[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1441-1442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to an issue important to 
every American, certainly important to more than 40 million who are on 
Social Security. Buried deep in the President's 2,349-page budget are 
three proposals relating to Social Security. Some of them come as a 
surprise.
  First, President Bush recommends spending more than $700 billion to 
create Social Security private accounts. If we thought this was an 
issue that had gone away, obviously the White House does not want to 
abandon it. They are talking about $700 billion to push for Social 
Security privatization. Second, the President wants to reduce benefits 
to future Social Security beneficiaries. And third, he calls for 
eliminating the $255 death benefit awarded to families of people who 
passed away.
  The American people have made it clear to the President they are not 
interested in this privatization scheme. The more the President 
traveled across America, the more he spoke about it, fewer people 
supported it. It is an indication that people have genuine concerns 
about it and for good reason. First, they know this privatization 
scheme is going to make Social Security's long-term funding problems 
worse, not better. Second, the President's proposal will force deep 
cuts in guaranteed Social Security benefits for future retirees, even 
if they don't choose a private account. Third, partially privatizing 
Social Security adds trillions of dollars to our national debt by 
taking money out of the Social Security trust fund. And that debt, 
under President Bush, has reached historic levels. Finally, partially 
privatizing Social Security would tie America's retirement security to 
the uncertainty of financial markets. As there are winners and losers 
in the stock market every day, there would be winners and losers among 
retirees in America. Those who guess wrong in their investments could 
easily end up in a predicament where they don't have the resources they 
need for a safe and comfortable retirement.
  The President says he is for the ownership society. We know what that 
means. It means we are all in this alone. We know better. When we stand 
together as an American family with our seniors and our most vulnerable 
Americans, we are stronger, stronger because we are appealing to the 
values that make this Nation great. Social Security privatization is 
not consistent with those values.
  Allowing people to divert 4 percent of their Social Security taxes 
into private accounts sounds harmless, but it is a pay-as-you-go 
system. Money that is diverted is money that isn't there to pay 
benefits. By the President's estimation, his plan will create a $700 
billion hole in the Social Security trust fund. That is what it says in 
the President's budget. Who is going to make up the difference? 
Unfortunately, some will suggest the way to make up the difference is 
to borrow it. Who will lend us the money? We know who our creditors 
are: Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, the OPEC nations. Many countries 
around the world will loan us money now, but then, of course, they are 
our creditors. They are our mortgageholders. We are beholden to them, 
creating an even greater debt for future generation, and greater 
vulnerability.
  The benefit cuts the President has called for as well are not going 
to fly. He calls these benefit cuts progressive price indexing. It 
sounds good, cutting benefits for lower income workers less than for 
higher income workers, but the practical impact of the President's 
budget on Social Security benefits would mean that a worker 25 years 
old today, who retires at age 65 with career earnings equivalent to 
$59,000 annually, would see a 24-percent benefit cut by the President's 
proposal. A similar worker, born 5 years from now, retiring at age 65, 
average career earnings of $36,000, would face a 28-percent benefit 
cut. As people see their pension plans crumbling because of corporate 
mergers, bankruptcies, and sleight of hand, the President is calling 
for cutting basic Social Security benefits to people who are certainly 
not wealthy, if their average income is $36,000 a year. These workers 
would be better off if the President didn't touch Social Security.
  A worker born 5 years from now who retires at age 65 and has career 
earnings that average $59,000 would suffer a 42-percent benefit cut.
  This goes too far. I hope the Congress will not seriously consider 
these proposals by the President when it comes to Social Security.
  It is interesting that this President is calling for cuts in Social 
Security at the same time he wants to cut the taxes paid by the 
wealthiest people in America. The cost of the President's tax cuts in 
2001 and 2003, if made permanent, will be $11.1 trillion over the next 
75 years. It is the height of irresponsibility to give tax cuts to the 
most comfortable and wealthiest people in America and to cut the basic 
social safety net on which we count.
  Finally, the President's budget proposes to cut the $255 death 
benefit awarded to widows, widowers, and children left behind by the 
death of a member of their family who was covered by Social Security. 
The President would cut the $255 death payment to widows and surviving 
children to pay for funeral expenses and then turn around and give a 
tax cut to people making over $1 million a year. How can he possibly 
resolve the injustice that is part of that proposal?
  If we are supposed to be a caring and compassionate people--and we 
are--wouldn't we care more for a widow who would get a check for $255 
to pay for funeral expenses than someone making $1 million a year who 
would receive a $35,000 tax cut under the President's proposal? That is 
why the President's priorities are upside down.

[[Page 1442]]

  As Members start looking through this budget more closely, as we 
have, they are going to be startled by the fact that the President 
still clings tenaciously to the unpopular privatization of Social 
Security. They will be worried over the idea of cutting Social Security 
benefits when pension plans are disappearing and cutting back their 
payout. They will be absolutely dumbfounded when they read that this 
President wants to cut that $255 check for the widow to cover funeral 
expenses in order for us to give tax cuts to wealthy people.
  The President said it is time for us to put aside partisan politics 
when it comes to Social Security and work together to get this problem 
solved. That is what he said in the State of the Union.
  He proposed we create a commission. I support it. We have said that 
for a long time. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be here the 
last time a meaningful, bipartisan, balanced commission was created 
know that back in 1983 we got the job done. President Reagan had the 
right idea. Tip O'Neill, the Democratic leader in the House of 
Representatives, joined with him on a bipartisan basis and we ended up 
buying almost 50 years of solvency by following those commission 
recommendations. The same thing is true now.
  The President has to walk away from privatization, walk away from 
deep cuts in benefits for people who are not wealthy in retirement. He 
certainly should not walk away from the widows and widowers across 
America who count on this $255 check to meet some of the expenses of 
people who have passed away in their families. I urge my colleagues to 
look carefully at this budget when it comes to Social Security.
  I close by saying when we return next week, we will take up another 
bill on reconciliation. It is an important bill about taxes and 
spending. It is going to reflect the President's priorities for tax 
cuts for the wealthiest in America and little or no help for the 
working families in America. These are the families struggling to pay 
for their kids' college education, trying to make mortgage payments, 
pay those property taxes, and trying to make certain they are paying 
the heating bills that have doubled this year. Why would we not give 
them a helping hand?
  Unfortunately, the President's proposal puts the help in those homes 
that, frankly, are not worried too much about heating bills. They don't 
have to count pennies every month. We will face that again, and then we 
will return to the asbestos bill, which we have talked about all week. 
The first thing we will consider is a budget point of order that was 
raised by Senator John Ensign from Nevada. It goes to the heart of this 
asbestos trust fund, and that is whether we are dealing with honest 
figures and whether we can say with confidence that this trust fund, 
which will close down the courthouses in America for asbestos victims, 
can truly be solvent for years to come and pay out to those victims and 
their families what they truly deserve.
  Many of us questioned that. We asked the sponsor of the bill to 
justify the $140 billion and tell us how he came up with that figure. 
Unfortunately, he cannot. We have asked him to give us the secret list 
that has the names of all of the businesses that are supposed to pay 
into this trust fund. Still no list is produced. Imagine that, a secret 
list of businesses in the possession of the Committee on the Judiciary 
that will not be shared with all of the Members of the Senate or, more 
importantly, with the American public. So we are supposed to have 
confidence in an approach that is veiled in secrecy and cannot be 
explained? That is why Senator Ensign's point of order is so important.
  Even if you believe, as I do, that the asbestos system can be 
improved and that survivors should receive more compensation, in a more 
efficient way, we have to understand that this approach will not work. 
It will fail and its failure will be at the great expense of a lot of 
vulnerable Americans.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________