[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1077 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1077

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives against severe 
                      changes to Social Security.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2010

    Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
  California, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Stark, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Higgins, Mr. 
 Thompson of California, Mr. Filner, Ms. Schwartz, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. 
DeLauro, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Davis of Illinois, 
Ms. Berkley, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Crowley, Mr. 
 Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kind, Mr. Obey, and Mr. 
 Waxman) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives against severe 
                      changes to Social Security.

Whereas Social Security has successfully and efficiently provided the foundation 
        for Americans' retirement security for generations and should be 
        preserved for generations to come;
Whereas for 6 in 10 seniors, Social Security provides the majority of their 
        retirement income, and Social Security provides nearly all of the income 
        received by four out of ten widows and other non-married seniors;
Whereas Social Security's essential protections for workers and their families 
        cannot be matched by private savings, which are a complement to, but not 
        a substitute for, Social Security's guaranteed benefits;
Whereas, as one such protection, Social Security provides a guaranteed benefit 
        that one can never outlive, and unlike private savings or investments, 
        is not subject to the ups and downs of the stock market;
Whereas, as another such protection, Social Security benefits are indexed to 
        inflation to maintain purchasing power over time, which is particularly 
        important for women because they live longer on average than men, and 
        the impact of inflation compounds over time;
Whereas, as another such protection, Social Security provides family benefits, 
        protecting not only the worker but dependent children and the surviving 
        spouse;
Whereas, as another such protection, Social Security not only provides a secure 
        foundation of retirement, but it provides essential income to workers 
        with severe disabilities and to survivors, representing, for a typical 
        young family, a $413,000 disability insurance policy and a $430,000 life 
        insurance policy;
Whereas, as another such protection, Social Security's progressive benefit 
        formula ensures that those with the least opportunity to make 
        supplemental provision for retirement receive the greatest degree of 
        protection from Social Security;
Whereas, for 75 years, Social Security has never been a day late or a dollar 
        short;
Whereas the American people made clear in 2005 that they did not seek severe 
        change in Social Security when they resoundingly rejected President 
        Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security in favor of preserving a 
        secure, guaranteed foundation of retirement income free from the risks 
        and losses of the stock market;
Whereas the current minority party plan for Social Security is even more extreme 
        than the plan they advanced in 2005: (1) it cuts guaranteed Social 
        Security retirement and survivor benefits for all workers, whether or 
        not they wish to have a private account; (2) it diverts trillions from 
        the Trust Fund into private accounts--eventually, four out of every ten 
        dollars of Trust Fund contributions would be diverted to private 
        accounts--threatening the ability of the Trust Funds to pay benefits to 
        today's seniors; (3) it increases Federal borrowing by 
        $4,100,000,000,000; and (4) it subjects workers' basic retirement 
        security to market volatility and the risk of losses; and
Whereas privatizing Social Security means benefit cuts, diversion of Trust Fund 
        resources, subjecting individuals to market risk and losses, and 
        increasing Federal borrowing by trillions of dollars: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the Congress should stand with the American people 
to reject severe changes to Social Security, including any and all 
attempts to privatize Social Security, and instead should commit to 
work bipartisanly to make common-sense adjustments to Social Security 
to strengthen it for future generations while preserving its guarantees 
of secure income and family protection in the event of a worker's 
death, retirement, or severe disability.
                                 <all>