[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1824-1828]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, this afternoon I would like to discuss an issue of very 
serious concern to tens of millions of Americans; that is, the 
Republican effort to cut Social Security disability insurance benefits 
and perhaps benefits for Social Security retirees. In my view and in 
the view of seniors throughout the State of Vermont, this is a very bad 
idea.
  As you know, on the very first day of the new Congress, House 
Republicans passed a rule--later adopted by the full House--which would 
prevent the common practice of rebalancing funds from the Social 
Security retirement program to the Social Security disability program. 
This rule adopted by the Republicans in the House would lay the 
groundwork for a 19-percent cut in disability benefits next year.
  President Obama, in his budget, did exactly what has been done on 11 
separate occasions in the past, always--and here is the point I want to 
make time and time again and why this is a manufactured crisis--this 
has been done 11 times in the past, always in a noncontroversial way, 
and that is to rebalance the funds between the two programs. This is 
not a big deal. The Republicans are manufacturing a crisis where none 
exists. Time and time again, Democratic Presidents and Republican 
Presidents, with absolutely no controversy, have done what President 
Obama has proposed. This was done in 1968 under President Johnson; in 
1970 under President Nixon; in 1978, 1979, and 1980 under President 
Carter; in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1987 under President Ronald Reagan; in 
1994, 1996, 1997, 2000, and beyond under President Bill Clinton. In 
other words, this is a totally noncontroversial process that has been 
done time and time again under Republican Presidents and Democratic 
Presidents.
  What the President is suggesting today is that we reallocate funds 
from the senior retirement fund to the disability fund. But 
interestingly enough, of the 11 times the funds were reallocated, it 
turns out that on five occasions it was money going from the disability 
fund to temporarily help out the retirement fund.
  There are some people who sadly are trying to divide the senior 
population from the disability population. What they are saying in a 
way that is untruthful and unfair is that by reallocating money into 
the disability fund, we are taking funding away from seniors and the 
retirement fund. This is absolutely untrue because, as I have 
indicated, on 11 occasions we have seen this reallocation, and 
sometimes, in fact, it comes from the disability fund to help the 
retirement fund.
  I am very happy to tell you that virtually every senior organization 
in America--organizations representing tens of millions of senior 
citizens--has made it clear that we must reallocate funds, we must 
prevent a cut in disability benefits, and we must do what has been done 
time and time again.
  Let me briefly read a letter from the AARP. The AARP is the largest 
senior organization in America. This letter

[[Page 1825]]

was written on July 22, 2014. It went to chairman Ron Wyden and ranking 
member Orrin Hatch of the Finance Committee. What the letter says:

       As the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization 
     representing the interests of Americans age 50 and older and 
     their families, we write in advance of the Committee's 
     legislative hearing on the Social Security Disability 
     Insurance program (SSDI) to express our support for Social 
     Security, including its disability insurance functions, and 
     our support of rebalancing payroll taxes to ensure the earned 
     benefits of 11 million disabled Americans and their families 
     are not reduced or put at risk.

