[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 50 (Wednesday, April 29, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2478-H2510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1998
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 410 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 410
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3546) to provide for
a national dialogue on Social Security and to establish the
Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security Reform.
The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The
amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now
printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of
debate on the bill, as amended, which shall be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) a further
amendment printed in the Congressional Record pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XXIII, if offered by Representative Rangel
of New York or his designee, which shall be considered as
read and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 410 is a modified closed rule providing
for the consideration in the House of H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue
on Social Security Act of 1998. The purpose of this legislation is to
provide for a national dialogue on Social Security and to establish a
very important bipartisan panel to design a long-range solution for
Social Security.
The rule provides for 3 hours of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides for the
consideration of an amendment printed in the Congressional Record, if
offered by the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, which
shall be considered as read and debatable for 1 hour equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this discussion on Social Security. I think it
is an issue of vital importance not only to America's seniors but to
all Americans. Social Security is not only a cherished program, it is
perhaps the most popularly supported as well as vital of government
programs.
I wish to remind my colleagues that we are debating legislation to
create a national dialogue on this issue, but we are not at this time
proposing actual changes in the Social Security system. Because of
this, I am of the belief that 3 hours of debate on the bill, plus 1
hour on this rule, in other words, 4 hours of debate on this issue, is
more than enough time to debate this important issue.
This is not a controversial piece of legislation. If the minority
wishes to amend this bill, they will have two opportunities to do so,
as I have stated, with an amendment which is printed in the
Congressional Record already. And, additionally, they could attempt to
do so with a motion to recommit with instructions.
We were given, Mr. Speaker, some good news with Tuesday's annual
report of the board of trustees of the Social Security program: The
board's projection that we will have 3 more years than originally
anticipated before Social Security pays out more in benefits than it
receives in payroll taxes. That is encouraging data. However, I think
that it drives home the point that we need to work together as a Nation
on a bipartisan basis, putting aside partisan politics, to create a
stable, a long-term, thoughtful and effective solution to the
retirement security system in the United States.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support H.R. 3546, the
National Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998. I congratulate the
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the
[[Page H2479]]
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for his hard work on this
legislation and urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule and has 3
hours of general debate but only one amendment; and that amendment is
only allowed if it is printed in the Congressional Record.
Now, I think it is ironic that a bill that is going to begin an
inclusive national discussion on changes to a core government program
should itself be discussed under a closed exclusive rule.
{time} 1500
Now, some say that Ways and Means bills are always considered under
closed rules, but this bill does not amend the Tax Code, trade policy,
Medicare, or even Social Security itself. It just sets up a procedure
for discussion.
Apparently its proponents believe that this procedure is so perfect
and so delicate that to allow debate on any alternatives would endanger
its goals and its very survival. That rigidity does not bode too well
for the process that hopes to build a national consensus.
Now, this bill is going to establish a national dialogue on Social
Security. It is going to be led by two facilitators, advised by a
dialogue council composed of 36 members. The facilitators will conduct
the dialogue through the regional meetings, through the Internet,
communications, and other methods. Now, after the two facilitators and
the 36 members get through, then there will be an eight-member
bipartisan panel coming from somewhere recommending long-term changes.
Now, I am perplexed as to why we are taking this up because this
dialogue is already under way. It is not in such a bureaucratic form.
And one of the things that I do not know, as a member of the Committee
on Rules that presented this rule on the floor, is what kind of budget
all these facilitators and other people, dialogue coordinators, are
going to require. And it seems a shame to do it because the American
Association of Retired Persons and the Concord Coalition are already
doing it. They are conducting a series of forums around the Nation to
accomplish this very goal of a national dialogue. And the President is
participating in these forums, as are Americans in all walks of life.
So what we are doing is duplicating what is already being done with
government money.
So there we are. To insist that the Congress establish a parallel
process seems to be a case of simply not wanting to play in the
President's sandbox. I have to agree with the administration that this
national dialogue process is duplicative and unnecessary.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, this rule. This bill should be
considered under an open rule with the House able to freely amend the
legislation to keep the portions that it considers useful and to scrap
those that are not. The Congress of the United States has been
described, as long as I have been alive, as the greatest deliberative
body on earth, and yet the two rules that we have put forth today have
literally no deliberation of any sort. They are simply put out for an
up or down vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) from our side
had asked for time to speak. I do not see him here at this time. I saw
previously the chairman from the Committee on Ways and Means. We are
more than ready to commence when the other side wishes the 3 hours of
general debate that we have incorporated into the rule provided by the
rule on this issue.
And as I have stated, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, will be here
throughout that entire period to answer any questions on the
legislation that distinguished Members from the other side of the aisle
may have.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, since we have 3 hours debate, and it appears
as though my colleague does not have anyone to engage in it, maybe I
can ask him some questions about the rule, and we could notify the
Members through television.
Does this resolution that sets up this committee, does it provide
anything about the solvency of Social Security? Are they given
directions as relates to that?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman
knows, that is not a question on the rule, that is a question on the
Commission set up by the legislation that is brought to the floor on
the rule.
If the gentleman says he has a question on the rule, I will be glad
to answer it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I am
just asking does the rule give any direction at all to the
Commissioners being set up in terms of the Social Security system?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No, the rule does not.
Mr. RANGEL. There is no direction as to what they study?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Not under the rule, no.
Mr. RANGEL. Let me ask my colleague, what does the rule state? What
does the rule have to do with this Commission?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The rule brings this legislation to the floor.
Mr. RANGEL. I had really thought that my colleagues that sit on the
Committee on Rules understood substantively what would be in the bill
so that when they bring it to the floor, the people have a better
understanding as to whether they want the bill to come out in the first
place.
So I am asking, can my colleague discuss the bill that my colleagues
are asking us to rule on at all?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, we can certainly attempt to discuss the
substantive legislation that that rule is bringing forward.
Mr. RANGEL. Good.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. But I would not attempt to even pretend that I am as
expert on the substantive legislation as the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means, who will be in control of the 3 hours of debating
time that we provide under the rule for the House on the substantive
legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. I am only talking about this 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And for the gentleman to understand the rule that is
bringing this legislation to the floor, we have 1 hour.
Mr. RANGEL. But the legislation that is coming to the floor, does it
allow for Members of Congress to be appointed to the Commission?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. There is certainly input from Members of Congress to
be in the process of the appointment of the Commission. But I may say,
if the gentleman would permit, that the Commission and this process,
this process that is created by the substantive legislation was worked
on for significant number of time with much effort by many members of
this committee of this House, especially members of the committee that
the distinguished gentleman from New York is a member of, the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. RANGEL. So is my colleague saying that Members of Congress should
be appointed to this Commission?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. This Commission provides for input from the
Congress.
Mr. RANGEL. But, I mean, could a Member serve on the Commission at
all?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Members of Congress may be appointed to the
Commission. But as I say, I would not dare to even pretend that I am as
expert on the process of the Commission itself as the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or, quite frankly, of
anyone who, as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, has been
working for a long period of time on the substantive legislation that
we bring to the floor today.
I do know that we bring it to the floor with an hour of debate on the
rule
[[Page H2480]]
and with 3 hours of debate on the substantive legislation. And even
though I am more than confident that the distinguished gentleman from
New York is very well aware of the details of the legislation, if the
gentleman has any questions, I know that I know the gentleman knows by
working day in and day out with the chairman of the Committee on Ways
and Means that the questions would be answered within the 3 hours.
Mr. RANGEL. Well, if the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means is on the floor, there is no question he will be able to
answer the questions that have been discussed and debated in the full
Committee on Ways and Means.
I had thought, though, that this exchange might encourage people to
vote for or against the rule. But since the gentleman would rather
yield to the chairman of the committee, then I would thank the
gentleman for this exchange.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Certainly. And any other questions, I would be
willing to attempt to answer them. But the chairman is here, and the 3
hours will be controlled by the chairman on the substantive measure
that we brought to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding.
Make no mistake, there is no substantive legislation before the House
of Representatives on the issue of Social Security today. This is our
regular biennial election year dodge of a tough issue.
We had a Commission on Social Security. They were deeply divided, but
they came up with reams of data and alternatives and voted among
themselves.
Any Member of Congress who sits here today who cannot go home to his
or her constituents and tell them what they think should be done to
make Social Security as a viable program for the next century does not
deserve to sit in this body.
What we are trying to do, or what the majority is trying to do here
today is hide their real opinions, the radical breakup of Social
Security, which we never wanted, and privatize the proposals to make
Wall Street rich, turn it into 200 million IRAs, and let people rise or
fall with the stock market. God, think of the billions of dollars in
commission that could be made under that proposal.
Well, I think that is wrong. I support a much more modest proposal.
Take the money we are stealing from Social Security on an annual basis.
Social Security will collect $80 billion more this year than it needs
to pay benefits. That money is supposed to go in a Trust Fund. It does
not. It is being borrowed and replaced by IOUs.
Take that money and invest it in real assets like a number of other
retirement programs do around the country. Do not let Congress spend
it. Do not replace it with IOUs. Do not let them give it away in a tax
cut for the wealthy. Put that money in real investments to begin to
take care of the baby boom in the next century. That is only one
alternative, and it was one that was put forward by the last
Commission.
We do not need another Commission. But, truthfully, the White House
is dodging, too. They have got this staged debate going on between the
Concord Coalition and AARP around the country. Who anointed those
groups as the gurus or the seers to get us to a very difficult solution
on Social Security?
It is up to this body, the United States House of Representatives, to
put forward some solutions. Stop dodging. Yeah, this is a tough issue,
but make our views known. Go home and campaign on them. If they really
believe Americans want to destroy Social Security and set up 200
million IRAs and roll the dice, then go home and campaign on that. And
I do not think I will see them next year.
But if they have other solutions, let those be known to their
constituents. Sponsor legislation. Introduce legislation. Go home and
make their views known to their constituents. Do not hide behind
another phoney commission so just after the election they can try and
jam through an unpopular proposal which destroys the integrity of
Social Security under the guise of saying, ``Hey, it was not my idea.
The Commission told us we had to do this,'' and it is all we have got
before us.
This is a bad bill. It is a limited bill. It is amazing to me that we
are having a debate with so little interest about a program so vital on
the floor of the House of Representatives.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Stark).
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle today will
present this bill for debate to assure the public that this Congress is
working in the spirit of our limited floor schedule on long-term
policies such as saving Social Security for our children.
I rather suspect that the children they talk about preserving Social
Security for are being used as a shield in this debate because of a
frontal assault that Republicans have been using on so many will not
work.
It is a good idea to have a dialogue. I think we should start opening
the dialogue with the majority leader's remarks, and I quote the
majority leader's remarks, in saying that Social Security ``should be
phased out. Eventually we will be able to phase the government programs
out and phase private programs in.''
The Speaker's think tank, the Progressive and Freedom Foundation,
that preserves I do not know what for all Americans, says, ``There is
an even more important moral question raised by the government's role
as chief provider in old age. It sends an un-American message that it
is not your responsibility to take care of yourself.'' Basically, the
Speaker is suggesting that Social Security is un-American.
That is a good place to start this dialogue. It is time for the
public, quotes the Speaker's think tank, to take back from government
responsibility for their futures, including their retirements.
What will we do about the hard-working Americans who happen to become
disabled or those who die early leaving their children with no means of
support? And what about the 30 percent of Social Security beneficiaries
who are elderly women whose wages never were at a livable level and
never enabled them to save for their retirement years? Let us enter
into a dialogue with that and see what my Republican colleagues would
do.
It is a long-range problem. It could be solved with a 1 percent
increase in taxes for all time. I applaud efforts to work on long-term
solutions that would really apply and benefit our children, but I am
cynical that this Republican leadership will do the right thing on
Social Security, even for kids.
Look at their track record. They have repeatedly failed to face the
tough issues that threaten our children because of their refusal to
ruffle the feathers of the rich political constituencies that they
serve.
Where is the Republican leadership on providing managed care
safeguards that our children will get the health care from HMOs that
their parents have paid for, except denial for reasonable claims? Where
is the Republican leadership when they have realized that 230 Members
of this House support the managed care reform bill, but the leadership
fails to bring it to this body? Are they going to appoint a commission
for that?
What about global warming? That is a long-range problem. We have not
heard a peep out of the Republicans on that. Protecting our world
environment is as crucial an effort for our children as saving Social
Security. There may not be an environment for these children to live
in.
{time} 1515
What about rules to assure that Congress is no longer tainted by
illegal campaign contributions? The Republicans have amongst them a
criminal, a convicted criminal who has been sentenced to serve in this
House in the Republican Party. Now, that is creative judicial
sentencing. It may be the worst sentence that anybody has ever been
dealt in the history of the Federal judiciary.
But what are the Republicans doing to clean up the criminals in their
own
[[Page H2481]]
ranks and lead us to an improved campaign finance reform? Nothing. Is
that not a long-range problem that we ought to be concerned about? The
leadership says they want to preserve all kinds of things for the
future, but they ignore them. Is this just one more issue of benign
neglect?
Are they for cutting funds, as we sit here, for housing the poor?
Yes, they are in a proposed supplemental. Are they refusing food stamps
for legal immigrants? Yes, they are. Are they refusing to provide the
funds necessary to enforce the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance bill?
They are indeed. If there was ever an industry that needs oversight, it
is the insurance industry.
And what are they doing to look at Prudential's $3 billion of
restitution to its customers for fraudulent sales practices? Is it that
same Prudential that they want to take over and manage Social Security
under privatization? I certainly hope not.
I surmise the leadership is up to more of the same pattern. Their
attempts to preserve Social Security are merely an attempt to dissuade
the public from our facing the tough issues of the future. Has the
responsibility and self-reliance mantra erased any trace of human
kindness and of responsibility for the less fortunate in our society? I
think that the opening dialogue of the Republicans says that that is
their position.
I challenge the Republicans to face up to all the issues that affect
our children, including Social Security, and let us work to resolve
them. Let us see this Congress produce some legislation that does some
good for the Americans instead of deflecting the real true issues by
referring them to a commission.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle present this bill today
for debate to assure the public that this Congress is working--in spite
of our limited floor schedule this year--on long-term problems such as
saving Social Security for our children.
Are the children being used as a shield in this debate because a
frontal assault on Social Security won't work?
As you all remember, the Speaker's comments on Medicare didn't go
over very well. Who could forget the Speaker's comments that Medicare
should wither on the vine? And the Majority Leader's remarks that
Medicare was ``a program he would have no part of in a free world.''
Let's just hope that Americans do become involved in the Social
Security debate because, left to this leadership, there would be no
Social Security program left.
