[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7492-7494]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about pending 
nominees for the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees.
  As most of us know, under the law these two Boards consist of the 
Secretaries of Treasury, Labor, HHS, Commissioner of Social Security, 
and two public trustees, one from each party.
  One purpose of the Boards is to provide yearly reports on the 
operation of the trust funds and their current and projected status. 
Since 1983, when the two public trustee positions were established in 
the statute, the trustee reports for both trust funds have largely been 
devoid of partisanship or political influence. That, to me, has been a 
good thing. It means that the process generating the reports is free of 
political influence. It also means that the public can have confidence 
that the statements and assessments made in the reports--including 
those dealing with current and future financial conditions of the trust 
funds--are objective and not made to serve a particular agenda.
  The inclusion of public trustees on the Boards is an important part 
of the structure that provides this type of certainty. Yet, by the time 
President Obama is out of office, the two Boards will have issued more 
reports with vacant public trustee positions than have been issued 
under any President since these two positions were created.
  In a recent hearing, the Senate Finance Committee, which I chair, 
heard testimony from President Obama's nominees for the currently 
vacant public trustee positions, Dr. Charles Blahous and Dr. Robert 
Reischauer, both of whom have been renominated after serving one full 
term on the Boards.
  Some members of the Finance Committee, as well as a few others in 
this Chamber, have questioned whether having public trustees serve more 
than one term is beneficial. Their argument seems to be that the 
process of producing the trustees' reports should have ``fresh eyes'' 
every 4 years. However, to me, this argument is not all that 
persuasive. As the trustees go through the process of producing 
reports, there are many inputs and many participants, including a 
number of ``fresh eyes.'' For example, there are numerous technical 
panels, composed of actuaries, economists, demographers, and others, 
who review the assumptions and methods used in the trustees' reports. 
Since 1999, 50 different people have served on these technical panels, 
weighing in on the reports and providing both fresh perspectives on the 
trustees' reports as well as a much needed check from what could 
otherwise be outsized roles played by various others, including the 
Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration in guiding the 
contents of the reports.
  In my view, there is value to having continuity in the public trustee 
oversight of the trust funds, particularly since the process that gives 
rise to trustee reports takes time to learn. For the most part, public 
trustees are unlikely to have fully learned the ropes until well into 
their 4-year terms, and their terms very likely expire very shortly 
after they have a complete understanding of this whole process. 
Ultimately, while there are probably some tradeoffs associated with 
term limits for public trustees, there is no real evidence to 
demonstrate that a single term is inherently superior or that the 
benefit of having public trustees with ``fresh eyes,'' outweighs the 
cost of inexperience.
  Whatever the case, Members are entitled to their individual 
preferences regarding term limits for public trustees, and if the issue 
is as important as some of my colleagues on the other side claim, a 
bill to impose those kinds of term limits would seem logical. However, 
such a bill has not recently been offered, and if the recent Finance 
Committee hearing on the current nominees is any indication, my friends 
have a different agenda altogether. If term limits were the real issue 
with these nominations, the committee could have had a reasoned debate 
and each Member could have weighed in on the matter and Members would 
obviously be free to base their vote on the substance and outcome of 
that recent debate.
  Sadly, a reasoned debate is not what occurred in our committee. What 
we got instead was a coordinated attack--pretty much from the ranking 
member all the way down the Democrats' side of the dais--focused 
squarely on the Republican nominee, Dr. Blahous. Throughout the course 
of the hearing, the Democrats never claimed that Dr.

[[Page 7493]]

Blahous lacked the appropriate credentials to be a suitable trustee. 
They never provided any evidence that he had acted inappropriately or 
exercised some kind of nefarious influence in the process of compiling 
reports. Instead, my colleagues attacked the nominee for expressing 
policy views they happen to disagree with. He has never worked to 
change any Social Security or Medicare policies in his capacity as a 
public trustee because, given the very specific mission of the boards 
of trustees, he doesn't have any real opportunity to influence or enact 
any policy changes in any official capacity.
