Social Security (Executive Calendar)

Text in the Record

Social Security

Mr. President, I have been working on Social Security now 8 years. Why? One, it is a guarantee--an intergenerational guarantee--made to Americans, when they get to a certain age, to retire. It is an earned benefit which says that, after a lifetime of work and contribution, Americans can count on a measure of financial security. Today, more than 75 million Americans rely on Social Security. Most are retired workers. Many are disabled. Others are widows or widowers and children. Now, let's just set the context: A program that 75 million Americans rely

[[Page S4221]]

on, 10 million baby boomers a day become eligible for, and in 6 years, if Congress does nothing, by law, their benefits will be cut almost 29 percent. So let's just say that once more. If Congress does nothing, in 6 years, by law, benefits going to 75 million Americans--and more at that time--will be cut by almost 29 percent. We have known this is coming. It is because there has been a continued drawdown from the Social Security trust fund. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than it receives. Currently, it is receiving money from payroll taxes but also from the trust fund. When the trust fund goes belly up in 6 years and the only income is that which current workers are paying, then the amount going out has to fall, and it will fall 28.5 percent if we wait until then to fix things. I am pleased to say, though, that there is now momentum on both sides--Republicans and Democrats--to find a solution and to preserve benefits for those who have spent their lifetime earning them. By the way, people ask: How is Social Security going bankrupt? I have been paying into it my whole life. Everybody I know has been paying into it their whole life. So why is it going bankrupt now? I point out to people that when Social Security came along--I don't know--there were like five kids per family, and now there are like two kids per family. And when Social Security was first enacted, you didn't get benefits until you were 65, but the average age of death was 62. Now people live until they are 82, and they are getting their hips replaced when they are 75 to go bungee jumping in New Zealand. So the point being is that people are living far longer and they are living more actively, and as a result of that, we are drawing down that trust fund. So my Democratic colleague from Illinois Dick Durbin, he and I just introduced the PROMISE Act, along with a group of colleagues, Republican and Democrat. And the PROMISE Act sets up a process. It doesn't dictate a policy. It sets up a process that puts Congress on the clock to save Social Security. What the PROMISE Act does, it says that Congress shall come up with multiple options to present to the Senate Finance Committee or to the Ways and Means Committee in the House in order for them to consider it, have it scored, and be delivered to Congress in order to deliberate. And then it says that the relevant committee--say, Senate Finance--has 7 working days to consider it and then it comes to the floor and then we have a vote on it. That begs the question, Why do it now? Why not wait until next Congress? Because every year we wait, it gets harder and harder to fix Social Security. The amount of cuts required or the amount of taxes to be raised are more dramatic, more drastic, and more likely to harm an individual's personal finances. We are not dictating a policy. We are just setting up a process. Now, by the way, in full honesty, I have a policy I have been working on, but my policy will be just one of several policies that will be considered. My policy, we have something in it which we call the big idea. In our big idea, we look at pension funds that are doing well, that are not going bankrupt, that are growing in line with the needs of the people whom they cover. This will be the kind of pension fund that Exxon or Google or Deloitte & Touche has--it is called a pension investment fund--in which dollars are invested at an early stage, allowed to grow, and as those dollars grow over time, they meet the need of the retirees as the retirees become eligible for pulling those dollars down. We have actually done that in the Federal Government. Under George W. Bush, the Federal railroad retirement system was going insolvent, and so Congress voted to allow to diversify the investments of this pension fund. I think every Democrat voted for it in the Senate. Three Republicans voted no, and the concerns they had have been proven to be wrong because what has happened now, in the Federal railroad retirement system, we still have more and more retirees relative to fewer workers, but that system is in the black because it invests in the strength of the U.S. economy, and the strength of the U.S. economy has been able to pay all future obligations. That is our big idea: What has the Congress already done successfully with the Federal railroad retirement system? What is being done with major corporations to meet their pension benefits? And kind of what do you do with your own 401(k)? So if we can set up this investment fund to supplement the payroll taxes that are the primary source for funding Social Security, we can meet that future obligation. By the way, let me go back to the PROMISE Act. I am not dictating my proposal will be the answer. We are dictating a process that can be considered so that any proposal can be brought up. The Presiding Officer has a proposal with Senator Warren. His proposal can come up. So it might be his proposal. More likely, it is going to be some sort of amalgamation. But the only option that should not be an option is to do nothing. Congress is--I am searching for the right word. Congress is being irresponsible--destructively irresponsible--if we don't address Social Security. It is driving the national debt. And if we cut benefits by 28 percent, that will double poverty among the elderly. The promised benefit will not be delivered. By the way, if all we do is borrow, it is going to tank our credit rating. By the way, going back to my particular plan, folks say: Well, what if the stock market goes down? Under our plan, all risk is borne by the investment fund; no risk is borne by the individual. That individual gets all the benefits she has been promised even if the market goes up and down. They ask me: Is it putting the trust fund into the stock market? No way. We have a separate investment fund, separate from the Social Security trust fund, and that is where the investment goes. And one more thing. Folks want to say: Well, wait a second. I don't trust the Congress, and I don't trust the President. If you put a pot of money there, it is like honey to a bear; they are going to reach in and grab it. We have guardrails all over the place, including an annual audit of how the money is invested and how the money is spent or not spent, and that audit is put online so the American people can keep track of what is happening with their trust fund. I will finish by saying this. I like my plan. I think it is a good plan. I think it is going to make it a lot easier to address the problem. But the PROMISE Act is not about my plan. The PROMISE Act, which Dick Durbin and I introduced, is only setting up a process by which Congress is forced to take action before it gets any worse. My proposal may be the one considered. It may be the Presiding Officer's. It may be somebody else's. The only option that should not be taken is the option of doing nothing. We need to do something. With that, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee. Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks prior to the scheduled rollcall vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Read it in the Congressional Record (opens in a new tab)