The Majority Leader's position on Social Security is clear. He's been
consistent since his first campaign for the House in 1984 in the
position that Social Security ``should be phased out . . . eventually
we would be able to phase the government programs out and phase the
private programs in.''
The Speaker's think tank, the Progressive and Freedom Foundation,
also promotes some unequivocal views on Social Security. According to a
February, 1995 newsletter, the Speaker's foundation is advocating for
the complete and immediate elimination of Social Security on moral
grounds that it is un-American:
There is an even more important moral question raised by
the government's role as chief provider in old-age. It sends
the unAmerican message that is not your responsibility to
take care of yourself.
It is time for the public to take back from government
responsibility for their futures, including their
retirements. And public policy should encourage the historic
American virtues of hard work and frugality. Now, not in
several decades, is the time to make this change.
What of those hard-working Americans who happen to become disabled,
or those who die early leaving their children with no means of support?
What about the elderly women whose wages never were at a livable rate
to enable them to save for their retirement years?
What would become of them under the leadership's plan to privatize
Social Security?
The leadership would have the public believe that Social Security is
in perilous condition and in need of being totally redesigned. We know
better. Social Security will be solvent through the year 2032. A
payroll tax increase of 1% could alleviate the demographic strain that
we predict for that time. But rather than talk about this or any other
option to strengthen the program, we debate today another commission to
do the work of this Congress. And the leadership claims it promotes
this bill for the children.
I applaud all efforts to work on long-term solutions that would
really benefit our children. But I am cynical that this leadership will
do the right thing on Social Security, even for the kids. Just look at
their track record. They have repeatedly failed to face the tough
issues that threaten our children because of their refusal to ruffle
the feathers of their political constituencies to get the job done.
For example, where has this leadership done to provide healthcare for
all children. What better example of a current need with long-term
implications for both individuals and our economy than finding a way to
cover the 45 million Americans--many millions of them children--who
have no insurance and are not receiving the care they need. Millions of
kids have no preventive healthcare or treatment of small problems, like
ear infections, before they grow to major problems, like hearing loss.
Is this House leadership willing to face their NFIB supporters and
the insurance industry on that one--for the kids?
Where is this leadership on providing managed care safeguards so that
our children will get the healthcare from HMOs that their parents have
paid for instead of denial after denial for reasonable claims made? The
leadership is aware that 230 Members of this House support the lead
managed care reform bill but the leadership fails to bring the measure
up for a vote because of objections from business and the insurance
lobbyists. Kids matter, but not as much as campaign contributions.
How about global warming? Protecting our world environment is a
critical concern for today's children and their children but is this
House leadership willing to buck their major corporate supporters to do
the right thing on the environment? Experience tells us they won't--not
even for our children.
What about this leadership taking action on rules to assure this
Congress is not totally tainted by money? Isn't preserving a clean U.S.
Congress key to assuring a ``government of the people by the people for
the people'' for our children? Yet this House leadership has made a
mockery of House consideration of campaign finance reform and has not
even censured their colleague who plead guilty to criminal campaign
violations. His sentence requires that he stay in Washington so that he
can vote instead of serving time in a federal penitentiary. What
message does this send to our kids about public service in Washington,
DC?
The leadership says they want to take this bill up today to preserve
Social Security for our kids but they ignore our children's need for
quality education. This leadership's action is not just benign
neglect--they are promoting policies right now that will hurt our
children in our emergency supplemental: cutting funds to provide
housing for poor families; refusing to provide food stamp benefits to
legal immigrants families; refusing to provide the funds needed to
enforce Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance bill which passed this House
by vote of 421 to 2. If ever there is an industry that needs oversight,
it is the insurance industry. Prudential's $3 billion restitution to
its customers for fraudulent sales practices is proof of that!
This leadership won't even provide the funds to pay our UN debt to
work for world peace for all children.
In light of this pattern, I surmise that what the leadership is up to
is more of the same pattern. Their attempts to ``preserve'' Social
Security by establishing individual accounts are nothing more than a
gift of hundreds of billions of dollars in business to Wall Street.
That even tops the $50 billion tax break for the tobacco companies that
the leadership attempted last year.
Just as the public wouldn't let them get away with the tobacco tax
break, I'm counting on the public to see through their rhetoric this
time because the facts on Social Security are clear: it's been a
resounding success.
Although privatization of Social Security is the topic de jour in
America, we have an example of an safety net that has worked--and
worked well--for over 60 years. We should focus on maintaining it's
solvency past 2032, not dismantling the program.
Social Security replaces about 40 percent of pre-retirement wages for
average earner, 57 percent for low-earner and 27 percent for a high-
earner. By design, it cushions those who have fewer resources to save.
In 1996, Social Security lifted 11.7 million elderly people out of
poverty.
Two-thirds of elderly receive most of their income from Social
Security. Without Social Security, one-half of older Americans would
live in poverty.
[[Page H2482]]
In addition to the elderly, 3.5 million non-elderly adults and
800,000 children were lifted out of poverty by Social Security in 1996.
Its mandatory nature assures that all workers start their retirement
nest egg with their first paycheck and increase their savings amounts
automatically as their wages increase. Its social insurance component
shields families from a wage earner's untimely death or disability, and
subsidizes the lowest paid wage earners with the earnings of others.
Social Security works because it is more than a savings account for
individuals--it is a commitment that our society make to its members
that there will be a safety net for workers and their families in the
event of their disability or death during wage earnings years.
Individual accounts take care of those who are sophisticated enough
to invest their funds well; they leave the low wage folks, the
unsophisticated, the disabled, the widows with young children out in
the cold. Is that what America is about?
Has the ``responsibility and self-reliance'' mantra erased any trace
of collective responsibility for the less fortunate in our society? I
think not.
I challenge the leadership to face up to all the issues that effect
our children, including Social Security, and to work to resolve these
issues.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
for yielding me this time. I am here to talk about Social Security
today. I want to rise in support of the rule as well as this
legislation, H.R. 3546, legislation which will create a national
dialogue on Social Security, an important effort and frankly what
should be a bipartisan effort.
Over the last 3 years that I have had the privilege of representing
the south side of Chicago and the south suburbs, clearly one of the
most diverse districts in Illinois, city, suburbs and country, I have
heard a pretty clear message from the folks back home when it comes to
Social Security. One of the most clear messages that I have heard is
that as we work to solve the long-term challenges of Social Security,
we need to work in a bipartisan way.
We also need to work to honor the contract of Social Security, not
just for today's seniors but for every generation, the children and
grandchildren of those who are currently collecting Social Security,
frankly people like my mom and dad, my Aunt Mary, my Aunt Eileen, my
Uncle Jack, my Uncle Bob, their wives and families. Social Security is
pretty important. Frankly, it is going to require a team effort and a
bipartisan effort.
Just a few weeks ago, a few of us participated in a national dialogue
with President Clinton in a bipartisan effort to solve the challenges
facing Social Security. The President hosted a town meeting in Kansas
City and he asked five of us to participate in a satellite hookup with
town meetings back in our own districts.
There was a very clear message at the South Holland home for retirees
in South Holland, Illinois, in the south suburbs of Chicago. Three
hundred seniors were gathered there. They were thrilled that they were
going to have an opportunity to communicate directly with the President
of the United States, even though he was not there personally, it was
via a satellite hookup. But they had a pretty clear message when it
came to Social Security.
They said, ``Number one is, Mr. President, let's keep the politics
out of Social Security. If we're going to solve Social Security's
challenges, Republicans and Democrats need to work together. For those
who wish to demagogue and those who wish to play politics, just tell
them to be quiet and work together and to work in a bipartisan way.
Because Social Security is not a Democrat program, it is not a
Republican program. Social Security belongs to the folks back home, the
people who pay the bills and work hard. We want Social Security solved
in a bipartisan way.''
One other very clear point that the seniors at the Holland home in
South Holland, Illinois also made when we communicated with the
President in our bipartisan dialogue on the future of Social Security
is that the seniors refuse to support a tax increase on their children
and grandchildren to save Social Security. Clearly that was a loud
message: No more taxes on their children, no more taxes on working
Americans to fix Social Security. Let us do a better job of managing
the program, because there is a lot out there, and we can do a better
job.
That is why this legislation is so important. We are putting in place
in the statutes a mechanism, a bipartisan commission made up equally of
Republicans, equally of Democrats, which will help solve the problem.
In closing, I just want to say this legislation is so important
because this legislation to establish a national dialogue on Social
Security lays out the basic rules: Solving Social Security must be a
bipartisan effort. Republicans and Democrats should work together.
Every American should be part of this dialogue. Every American has so
much at stake. Every American should be part of the process. Let us
keep the politics out of Social Security. Let us pass this rule. Let us
pass this legislation.
Let me close by saluting the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) for their good work in
keeping this a bipartisan effort.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if I could just take a second to talk
about taking politics out. Only two of these eight Members are going to
be appointed by Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying I agree with a great
deal of what the gentleman from Illinois just said, particularly that
we need a bipartisan approach as we tackle this most important of
issues to the people we represent across the country.
That is why I am forced to rise against the rule. In fact, having a
closed rule that shuts out the minority, or for that matter Members of
the majority, from offering an amendment that might make the process
even better than proposed is itself a partisan majority heavy-handed
tactic that unfortunately has this debate unfold today in perhaps a
less constructive way than might otherwise have been the course.
We are already in a national debate on Social Security. I think
already we have clearly identified the core commitments in the program
that have to be continued no matter what: The survivor benefit, so that
in the untimely death of a breadwinner there continues to be Social
Security support for the spouse and children. The disability benefit,
so that if you get incapacitated and cannot work, you will have income,
you will be able to live. And, thirdly, the retirement benefit that
will pay on an absolutely guaranteed dependable basis just as long as
you may live. Those core assurances are in the program, are what make
this program our greatest program, and they must remain no matter what.
The President, I think, has done us a lot of good in kicking off this
national period of discussion on Social Security. He has had the first
meeting, as was mentioned, in Kansas City just a few weeks ago.
One amendment that I would have offered to the bill regarding the
commission advanced by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means
is its report date. It reports in February of 1999. It slows up the
ability of the next Congress, in my opinion, to get at the Social
Security issue in a constructive, bipartisan way. I wish we could
debate that date, that reporting date this afternoon. Under the closed
rule, we will not be able to.
One thing that will come out late in the debate on the bill that I
think will add significant value to this legislation is offered in the
motion to recommit opportunity that I will be offering. This motion to
recommit will ensure that every penny of surplus is held until
comprehensive resolution of the Social Security reforms is completed.
The President said it first and he said it best when he said save
Social Security first relative to the surplus. I think it is imperative
that the House, every Member of the House, goes on record this
afternoon in pledging their commitment that all of the surplus is held
to save Social Security first. That will be the motion to recommit I
will be offering later.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Just a point of clarification based on the statement made by
the distinguished gentlewoman from New
[[Page H2483]]
York when she pointed out, she stated that there was a difference in
amounts of Republicans and Democrats on this panel.
If we look at section 203 of the legislation, it states four shall be
appointed by the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the
Senate, two by the President and two by the minority in the House and
in the Senate. So it is four and four. I just wanted to point that out.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to hear all of
the debate, but for those who think that we are on the verge of being
able to deal meaningfully with Social Security, I think some of the
comments that have been made down here on the House floor by a couple
of folks who were being very partisan really brings to mind, for the
people in this House who are watching this debate, the difficulty in at
the end of the day being able to solve some of the biggest problems we
have with Social Security.
The purpose of this commission which the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning), and I want to praise him for his leadership, he has been
working on this a long time, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) who
obviously has great interest in Social Security and addressed it as
long as, I think, 10 or 15 years ago, back when he was young, and I
want to thank the two of them for allowing me to be part of this effort
to create this commission, it is designed to do one thing, and that is
to inform the public about what the circumstances are on Social
Security.
My wife and I were on vacation, I guess it was about 2 weeks ago. We
were down in Naples, Florida, and I picked up a newspaper. We had had
all this talk about all the different plans that had been laid out on
Social Security, and the poll that was in the newspaper in Naples,
Florida, indicated only about 15 percent of our senior citizens knew
that there was even any discussion about Social Security. I think it is
very positive that a number of Members of both the House and the Senate
have agreed to discuss this issue, but that is like discussing it in a
vacuum until we are able to engage the entire country.
Now, the young people of this country are very sensitive about us
getting something done. I would urge them for the 500 millionth time to
go to the polls and vote, so that when you have an opinion, someone
will pay attention to you. I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer), there has been some constant mantra of which I have been part
that says there are more young people who believe in seeing a UFO than
a Social Security check. I said, ``That's right, but there are probably
more Martians who will land on Earth than young people who will vote.''
That is why young people much of the time are not listened to.
I want to praise the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and all the people who have engaged
in this discussion on behalf of the younger generation who believe that
they will not get anything.
In terms of our senior citizens, we have to recognize the fact that
there are many senior citizens who have come to depend on Social
Security as necessary for their well-being, and the message we want to
deliver to our seniors today is, ``We are going to live up to our word,
you will be protected,'' and those closest to Social Security will be.
But if we get to the nub of the problem, it is actually fairly
simple. We have a lot of people who are getting benefits and who are
about to get benefits, but we have even more people who are working in
order to pay those benefits. Some people argue that what we ought to do
is to allow people to take some of their payments off the table.
The issue is, if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart)
decides to take his money off the table and put it in a savings account
for himself, how does his mother get her payments? See, that is the
trick. The trick is how do you do the transition to making sure that
Mom and Dad get their benefits and those who are close to getting their
benefits get theirs, while at the same time making sure that the
gentleman from Florida is going to be able to have his benefits?
Now, here is the other rub. Lincoln needs to get his benefits, and
there are a lot of Lincolns. I am in his category. I am a baby boomer.
I am going to retire, Lincoln is going to retire, all the baby boomers
up here; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is going to retire.
There are a whole heck of a lot of us but there are not as many young
people to be able to support us.
So the answer is, we have got to figure out a way so the gentleman
from Florida and the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) can get their benefits by earning more on our
payments, on our investments. We have got to be able to earn more,
because we cannot tell our kids to work around the clock to give us our
program.
{time} 1530
So we are going to have to change Social Security, not privatize it.
We do not want anybody going their own way. There is going to be some
basic program, but we clearly want to give people more control over
their own resources.
Now I have a program that we can get started this year, and it would
divide up the surplus so that every American who currently pays Social
Security taxes would get a piece of that surplus and that we could
invest it the same way Federal employees do. It would be separate, it
would be removed from Social Security but will do a couple of things:
would make us comfortable with the notion that being able to be in
investments like Federal employees are means we will be able to have
higher earnings; secondly, it will make us more comfortable with this
change; thirdly, it will protect our senior citizens; and, fourthly,
really it will keep the politicians from spending the surplus. We ought
to do this now, but in light of all the controversy we got to be
talking across America. Everybody has to understand what is at stake.
Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know the wonderful thing about the
public? And this is not rhetoric, I believe it. The people of our
country are the most selfless people on the face of the earth, and once
they understand the challenge they are willing to dig in and confront
whatever concerns they have and resolve things for the best interests
of America.
And no one generation wants to take from another. In fact, in this
debate we could have a win-win-win. If the budget surplus can continue
to grow, if the economy can continue to be strong, to a large degree we
may be able to solve that transition problem without any root canal. We
do not know yet.
So that is why we need, however, to enter into discussions. We need
to enter into discussions with all Americans so that every single
American who breathes air, who is at one time or another in their life
going to be either paying into Social Security or getting out of Social
Security, understands exactly what the deal is so that we as a Nation
can move together.
Social Security is very unique. It is like the flag. It is like apple
pie. It is a piece and part of America. We need to move it into the
21st century by giving people more control but, at the same time,
reassuring everyone that the system will be there, that it will be
sound and that we will have the courage to make the long-term update to
improve it, to enhance it so that every American can be secure in their
senior years.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a great piece of legislation to pass. It
should not be a Republican-Democrat fight. It is an effort to try to
move all America forward together.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how I feel about this dialogue
commission, to be honest with my colleagues. We want a dialogue that
will be great, will network, will interact, all the other buzz words.
Clearly, it is important to have discussions taking place about Social
Security.
The first premise ought to be Social Security and Medicare are to be
protected at all costs and that we are going to guarantee that Social
Security is going to continue to be there. Certainly a program where
two-thirds of the beneficiaries report that it is their bulk of their
retirement income is vital to this country.
But this discussion also is important, yes, for senior citizens who
are covered
[[Page H2484]]
by Social Security, and, yes, for the workers who are paying into
Social Security so that Social Security will be there when they in turn
retire, but it is important for young people as well. Because Social
Security is how young people keep their independence because they do
not have to take care of their parents and their grandparents like they
did 75 and 100 years ago. Social Security and Medicare do that.
So I hope that this looks at all the options, but I hope in this 3-
hour discussion we are about to have that some of my colleagues in the
Republican leadership could answer some questions for me. Because the
commission is important, but, as I recall, the commission has a report
date of some time in 1999, and yet I just heard the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, a very powerful person in the leadership, talk
about bringing a bill. He would like to bring something to the floor
this year. And I have heard others in the Republican leadership talk
about bringing proposals to the floor this year.
Well, certainly in a program that is as vital as Social Security I
would hope that we are going to truly study this, rather than rush
something through in a session that is to last 40 days and will greatly
impact millions of beneficiaries both today and in the future.
I look at the privatization proposals. Sounds attractive. I love to
be able to make sure that we could continue investing in equities and
have it grow at the present rate.
But look at what the Social Security Commission previously reported.
One of these proposals will cost $2 trillion, $2 trillion to cover
transition costs as we pay off present beneficiaries, as we guarantee
benefits will be there at some scales, some level for future
beneficiaries, $2 trillion added to the deficit at a time we have a
surplus.
That is why I happen to believe that certainly during the lifetime of
this dialogue commission that what we have got going is that we support
what President Clinton said, put the budget surplus into Social
Security and we save Social Security first.
I do hope that some will come to the floor and ease my mind on what
the legislative schedule is going to be on Social Security this year.
All of us want to work on Social Security in a responsible way, but I
do not want to be seeing this Congress trying to pass something,
particularly trying to pass something before its own commission that it
created comes back. What is the purpose? What is the point?
So, Mr. Speaker, that is something I think we ought to be looking at.
In terms of privatization, there are a number of questions that have
to be asked. Hopefully, this can begin that process.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a healthy dialogue that
we have here today.
As my colleagues know, the very first time I heard of Social Security
problems was when I first came in Congress. A group came to me and
said, ``Hey, Duke, do you know anything about the notch?'' And
everybody that is in this body knows about the notch babies and the
problems that it has precluded for most of us.
Also, I do not believe that Social Security was ever meant to be a
retirement system, but for many people, and not so many in my district
as we have in other districts, but many of them, especially in our
lower income, Social Security is all they have, and I think it would be
healthy to look at a dialogue in which we enable people to have more
than Social Security.
I thought it was wrong in 1993 when the President increased the tax
on Social Security because I think we do things backward in this
country. I think we tax annuities for savings. I think we ought to give
an incentive for taxing annuities, for, excuse me, for saving for our
chronologically gifted years and one's time.
We tax work. I think we should not tax work, but we ought to give
incentive to work.
But if we look, we ought to have a national dialogue in which we can
allow people to plan not only for retirement, to protect the Social
Security. And the first thing we did is say, ``Keep your hands off the
Social Security Trust Fund. Because any time you run in a deficit, then
you have to put an IOU into that account and draw it back. And the only
way you can ever replace it is when you have a surplus like we may have
coming up, which really isn't a surplus because we use those accounts
to balance the budget,'' and that is wrong, too, I think.
But, yes, we ought to save Social Security and protect it as it is,
but the dialog should be, how can we make it better?
With the gift of compound interest, instead of ending up with one's
investment of, say, like $175,000, one can end up with almost a million
dollars. They can draw $60,000 a year just on the interest. I mean,
that is worth. And I am not saying that is the way to do it, but is
that not worth a dialogue with our chronologically gifted folks, with
the baby boomers and with the pre-baby boomers to see if we can give
them more than just what we have given? It is not enough, and too many
people are on a fixed income.
I thank my colleagues for engaging in the dialogue and on the issue.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, as one that is going to leave this place
shortly, I certainly hope that we find some way to shore up Social
Security. But I would like to not correct one thing but make a comment
about what my colleague from California said, about in 1993 when we
passed a budget and we added some tax we counted 85 percent of Social
Security, but it was just for a certain group. And I would remind the
gentleman it was Ronald Reagan who had it at 50 percent, so that
everybody has a little bit culpability there. But I think we ought to
be very careful when we start talking about Social Security.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is wrong for either President
to increase, and my whole point is let us not tax annuities in savings,
let us give incentive.
Mr. HEFNER. Okay. Is that all?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, we better be very careful in Social
Security. Now we are talking about people's Social Security being
taxed.
Now the people in my district, the majority of them that count on
Social Security are not people that pay any tax. These are people that
worked in textile mills for 40 or 50 years and their husband and wife
worked for 40 years and retired on $18 a month pension from their jobs.
So they have to count, absolutely count, on Social Security and
Medicare for their survival. That is the reason they get so upset.
Now I do not have any problems with talking about something to make,
where people can make an investment in a private account of whatever,
but we do not talk about Social Security as it really is. And at my age
I have people in my district and relatives that when their families had
a catastrophe in their early lives and they had small children and one
of the spouses had no skills, could not work, Social Security comes in
and they get some benefits until these kids finish school. That is an
insurance policy.
Nobody ever talks much about the benefits of Social Security, and
people could not go out and buy that protection for what they pay into
Social Security, and that is what it was set up for.
So before we start fiddling too much in privatization of Social
Security, we better be sure what we are doing. Because there is an
awful lot of people, some 40 million people out there, senior citizens,
that enjoy some independence because of Social Security and Medicare,
and it would be an absolute travesty for us to do anything that causes
them any more turmoil in their life.
I think Social Security was one of the greatest things that we have
ever established in this country. And the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget talked about a budget surplus, and I would just remind the
House that in 1993 we passed, without a single Republican vote, a
package adding such people as Mr. Greenspan, certainly not a liberal
economist, and people have given credit for that, for this economy
staying on track for all these years and for interest rates to be low,
that enable us to get to this balanced budget and to have a surplus.
[[Page H2485]]
But, in my view, when we owe $2 or $3 or $4 trillion, we do not have
a surplus, and it does not take but just a small downturn in this
economy for this so-called surplus to turn into a real deficit again.
So we best be very careful what we do and how we proceed on Social
Security, because it is so violent to all of our forefathers.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me.
I hope everybody might be as excited as I am about moving ahead with
a solution to Social Security. I introduced my first Social Security
bill when I arrived in 1993 and then three years ago in the 104th
session and again last year I introduced H.R. 3082 and H.R. 3560, the
only bills, by the way, that have been scored by the Social Security
Administration to keep Social Security solvent for the next 75 years.
It seems to me that, as we develop a national dialogue, as we inform
the American people of what the situation is, there are about four or
five things that we need as our guidelines: number one, the solution
needs to be bipartisan; number two, we keep every possible solution on
the table so that we can evaluate all of them. No. 3, that we do not
reduce the benefit for current or near term retirees. Four, that any
proposal for investment contain a ``safety net'' of guaranteed minimum
benefits. And finally, that we do not play politics with this important
issue. The danger that I see in an election year is the demagoguing of
particular solution.
{time} 1545
I will fight the demagoguing of solutions by Republicans or
Democrats. Let us keep everything on the table as we develop this
national dialogue over the next ten months.
Mr. Speaker, I have given over 200 speeches in my district, around
the State of Michigan and around the country on Social Security. I
still find many people that believe if Congress would keep their hands
out of the Social Security Trust Fund, that everything would be okay.
In that Trust Fund is about $600 billion; $600 billion in relation to
what we spend every year on Social Security would last about a year and
7 months. Even so, we have to make sure that we pay it back; and we
stop using the extra money coming in to the Trust Fund to mask the
deficit.
Let us save all the unified budget surplus for Social Security. But
again the actuaries at Social Security today estimated that using all
of the surpluses for the next eighteen years would solve less than 20%
of the problem. Social Security solvency is a very serious problem with
an estimated actuarial debt or unfunded mandate of $3 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the fact that we are going to bring
this issue to light talking about facts not fiction. Current and future
retirees deserve our honesty.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, each time we return to our respective districts, I think
there is one consistent question that is raised by young and old alike,
and that is, what is going on with Social Security. In fact, at a
recent meeting with my retired teachers, they not only asked what is
going on with Social Security, but because they are peculiarly in a
State like Texas, they were concerned about not getting Social Security
because of the unique teacher retirement system.
They also asked about PSAs, personal savings accounts, and I frankly
told them that the one thing that I would be concerned about any sort
of program that would siphon off dollars is for those seniors who
depend solely upon Social Security. I think this particular chart that
says Social Security is the most important source of income from the
elderly shows that of any other source, 40 percent of the elderly's
income, our moms and dads, is from Social Security.
So certainly today's discussion is important. I do not think,
however, a closed rule is the right direction to go, because yes, we
have 3 hours, but I do not think we have the openness for opportunity
for different approaches to this particular legislation.
It is clearly true that the board of trustees for Social Security has
projected that on an average over the next 75 years, its expenditure
will exceed income by 17 percent. However, we have just gotten a bit of
good news because we now know that it will be solvent until 2032. But
Social Security is important, and although the President has already
gone forward with the beginnings of a dialogue that he announced in
Kansas City, I think it is important that Congress join it.
But let it be said that the President has already started this
process of dialogue. It is important, however, that we not use this
legislation to bicker and to generate confusion, because what we need
most of all is the coming together of a variety of points. The previous
speaker already indicated how many legislative initiatives he has
offered. How many other Members can rise on the floor of the House and
talk about efforts that they have engaged in to save Social Security?
There will come a point where we will not have to or cannot stand any
more making efforts to save Social Security, we will actually have to
start saving Social Security. When we hit a crisis and 40 percent of
our senior citizen population no longer has the income to survive, then
we will realize that talk was truly cheap.
On the personal savings account, I do not think we should start
fixing Social Security until we know what the problems are with Social
Security, other than the fact that it is moving toward insolvency. I do
not know if PSAs are the way. Certainly many are inquiring about PSAs,
but if it cripples the Social Security system, then that is not the way
to go.
The Social Security system, when it started, was a curious vehicle.
We have found, however, that it has been the saving source of keeping
many of our senior citizens away from the brink of poverty. Therefore,
we must look at it as the sacredness that it is. I believe that these
discussions can go forward if they go forward collaboratively and
cooperatively, because all of us will be challenged to save Social
Security for America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to make comment on H.R. 3546, a bill that would
begin a National Dialogue on Social Security. The need for a dialogue
is evidenced by the fact that the Board of Trustees for the Social
Security has projected that on average over the next 75 years its
expenditures will exceed its income by 17% and that by 2032 its trust
funds will be depleted.
Because of this projected shortfall it is important that this
Congress and this Administration does all that they can to prepare this
government to meet the challenge of providing retirement benefits to
seniors in the next century.
We know that the projected income rates for the Old Age, Survivors
and Disability Insurance Social Security ``trust funds'' will be 13.33
percent with a projected cost to the Social Security Trust Funds of
15.52 percent leaving a 2.19 percent shortfall over the next 75 years.
This bill creates an eight-member bipartisan panel to recommend long-
range changes to keep Social Security from going bankrupt, and directs
the president and Congress to convene a national dialogue on the future
of Social Security with help from members of private public interest
groups.
There are those who say that there is no need to face the issue now,
given the uncertainty of long-range forecasting. While others believe
that the longer corrective action is delayed, the more drastic it will
need to be. Although the 1996 Social Security Advisory Council, which
issued a report on how to deal with the problem, was unable to agree on
a specific plan, one of the issues its members did agree upon was that
the sooner action was taken the better.
There are some concerns with the approach in this bill. This bill has
the potential of duplicating the current national discussion about the
future of Social Security which the President began in Kansas City and
will continue through the end of 1998. This puts the process set up in
the bill in competition with the process already underway.
What we do today may aid in the long term solvency of Social
Security, but we must act in a timely and thoughtful manner. The bill
directs that the House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader would
appoint four members of the commission while two will be appointed
[[Page H2486]]
by the president, and two by the House and Senate Minority Leaders. The
bill requires the commission to report its legislative and
administrative recommendations to Congress and the White House by
February 1, 1999.
This bill has the potential of involving each Congressional District
represented in this body. The bill requires each member of the
Congress, ``to the extent practicable,'' to develop, with grassroots
organizations and other constituency groups within the member's
district, ongoing systems of communication through the Internet and
other electronic capabilities to assure the widest possible degree of
receipt of public opinion.
I look forward to our continuing this dialogue on Social Security.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time
remaining on both sides of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. White).
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, it was not too long ago that those of us here in this
House were laboring under what I would like to say was a little bit of
an illusion. There was a time when we thought it was really our job to
solve all of the problems that were facing our Nation. Perhaps even
worse, we thought we knew how to solve all the problems facing our
Nation, and that if we just came up with the solution and got the votes
for it, all of those problems will be solved. And I dare say, there are
some people in this House who still believe that today.