  Once again, AARP: We ``support the rebalancing of payroll taxes to 
ensure the earned benefits of 11 million disabled Americans and their 
families are not reduced or put at risk.''
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                         AARP,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2014.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Finance,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Wyden and Senator Hatch: As the largest 
     nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing the 
     interests of Americans age 50 and older and their families, 
     we write in advance of the Committee's legislative hearing on 
     the Social Security Disability Insurance program (SSDI) to 
     express our support for Social Security, including its 
     disability insurance functions, and our support of 
     rebalancing payroll taxes to ensure the earned benefits of 11 
     million disabled Americans and their families are not reduced 
     or put at risk. AARP recognizes the need to address the 
     overall funding shortfall facing Social Security in the next 
     20 years, and we stand ready to engage with Congress, our 
     members and other Americans on ways to strengthen Social 
     Security, now and in the future. But, we also recognize that 
     without rebalancing in the near-term, SSDI beneficiaries are 
     at risk of significant benefit cuts. This is of particular 
     concern to older workers who are most likely to rely heavily 
     on SSDI in part because of higher rates of chronic illness 
     and disability at older ages.
       Income support in the event of a disability is a critical 
     lifeline for millions of American families. Congress wisely 
     added disability insurance protection to the Social Security 
     system in 1956, under President Eisenhower, and has since 
     then modified and improved the program many times. It should 
     be noted that since the creation of the SSDI program in 1956, 
     the United States workforce has more than doubled from 62 
     million to over 140 million workers, and women today 
     represent half of the workforce and almost half of the SSDI 
     beneficiaries.
       By law, Social Security maintains two trust funds--the Old-
     Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability 
     Insurance (DI) trust funds--and they operate independently. 
     Congress has faced shortfalls in both the OASI and DI trust 
     funds many times in the past. Most recently, in 1994, 
     Congress rebalanced the allocation of Social Security payroll 
     taxes between the OASI trust and the DI trust, estimating the 
     rebalancing would adequately fund SSDI benefits for 
     approximately 20 years. Congress forecast accurately, as the 
     Social Security Trustees estimate that the payroll taxes 
     allocated to the Disability Insurance trust fund will cease 
     being adequate to pay full benefits in late 2016. After that, 
     according to the Social Security Actuaries as of 2013, 
     ``[p]rojected revenue from non-interest income specified for 
     the DI program is sufficient to support 80 percent of program 
     cost after trust fund depletion in 2016, increasing slightly 
     to 81% of program cost in 2087.'' CBO maintains similar 
     projections.
       Many experts, including the Congressional Budget Office, 
     have estimated the shortfall is largely due to: (1) general 
     population growth, (2) women's entrance into the labor force 
     and consequent eligibility for SSDI benefits, (3) the 
     increase in the Social Security normal retirement age from 65 
     to 67, and (4) the aging of the Baby Boom population leading 
     to a higher percentage of older people vulnerable to illness 
     and disability. All of these factors also contribute to other 
     challenges in the SSDI program.
       One of the most significant challenges facing the SSDI 
     program is the unacceptably long delay in processing 
     applications of disabled workers who have earned the right to 
     their benefits. A large and growing backlog both at the 
     initial claims and appeals level has caused lengthy delays 
     and imposes severe hardships on disabled workers and their 
     families. AARP has long urged an increase in funding to meet 
     the increase in the administrative workload. We also 
     recognize that the SSDI program needs greater program 
     integrity efforts both over initial eligibility approvals and 
     continuing disability reviews. AARP has been among the 
     staunchest advocates requesting program integrity funding; we 
     regret that in recent years this funding has been cut, 
     reducing the Social Security Administration's ability to 
     maximize integrity efforts.
       The Committee's upcoming hearing is a welcome opportunity 
     to examine the resources that will be needed to ensure the 
     continuing success of the SSDI program. We believe SSDI 
     program reforms and improvements can be identified that would 
     both improve the fairness of the process for disabled 
     claimants and encourage greater work participation for those 
     who have limited ability to work. We support and will 
     continue to urge that Congress provide adequate resources for 
     the Social Security Administration to conduct timely initial 
     and continuing disability reviews. But, the highest priority 
     in the near term is to ensure that SSDI beneficiaries--most 
     of whom are older Americans--are not at risk of a 20% benefit 
     cut in the very near future. To prevent any imminent 
     reductions in SSDI benefits, we urge you to rebalance the 
     allocation of Social Security payroll taxes between the OASI 
     trust and the DI trust, as Congress has done with success in 
     the past.
       Because of SSDI, millions of disabled Americans are able to 
     live their lives with dignity and support their families. We 
     look forward to continuing to work with you and the other 
     members of the Committee to ensure that all aspects of the 
     Social Security program remain strong for future generations 
     of American workers and their families. If you have any 
     questions, please feel free to call me, or have your staff 
     contact Michele Varnhagen on our Government Affairs staff.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Joyce Rogers,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                               Government Affairs.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is not just the AARP that holds that 
view. It is dozens and dozens of senior organizations all across the 
country. Let me read very briefly from a letter written by the 
Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, dated October 9, 2014. It is 
a letter that goes to the President--to President Obama. What it says 
is:

       We urge you to include a non-controversial, commonsense 
     legislative adjustment in your 2016 budget for Congress to 
     temporarily reallocate the Social Security payroll 
     contributions to address the anticipated shortfall in the 
     Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) program. We also 
     strongly urge you to reject proposals to cut Social Security 
     benefits, coverage, or eligibility.

