would ask, is a 
$2 trillion investment now worth saving $11 trillion and making the 
system permanently solvent in the future?
  I would answer that question with a resounding yes, and we put the 
Social Security system on stable funding forever and have it supported 
by ownership. Of course, we all know ownership has its privileges. One 
of the things is it can be passed to the next generation. One can do 
better than the current system promises and cannot pay for. Let me 
repeat that. The promised benefits we cannot pay for for my generation 
and for future generations of Americans.
  What we want to give is ownership to future generations. We want to 
give them a good chance. This gamble--go to every union pension plan 
and tell them their union is gambling.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Now my question. I asked this question, Senator DeMint 
asked the same question of both of my colleagues, and in neither 
instance did we get a response. So I will give my colleagues one last 
try. We asked, what would my colleagues do, what is their plan? I just 
want to get the transcript. In neither case did either my colleague 
from Michigan or my colleague from Illinois put forward specifically 
what increases in taxes do they recommend, what reduction in benefits 
do they propose, or how much are we going to tax existing Social 
Security benefits to make up the shortfall. Pick the date as to when my 
colleagues want to solve the problem, whether they want to wait until 
2018 or 2042 or 2052, whatever the case may be. How are they going to 
solve this problem that at least some on their side of the aisle admit 
exists?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. I will answer that for my colleague. As Senator Durbin 
just said to me on the side, it will not be privatization, and that is 
absolutely true. The American people, American families, can absolutely 
count on the fact that it will not be privatizing Social Security.
  I would argue that the amendment we put up 2 weeks ago that simply 
says in the overall budget process, which is the value system for our 
country, the blueprint, is represented in what we do in our Federal 
checkpoint. The reality is, if we said we were going to take about 30 
percent of what is being given over the next 75 years to those most 
blessed in this country, who are not worried about Social Security or 
Medicare or other kinds of opportunities, if we just ask them to take a 
little bit less, we would be able to secure Social Security for 75 
years.
  The other thing I would say about the issue of asking folks about 
pensions, we have all been told by our folks that retirement is about a 
three-legged stool: Social Security, pension, and savings. When it 
comes to savings, the risk is with us to save. I believe we ought to 
create more opportunities for that. When it comes to pensions today for 
workers, it is becoming more of a risk for the worker, not a defined 
benefit but a defined contribution.
  The leg of the stool that has been secure, that we will fight to keep 
secure,

[[Page 5677]]