But the fact is what this bill is about is a totally different
approach, because what this bill is designed to do is to create the
largest public debate in our Nation's history about how we should
handle a particular problem. It is not designed for Washington, D.C.,
to teach everybody else what to do, it is designed for Washington,
D.C., to learn in as many ways as we can what the people around the
country think and what solutions they might have in mind for us for
ways to fix this problem. It is a much different approach, it is a much
better approach, and if we take it seriously, we will come up with a
much better solution to our country's problems.
One of the things I am particularly pleased about in this bill is
that it uses some new tools that we have not had in the past that are
now at our disposal to find out what people think and what people know
about some of these problems. Let me just go through a few of these,
because I think probably even some of our fellow Members are not aware
of them.
Number one, we are going to create a national Web site for every
citizen with access to a computer can then hook into this Web site and
learn a lot of different things. One of the things that they will be
able to do is to put their Social Security number or some financial
information in a little interactive program and find out what their own
personal retirement situation will look like under various proposals
that we are adopting. They would be able to figure out how much they
would have under the current Social Security system. They would be able
to figure out how much they would have under competing proposals, about
how different things would work. They will be able to gain a much
better understanding about the issues that we are talking about than
they would in any other way. I think that is a positive thing.
A couple of the other tools that we are going to have available at
our disposal, we will have the ability to have moderated chat rooms so
people can participate by computer in discussions of these issues. We
will have a national town hall meeting on one or more occasions where
people can tie in by modem and have a discussion of the issues. We will
have an ability for them to go through an exercise on their computer so
they can see what the impact on the Federal budget would be of taking
one approach or another. So I think there are lots of things that we
are going to learn from this process.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at the process that this
bill proposes. I think if we take it seriously, if we are open to it,
if we really do listen to what the American people tell us about this
process, we will come up with a much better solution than we otherwise
would have had.
So I congratulate the authors of this bill on putting this together,
and I urge the House to pass it, and the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is such a critically
important program to every American that it ought to be examined from
time to time, and we periodically ought to do whatever may be necessary
to strengthen it to make sure that it continues to last.
This Democratic program, the invention of Franklin Roosevelt, has
served several generations of Americans extremely well, and it will
continue to do so so long as we nourish the economic conditions that
are necessary to sustain it.
We learned something very important about Social Security just today.
We learned that Social Security is directly tied to the national
economy. When the economy is growing and doing well, when it is growing
at a rate of 2\1/2\ percent or greater, Social Security does well. When
we tighten up the economy in the ways that the Federal Reserve Board
has attempted to do, for example, in some recent years, then we
threaten Social Security as we threaten other public programs and
threaten the economic health of all Americans as well.
So the first lesson that we ought to dictate to any commission that
ought to be examining Social Security, and parenthetically let me say I
am a little bit wary about these Social Security Commissions because
the last one we had headed up by the now Chairman of the Federal
Reserve did not do very much to save Social Security, and in some ways
it weakened it. But that aside, when we examine Social Security, we
ought to do so in a way that recognizes the symbiotic relationship
between Social Security and the national economy. Having an economy
that is based upon low interest rates, interest rates now are too high,
the Federal Reserve should lower them, is not a good thing. A national
economy that is growing at 2.5 to 3 percent will be an economy that has
a strong Social Security system.
There are people here in this House who from time to time have raised
issues that would not have strengthened Social Security, but would
have, in fact, weakened it. We know that there have been discussions by
the leadership on the other side to phase out Social Security, to raise
the level of retirement age, to reduce the level of benefits as
inflation increases over the years. Those things ought to be avoided.
Social Security is a strong system. What it needs is a strong
economy. We need to be investing appropriately in the right kind of
education for the next generation to make sure that they are capable of
holding the kinds of jobs that provide the right kinds of salaries that
will allow the economy to continue to grow.
So the first thing that we have to recognize is what we were told in
the news that was released today. A strong economy is essential to the
maintenance of the Social Security system. If we want the Social
Security system to remain strong, it will do so, and we need to make
sure that the economy is strong, and with a strong economy, Social
Security will remain strong as well.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation because it
is unnecessary, costly, and may be designed to lead the Congress to
take more radical steps than are necessary to fix the relatively small
and manageable problem facing Social Security.
Yesterday, the Social Security trustees revised their economic
projections to show that Social Security is actually in better shape
than they thought. The Trust Fund will be solvent through the year
2029. The trustees pushed back the projected insolvency date by 3 years
and included other corrections to their extremely low projections of
the past. In fact, the trustees yesterday admitted that there would be
almost $1
[[Page H2487]]
trillion more money in the system in 2020 than they said there would be
last year, and they admitted that the long-term shortfall in the system
is less than 2.2 percent of taxable payroll.
These revisions, however, are still overly pessimistic because they
do not include the latest adjustments to the Consumer Price Index. They
assume a long-term growth rate of only 1.3 percent, despite recent
growth rates averaging 3 percent and 3.8 percent last year, and they
assume that unemployment can never be below 6 percent, even though it
has been about 4.5 percent for the last couple of years.
So not only is the problem facing Social Security small and
manageable, but it is even smaller and more manageable than the
trustees admit. It appears that the shortfall can be dealt with without
raising the retirement age, without cutting benefits, and without
radically changing the system with risky privatization schemes.
While I respect the desire to create a bipartisan body to help devise
a comprehensive solution, I do not think we need a new blue ribbon
commission to come between the American people and its elected
representatives, after the last one we had 2 years ago. A national
dialogue is already under way. We should let the system work, have the
appropriate hearings and markups, and listen to our constituents, not
some artificial panel of experts.
I also have more than a little suspicion that the unstated purpose of
this resolution is to create a commission that will give an official
blessing to the real and, I believe, pernicious and destructive goal of
the exercise: Privatizing the Social Security system and shifting all
of the risk from the government's budget to the shoulders of
individuals, again risking abject poverty in old age.
{time} 1600
I hope that this is not the case. I hope that what is coming here is
not a step to whipping up hysteria based on the false notion that the
Social Security system is in imminent crisis, that it is going
bankrupt, then hiding behind a commission and coming out with a radical
scheme to destabilize the whole system.
Mr. Speaker, we should have faith that the ongoing debate will yield
the information we need to forge sound legislation to enable Social
Security to meet the challenges of the next century. We should also
take steps to ensure the debate starts with a sound assessment of the
problems facing Social Security, a small, manageable problem; a problem
of less than 2.2 percent of taxable payroll; a problem that can be
solved without shifting the risks from the budget of the Government of
the United States to the shoulders of individuals and can be solved
without increasing the retirement age, without reducing COLAs and
without reducing benefits. It can be solved in fairly easy ways that we
do not see in the public debate. I distrust the composition of the
commission.
One final thing: It is an outrage, when we are facing a shortfall in
the Social Security system, this bill calls for financing the
commission by taking money away from the trust fund and giving it to
the commission. Leave the money in the trust fund for the
beneficiaries.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the rule and
in favor of House Resolution 3546.
Yesterday the board of trustees of the Social Security program issued
a report stating that the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted
by the year 2032. Mr. Speaker, we have heard all sorts of anecdotes
that younger Americans believe they have less of a chance of cashing a
Social Security check than they do of seeing aliens land on earth.
These stories are somewhat humorous, but they foreshadow an impending
crisis that is anything but funny.
We as a Congress can no longer afford to sit on our hands. We owe it
to this generation and the next to secure our Social Security system
and enhance retirement opportunities. Further, Americans must be
encouraged to save and invest in their own retirement. That is why
Congress should continue taking steps to provide individuals with more
savings and investment opportunities.
In the meantime, Americans want to discuss the flaws within the
current Social Security system and the options that exist for
maintaining its solvency. House Resolution 3546 is vital to ensuring
that all Americans have a voice in the upcoming debate.
In the midst of this national discussion, Congress will be expected
to make exciting decisions to strengthen Social Security. The ideas of
our constituents, both young and old, will help us make the right
decisions for all of us.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and
House Resolution 3546.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic that some Members on the other
side of the aisle have questioned the fairness of the rule with which
we bring forth this legislation, when an amendment was authorized by
the rule as long as it was preprinted in the Record, an amendment was
authorized by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee,
and no such amendment appears in the Congressional Record. I think that
speaks for itself.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fair rule. The underlying legislation is
important to the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 410, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3546) to provide for a national dialogue on Social
Security and to establish the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range
Social Security Reform, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The bill is considered read
for amendment.
The text of H.R. 3546 is as follows:
H.R. 3546
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Dialogue on Social
Security Act of 1998''.
TITLE I--NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL DIALOGUE.
As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the President, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Senate shall
jointly convene a National Dialogue on the old-age,
survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of
the Social Security Act. The purpose of the National Dialogue
shall be to engage, by means of regional conferences and
national Internet exchanges, the American public in
understanding the current program, the problems it faces, and
the need to find solutions that will be workable for all
generations and to generate comments, suggestions, and
recommendations from the citizens for social security reform.
SEC. 102. FACILITATORS.
The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101
shall operate under the administration and coordination of
two Facilitators, one of whom shall be appointed by the
President and one of whom shall be appointed jointly by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority
Leader of the Senate. The Facilitators shall be appointed
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The Facilitators shall be appointed from among individuals
known for their integrity, impartiality, and good judgment,
who are, by reason of their education, experience, and
attainments, exceptionally qualified to perform the duties of
such office. The Facilitators may serve until termination of
the National Dialogue under section 108.
SEC. 103. PLANS FOR NATIONAL DIALOGUE.
After consultation with the President, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the
Senate, the Facilitators shall transmit the final plans for
the development and operations of the National Dialogue to
the President and each House of the Congress not later than
60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 104. DIALOGUE COUNCIL.
(a) Establishment and Duties.--There is established a
Dialogue Council. It shall be the duty of the Dialogue
Council to advise the Facilitators in the development and
operations of the National Dialogue.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Dialogue Council shall be composed of
36 of the individuals nominated pursuant to paragraph (2), of
whom--
(A) 9 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives,
[[Page H2488]]
(B) 9 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate, and
(C) 18 shall be appointed by the President.
To the extent practicable, the members shall include both men
and women and shall be selected so as to ensure that
individuals born before 1946, individuals born in or after
1946 and before 1961, and individuals born in or after 1961
are equally represented within the membership.
(2) Nominations.--Individuals shall be appointed under
paragraph (1) from a group of 54 individuals, consisting of
individuals nominated in sets of 3 each, respectively, by
each of the following 18 private organizations:
(A) the American Association of Retired Persons;
(B) the United Seniors Association;
(C) the AFL-CIO;
(D) the National Hispanic Council on Aging;
(E) the Older Women's League;
(F) the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans;
(G) the Cato Institute;
(H) the Employee Benefit Research Institute;
(I) Americans Discuss Social Security;
(J) the Third Millennium;
(K) the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce;
(L) Americans for Hope, Growth, and Opportunity;
(M) the National Federation of Independent Businesses;
(N) the Concord Coalition;
(O) the National Caucus and Center on Black Aged;
(P) the Campaign for America's Future;
(Q) the Heritage Foundation; and
(R) the Brookings Institution.
(c) Administration.--The Dialogue Council shall meet at the
call of the Facilitators. The Dialogue Council shall not be
subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members of the
Council shall receive no pay, allowances, or benefits by
reason of their service on the Council (other than any
private funding of costs pursuant to section 105).
(d) Termination.--The Dialogue Council shall terminate upon
the termination of the National Dialogue under section 108.
SEC. 105. PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101
shall operate by means of sponsorship by private, nonpartisan
organizations of conferences which shall be convened in
localities across the Nation, which shall be geographically
representative of the Nation as a whole, and which shall
provide for participation which is representative of all age
groups in the population. The Facilitators shall encourage
and coordinate the sponsorship by such organizations of the
National Dialogue and shall ensure that all costs relating to
the functions of the Facilitators and the Dialogue Council
under sections 104 and 107 and not referred to in section 109
are borne by such organizations or, as appropriate, by other
private contributions.
SEC. 106. CONSTITUENCY INPUT.
(a) In General.--In order to assure that the widest
possible degree of opinion is received by Members of Congress
regarding the future of the old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance program under title II of the Social
Security Act, each Member shall, to the extent practicable,
and as soon as possible after the date of the enactment of
this Act, develop with grassroots organizations and other
constituency groups within the Member's district ongoing
systems of communication through the use of the Internet and
other available electronic capabilities. Such groups shall
include, but not be limited to, key opinion leaders,
journalists, business representatives, union members, and
students of all age groups.
(b) Internet Dialogue Coordination.--
(1) Internet dialogue coordinator.--The Facilitators shall
appoint an Internet Dialogue Coordinator who shall assist
Members of Congress in establishing systems of communication
in their Congressional districts as required under subsection
(a). In carrying out the Coordinator's duties, the
Coordinator shall--
(A) assist Members' offices in establishing local websites,
moderated chat rooms, and threaded newsgroups,
(B) assist Members in coordinating a national electronic
town hall meeting on the future of social security,
(C) advise Members regarding the most effective
technological means for reaching out to constituent groups
for purposes of this section, and
(D) work with other Internet-oriented groups to broaden the
reach of Internet capability for purposes of this section.
(2) Internet advisory board.--
(A) Establishment.--There is established an Internet
Advisory Board. It shall be the duty of the Board to advise
the Internet Dialogue Coordinator in the most appropriate and
effective means of employing the Internet under this section.
(B) Membership.--The Board shall consist of 3 members
appointed by the Facilitators from among individuals
recognized for their expertise relating to the Internet.
(C) Administration.--The Board shall meet at the call of
the Internet Dialogue Coordinator. The Board shall not be
subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members of the
Board shall receive no pay, allowances, or benefits by reason
of their service on the Board, except that any member of the
Board who is not otherwise an officer or employee of the
Federal Government shall receive travel expenses and per diem
in lieu of subsistence in accordance with sections 5702 and
5703 of title 5, United States Code.
(D) Termination.--The Board shall terminate upon the
termination of the National Dialogue under section 108.
(c) Reports.--The Internet Dialogue Coordinator shall
periodically report in writing to the Facilitators the
results of the systems of communication established pursuant
to this section.
SEC. 107. REPORTS.
From time to time during the National Dialogue, the
Facilitators shall catalog, summarize, and submit in writing
to the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security
Reform the comments, suggestions, and recommendations
generated by the participants in conferences conducted and
constituent input received from Members' offices under the
National Dialogue.