  That is the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, Debra B. 
           Whitman, Chair,
                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 2014.
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Obama: On behalf of the Leadership Council 
     of Aging Organizations (LCAO), a coalition of national not-
     for-profit organizations representing over 60 million older 
     Americans, we write to ask you to maintain a vital part of 
     our Social Security system in your 2016 budget proposal. We 
     urge you to include a non-controversial, commonsense 
     legislative adjustment in your 2016 budget for Congress to 
     temporarily reallocate the Social Security payroll 
     contributions to address the anticipated shortfall in the 
     Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) program. We also 
     strongly urge you to reject proposals to cut Social Security 
     benefits, coverage, or eligibility.
       Social Security's Disability Insurance (DI) fund reserves 
     are projected to be depleted in 2016, at which point revenue 
     coming into the system would cover only 80% of benefits. This 
     projected shortfall is not a surprise and Congress should 
     rebalance income across the Social Security Trust Funds, as 
     it has done 11 times before, to cover the anticipated 
     shortfall. As Treasury Secretary Lew stated in July, ``it's 
     going to be important for there to be legislation that does 
     reallocate the payroll tax to support the disability fund.''
       A modest, temporary reallocation of part of Social 
     Security's 6.2% tax rate from the Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance (OASI) fund to the DI fund would put both funds on 
     an equal footing. Congress has rebalanced tax rates between 
     the two funds 11 times since the DI trust fund was 
     established in 1956. About half the time Congress increased 
     the share going to the OASI fund and about half the time it 
     increased the share for DI. Congress has never failed to act 
     when it was necessary to rebalance the two funds, and it has 
     consistently done so in a bipartisan basis. It is time to do 
     so again, and can be done today without compromising the 
     ability of the overall Social Security program to pay full 
     benefits from both trust funds for the next 20 years.
       When Congress acted to rebalance the two funds in 1994, it 
     was clear it would have to take action again in 2016. The 
     1995 Social Security Trustees Report showed that the DI

[[Page 1826]]

     reserves would be depleted in 2016, primarily due to a rapid, 
     but temporary, increase in the number of DI beneficiaries as 
     baby boomers passed through their 50s and early 60s when the 
     risk of disability is greatest.
       The typical DI beneficiary is in his or her late 50s. 
     Seventy percent are over age 50, and 30 percent are 60 or 
     older. These beneficiaries depend on Social Security for a 
     significant portion of their income. Without benefits, fifty-
     five percent of families with a disabled worker would have 
     incomes below the poverty line. And, since the benefits they 
     receive continue as they grow older, the DI program helps to 
     ensure that these disabled workers don't fall into poverty as 
     they age.
       Another factor that has led to an increase in the number of 
     DI beneficiaries is a rise in the full retirement age. When 
     DI beneficiaries reach Social Security's full retirement age, 
     they begin receiving Social Security retirement benefits 
     rather than DI. The increase in the full retirement age to 66 
     has delayed that conversion. In December 2013, more than 
     450,000 people between ages 65 and 66--over 5 percent of DI 
     beneficiaries--collected DI benefits. Under the rules in 
     place until 2003, they would have received retirement 
     benefits instead. This is just one example of how closely the 
     retirement and disability components of Social Security are 
     interwoven.
       The growth in DI is leveling off as boomers enter 
     retirement and shift to OASI benefits. The need to rebalance 
     by 2016 reflects a long-anticipated, but temporary, shift in 
     the funding requirements of the two funds. Rebalancing would 
     not affect the long-term financing of the combined Social 
     Security system, which would remain solvent through 2033. 
     Rebalancing can and should be done without cutting benefits 
     or narrowing coverage or eligibility. This sensible action 
     will give policymakers ample time to strengthen Social 
     Security for the long-term.
       For these reasons, the undersigned organizations urge you 
     to include a legislative proposal to rebalance the Social 
     Security funds in your 2016 budget, and to exclude proposals 
     to cut Social Security benefits, coverage or eligibility.
           Sincerely,
       AFL-CIO, AFSCME Retirees, Alliance for Retired Americans, 
     American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American 
     Foundation for the Blind (AFB), American Postal Workers Union 
     Retirees (APWU), American Society on Aging (ASA), Asociacion 
     Nacional Pro Personas Mayores (ANPPM)/National Association 
     for Hispanic Elderly, Association For Gerontology and Human 
     Development in Historically Black Colleges and Universities 
     (AGHDHBCU), Association of Jewish Aging Services (AJAS), 
     B'nai B'rith International, Caring Across Generations, Center 
     for Elder Care and Advanced Illness--Altarum Institute.
       Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., Easter Seals, Military 
     Officers Association of America (MOAA), National Academy of 
     Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), National Active and Retired 
     Federal Employees Association (NARFE), National Adult Day 
     Services Association (NADSA), National Adult Protective 
     Services Association (NAPSA), National Alliance for 
     Caregiving, National Association for Home Care & Hospice, 
     National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a), 
     National Association of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program 
     Directors, Inc. (NARSVPD), National Association of Social 
     Workers (NASW), National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, 
     Inc. (NCBA), National Committee to Preserve Social Security 
     and Medicare (NCPSSM), National Senior Citizens Law Center 
     (NSCLC), National Senior Corps Association (NSCA), OWL--The 
     Voice for Women 40+, Pension Rights Center, Volunteers of 
     America, Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW).

