[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H76-H77]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INVOLVING AMERICAN PEOPLE IN SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, last night in the President's State of the 
Union address, he talked about something that is important to all 
Americans, and what he said was let's save Social Security.
  What I think that means for all of us is that we get involved in that 
debate, because what he outlined was the beginning of a conversation 
wherein groups like Concord Coalition or AARP would be involved in town 
meetings throughout this next year, and then in December there would be 
a Social Security summit at the White House, and maybe the possibility 
of legislative change after that.
  Well, there have been a number of us here in the House that have been 
talking about Social Security for some time, and what needs to take 
place right now is that all Americans, as they think about Social 
Security, I would beg of them to be involved in this debate, because 
there is nothing more important to a whole lot of Americans than will 
or will not their Social Security check be there and waiting for them.

                              {time}  1430

  I think that as we begin to think about it, we all know the problem. 
The problem has been very well described. The Social Security trustees 
said that if we do nothing to save Social Security, it goes bankrupt in 
30 years and it begins to run structural deficits in about 15 years. 
What the trustees' report also showed was that if we do nothing to save 
Social Security, that the average rate of return for somebody working 
and paying into Social Security is but 1.9 percent. Mr. Speaker, 1.9 
percent. That is not the American dream.
  The American dream is built upon putting a little bit of money away 
that actually grows towards something. But in this case, it is the case 
of putting money into a system; again, we are not talking about my 
grandmother's Social Security or my mother's Social Security, but we 
are talking about each of my three boys' Social Security. And that idea 
of earning 1.9 percent overall is bad, but what the trustees' report

[[Page H77]]

also shows is that anybody born after 1948 will get a negative rate of 
return on their Social Security investment.
  So as we think about this debate that is soon coming to this Congress 
and is soon coming to the White House, we ought to think about a couple 
of things. We ought to think about how do we fix it, because that is 
the big question. Do we simply cut benefits? I live along the coast of 
South Carolina and the retirees that I talk to there think that is a 
horrible idea. That is not the way to fix Social Security.
  We have many young people. Other people say, all right, if we cannot 
cut benefits, maybe we can raise payroll taxes. I think that is a crazy 
idea, because the young people that I talk to on a daily basis at home 
in South Carolina say that the idea of raising payroll taxes would 
squeeze them that much more. We can only squeeze but so much blood from 
a turnip and those young families that I talk to say they are squeezed. 
The idea of raising taxes would hurt them.
  That only leaves one other option out there for saving Social 
Security and that is letting one earn more on their Social Security 
investment, more than this 1.9 percent or more than this negative 
number. That is, I think, the significance of at least thinking about 
the idea of personal savings accounts. Because when personal savings 
accounts have been tried around the globe, people overwhelmingly have 
elected that option.
  In South American countries, 95 percent of the workers in Chile chose 
the idea of personal savings accounts. In Great Britain, whose 
demographics are remarkably similar to our own, 75 percent of the 
workers chose the option of personal savings accounts, or in our own 
country, a number of counties down in south Texas ran into the same 
problem we are running into in terms of demographics. They said, how 
are we going to fix Social Security, and prior to 1983 at the county 
government level, the State government level, one could create one's 
own Social Security system. Those counties in south Texas did and 80 
percent of the workers, when given the option of personal savings 
accounts, chose that option.
  So I think that as we think about this debate that is coming our way, 
we really need to look at how do we save Social Security, and I think 
at least part of the formula for saving Social Security will be the 
option of personal savings accounts. Not mandatory, but again, leaving 
people above the age of 65 alone. We do not yank the rug out from 
underneath seniors, but offer the young people the choice, if it makes 
more sense for them and for their families, this option of personal 
savings accounts.

                          ____________________