SEC. 108. TERMINATION.
The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101
shall terminate January 1, 1999.
SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated, from amounts
otherwise available in the general fund of the Treasury, such
sums as are necessary to provide for the compensation of the
Facilitators and to carry out the provisions of section
106.
TITLE II--BIPARTISAN PANEL TO DESIGN LONG-RANGE SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF PANEL.
There is established a panel to be known as the Bipartisan
Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security Reform (in this
title referred to as the ``Panel'').
SEC. 202. DUTIES OF PANEL.
The Panel shall design a single set of legislative and
administrative recommendations for long-range reforms for
restoring the solvency of the social security system and
maintaining retirement income security in the United States.
SEC. 203. MEMBERSHIP OF THE PANEL.
(a) Number and Appointment.--The Panel shall be composed of
eight members, of whom--
(1) four shall be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the
Senate,
(2) two shall be appointed by the President, and
(3) two shall be appointed jointly by the Minority Leader
of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader of
the Senate.
The members of the Panel shall consist of individuals who are
of recognized standing and distinction, who can represent the
multiple generations who have a stake in the viability of the
system, and who possess a demonstrated capacity to discharge
the duties imposed on the Panel. At least one of the members
shall be appointed from individuals representing the
interests of employees, and at least one of the members shall
be appointed from individuals representing the interests of
employers.
(b) Co-Chairs.--The officials referred to in paragraphs (1)
through (3) of subsection (a) shall designate two of the
members of the Panel to serve as Co-Chairs of the Panel, who
shall jointly chair the Panel, determine its duties, and
supervise its staff.
(c) Terms of Appointment.--The members of the Panel shall
serve for the life of the Panel.
(d) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Panel shall not affect the
power of the remaining members to execute the duties of the
Panel, but any such vacancy shall be filled in the same
manner in which the original appointment was made.
SEC. 204. PROCEDURES.
(a) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet at the call of its Co-
Chairs or a majority of its members.
(b) Quorum.--A quorum shall consist of 5 members of the
Panel, except that a lesser number may conduct a hearing
under subsection (c).
(c) Hearings and Other Activities.--For the purpose of
carrying out its duties, the Panel may hold such hearings and
undertake such other activities as the Panel determines to be
necessary to carry out its duties. Meetings held in order to
conduct fact finding, as determined by the Co-Chairs, shall
be open to the public. Meetings held in order to develop
policy, as determined by the Co-Chairs, may be held in
executive session, notwithstanding the Federal Advisory
Committee Act and any other provision of law.
(d) Obtaining Information.--Upon request of the Panel, the
Commissioner of Social Security and the head of any other
agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall
furnish information deemed necessary by the Panel to enable
it to carry out its duties.
SEC. 205. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Compensation.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
members of the Panel shall receive no additional pay,
allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the
Panel.
(b) Travel Expenses and Per Diem.--Each member of the Panel
who is not a present Member of the Congress and who is not
otherwise an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall receive travel expenses and per diem in lieu of
subsistence in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code.
(c) Staff and Support Services.--
(1) Staff director.--
(A) Appointment.--The Panel shall appoint a staff director
of the Panel.
[[Page H2489]]
(B) Compensation.--The staff director shall be paid at a
rate not to exceed the rate established for level III of the
Executive Schedule.
(2) Staff.--The Panel shall appoint such additional
personnel as the Panel determines to be necessary.
(3) Applicability of civil service laws.--The staff
director and other members of the staff of the Panel shall be
appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and shall be paid without regard to the provisions
of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title
relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
(4) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the
Panel, the staff director may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code.
(d) Contract Authority.--The Panel may contract with and
compensate government and private agencies or persons for
items and services, without regard to section 3709 of the
Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
(e) Physical Facilities.--The Architect of the Capitol, in
consultation with the appropriate entities in the legislative
branch, shall locate and provide suitable office space for
the operation of the Panel on a reimbursable basis. The
facilities shall serve as the headquarters of the Panel and
shall include all necessary equipment and incidentals
required for the proper functioning of the Panel.
(f) Detail of Federal Employees.--Upon the request of the
Panel, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a
reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to
the Panel to assist the Panel in carrying out its duties.
(g) Use of Mails.--The Panel may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as
Federal agencies and shall, for purposes of the frank, be
considered a commission of Congress as described in section
3215 of title 39, United States Code.
(h) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Panel, the Architect of the Capitol shall provide to the
Panel on a reimbursable basis such administrative support
services as the Panel may request.
(i) Printing.--For purposes of costs relating to printing
and binding, including the cost of personnel detailed from
the Government Printing Office, the Panel shall be deemed to
be a committee of the Congress.
SEC. 206. REPORT.
Not later than February 1, 1999, the Panel shall submit to
the President, the Committee on Ways and Means of the House
of Representatives, and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate a report which shall contain a detailed statement of
the findings and conclusions of the Panel, including the set
of recommendations required under section 202. The report
shall include only those recommendations of the Panel that
receive the approval of at least 6 members of the Panel,
including both Co-Chairs.
SEC. 207. TERMINATION.
The Panel shall terminate March 31, 1999.
SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund such sums as are
necessary to carry out the purposes of this title, but not to
exceed $2,000,000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 410, the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill,
modified by the amendments printed in House Report 105-498, is adopted.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute,
modified by the amendments printed in House Report 105-498, is as
follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Dialogue on Social
Security Act of 1998''.
TITLE I--NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON SOCIAL SECURITY
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL DIALOGUE.
As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the President, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Senate shall
jointly convene a National Dialogue on the old-age,
survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of
the Social Security Act. The purpose of the National Dialogue
shall be to engage, by means of regional conferences and
national Internet exchanges, the American public in
understanding the current program, the problems it faces, and
the need to find solutions that will be workable for all
generations and to generate comments, suggestions, and
recommendations from the citizens for social security reform.
SEC. 102. FACILITATORS.
The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101
shall operate under the administration and coordination of
two Facilitators, one of whom shall be appointed by the
President, in consultation with the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives and the Minority Leader of the
Senate, and one of whom shall be appointed jointly by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority
Leader of the Senate. The Facilitators shall be appointed
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The Facilitators shall be appointed from among individuals
known for their integrity, impartiality, and good judgment,
who are, by reason of their education, experience, and
attainments, exceptionally qualified to perform the duties of
such office. The Facilitators may serve until termination of
the National Dialogue under section 108.
SEC. 103. PLANS FOR NATIONAL DIALOGUE.
After consultation with the President, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the
Minority Leader of the Senate, the Facilitators shall
transmit the final plans for the development and operations
of the National Dialogue to the President and each House of
the Congress not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 104. DIALOGUE COUNCIL.
(a) Establishment and Duties.--There is established a
Dialogue Council. It shall be the duty of the Dialogue
Council to advise the Facilitators in the development and
operations of, and to promote nationwide participation in the
National Dialogue.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Dialogue Council shall be composed of
36 of the individuals nominated pursuant to paragraph (2), of
whom--
(A) 9 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives,
(B) 4 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives,
(C) 9 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate,
(D) 4 shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the
Senate, and
(E) 10 shall be appointed by the President.
To the extent practicable, the members shall include both men
and women and shall be selected so as to ensure that
individuals born before 1946, individuals born in or after
1946 and before 1961, and individuals born in or after 1961
are equally represented within the membership.
(2) Nominations.--Individuals shall be appointed under
paragraph (1) from a group of 54 individuals, consisting of
individuals nominated in sets of 2 each, respectively, by
each of the following 27 private organizations:
(A) American Association of Retired Persons;
(B) United Seniors Association;
(C) American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations;
(D) The National Hispanic Council on Aging;
(E) The Older Women's League;
(F) Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans;
(G) Cato Institute;
(H) Employee Benefit Research Institute;
(I) Americans Discuss Social Security;
(J) Third Millennium;
(K) The U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce;
(L) Americans for Hope, Growth, and Opportunity;
(M) National Federation of Independent Businesses;
(N) The Concord Coalition;
(O) National Caucus and Center on Black Aged;
(P) Campaign for America's Future;
(Q) The Heritage Foundation;
(R) The Brookings Institution;
(S) The 2030 Center;
(T) National Council of Senior Citizens;
(U) Center on Budget and Policy Priorities;
(V) National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare;
(W) United States Chamber of Commerce;
(X) Pension Rights Center;
(Y) Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities and
(Z) National Association of Manufacturers; and
(AA) National Association for the Self-Employed.
(c) Administration.--The Dialogue Council shall meet at the
call of the Facilitators. The Dialogue Council shall be
subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members of the
Council shall receive no pay, allowances, or benefits by
reason of their service on the Council (other than any
private funding of costs pursuant to section 105).
(d) Termination.--The Dialogue Council shall terminate upon
the termination of the National Dialogue under section 108.
SEC. 105. PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.
The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101
shall operate by means of sponsorship by private, nonpartisan
organizations of conferences which shall be convened in
localities across the Nation, which shall be geographically
representative of the Nation as a whole, and which shall
provide for participation which is representative of all age
groups in the population. The Facilitators shall encourage
and coordinate the sponsorship by such organizations of the
National Dialogue and shall ensure that all costs relating to
the functions of the Facilitators and the Dialogue Council
under sections 104 and 107 and not referred to in section 109
are borne by such organizations or, as appropriate, by other
private contributions. The source and amounts of
contributions made pursuant to this section shall be made
available to the public.
SEC. 106. CONSTITUENCY INPUT.
(a) In General.--In order to assure that the widest
possible degree of opinion is received by Members of Congress
regarding the future of the old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance program under title II of the Social
Security Act, each Member may, in connection with the
National Dialogue, develop with grassroots organizations and
other constituency groups within the Member's district
ongoing systems of communication through the use of the
Internet and other available electronic capabilities. Such
groups include, but are not limited to, key opinion leaders,
journalists, business representatives, union members, and
students of all age groups.
[[Page H2490]]
(b) Internet Dialogue Coordination.--
(1) Internet dialogue coordinator.--The Facilitators shall
appoint an Internet Dialogue Coordinator who shall assist
Members of Congress in establishing systems of communication
as described in subsection (a). In carrying out the
Coordinator's duties, the Coordinator shall--
(A) establish a national dialogue web site,
(B) assist Members' offices in establishing connections to
the national dialogue web site, which may include, but is not
limited to, personal financial planning, Federal budget
impact exercises, ongoing public opinion tallies regarding
legislative proposals, moderated chat rooms, and threaded
newsgroups.
(C) assist Members in coordinating a national electronic
town hall meeting on the future of social security,
(D) advise Members regarding the most effective
technological means for reaching out to constituent groups
for purposes of this section, and
(E) work with other Internet-oriented groups to broaden the
reach of Internet capability for purposes of this section.
(2) Internet advisory board.--
(A) Establishment.--There is established an Internet
Advisory Board. It shall be the duty of the Board to advise
the Internet Dialogue Coordinator in the most appropriate and
effective means of employing the Internet under this section.
(B) Membership.--The Board shall consist of 3 members
appointed by the Facilitators from among individuals
recognized for their expertise relating to the Internet.
(C) Administration.--The Board shall meet at the call of
the Internet Dialogue Coordinator. The Board shall be subject
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Members of the Board
shall receive no pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of
their service on the Board, except that any member of the
Board who is not otherwise an officer or employee of the
Federal Government shall receive travel expenses and per diem
in lieu of subsistence in accordance with sections 5702 and
5703 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Reports.--The Internet Dialogue Coordinator shall
periodically report in writing to the Facilitators the
results of the systems of communication established pursuant
to this section.
(d) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall
terminate upon the termination of the National Dialogue under
section 108.
SEC. 107. REPORTS.
From time to time during the National Dialogue, the
Facilitators shall catalog, summarize, and submit in writing
to the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security
Reform the comments, suggestions, and recommendations
generated by the participants in conferences conducted and
constituent input received from Members' offices under the
National Dialogue.
SEC. 108. TERMINATION.
The National Dialogue conducted pursuant to section 101
shall terminate January 1, 1999.
SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated, from amounts
otherwise available in the general fund of the Treasury, such
sums as are necessary to provide for the compensation of the
Facilitators and to carry out the provisions of section 106.
TITLE II--BIPARTISAN PANEL TO DESIGN LONG-RANGE SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF PANEL.
There is established a panel to be known as the Bipartisan
Panel to Design Long-Range Social Security Reform (in this
title referred to as the ``Panel'').
SEC. 202. DUTIES OF PANEL.
The Panel shall design a single set of legislative and
administrative recommendations for long-range reforms for
restoring the solvency of the social security system and
maintaining retirement income security in the United States.
SEC. 203. MEMBERSHIP OF THE PANEL.
(a) Number and Appointment.--The Panel shall be composed of
eight members, of whom--
(1) four shall be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the
Senate,
(2) two shall be appointed by the President, and
(3) two shall be appointed jointly by the Minority Leader
of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader of
the Senate.
The members of the Panel shall consist of individuals who are
of recognized standing and distinction, who can represent the
multiple generations who have a stake in the viability of the
system, and who possess a demonstrated capacity to discharge
the duties imposed on the Panel. At least one of the members
shall be appointed from individuals representing the
interests of employees, and at least one of the members shall
be appointed from individuals representing the interests of
employers.
(b) Co-Chairs.--The officials referred to in paragraphs (1)
through (3) of subsection (a) shall designate two of the
members of the Panel to serve as Co-Chairs of the Panel, who
shall jointly chair the Panel, determine its duties, and
supervise its staff.
(c) Terms of Appointment.--The members of the Panel shall
serve for the life of the Panel.
(d) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Panel shall not affect the
power of the remaining members to execute the duties of the
Panel, but any such vacancy shall be filled in the same
manner in which the original appointment was made.
SEC. 204. PROCEDURES.
(a) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet at the call of its Co-
Chairs or a majority of its members.
(b) Quorum.--A quorum shall consist of 5 members of the
Panel, except that a lesser number may conduct a hearing
under subsection (c).
(c) Hearings and Other Activities.--For the purpose of
carrying out its duties, the Panel may hold such hearings and
undertake such other activities as the Panel determines to be
necessary to carry out its duties. Meetings held by the Panel
shall be conducted in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
(d) Obtaining Information.--Upon request of the Panel, the
Commissioner of Social Security and the head of any other
agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall
furnish information deemed necessary by the Panel to enable
it to carry out its duties.
SEC. 205. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Compensation.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
members of the Panel shall receive no additional pay,
allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the
Panel.
(b) Travel Expenses and per Diem.--Each member of the Panel
who is not a present Member of the Congress and who is not
otherwise an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall receive travel expenses and per diem in lieu of
subsistence in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code.