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me be very clear and say that this 
fight--what some of us see on our TV screens and what we hear from some 
politicians--the simple truth is that Social Security is not going 
broke. Social Security is not going broke. Today, Social Security has a 
$2.8 trillion surplus in its trust fund and can pay out all benefits to 
all beneficiaries, the elderly and the disabled, for the next 18 years.
  This is not the opinion of Senator Bernie Sanders. This is the 
opinion of the Social Security Administration in their latest report. 
There is and can be no debate about these simple facts. If we rebalance 
funds, as President Obama and many others have proposed, all benefits--
retiree benefits for our older Americans and disabled benefits for 
disabled Americans--would be paid out for the next 18 years--the next 
18 years.
  So people who come before you and say Social Security is going broke, 
they are simply not telling the truth. While this 18-year period makes 
it clear that we do not have an imminent crisis with regard to Social 
Security, I do agree with those who want to make sure Social Security 
is solvent for a lot longer than 18 years, for our kids and for our 
grandchildren.
  Frankly, when we talk about the long-term solvency of Social 
Security, and that of course includes disability insurance as well, 
there are two basic approaches we can take for those who want to extend 
Social Security for many decades. One approach is what many of my 
Republican colleagues are talking about. What they are saying, in 
essence, is that in order to save Social Security we have to cut Social 
Security. Some are talking about a so-called chained CPI, which would 
mean a cut in cost-of-living adjustments, some are talking about 
raising the retirement age, at which point seniors will be able to get 
benefits, and some in fact are talking about privatizing Social 
Security and giving that program over to Wall Street. That is one 
approach. That is one way we could deal with Social Security and the 
future of the program. Needless to say that is an approach I very 
strongly disagree with.
  The other approach, an approach which is widely supported in poll 
after poll by the American people, extends Social Security and protects 
Social Security in a very different way than many Republicans are 
proposing; that is, it addresses the issue that right now, as most 
Americans know, there is a cap on the income that is subject to the 
Social Security payroll tax.
  That cap is now at $118,500; in other words, one individual makes 
$11.8 million a year but only pays 6.2 percent on the first $118,500 he 
earns. The second individual makes $118,500 and pays Social Security 
taxes on all of that income. That, I think most Americans believe, is 
patently unfair.
  I have introduced legislation in the past, and I am now working with 
other Senators who have introduced similar types of legislation which 
eliminates the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll 
tax. My own view is we should apply the Social Security payroll tax to 
income above $250,000.
  If we do that, if we go down that very simple and fair route of 
asking very wealthy individuals--the top 1 percent, the top 1\1/2\ 
percent--to contribute more into the Social Security trust fund, the 
fact is we could extend Social Security for decades, disability 
benefits for decades, and in fact we would have enough money to expand 
benefits, not cut them.
  On March 19, 2013, in response to a letter I wrote to the Social 
Security Chief Actuary, he wrote back and he told us that taking the 
approach my legislation lays out, raising the cap on taxable income 
starting at $250,000, would extend the life of Social Security past the 
year 2060.
  So for anybody to come on this floor and say in order to save Social 
Security we have to cut benefits, at a time when millions of senior 
citizens in this country are struggling to pay for the medicine they 
need, to keep warm in the winter, to buy the food they need, people out 
there living on $13,000, $14,000 a year--and there are some who say we 
have to cut Social Security--let me go on record and say I strongly 
disagree.
  The far better and far fairer approach is to lift the cap on taxable 
income and start at $250,000. So if we are serious about extending the 
life of Social Security, if we are serious about not cutting disability 
benefits, there is a path forward. Yes, it does ask the people on top 
to contribute a little bit more. I know that with all of the lobbyists 
and all the campaign contributions coming in here that sometimes 
becomes tough, but it is the right thing to do.
  Let's stand with the millions of seniors who are struggling to stay 
alive economically in these tough times, rather than wealthy campaign 
contributors.
  I ask unanimous consent that the March 19, 2013, letter from the 
Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Social Security Administration,