  The Democrats' current position seems to be that if a nominee has 
ever said anything they happen to disagree with--even if the statements 
represent reasoned policy views and are supported by objective 
analysis--they are unfit to serve as public trustees. During the course 
of our hearing, not only did the Democrats publicly subject its nominee 
to this preposterous standard, they did so with comments and arguments 
that were misleading, inconsistent, and in some cases blatantly false. 
In the end, their onslaught amounted to little more than partisan 
character attacks.
  The Republican nominee was referred to as ``hyperpartisan,'' even 
though you would be hard-pressed to find any credible and reasonable 
Social Security and Medicare analyst from either party who would agree 
with that label. He was accused of being the ``architect of 
privatization'' of Social Security because he happened to work in the 
Bush administration. He has been attacked for his involvement in 
President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security as though 
that were something nefarious, even though Senator Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan, a figure long revered by Democrats everywhere and me, was 
also a cochair of that Commission.
  There have been other attacks made--in the hearing and elsewhere--and 
all of them add up to one single and obvious conclusion, which is that 
anyone who expresses a view about the future of Social Security that is 
not a recommendation for more taxes and higher benefits will be subject 
to partisan attacks and deemed unfit to serve in any capacity relating 
to Social Security. This is, of course, the demand of leftwing interest 
groups that have virtually declared ownership of all things Social 
Security and who are unwilling to do anything about solving the 
problems of Social Security. All they want to do is throw more money at 
it when there is no more money to throw.
  For this crowd, even arguments in favor of slowing the benefits for 
upper earners seem to be off limits, even when they are made by the 
Democratic nominee for public trustee. In other words, even proposals 
that would make Social Security more progressive--something a 
reasonable person would assume Democrats would not fight--is seemingly 
unacceptable because slower benefit growth, even for the very rich, is 
considered a ``cut'' to the leftwing activists who try to take 
ownership of this debate. I am talking, of course, about organizations 
like Social Security Works, the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, 
various unions, and ``democratic socialist'' groups that have made 
intransigence and unreasonableness on Social Security a hallmark of 
their efforts over all of these years. For these people, the only 
allowable discussion on Social Security is one limited to talk of 
higher benefits and higher taxes on the American people. Anyone who 
disagrees will not only be refuted or opposed, they will be publicly 
maligned and their character will be called into question.
  Indeed, for many of these groups--and sadly for some of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle--these efforts are not about winning 
public policy debate, they are about silencing and trying to censor 
anyone who dares express a contrary opinion.
  In even-numbered years, Republicans have more or less gotten used to 
hearing that we want to see Social Security ``slashed'' and 
``privatized'' or ``turned over to Wall Street.'' Leftwing activists--
and, yes, even a number of our colleagues--base a huge portion of their 
fundraising efforts on scaring Social Security and Medicare 
beneficiaries with those kinds of over-the-top attacks. For once, when 
it comes to Social Security, I wish we could look at all the facts. For 
example, everyone knows we made some changes to Social Security last 
year in order to prevent imminent and legally required cuts to 
disability benefits. We did so based on the projections of the Social 
Security trustees--these very people who are being treated in this 
improper way.
  Did we ``slash'' benefits? Did we privatize anything? Did we turn 
anything over to Wall Street? Of course not. What we did was make 
reasonable and needed changes to the program, but that didn't stop many 
on the other side from sounding the privatization alarm and raising 
money by scaring beneficiaries, even if they were as aware as we were 
that the cuts to disability benefits were, absent changes, an absolute 
certainty. We got precious little help from the Democrats in our 
efforts to avoid benefit cuts because, as is too often the case around 
here, complaining about a problem and blaming the other side for it 
makes for better politics than finding a solution. That same strategy 
and those same attacks have now permeated the effort to confirm two of 
President Obama's nominees. By the way, I am arguing for President 
Obama's nominees.