(c) Staff and Support Services.--
(1) Staff director.--
(A) Appointment.--The Panel shall appoint a staff director
of the Panel.
(B) Compensation.--The staff director shall be paid at a
rate not to exceed the rate established for level III of the
Executive Schedule.
(2) Staff.--The Panel shall appoint such additional
personnel as the Panel determines to be necessary.
(3) Applicability of civil service laws.--The staff
director and other members of the staff of the Panel shall be
appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service, and shall be paid without regard to the provisions
of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title
relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
(4) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the
Panel, the staff director may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code.
(d) Contract Authority.--The Panel may contract with and
compensate government and private agencies or persons for
items and services, without regard to section 3709 of the
Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
(e) Physical Facilities.--The Architect of the Capitol, in
consultation with the appropriate entities in the legislative
branch, shall locate and provide suitable office space for
the operation of the Panel on a reimbursable basis. The
facilities shall serve as the headquarters of the Panel and
shall include all necessary equipment and incidentals
required for the proper functioning of the Panel.
(f) Detail of Federal Employees.--Upon the request of the
Panel, the head of any Federal agency may detail, on a
reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of such agency to
the Panel to assist the Panel in carrying out its duties.
(g) Use of Mails.--The Panel may use the United States
mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as
Federal agencies and shall, for purposes of the frank, be
considered a commission of Congress as described in section
3215 of title 39, United States Code.
(h) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Panel, the Architect of the Capitol shall provide to the
Panel on a reimbursable basis such administrative support
services as the Panel may request.
(i) Printing.--For purposes of costs relating to printing
and binding, including the cost of personnel detailed from
the Government Printing Office, the Panel shall be deemed to
be a committee of the Congress.
SEC. 206. REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than February 1, 1999, the Panel
shall submit to the President, the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Finance of the Senate a report which shall contain a detailed
statement of the findings and conclusions of the Panel,
including the set of recommendations required under section
202. The report shall include only those recommendations of
the Panel that receive the approval of at least 6 members of
the Panel, including both Co-Chairs.
(b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that, pending the report of the Panel under subsection (a),
the Federal unified budget surplus should be dedicated to
reducing the Federal debt held by the public, increasing the
retirement income security of individuals and insuring the
solvency of the social security system.
SEC. 207. TERMINATION.
The Panel shall terminate March 31, 1999.
SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated from the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund such sums as are
necessary to carry out the purposes of this title, but not to
exceed $2,000,000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) each
will control 1 hour and 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
General Leave
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the bill, H.R. 3546, and to include extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
[[Page H2491]]
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to yield back 30 minutes
of my time, but before I do so I would like to inquire of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) whether the minority would
do the same thing.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will yield back 30
minutes of our time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 30 minutes of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for tens of millions of Americans, Social Security has
been a wonderful success. It has been for my father and for my mother.
Written in 1935, Social Security has protected our seniors, has reduced
poverty and strengthened our families. If ever there was a Depression-
era program we can be proud of, Social Security is it.
But Social Security faces a long-term crisis. To solve it,
politicians in Washington must begin now to work together and we must
put partisanship aside. We are all in this together, from the 117-year-
old Sara Knauss of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reportedly the oldest
living American, to little Chase Amanda Brockman who was born today at
12:30 p.m. in Hermann Hospital in Houston, Texas.
As we proceed, we must do two things. We must honor our commitments
to today's seniors and we must protect young people so that Social
Security works for them as well.
The Congressional Research Service has analyzed for retirees this
year the amount of time it takes to recover the value of their taxes
paid plus interest. The information demonstrates that Social Security
has been a fabulous program for those who have retired to date.
But for baby boomers and for everyone younger, Social Security is no
longer a fair deal. For average earners who retired in 1980, they got
back their retirement portion of their Social Security taxes and their
employer's share of the taxes plus interest compounded during their
work life when they turned 68, and that has got to be a good deal.
Three years and they had recovered everything that had been paid in
plus interest.
But what is it today? Today, a retiree at 65 years of age, making
$25,000 a year, will have to live until they are 80 years old before
they get their money back. For most people, that is still not a bad
deal.
But I am afraid the good deal ends right around this year. For tens
of millions of working people younger than 65, Social Security's
problems have already begun. Average earning 48-year-olds will have to
live to 89 years of age to get their money back. Average 38-year-olds
will have to make it to 91.
If Americans are younger than that, Social Security's message seems
to be, ``Be sure to eat well and get plenty of exercise, because you
will have to live into your hundreds get a fair return on your Social
Security money that has been taken out of your paycheck.''
Mr. Speaker, we cannot raise taxes to solve this problem because
someone making more than $65,000 a year can really forget about it. 48-
year-olds making $65,000, the maximum taxable wage base, will have to
reach 104 years old to get their money back, and 38-year-olds will have
to live to 117 years of age.
Now there is more to Social Security than money. There is family
security, family protection and peace of mind. However, each generation
must be treated fairly and that is the challenge that we face. That is
why today I urge the House to pass my plan to create a bipartisan panel
to save Social Security.
The time has come to rise above partisan politics and put the needs
of the Nation first. Without a commission, I am absolutely certain that
politicians will once again start fighting over Social Security as has
always been the case in the past, and we will not get the job done. We
must remove politics from Social Security, and that is what my plan
does.
Mr. Speaker, my plan creates an eight-member panel comprised of four
Democrats and four Republicans. It is small and its timetable is short.
Its recommendations are due back to the Congress by February 1, 1999.
My plan also creates a bipartisan national dialogue to engage the
American people as we listen to their ideas on how to save this vital
program.
Saving Social Security is too important for any one party or any one
branch of government to use it as a forum for gaining political
advantage. The American people have never retreated from a crisis, and
we must not do so in this issue. Our task is to solve this problem so
that when little Chase Amanda grows up and starts working, she will
never even know Social Security was in crisis.
When it comes to Social Security, I suspect the American people are
well ahead of us. We now must catch up with the people and do it in a
bipartisan spirit, remembering that young people have grandparents they
love and senior citizens have grandchildren that they adore. I know
because I have 13 of them myself. Mr. Speaker, we are in this together.
Let me add one more point. This week we received letters from both
the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP, and the Concord
Coalition, strongly endorsing this bill. They are very much at the
front line on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I submit these letters for the Record:
AARP,
Washington, DC, April 28, 1998.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Archer: AARP believes that a national
dialogue on Social Security is essential to building
consensus around changes to address the program's long-term
financial challenge. As the national dialogue on Social
Security proceeds, the American people need to understand how
Social Security fits into an overall framework of income
security, what the solvency options are, and how these
options will affect them and their families.
Accordingly, AARP is very pleased that the Committee on
Ways and Means has reported H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue
on Social Security Act. This legislation can help the
American people work through the necessary tradeoffs that can
enhance economic security and restore the Social Security
program's long-term solvency.
While our elected officials engage in a dialogue with the
American people, the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range
Social Security Reform called for under H.R. 3546 can
evaluate options and suggest a course of action. Of course,
whatever the panel proposes must still be debated and
approved by Congress and the President. This would allow
policy makers and interested parties an opportunity to
evaluate and respond to the panel's recommendations. In the
final analysis, elected officials, not a commission, must
bear the ultimate responsibility.
AARP believes dialogue, debate, and a comprehensive
analysis of Social Security solvency proposals are necessary
components of good public policy-making for this important
family protection program. If we act sooner, rather than
later, the changes we adopt will be more moderate and those
affected will have more time to adjust their plans. AARP
looks forward to working with you and other members of
Congress on a bipartisan basis to promote this national
dialogue.
Sincerely,
Horace B. Deets.
____
The Concord Coalition
Citizens' Council,
Washington, DC, April 28, 1998.
Hon. Bill Archer,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Archer: The Concord Coalition strongly
supports the bill, H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social
Security Act of 1998, that your Committee reported favorably
last week.
The Social Security program, as currently structured, faces
serious problems when the baby boom generation begins
retiring only a decade from now. It is urgent that solutions
be put in place as soon as possible to address these
problems, rather than postponing action. The earlier we act,
the more gradually changes can be phased in and the more
advance warning will be given to people who are working today
so that they can understand the impact of these changes and
plan for their own retirement security. Retired citizens,
working age Americans and today's youth all will be better
off if action is taken soon.
Based on our experience hosting meetings around the nation
on this issue, we are convinced that if the American people
are armed with the facts and given the opportunity for honest
dialogue, they will reach decisions that are fair to people
of all ages and income groups. Your bill to stimulate such
honest dialogue and engage a broad range of citizens across
the nation is the right step at the right time. In order to
prepare our nation's citizens for the kind of changes
required to put Social Security on a sound footing through
the next century, they need to hear what the issues are and
the pros and cons of various options. We applaud your bill
for advancing such a balanced, bipartisan dialogue.
[[Page H2492]]
We are pleased that your bill recognizes that next year,
1999, is the idea window of opportunity for enacting Social
Security reforms. Your bill offers a framework for moving
toward a legislative consensus on what these reforms should
be.
The Concord Coalition looks forward to working with you to
implement the provisions of H.R. 3546.
Sincerely,
Martha Phillips,
Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what this is not about. This
is not about the ultimate plan to save Social Security. This is not
about how we can get partisan political advantage by launching into a
debate amongst ourselves, as has happened so often in the past.
This is how we chart a course that gives us the best chance to rise
above politics and to be able to truly save Social Security. We will
hear many, many other comments made today that have nothing to do with
this bill because people want to make one comment or another comment
about their view on Social Security.
We should come together today to establish a vehicle that gives this
country the best hope, the best chance to rise above partisan politics
and to save Social Security. I would dare say that those of my
colleagues who have, I think sincerely and genuinely, said we should
dig into this ourselves, we do not need another commission, where is
their plan? Has any one of them introduced a comprehensive plan to save
Social Security? I will tell my colleagues they have not because they
understand the politics. I would hope that they would not attempt to
gain some type of political advantage out of this debate rather than
joining in today and giving us our best hope.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inquire, was the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) going to yield back 30 minutes as the
majority has?
Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I will.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York yields back 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I say, ``Shame, Mr. Chairman, to think that politics
would be brought into this debate.'' Why, I am just shocked and
overwhelmed that the majority would even mention politics in the
dialogue on such a sensitive subject.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we could not even begin to
deal with the question of Social Security unless it is done in a
bipartisan way, no more than we can deal with the question of our
complex income tax system unless it is done in a bipartisan way. The
problem that we are facing is that the Republicans are operating like a
parliamentary body and we do not talk to each other and discuss how we
can resolve some of these very sensitive issues.
Let us take this dialogue that we are talking about today. Members of
the minority only asked the question that before we do anything, can we
say that our first commitment with the surplus is to use it to make the
Social Security solvent? Why, that is as bipartisan as it can get. All
of America wants to make certain that before we explore different ways
in order to assure people pensions, that at least this system is
solvent.
Of course, that brings about a lot of partisan debate and we try to
overcome that.
{time} 1615
But certainly, even though many of us in the minority did not truly
believe that there was need for another group to have dialogue since
the President already had established a biparty commission, in the
interest of bipartisanship, I would like to join with the chairman of
the committee, and let us have another commission, and let us expand
the dialogue.
But to suggest that it is possible to bring politics into the debate,
why, my God, we almost resolved the question of income tax increases
the other day in a request from the majority to ask for a supermajority
in order to increase taxes. Why just today we tackled the serious drug
problem that we had by saying that we were banning funding for needles.
I mean, that is substantive, and we are moving the ball forward.
When this year has ended, the majority will be asked: What did you do
on Social Security? I am certain that the majority would be able to
say, we started dialogue.
I just hope one thing before we attempt to even talk as though we are
partisan is that, when they ask, what have you done with the tax
system, the one that we are pulling up by the roots, the one that we
are sunsetting, the one that we are bringing in the postal card
substitute, when we ask this bipartisan Congress, what are we doing
about taxes, we will be able to say, we are establishing dialogue,
because that is going to be my answer.
I have been in the minority for 3 years. I know how the chairman
feels so strongly about this complex system that was compounded in the
last tax bill. The gentleman and I know we have to get rid of it.
We have had 3 years of dialogue, 3 years of the majority of the
Republicans, 3 years that they have the votes in the committee, 3 years
that they have the votes in the House, 3 years that they have the votes
on the Senate Committee on Finance, 3 years as they have the votes on
the Senate floor to improve this tax system.
If Members feel nearly as strongly about this Social Security mess as
the majority has about the Nation's tax system, my God, the gentleman
from Texas and I both will be retired by the time we deal with it. You
are only going to stay for another couple of years, and I do not know
how long I will be here as chairman, but regardless of what the
politics of this are going to be, it would seem that we ought to start
now in a bipartisan way and say that we do not want this dialogue to go
on as long as we have had for the tax bill.
Let the dialogue begin, but let us put a timetable so Americans would
know that this Congress, in a bipartisan way, is going to tackle the
serious problem. Before we go to Las Vegas or Wall Street or wherever
we think where we can get a high return on the investment, let us make
certain that the idea of Franklin Roosevelt is protected; and that is,
we have a sound Social Security system, and we are going to use the
surplus to do that.
Now, if that is not done, then the surplus is going to be used for an
income tax cut, or they are going to just raise tobacco tax on this
industry that has done very little to anybody and just raise their
taxes for another income tax cut. The gentleman and I do not like that
because we are both against tax increases.
So here is another way we can be bipartisan, to give up how we raise
the revenue and how we use them. I do not know how my colleagues want
to use the surplus. I know the Committee on the Budget chairman does
not want to use it for a tax cut.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is a man after my own heart.
When he says a tax cut, he means $150 billion. That is no slice of
bologna. That is big time. When he says, where are we going to get the
money, he is not going to the surplus, he is going to spending programs
so that we all will know, that those who get the cut will know where
the cut came from. That is the way we do business in a bipartisan way.
Here we are with Social Security, and we have a surplus. The
President said, let us not get partisan with this. Take the surplus,
attach it to Social Security, and then let us get on and see how we can
do the rest of the people's work.
Let me join with the chairman of the distinguished Committee on Ways
and Means. Let this be the first shot toward bipartisanism. Let us all
say openly that the surplus is going to be used to shore up this
system. Let us tell this Commission this is what we expect them to do.
Let us give them a date to report back.
I wish we could do it before the election, but this is too serious a
thing, I think, to be involved with elections. We will wait until after
the elections. But let us put a timetable on this Commission, because
we do not know who is going to be appointed, and we want them to be as
nonpartisan as my colleagues and I in their deliberation.