                                  Office of the Chief Actuary,

                                    Baltimore, MD, March 19, 2013.
     Hon. Bernie Sanders,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sanders: I am writing in response to your 
     request for estimates of the financial effects on Social 
     Security of a proposal to apply the Social Security payroll

[[Page 1827]]

     tax to earned income over $250,000 beginning in 2014. The 
     estimates and analysis provided in this letter reflect the 
     intent, as discussed with Warren Gunnels of your staff, of S. 
     500, ``Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act,'' which you 
     introduced on March 7, 2013.
       We estimate that enactment of this Bill would extend full 
     solvency of the OASDI program for an additional 28 years, 
     with the projected depletion of combined OASI and DI Trust 
     Fund reserves moving from 2033 under current law to 2061 
     under the proposal. All estimates are based on the 
     intermediate assumptions of the 2012 Trustees Report. The 
     estimates presented reflect the combined efforts of many in 
     our office, but particularly Alice Wade, Christopher 
     Chaplain, Dan Nickerson, Kyle Burkhalter, Katie Sutton, and 
     William Piet. A detailed description of our understanding of 
     the intent of the Bill is included immediately below.
       The intent of this proposal is identical to the Bill you 
     introduced in September 2011 and H.R. 797 introduced in the 
     House of Representatives in February 2011 by Mr. DeFazio. Our 
     earlier estimates for both of these Bills, reflecting 
     baseline assumptions from the 2011 and 2010 Trustees Reports, 
     respectively, are available at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/
solvency/index.html.
       S. 500 would modify the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     subject a worker's OASDI covered earnings in excess of 
     $250,000 in any calendar year after 2013 to the combined 
     OASDI payroll tax rate of 12.4 percent. This is the same tax 
     rate that is applied, under current law, to OASDI covered 
     earnings up to the contribution and benefit base ($113,700 
     for 2013). Under present law, the contribution and benefit 
     base is scheduled to increase in the future based on 
     increases in the average wage in the U.S. economy. However, 
     the threshold of $250,000 would be constant after 2014 until 
     the contribution and benefit base exceeds this level (in the 
     year 2033), at which point the threshold would be set equal 
     to the contribution and benefit base for that and all 
     subsequent years. Earnings subject to tax above the threshold 
     would not be included in earnings credited for the purpose of 
     OASDI benefit computation.
       All wages and self-employment earnings in OASDI covered 
     employment during a given year would be reflected in the 
     determination of earnings above the threshold. For workers 
     with more than one employer (including self employment) for a 
     given year, total tax liability for the year would be 
     computed as if all earnings had been received from a single 
     employer for the year, but in no case would any employee or 
     employer pay less tax than they would under current law. To 
     the extent adjustments of payroll tax liability are needed 
     for a given year, employees would make such adjustments on 
     their income tax filing forms. SSA would contact employers 
     regarding any additional tax liability due to multiple jobs 
     for employees during the year.
       The balance of this letter provides summary and detailed 
     estimates of the effects of enactment of the proposal.