  As I said, the Republican nominee for public trustee has been accused 
of being many things. More than anything, some of my colleagues have 
tried to link him to some kind of effort to try to privatize all of 
Social Security and hand everything over to Wall Street--never mind the 
fact that he has already served in the very same position for 4 years 
and Social Security is no closer to being in the hands of Wall Street 
than it was before, never mind the fact that he was already confirmed 
to the very same position once before without any opposition on the 
Senate floor, never mind anything that has happened in the past. Here 
and now, according to my colleagues, he is controversial. Here and now, 
letting him serve as a public trustee would be like having a fox 
guarding the henhouse or some such nonsense. By the way, that phrase, 
``fox guarding the henhouse,'' is an actual quote from one of our 
colleagues describing Dr. Blahous. Apparently, he became a ``fox'' 
sometime in the last 6 years because in 2010 no one in the Senate 
objected to his confirmation, but here in 2016, there are apparently 
some Democrats who feel they need to use this nomination and their 
partisan rants against it to raise money for their campaigns and 
perhaps in a case or two boost their prospects for higher office. Of 
course, none of this is entirely surprising because years ago, probably 
in some Democratic war room, my friends on the other side discovered 
that terms like ``privatization'' and ``Wall Street'' and ``cuts'' poll 
well with their political base, even though no such thing is taking 
place.
  As an aside, this favorable polling data explains why we heard their 
party's Presidential frontrunner back in February make this claim:

       After Bush got reelected in 2004, the first thing he said 
     was, let's go privatize Social Security. . . . And you know 
     what, their whole plan was to give the Social Security trust 
     fund to Wall Street.

  My gosh. There are at least three or four poll-tested buzzwords in 
that quote. If nothing else, Secretary Clinton deserves at least some 
praise for focus group efficiency with that statement no matter how 
false the statement is or was at the time. Of course, in dissecting 
that claim, the Washington Post assigned it three Pinocchios, 
concluding that it was false, as only they could conclude. In fact, the 
Washington Post reminded us that the Clinton administration was the 
first to consider investing Social Security trust fund resources into 
something other than low-yielding government bonds. So, in a sense, the 
real ``architect of privatization'' was President Bill Clinton, not 
President George W. Bush, and certainly not the current Republican 
nominee for public trustee. Furthermore, if simply considering 
alternative investment strategies for trust fund dollars means 
``privatization,'' then the growing list of guilty privatizers has 
recently included a

[[Page 7494]]

Democrat in the House, the AARP, a Nobel prize-winning economist, and 
many others, and not all of them are Republicans.
  Let me return to the debate on the public trustee nomination because, 
quite frankly, the Democrats made so many misleading claims with regard 
to Social Security that I could not begin to address them all in a 
single floor speech.
  A recent article in POLITICO outlined the plan devised by top Senate 
Democrats to engage in ``an election-year battle'' over Social Security 
and the general public trustees in particular. In relation to Dr. 
Blahous, the article says: ``Democrats point to several instances in 
the trustees' reports released after Blahous joined the board that they 
say suggest the Social Security trust fund is less solvent than it 
really is.''
  That almost sounds like a legitimate policy argument, provided you 
don't think about it for longer than 30 seconds. There are, quite 
simply, countless reasons why that argument is entirely baseless. First 
of all, no one in the Obama administration has corroborated a single 
one of these claims in any way, shape, or form. On top of that, this 
claim seems to suggest that one public trustee, a Republican, has had 
such a persuasive and misleading influence that he has been able--for 
more than 4 years--to hoodwink five Democratic trustees, including Dr. 
Reischaure, the other current nominee, along with Treasury Secretary 
Lew, Labor Secretary Perez, HHS Secretary Burwell, and Acting Social 
Security Commissioner Colvin, all of whom also signed on to those 
trustees reports. Does anyone believe that for a second?
  I am going to give my friends some advice: If a political attack 
relies on an assumption that the sitting Secretaries of Treasury, 
Labor, HHS, and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, along with 
their staffs, are so impotent in the face of the cunning sophistry of a 
single public trustee from the opposing party, it is best to leave that 
particular conspiracy theory on the shelf because it doesn't even pass 
the laugh test. That is, of course, unless you assume at the outset 
that members of President Obama's Cabinet, along with their staffs, are 
incompetent or just plain dumb.