I thank the gentleman from Texas for raising the question, for taking
politics out of that, and give me the opportunity to join with him.
[[Page H2493]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. Kennelly).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman of
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) will control the balance of the time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the respected chairman of the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, since its inception, Social Security has
been a real success story, providing retirement income security for
seniors and desperately needed survivor and disability benefits for
those who have been stricken by the death of a loved one or smitten by
an incapacitating illness or accident.
However, as the board of trustees reminded us yesterday, the future
is not so bright for this vital program. We know Social Security faces
real challenges over the long run. It has been told before, but by the
year 2013, the program outlays will exceed its income, and Social
Security will have to rely on the rest of the government to make good
on their promise to secure Social Security trust funds.
By the year 2032, the surplus will be gone, and the program will only
be able to pay about 75 percent of the benefits committed. We cannot
allow that to happen.
During this Congress, the Subcommittee on Social Security, which I
chair, is conducting a series of hearings on the future of Social
Security for this generation and the next. We have had many hearings
and will hold many more throughout the year. We are working on a
bipartisan basis to explore all sides and all options for Social
Security reform.
Fixing this vital program is not going to be easy. Social Security
programs are complex and far-reaching. Even minor changes will have
major intended and unintended effects over time. It will not be an easy
issue to resolve.
I am glad that the President has brought Social Security to the
forefront. His leadership on this issue is of vital importance. But
when it comes time, it is going to be the Congress of the United
States, starting with the Committee on Ways and Means, that will have
to do the heavy lifting and actually begin the work of the American
people.
In the meantime, when it comes right down to it, we have to get this
conversation started. We all need to be talking about what the future
of Social Security is, what is going to take place, and what it is
going to look like.
The legislation we are considering today gets people talking through
a national dialogue on Social Security. That is a very good beginning.
At the same time, we need a panel of experts to help us reconcile what
Americans want to see done and what can be done to fix Social Security
once and for all.
Election years often see more than their fair share of partisan
bickering. Social Security is far too important to get tied up in
partisan politics. We must act now. We must work together. This
legislation is a way to do it. Make no mistake about it, we have a
golden opportunity this year to do something. The alligators are not
snapping at our ankles right now. We have a balanced budget for the
first time in 30 years, and we have budget surpluses instead of nagging
deficits. Medicare is at least safe for 13 more years. Welfare has been
reformed, and it seems to be working.
Right now, we have a golden opportunity to focus on Social Security
and get the train rolling, get Congress firmly on the track for reform
before we face a crisis. Let us do it in the next 5 to 7 years when we
have the opportunity with growing surpluses. This is the bill to do it.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes good ideas, but they are postscript
for what is already happening. For example, the legislation calls for a
national dialogue on Social Security, but there are already several
reputable organizations convening nonpartisan meetings across the
country to discuss the future of Social Security. The President,
Members of Congress from both parties, and thousands of American
citizens have already attended some of these informative sessions.
Let me give just one example. The Pew Charitable Trusts are spending
$12.5 million to establish a nationwide nonpartisan grassroots
discussion of the future of Social Security. To date, more than 3,000
Americans in 15 States have participated in their seminars.
The other purpose of this bill is to establish a commission to
develop suggestions on maintaining Social Security solvency. But,
again, Congress has already received three recommendations for Social
Security reform from the last Commission that was appointed.
If we really want to do something to protect Social Security's long-
range solvency, we should do what the President has asked us to do,
save the budget surplus for Social Security. Saving the budget surplus
will ensure that we have the necessary resources to protect a
retirement program that millions of Americans depend upon.
Some have suggested we should use the budget surplus instead for a
new system of private accounts. My response to that is we should keep
an old promise before we make new ones. The bill before us today takes
at least a half a step towards acknowledging that principle by
expressing the sense of Congress that the budget surplus should be
dedicated to ensuring the solvency of the Social Security system,
increasing retirement income security, and paying down the Federal
debt. We should strengthen that language so that there is absolutely no
doubt on what we intend to do with the budget surplus of Social
Security.
I know that some have expressed confusion over what this means when
we talk about saving Social Security. The concept is actually very
simple. If we allocate current and future budget surpluses for other
purposes, those resources will not be there for Social Security. The
President has, therefore, asked us to save the budget surplus today so
we can save Social Security in the future.
What happens to the budget surplus before we agree on a plan to
protect Social Security, we might then ask? The answer is easy: It will
help pay down the Federal debt.
Let me remind my colleagues that reducing the Federal debt will have
a direct and positive impact on our ability to meet our obligations of
Social Security. Paying down the debt will, not only spur economic
growth, but it will reduce the amount the government pays in interest,
which is now 15 percent of all government spending, last year totaling
$244 billion.
In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1 billion
decrease in the debt today could reduce the government interest
payments over the next 10 years by $773 million. This statistic clearly
illustrates that paying today's debt will help us meet our obligations
of tomorrow's retirees. So once again, I urge my colleagues to support
the President's pledge, save Social Security first.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support for H.R. 3546,
the National Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998.
This bill would initiate the national dialogue on the future of
Social Security by way of face-to-face discussion and electronic means,
including town hall meetings, Internet chat rooms. In addition to
nationwide suggestions, H.R. 3546 would also establish a bipartisan
panel of eight members appointed by Congress and the President, and
these would be equally divided between the two political parties.
{time} 1630
After a year of study, the panel would present a singular set of
recommendations to the Congress and the President, and this would have
to be done by February of 1999. Inclusion of ideas from average
citizens, seasoned experts and lawmakers makes this truly a national
dialogue.
It is time for both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to
unite in an effort to save this most important retirement system:
Social Security. The economic well-being of our Nation's seniors has
been politicized for far too long. Everyone agrees on the
[[Page H2494]]
importance of finding a long-term solution to the question of Social
Security's solvency, and H.R. 3546 is a critical step towards
developing this solution. To engage in a national discussion of the
possible solutions for Social Security is to put the national interest
above political interest.
Mr. Speaker, we need to tackle this monumental issue before it is too
late. When the Social Security System was first initiated in 1935,
there were 16 workers per retiree. Today, that number has dropped
sharply to only 3.3 workers per retiree. By the year 2040, fewer than 2
workers will be supporting each retiree. Congress has the obligation to
secure the future of Social Security, not just for the present senior
but also for our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren.
It is time to put aside political differences and work together for the
future of America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and the majority of us
in both parties in supporting this important legislation, and I
congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), as well as the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Kennelly) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for
working together to bring this legislation to the floor.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, a national dialogue on Social Security is definitely in
the best interest of the people of this country. I congratulate
President Clinton for his leadership in bringing this issue to the
forefront of the American people.
It is also important that we operate in a bipartisan manner. This
resolution forwards that bipartisan effort, and I support it. However,
I am disappointed there was not more bipartisanship in the creation of
this resolution and closer working with the White House.
The dialogue has already begun. In Kansas City on April the 7th, we
had a national dialogue started by President Clinton on the future of
Social Security and ensuring its long-term solvency. I was pleased that
I was able to have a hookup with that national dialogue in the Third
Congressional District of Maryland, in Columbia, Maryland. It was a
good discussion. Let me share with my colleagues some of the facts that
came out as a result of that town hall meeting.
The surplus we are enjoying in our budget, we would not have a
surplus but for the fact the Social Security System has a cash surplus.
That has produced the surplus in our budget. It would be irresponsible
for us to use that surplus for anything other than ensuring the long-
term solvency of Social Security.
There are some who are suggesting that we use that to set up
individual savings accounts, taking the money outside the Social
Security System. That would do nothing to protect and improve the long-
term solvency of the Social Security System.
There are others who are suggesting we should use it for tax cuts.
Again, that would not improve the long-term solvency of the Social
Security System.
The President is right. We should all make a commitment that the
surplus be reserved for Social Security solvency.
Yes, there are dramatic demographic changes in this Nation. We are
getting older. But the Social Security System is safe today. The recent
trustee report indicates that the solvency is now even 3 years longer
than we thought, to the year 2032. So there is no panic within the
Social Security System.
We do have a problem in the savings ratios of this Nation. Of the big
industrial seven nations, we have the lowest private savings ratios;
and we need to do something about that. So the objective, I would hope,
of any proposal to deal with Social Security would be, first, to
protect the Social Security recipients, those that are retired or near
retirement. They cannot change their security issues. They need the
Social Security System and the full benefits under that system.
But we also need to increase private savings. After all, there are
three legs to retirement security, Social Security, private retirement
and savings; and we need to do a better job on private savings and
retirement. Along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), I have
authored legislation that has been enacted into law that will encourage
private savings, and we will be authoring legislation again in this
Congress to try to improve private savings and retirement. That is
important. We are considering that on a bipartisan basis, and I urge my
colleagues to support us in that effort.
We also must ensure the long-term solvency of the Social Security
System. If we follow those objectives, we will be serving in the best
interest of the people of this Nation, and I hope that the dialogue
will begin and protect the Social Security System.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and I rise
to strongly support his legislation and that endorsed by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer).
I also want to say that I strongly agree with the comments of the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who preceded me, regarding the
need to increase private savings of both the IRA-type savings, private
savings of individuals, and savings through the employer, through
pension plans, profit-sharing plans, 401(k)s and so on.
Social Security is a little more controversial than the two legs, and
that is why this commission is so important. But they all work
together. Commissions are not always the best way to handle policy
dilemmas, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes the Congress uses them too often.
There are plenty of commission reports that are collecting dust
somewhere in this Capitol.
But I have to tell my colleagues, if the commission structure, goals
and membership are clearly thought out, which is the case here, both
with the national dialogue and the commission, then on very tough
political issues, commissions can work and work well.
I speak from personal experience. Until about a year ago, I was
cochairman of the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. We
approached this on not just a bipartisan but a nonpartisan basis. We
brought in outside expertise, which I think is key. The other
cochairman was Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat from Nebraska. Charles
Grassley, a Republican, and Bill Coyne, a Democrat, also served on the
panel.
Congress created the IRS commission basically to get at the vexing
problems of the IRS and try to do it in a nonpolitical context. Another
issue like Social Security, IRS can be quite political. We also wanted
to bring in outside expertise, which I think is key, and we did so.
In our case, commission members included information technology
executives. It included small business advocates, taxpayer advocates,
former commissioners, State tax administrators and so on.
We rolled up our sleeves and we spent about 15 months really looking
into the problems in a nonpartisan way. We finished on time, under
budget and produced a solid report that then became legislation; and,
within 4 months of our report, the legislation had passed the House on
a strong, bipartisan basis.
I think it is a pretty good model, and I see that same model being
replicated here because of the way this commission and dialogue has
been structured.
The key is to rise above politics and solve a very tough problem.
Again, commissions are not always the best solutions for every big
issue that faces this Congress, but I think in this case this
commission is properly structured to take a hard look at it with
outside expertise in a balanced and bipartisan manner.
And I think on this politically explosive issue, Social Security, it
is not only the best way to go, I think, frankly, it is the only way to
go. It is the only way we will solve the problem for future
generations.
I have my 6-year-old with me today. He asked what we were debating
about a little while ago. I said, we are debating about your future and
whether when you are retired you will have something there for you. And
that is so important, that it is necessary for us to take this step in
order to take it out of politics, in order to get with a time frame the
kind of consensus we need to
[[Page H2495]]
move forward on a bipartisan basis on this program.
So I stand today to again urge support on both sides of the aisle on
this process. The tough questions are still in front of us, but we need
to get started on it, and this is the important big step.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for yielding me this time.
In this Chamber there is a tendency to toss around mind-numbing
statistics, and in the best of debates that occur here we attempt
oftentimes to convince each other through the use of abstraction. But
the truth is that there is one point that must be emphasized today
above all else, and that has been the success of Mr. Roosevelt's
experiment offered to the American people in 1935.
There are millions of people watching right now, at this very moment
across this country, this debate, who enjoy the benefits of Social
Security. We should fully acknowledge that Social Security
fundamentally changed the way seniors across this Nation have lived out
some of the best years of their lives.
So it was not an abstraction, Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton
almost exactly 3 months ago walked into this Chamber and in his State
of the Union address said, ``Let's fix Social Security first.''
Now, I know there is a tendency to think that that is some catchy
political slogan, but I must disagree. Because saving Social Security
first is a generational promise that must be continued into the next
century. Fortunately, due to the President's budget in 1993 and the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, we are showing a surplus for the first
time in many years. But we should use that surplus to buy down the debt
and to save Social Security first. Social Security remains the lifeline
of support for many Americans as they grow older, and our obligation is
to strengthen that lifeline.
Now, I know there is talk in this Chamber about offering personal
savings accounts. Let us examine that. There can be no harm from a
thorough examination. But let us not forget the goal of community that
Social Security offers and generational obligation that it compels from
all of us.
President Clinton had it right: Let us have a dialogue. And the
dialogue, indeed, has already started. Even yesterday, as we reviewed
new numbers, we know that there will have to be fundamental
examinations of Social Security in the coming years.
But, most importantly, let us point out that retirement savings is a
three-legged stool and the three legs are private savings, pension and
Social Security, understanding that almost 40 percent of retirement
income for most Americans comes from Social Security. We want to
encourage people certainly to take more responsibility for their
retirement but again not to forget the essential element of Social
Security, and that is the interlocking notion of community.
Our society has changed in the workplace dramatically, and I know it
is common for individuals to change jobs many times over. That makes it
more important now than ever to address the issue of pension
portability. Social Security should be addressed this year, and pension
portability should be enacted this year.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly)
for taking up this debate once again.
Mr. BUNNING. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
In my district in western Pennsylvania, most working families and
retirees depend on Social Security as the keystone of their retirement
security. These families are clearly at risk because of the grim shadow
of looming bankruptcy that has fallen on Social Security, casting doubt
on its long-term viability.
The collapse of Social Security is not immediate, but it is
inevitable without major changes in the program, changes that will
become more draconian the longer they are postponed. We in Congress
have a fundamental responsibility to move quickly and decisively, free
of cant and partisanship, to place Social Security on a sound financial
footing.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3546, legislation to
establish a national dialogue on Social Security and a bipartisan panel
to design long-term Social Security reform.
Under this legislation, a national dialogue would be convened to
engage the American public through regional conferences and through
national internet exchanges in understanding the current program, the
problems it faces and the need to find solutions that will be workable
for all generations.
In addition, a bipartisan panel would be created to design a single
package of long-range Social Security reforms to restore the solvency
of the system and maintain retirement income security.
The process of Social Security reform created in this bill is the
best hope to yield, through engagement of the American public, a
solution which restores the long-term viability of the Social Security
retirement system in a manner beneficial to every generation and every
class.