                 summary of effects on actuarial status

       Figure 1 illustrates the expected change in the combined 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability 
     Insurance (DI) Trust Fund reserves, expressed as a percent of 
     annual program cost, assuming enactment of this Bill. 
     Assuming enactment, the OASDI program would be expected to be 
     fully solvent for an additional 28 years, under the 
     intermediate assumptions of the 2012 Trustees Report.
       The level of reserves for the theoretical combined OASI and 
     DI Trust Funds would decline from 340 percent of annual 
     program cost at the beginning of 2012 until these reserves 
     would become depleted in 2061 (28 years later than projected 
     depletion under current law). At the time of reserve 
     depletion in 2061, the program would be able to pay about 91 
     percent of then scheduled benefits with continuing taxes 
     (under current law, 75 percent of scheduled benefits are 
     projected to be payable in 2033 after depletion). By 2086, 88 
     percent of benefits scheduled under the proposal would be 
     payable compared to 73 percent of scheduled benefits payable 
     under present law.
       Enactment of this Bill would eliminate about 80 percent of 
     the long-range OASDI actuarial deficit of 2.67 percent of 
     taxable payroll under current law, lowering the OASDI 
     actuarial deficit to 0.55 percent of payroll for the long-
     range period.
       Figure 2 illustrates annual projected levels of cost, 
     expenditures, and non-interest income as a percent of the 
     current-law taxable payroll. The projected levels of cost 
     reflect the full cost of scheduled benefits under both 
     present law and the proposal. After trust fund reserve 
     depletion, projected expenditures under current law and under 
     the proposal include only amounts payable from projected tax 
     revenues (non-interest income), which are less than projected 
     cost.
       Figure 2 shows that the estimated cost of the OASDI program 
     would be very slightly reduced under this proposal. A slight 
     decrease in benefits is projected to follow from a small 
     decrease in the proportion of employee compensation that 
     would be paid in the form of wages under the current-law 
     contribution and benefit base. This small reduction in wages 
     as a percentage of employee compensation reflects the assumed 
     behavioral response of employees and employers to the 
     additional payroll taxes under the proposal.
       It is also useful to consider the projected cost and income 
     for the OASDI program expressed as a percentage of Gross 
     Domestic Product (GDP). The graph illustrates these levels 
     under both present law and this proposal.


                       detailed financial results

                         Benefit Illustrations

       Benefit illustrations are not provided for the proposal 
     because benefit levels would not be materially changed from 
     the scheduled benefit levels under current law.

                         Trust Fund Operations

       Table 1 shows the annual cost and income rates, annual 
     balances, and trust fund ratios (reserves as percent of 
     annual program cost) for OASDI assuming enactment of the 
     proposal. This table also shows the change from present law 
     in these cost rates, income rates, and balances. Included at 
     the bottom of this table are summarized rates for the 75-year 
     (long-range) period.
       Table 1 indicates that the OASDI program is projected to be 
     solvent for an additional 28 years assuming enactment of the 
     proposal. The year in which the combined reserves of the OASI 
     and DI Trust Funds are projected to deplete would change from 
     2033 under current law to 2061 under the proposal. Even after 
     depletion of the trust fund reserves, however, the actuarial 
     status of the program is improved as continuing income would 
     be sufficient to pay a higher percentage of scheduled 
     benefits than under current law. Under current law, 75 
     percent of benefits are projected to be payable at trust fund 
     reserve depletion in 2033, declining to 73 percent payable by 
     2086. Under this proposal, 100 percent of the scheduled 
     benefits would be fully payable through 2060, and 91 percent 
     would be payable at trust fund reserve depletion in 2061, 
     declining to 88 percent payable by 2086.
       The actuarial deficit for the OASDI program over the 75-
     year projection period is reduced by 2.12 percent of taxable 
     payroll, from an actuarial deficit of 2.67 percent of payroll 
     under current law to an actuarial deficit estimated at 0.55 
     percent of taxable payroll under the proposal.
       We project annual balances (annual income rate minus annual 
     cost rate) to become positive for years 2014 through 2021 
     under the proposal and to be negative thereafter. Annual 
     deficits (negative annual balances) after 2028 are projected 
     to be smaller than the deficits projected under current law 
     by more than 2 percentage points through 2086.

