[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 30 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H853-H854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Stearns]. Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune this past weekend of 
going to the bipartisan retreat in Hershey, PA. There we discussed many 
issues, many problems common to the Congress, but one thing that we did 
not discuss was a thing called Social Security.
  What is interesting about this issue is that not only is Congress not 
talking about it right now but the White House is not talking about it. 
Yet by anybody's definition, Social Security is on its way toward 
bankruptcy because what the trustees have said, and let me say that 
again, what the trustees have said, not what Republicans have said, not 
what Democrats have said, not what Ross Perot has said, but what the 
trustees have said is that if we do nothing, Social Security will go 
bankrupt in 2029 and it will begin to run deficits in 2012 such that 
either current benefits have to be cut by about 14 percent at that time 
or payroll taxes have to be raised by about 16 percent.
  Any of the young folks that I talk to say, ``I don't like the idea of 
payroll taxes going up by another 16 percent.'' Any of the older folks 
I talk to say, Mark, the idea of cutting benefits by 14 percent is just 
not acceptable.''
  And so what you are struck with is, is there another way out? I think 
that brings us to some very good news that there is another way out 
because what has been tried in a host of places around the globe, 
whether it is in a number of countries in South America or whether it 
is with changes being made in Australia or with changes being made in 
Great Britain or in a number of countries or even States within our own 
country, what folks have tried is the idea of personal savings 
accounts. When you switch from a system of sending your money to 
Washington and then hoping it comes back 30 or 40 years later to 
instead a series of personal savings accounts, wherein it is a public-
private partnership, it is still a mandatory savings, it is still 
watched by the Government. Again, if one wants to, I guess, go 
gambling, you would go to Las Vegas, you would not use these accounts, 
so it is controlled, but by having money in your own personal savings 
accounts, a number of very good things seem to happen. One is that you 
save Social Security because again by the trustees' own numbers, the 
current rate of return for most people out there working

[[Page H854]]

today and paying into Social Security is 1.9 percent. If you let 
somebody earn more than 1.9 percent on their retirement savings, then 
consequently they end up with more at the end of the day and can retire 
with more, again have more each month day in and day out in their 
retirement years which is what I hear from most people working today as 
something that they would very much like.
  Another benefit that I think is worth mentioning is that you can 
choose for you when you want to retire. In my home State of South 
Carolina, we have a fellow by the name of Strom Thurmond who wants to 
work until he is 100. I say go for it. Yet I have got a lot of other 
friends who say, ``You know, work is fine, Mark, but fishing is even 
better. I would like to retire when I'm 50.''
  With a personal savings account, you could do that. Why should a 
Congressman or a Senator or a bureaucrat in Washington choose for you 
when you want to retire? Yet with a pay-as-you-go system, that has to 
happen, because for one person to retire early while the other person 
was working would mean one person subsidizing the other and that could 
not happen.
  Or, for that matter, another benefit, I think, of personal savings 
accounts would be moving it off the political playing field. Right now 
seniors very intently listen to all those political ads as one 
politician points his finger at the other saying what the other one is 
going to do with his Social Security check for good reason and, that 
is, Washington controls it. If you move that control out of Washington 
again back to the individual, you would not have to listen to those 
ads.
  Another great benefit again of personal savings accounts. Let me 
stress here, what we are talking about is a voluntary program. I do not 
believe that you should go out and yank the rug out from underneath 
seniors. What we are talking about is leaving Social Security the way 
it is for people that are retired and simply giving people the choice. 
If one wants to stay on existing Social Security, do that and if you do 
not, that is fine, too. But by doing that, another one of the benefits 
would be saving more. We have a very low savings rate in this country. 
It is around 3 percent. In China it is around 40 percent. In Singapore 
it is in the mid 30's. In Chile it is about 30 percent. It is actually 
about 29 percent. A host of places around the globe have higher savings 
rates which means that they can invest more in, whether it is a chain 
saw or whether it is a plant that makes American workers more 
productive, and that is something that we need to be cognizant of and 
watch out for.
  Again, this is not anything that is going to happen anytime soon in 
Congress. It is not even being talked about in Congress. But I think 
for us to avoid the avalanche that is coming our way, we need to begin 
talking about it. Again what we need to begin talking about is a way of 
transitioning from Social Security and leaving seniors alone. I do not 
think we should ever yank the rug out from underneath seniors, but 
again transitioning to a system that would allow young people the 
choice.

                          ____________________