is Social Security. I will never forget people working for Enron who 
came into my office 2 years ago, men in their fifties who worked all 
their lives and played by the rules and invested in their company, and 
one man with tears in his eyes said to me: Thank God for Social 
Security. It is the only thing I have left, and I never thought I would 
be in this situation.
  Social Security is not a 401(k). It is not meant to be a pension 
system. It is America's families' life insurance policy, retirement 
disability, and survivor's benefits. It has worked now for years and 
years. The issue is how do we keep it going.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The minority 
now has 2\1/2\ minutes to close.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to my colleagues 
for taking time for this debate. I don't know how much we have lit up 
the place with our brilliance, but at least we did our very best to 
explain our points of view.
  My colleague from South Carolina uses an interesting analogy of the 
house sliding off the hill. What they have suggested for that house 
that is starting to slide off the hill in privatizing Social Security 
is, before it slides off the hill, let's rip the roof off and start a 
fire in the kitchen. That is what privatization does. It doesn't create 
a stronger foundation for Social Security or for that house. It makes 
it weaker. It weakens Social Security, it cuts benefits, it drives more 
seniors into poverty, and it creates $2 trillion to $5 trillion more in 
debts.
  If you want to make that house stronger, you have to backfill. You 
have to take the money you took out of the Social Security trust fund, 
money you took out for tax cuts, money you took out for things we 
couldn't afford to pay, money that has driven us into the deepest 
deficits we have ever seen in America under this President. That is how 
you backfill a foundation to save this house on the hill.
  This debate is not about solvency. I think we know now that it is 
about the legitimacy of Social Security. I believe in it. Most 
Americans believe in it. It is a safety net we have counted on for 
almost 65 years and we will continue to count on.
  But some of my friends on the Republican side see the world much 
differently. They have what they call the so-called ownership society. 
If you can just own it, then it has to be great. The model of the 
ownership society is, just remember, we are all in this alone.
  But we are not in this alone. When Franklin Roosevelt created Social 
Security, he said the American family, all workers, will contribute 
through their payroll to make sure, if all bets fail, if your pension 
system fails, if you don't have enough in savings, you can always count 
on Social Security. That, he said, is what the American family needs.
  They need it today more than ever. Pension systems are failing. These 
corporations are going bankrupt and throwing their shareholders and 
retirees and employees to the wolves. We cannot do the same with Social 
Security.
  We ought to be able to stand together and make even difficult 
choices, as we did in 1983, when a larger number of Republican Senators 
joined Democratic Senators to find a bipartisan solution. Privatization 
is not the answer. Ripping the roof off that house and starting a fire 
in the kitchen is not going to make it any safer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority is now recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes to close. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you again. I have enjoyed this tonight. Our talk, I 
guess, has gone in some interesting directions. My opinion is that 
Social Security is now too expensive to be just an insurance policy. 
When Americans paid $60 a year when the program started, yes, maybe it 
was an insurance policy. But today, with Americans averaging over 
$5,000 a year, for many it is their only savings plan. We cannot assume 
that the average American can save, after we take 12.5 percent of their 
income, additional money for retirement. We have to transform Social 
Security into a program that is not only secure but helps people create 
real savings to build a foundation of the program.
  We are as committed to Social Security as you are. In fact, we 
wouldn't be here talking today if Social Security was secure. In fact, 
we see that it is running out of money, and the best way to fix it is 
to save some of the money that we are putting into Social Security.
  I know there are plans that don't put people at risk because I have 
one and several other Republicans do. The plan I have introduced, which 
has been scored by the Social Security Administration, guarantees that 
no American will ever receive less from Social Security than is 
promised by the current system. It gives the poor larger accounts. It 
reduces the deficit for Social Security by two-thirds. It is a program 
that makes every American a saver and investor.
  In this country today, with so many Americans who do not own 
anything, the opportunity to own something, and for that ownership to 
grow in wealth so that they can participate in a country as our economy 
flourishes, this is what Social Security can be in the future--just as 
secure, but it can contain real savings for the first time.
  That is all we are asking today. Let's not cut benefits. We don't 
want to cut benefits. Let's not raise taxes. The problem with Social 
Security is that the foundation does not include real savings, and that 
is what we are proposing. Let's save Social Security with real savings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority is now recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes to close.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank you and my colleagues very much. 
This is an important debate, and I appreciate being able to participate 
in it.
  The President's privatized accounts, we know, will do three things, 
and that is why my colleagues and I are opposed to the privatized 
accounts.
  First of all, they will greatly increase the national debt. In fact, 
do you know what folks are going to own with this? Seventeen thousand 
dollars more in debt for every man, woman, and child in the United 
States. That is what they are going to own. It is a lot more debt and a 
lot higher interest rates as a result of this plan. This is a bad idea.
  The other thing that doesn't make any sense to me is that right now 
Social Security, which is retirement--and we do have a secured 
obligation to make sure that we pay it, but it is retirement, 
disability, and it is a life insurance policy. For that we pay about a 
half a percent in administration. On average we are told that it could 
be upwards of 20 percent, maybe 10, maybe 25, but we are told by the 
experts, 20 percent in order to administer an annuity or other kind of 
private account.
  One of the things I find interesting is that among folks who are 
really pushing for this idea around here are those folks who would be 
paid to administer these accounts. I understand we now have something 
like five financial services lobbyists for every one Senator now here 
on Capitol Hill. Certainly there are folks who will make a lot of money 
from this, but it is wrong. This system works right now and we pay a 
half a percent.
  The final thing I would say is it is estimated that the average 
person over 20 years, the average retiree, will lose $152,000 under the 
approach the President is talking about. This is wrong. This is not 
better for people. This is, in fact, worse.
  I agree with my colleagues, and in fact let me also say I would 
welcome folks going to my Web site or any of my colleagues' Web sites 
to learn more about Social Security and the facts. We do need to be 
working together, not only to secure Social Security for the future 
past 2052, but we also need to work on those other ideas that create 
opportunity for people. One of my great concerns is that one-third of 
the cuts proposed by the President in the budget are in education. That 
is opportunity. That is the opportunity for ownership in the future. 
Why don't we

[[Page 5678]]

focus on jobs and health care and those things immediately that need to 
be addressed?
  We welcome those debates as well and we welcome working with our 
colleagues to keep the security in Social Security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
majority has 2\1/2\ minutes to close. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my colleagues from Illinois and Michigan, and 
my colleague from South Carolina and my colleague in the chair on this 
debate. I think it was a good and spirited debate. Hopefully, we added 
a little light to the issue. Let me try to focus a little bit.
  The Senator from Illinois used a quote: We are not in it alone. If 
you are a 20-year-old today, you are feeling pretty lonely because 
there are only two of you going to be paying for every one retiree. 
When FDR said that, there were 42, and he could say we are not in it 
alone. You are pretty close to being in it alone today, and that is why 
we need a different system, a system that prefunds, that actually uses 
the money, the surplus today, and saves it for future retiree benefits.
  We are not taking money out of the system. We are putting the money, 
instead of for the Government to spend and giving an IOU to replace it, 
we are putting it in real assets that will be real benefits when real 
workers really retire.
  Second, I want to comment on the cost of administering the program. 
The cost of administering the program has been estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office, not at 20 percent--I can maybe understand 
the difference--it is 20 basis points. That is .2 percent, not 20 
percent. It is 20 basis points, which is .2 percent of the amount of 
money. So I believe that is a dramatic difference. It is actually less 
expensive to administer this system than to administer the current 
Social Security system.
  The other thing I would like to mention, if we can go to the next 
chart, three times we asked the question, How are you going to fix the 
Social Security system? The only answer we got was to repeal the Bush 
tax cuts which, of course, does nothing to the Social Security system 
because that money is not paid to the Social Security system. So 
repealing the Bush tax relief would simply put more money in the 
general fund, but it would have no impact at all, no actuarial impact 
at all on the Social Security system. So when the Senator from Illinois 
said we had to make difficult choices in 1983, that may have been the 
case in 1983, but so far we have not heard word one of the difficult 
choices that the other side would like to present to the American 
people.
  Several Republicans have come forward with plans, plan after plan 
after plan of details of how we are going to save this program, and all 
we have gotten from the other side is sniping at the plan that we put 
forward and no answers. If we do not solve the problem----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM [continuing]. Of what the promised benefits are, we are 
looking at taxes of 18 to 20 percent if we wait until 2041 or later. 
That is not a plan fair to future generations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

                          ____________________