                  Program Transfers and Asset Reserves

       Column 4 of Table 1a provides a projection of the level of 
     reserves for the theoretical combined OASI and DI Trust Funds 
     under the proposal, expressed in present value dollars 
     discounted to January 1, 2012. The table indicates that the 
     proposal includes no new specified transfers of general 
     revenue to the trust funds. For purpose of comparison, the 
     OASDI Trust Fund reserves, expressed in present value 
     dollars, are also shown for the current-law Social Security 
     program both without the added general fund transfers (if 
     any) provided under the proposal (column 6) and with the 
     proposal added transfers (column 7). Note that negative 
     values in columns 4, 6, and 7 represent the ``unfunded 
     obligation'' for the program through the year. The unfunded 
     obligation is the present value of the shortfall of revenue 
     needed to pay full scheduled benefits on a timely basis from 
     the date of trust fund reserve depletion to the end of the 
     indicated year. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), expressed in 
     present value dollars, is shown in column 5 for comparison 
     with other values in the table.

                      Effect on the Federal Budget

       Table 1b shows the projected effect, in present value 
     discounted dollars, on the Federal budget (unified-budget and 
     on-budget) cash flows and balances, assuming enactment of 
     proposal. Table 1b.n provides the estimated nominal dollar 
     effect of enactment of the proposal on the annual budget 
     balances for years 2012 through 2022. All values in these 
     tables represent the amount of the change from the level 
     projected under current law.
       The effect of the proposal on unified budget cash flow 
     (column 3) is expected to be positive starting for 2014, 
     reflecting the application of the payroll tax to earnings 
     above the current-law taxable maximum amount.
       Column 4 of Table 1b indicates that the projected effect of 
     implementing this Bill is a reduction, starting in 2014, of 
     the Federal debt held by the public, reaching about $7.2 
     trillion in present value by 2086. Column 5 provides the 
     projected effect of the proposal on the annual unified budget 
     balances, including both the cash flow effect in column 3 and 
     the additional interest on the accumulated debt indicated in 
     column 4. Columns 6 and 7 indicate that the proposal would 
     have no expected direct effects on the on-budget cash flow, 
     or on the total Federal debt, in the future.
       It is important to note that these estimates are based on 
     the intermediate assumptions of the 2012 Trustees Report and 
     thus are not consistent with estimates made by the Office of 
     Budget and Management or the Congressional Budget Office 
     based on their assumptions.

[[Page 1828]]



          Annual Trust Fund Operations as a Percentage of GDP

       Table 1c provides annual cost, annual expenditures (on a 
     payable basis), and annual tax income for the OASDI program 
     expressed as a percentage of GDP. These values are shown for 
     both present law and assuming enactment of the Bill. Showing 
     the annual trust fund flows as a percent of GDP provides an 
     additional perspective on these trust fund operations in 
     relation to the total value of goods and services produced in 
     the United States. The relationship between income and cost 
     is similar when expressed as a percent of GDP to that when 
     expressed as a percent of taxable payroll (see Table 1).

        Effects on Trust Fund Reserves and Unfunded Obligations

       Table 1d provides estimates of the changes due to the 
     proposal in the level of projected trust fund reserves under 
     present law and, for years after trust fund exhaustion, the 
     level of unfunded obligations under present law. All values 
     in the table are expressed in present-value discounted 
     dollars. For the 75-year long-range period as a whole, the 
     present-law unfunded obligation of $8.6 trillion in present 
     value is reduced to an unfunded obligation of $1.4 trillion 
     in present value. This change is the combination of the 
     following:
       A $7.1 trillion increase in revenue from applying the 
     payroll tax to covered earnings above the present-law 
     contribution and benefit base (column 2), less
       A $0.1 trillion reduction in cost from the behavioral 
     response to additional payroll tax, causing a small decrease 
     in the share of employee compensation that is received in 
     wages, and thus a small decrease in total benefits (column 
     3).
       We hope these estimates will be helpful. Please let me know 
     if we may provide further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Stephen C. Goss,
                                                    Chief Actuary.

  Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from North Carolina.

                          ____________________