  Aside from being based on foolish assumptions, the claim that recent 
trustee reports have been biased is verifiably false, given that the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has reached similar conclusions 
about the solvency of Social Security. In fact, CBO's projections are 
even bleaker.
  Perhaps my Democratic colleagues believe that Dr. Blahous's dastardly 
influence has extended to CBO as well, although, to be fair, I haven't 
heard any of them claim that such is the case.
  Mr. President, all of this political bluster over the public trustee 
nominations--every single word of it--is a political sideshow. The 
public trustees do not have the power or ability to slash or privatize 
Social Security or to turn a single penny of any public funds over to 
Wall Street. They serve a limited but important role in monitoring and 
reporting on the system. That is all.
  Any reasonable observer will tell you that both of President Obama's 
nominees for public trustee have solid reputations as being fair, 
objective, balanced, and most importantly, highly competent.
  I don't personally agree with all the policy positions that the 
Democratic nominee, Dr. Reischauer, has put forward over the years, but 
he has always conveyed his ideas in a temperate and respectful manner 
without partisanship or ad hominem attacks. Quite frankly, I also may 
not even agree with all the positions that the Republican nominee, Dr. 
Blahous, has put forward, but he has similarly conducted himself in a 
respectful and nonpartisan manner.
  The fact is, whether certain Democratic Senators like it or not, the 
law requires that one of the public trustees be from the Republican 
Party. If someone wants to put forward legislation to change that or to 
impose term limits on trustees or even start a public debate on these 
issues, they are free to do so. Similarly, if a Senator disagrees with 
a prospective trustee's positions on policy or with something they have 
written outside of their public trustee functions, that Senator is also 
free to vote against that nominee on that basis.
  However, in my opinion, it is shameful for Members of Congress to 
engage in unreasonable and false character attacks in order to 
reinforce the Presidential candidate's talking points or to raise money 
for leftwing activists or to help themselves on their political races. 
Under any circumstances, it is wrong to impugn someone's character and 
professionalism by false association.
  While this may be par for the course during an election year, there 
is more than politics at stake here. If Democrats truly have an 
interest in the integrity of Social Security and Medicare, and their 
trust funds, then politicizing public trustee nominations is an 
extraordinarily odd strategy. If we turn these nominations into just 
another political battleground, the trustee reports will eventually be 
viewed as political documents, having no unique seriousness or 
credibility. In the end, that will mean less transparency, objectivity, 
and integrity for Social Security and Medicare.
  This would be terrifically unfortunate.
  To conclude, I would just say that, despite some insinuations to the 
contrary, my plan all along has been to hold votes on the Finance 
Committee on the President's nominees for the public trustee positions 
as soon as possible. I look forward to filling the existing vacancies.
  The trustee reports for Social Security and Medicare have 
historically been void of politics, to the credit of the current and 
past administrations as well as the public trustees from both sides of 
the aisle. This has been the case until now, when politics has entered 
in. My sincere hope is that we can keep it that way.
  I am getting a little tired of the Social Security arguments that 
Democrats wage every election, such as Republicans are going to destroy 
Social Security. My gosh, we believe in it as much as they do--in fact, 
I think, a little bit more. We believe we should strengthen that fund. 
We should keep it alive. We should make sure it is going to be there 
for your children, my children, grandchildren and, in my case, even 
great-grandchildren and beyond. But it is not going to be there if we 
have these kinds of idiotic policy disagreements based surely on 
politics and how one party might benefit in a political campaign or how 
any individual might benefit. It is time for us to get rid of all the 
partisanship and work together to resolve some of these problems. The 
next time I hear another Democrat say that Republicans are against 
Social Security, I am going to take that creature on. I call them a 
creature because they certainly do not deserve to be in the U.S. 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________