I urge my colleagues to pass this bill as the first step on the path
of fulfilling our obligation as trustees and custodians of a system
that has literally transformed the face of poverty among older
Americans.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
{time} 1645
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and
colleague the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt, a Democratic
President, worked with a Democratic Congress to create a Democratic
program to help retired workers, Social Security. For 60 years, the
Social Security system that Democrats created has provided retirement
security to hundreds of millions of Americans.
Social Security is founded on a simple principle: Every worker
contributes to and is part of a common system. We all pay into this
system together; and when we retire, we all receive benefits together.
For 60 years, Social Security has provided peace of mind to millions of
workers and retirees. We must not destroy this peace of mind. We must
not destroy the sense of common good created by Social Security.
Providing a privatized Social Security system would destroy this
trust. It would take security out of Social Security. Do not believe
the fearmongers who tell us that Social Security would not be there for
us. They want to end Social Security as we know it. The enemies of
Social Security will have us believe that the problems are too big. But
the sky is not falling. We can fix Social Security without destroying
our covenant with the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because I believe we must
first save Social Security, but I would not support efforts to
privatize Social Security. I will not support efforts to destroy the
peace of mind Social Security provides millions of retirees and
millions of our workers.
As a Democrat, I will remain true to the Democratic legacy of Social
Security, the legacy of people coming together as one to provide a
basic livable pension for every American no matter how rich, how poor,
how young, or how old. I will fight efforts to divide the rich from the
poor and parents from their children.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats will fight to save Social Security first
because Social Security is a sacred trust with the American people, and
we must never, ever betray this trust with the American people. Protect
Social Security first.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).
Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
John Milton wrote, ``Time is a subtle thief of youth.'' Well, we are
running out of time on devising a plan to save Social Security, and the
failure to salvage a broken system is robbing our youth of hope.
Whether one is a recent college graduate or a baby boomer, like
[[Page H2496]]
me, all Americans are caught in the system of retirement with few
choices, and it is not a healthy future.
Working Americans are paying into Social Security monthly to a total
of $484 billion for this year alone. The cost in paying benefits to
retirees right now totals $382 billion. This leaves $102 billion to put
away for the retirement of the baby boomers and generation X. This
money should be managed like a retirement account or personal trust
fund. People expect Social Security to be a national retirement savings
account. That is the way it should be. Save for the retirement of those
paying into the system.
We have to reject the President's plan to spend all but a handful of
that, call it the surplus, and say he is going to take 8 to $10 billion
and invest it in saving Social Security.
The Treasury said today that there might be 3 more years in the life
of Social Security. Three years? Well, this sounds very, very good for
those on Social Security now, and maybe even a few of us older baby
boomers. But we have three generations of Americans, my children, my
grandchildren, who have put money into that account, and they expect to
have something for their future.
Where are the leaders that are going to stand up and say, we have a
surplus of $100 billion a year, money that should go to the future?
Where are the leaders that are going to say, this surplus is really
enough to stabilize for the next two generations of Social Security
accounts? Where are the leaders?
I hope that this Commission will recommend that this Congress stop
taking $100 billion a year out of Social Security and that they will
invest all this in the future of retirement.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. I have been listening to the debate, Mr. Speaker, with
interest. And it is clear that we have to move ahead with Social
Security.
In a sense, the horse is already out of the barn. This bill calls for
a national dialogue, and that is already started. The President and the
Vice President started it on a bipartisan basis. There has been a very
effective meeting already, and others are being held under the auspices
of a foundation. So that dialogue is under way. No one should think
that it has not started.
But I will vote for this bill because it will keep the conversation
going. For those of us who have been working so hard these years to
secure Social Security, I do not think we need to have another vote
that says we care. That is so clear. Maybe some want that vote and will
join them. But for those of us who have been fighting all these years
to make sure Social Security is secure, we say, whatever needs to be
fixed, fix it. Do not break the system. Look to the future, but do not
forget what is true today and what has been true in the past.
And what is true today is that the Social Security system is
essentially the economic foundation for a majority of the people who
are retired, as has been discussed. But I think this has to be very
much remembered. In this country, close to 70 percent of seniors have
incomes of less than $25,000 a year, and 46 percent have incomes of
less than $15,000. In Michigan, that figure is even higher. One
estimate is that 85 percent have incomes of $25,000 or less, and 70
percent have incomes of $15,000 or less. So they are asking us, look to
the future, but do not ruin the present.
Those of us who work for fiscal responsibility should be proud of
that. We have a surplus. If it had not been for our vote, there would
not be this. This surplus would not exist, though, without the inflow
from Social Security. And the lesson from those two points is this: Now
we have time to fix Social Security for the long term because of the
surplus, but let us use those funds because the surplus is in large
measure because of Social Security, so use it for that purpose. And any
other programs, whether they are tax cuts or other programs, should not
be financed out of this surplus. Save and ensure Social Security first.
So let us move ahead. I am in favor of flexibility, of looking at new
alternatives, at looking at new ways to finance the retirement of
people. As we do it, let us remember our sacred obligation. We have an
obligation for the future. We also have an obligation to those who are
paying in that we not undermine Social Security as they near
retirement.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act.
In 1949, when my father entered the work force, people could look at
their paychecks, see their Social Security taxes withheld, and feel
sure that the money would be waiting for them when they turned 65.
When my daughter Jessica signs up for her first job in a year at age
16, and I can assure my colleagues her mother and I will help her find
a part-time job, the amount that she sees deducted from her paycheck
from Social Security will not only be higher than 1949, but it will not
necessarily be waiting for her in about 50 years. In fact, for those of
us under the age of 50, we may not be receiving anything until the age
67 or older.
Now some say that we have, basically, three options: Raise taxes, cut
benefits, or reform the system. One of the causes of our present
problems is that high taxes do not allow individuals to save and
supplement their pensions and Social Security savings as was originally
meant to be done.
There has been talk of adjusting the CPI, the Consumer Price Index,
so as not to overstate inflation. This would make Social Security COLAs
smaller. However, it is unfair to reduce benefits to current retirees.
Personally, I am partial to the idea of supplementing, let me repeat
that, supplementing our Social Security benefits by allowing
individuals to invest for themselves. We should create individual
savings accounts that allow individuals to increase retirement incomes
by investing a portion of their payroll taxes in the market. These
would be a mandatory savings account that could not be drawn on until
retirement.
A good first step in finding a solution like a personal Social
Security account would be to pass this legislation, establish a
bipartisan panel to study long-term Social Security reform, and report
their findings to Congress no later than February 1, 1999.
We should put aside our bipartisan politics and do what is right for
the American people. We must make sure that Social Security is there.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
(Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the efforts to
ensure Social Security remains viable for the next generation, for our
children, and for our grandchildren.
I have met with various constituents, and they agree that we need to
make some tough decisions that are before us to assure the viability of
Social Security for future generations. I support the creation of a
bipartisan commission, but I would caution those efforts in terms of
privatization, and I would caution my colleagues and remind them in
terms of the S&L scandals that occurred during the 1980s, where their
pension funds could be depleted.
I would urge the House leadership to also work closely with President
Clinton on ongoing initiatives on Social Security. And I commend the
President for his leadership on moving forward in ensuring the security
of Social Security. With all the past borrowing from the Social
Security Trust Fund, we need to ensure that our baby boomers and
subsequent generations are assured access to Social Security.
I would ask that, as the Commission moves, that we look first, number
one, to the existing senior citizens that are there now to make sure
that they receive what they deserve; secondly, that as we move beyond
the year 2012, and the baby boomers start reaching that area, that we
assure that generation that they will have also access to Social
Security. And thirdly, for the youngsters that are now beginning to
pay, those that are 20, 30 years old, we need to assure with that piece
of legislation that would become in terms of
[[Page H2497]]
the recommendations that they also will have access as they move
forward in the next generation.
Future generations rightfully worry that they will not be able to
have fair returns on their Social Security, so it is up to us to make
sure that we take those populations into consideration. We can help
assure that Social Security be ensured for the next few generations.
We also need to remember and recognize the fact that Social Security
is there for the disabled and the blind, and we need to remember that
and be cautious with that, because that has also helped half of our
senior citizens out of poverty because of Social Security.
So I want to urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit
this bill so we can add firm language that would reserve any surplus to
also help fix Social Security.
{time} 1700
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because it
makes sense, and it is an idea that simply grows and expands and
fertilizes a debate on saving Social Security that is already taking
place in this House.
I would suggest that that is a bipartisan debate that is beginning to
take place. If we look at, for instance, what John Kerry, Democrat on
the Senate side, has said about maybe we ought to look at ways of
updating Social Security and taking that 10 percent and making sure
that that 10 percent tax goes into something that actually builds
wealth, versus what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) pointed
out earlier which is the case for a young 40-year-old, you have to live
until you are 89 to get all your Social Security benefits back, or if
you are a 30-year-old you have to live until you are 91 to get all
those benefits back, that is the beginning of a bipartisan debate.
Another thing that says to me this is a bipartisan debate is that Pat
Moynihan, a great guardian of Social Security over the years, has said
why do we not look at the possibility of letting individuals redirect 2
percent of their payroll tax and put it into their own personal savings
account that again begins to build wealth.
On the Republican side we look at what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich) has said, ``Why don't we look at the surplus and make sure that
Washington can't spend the money by rebating that surplus back to FICA
taxpayers so that they could begin their own personal savings
account.''
Or we have a bill that says why do we not give people below the age
of 65 simply the option of redirecting a large portion of their payroll
tax into their own personal savings account. Or what Nick Smith or Rick
Santorum or Judd Gregg or Rod Grams, a whole long list of Republicans
have out there.
What this bill does is put those ideas in a bag and allows people to
shake those ideas around for a year and then see which ideas make sense
as we go forward in this debate. I would say most of all this debate is
simply a debate about the American dream, because the American dream is
tied to ending a lifetime of work with something other than just
memories to show for it. Yet in our system, based on what the trustees
have said, is that if we do nothing to address this problem, people
will be paying 10 percent of what they earn every day and every week
and every month into a system that does not build wealth for them.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for her leadership and her work as the
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security. She has done a
great job with this and has worked very hard. We should all thank her
for the time that she has spent on this.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this bill, not because I think
that we need more commissions, because we do not, and not because there
is an immediate Social Security crisis, because there is not. But I do
support the concept of a dialogue on Social Security.
However, we need to remember that the current debate stands in stark
contrast to the debate which led to the 1983 Social Security amendments
when the trust funds could finance benefits for only a short time. If
we are going to begin a national dialogue, it needs to start on a solid
base of information about Social Security and its financial condition.
I have been troubled that there are various groups and some Members
that have been scaring some seniors and spreading inaccurate horror
stories on the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. I would like
to state for the record there is no immediate crisis. In fact, I would
like to quote a headline in today's St. Pete Times, Outlook for Social
Security Brightens. Let us face it, it is because we have a strong
economy and people are working and inflation is at the lowest level in
decades.
We do, however, need to address the Social Security Trust Fund
shortfall which is expected to occur in 2032, three years later than
previously expected, and even at that the trust fund will still cover
nearly 75 percent of the benefits. In the Committee on Ways and Means
hearing on the measure, Senator Bob Dole agreed that we now have time
to do this in a deliberative way and get it done in a bipartisan
manner. I could not agree more.
I am going to support this bill because I believe it is important to
try to reach out to all interested parties and bring them into the
discussion. Many often forgot that Social Security also provides
disability protection. The bill as previously written failed to take
into account the views of the more than 4 million disabled workers and
their 1.7 million dependents receiving Social Security.
That is why during the committee markup of this measure I introduced
an amendment to add to the dialogue council the Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities, bringing the total number of groups to 25. I would
like at this time to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their support of this
amendment.
I would like to stress, however, that the legislation duplicates many
of the efforts that are already under way. We all know that groups have
already been meeting throughout the country to address the future of
Social Security. I look forward to the continued dialogue.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I too want to speak in support of this because, as was
noted earlier, this is not a Republican issue, this is not a Democrat
issue, this is an American issue. This is a problem that we have to
deal with.
It is one in my State of South Dakota that is particularly important
because we have probably as high of an over-65 population as any State
in the country. It also includes my mother and father who depend very
heavily upon this important program, and it is one in which I think we
agree we have to look at how we can save this program and also improve
it for the next generation.
Frankly, I credit the committee with launching this debate because in
fact it does say something about Washington actually dealing with a
long-term issue. Rather than waiting until the horse is out of the
barn, which is the way that this city oftentimes addresses issues, we
are looking down the road at what we can do at this particular point in
time to address what is going to be a long-term challenge in this
country. In doing that, I think there are a couple of parameters I hope
we have as we begin this debate.
The first is that no retiree today or someone who is going to retire
should have to worry about their Social Security benefits being
touched. We need to come up with a system that protects for now and
forever those who have paid in, those who are relying on that very
important program. I think that is a principle upon which this debate
should be based. But, secondly, we also have to look at how we can
improve this system for young people today who are paying in so that we
can dramatically increase their retirement income, and when the time
comes they will be able to supplement what Social Security provides.
And so in having this debate, as we lay out those parameters, I think
it is
[[Page H2498]]
important that everybody be at the table. This bill contemplates
involving in a bipartisan way all the organizations who have a stake in
this issue and all the various generational groups, starting with
generation X and baby boomers and current retirees. But it is a debate
that we need to have.
I want to credit again the committee for taking action to begin the
debate now before the crisis hits later. It is something that I very
much support. I look forward to entering into this debate.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding
time.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the legislation before us, H.R.
3546. It is a commission. It is made up of a council. Hopefully we are
going to get the brightest and the best minds to come up with some
resolve to a problem which is not pending today, it is off 30-something
years from now, but I think it is wise that Congress develop a fix to
the problem now when we have the luxury of time, when we have the
luxury of an elongated debate.
I am not from the school that thinks this is just another commission.
I say to you if in fact we have another idea for another commission in
the summer composed of 24 different members of a council, let us also
pass that, because the problem before us is probably the weightiest
that this Congress is going to address in a very, very long time.
We have been told repeatedly during the debate that we have to take
the politics out of this issue. It seems to me that that admonition is
being directed to the Democrats. Let me just indicate to my colleagues
that there is legislation pending in the House which would give those
seniors born between the year 1917 and 1926 a $5,000 lump payment. That
would cost the Social Security Trust Fund, which is already in fiscal
peril, some $40 billion to $50 billion. That also is playing politics.
To make the situation even worse, seniors in my district and around
the country are getting a mailing today by a group called a special
project of TREA, Senior Citizen League, asking the seniors to send in
this registration form to get on the Wisconsin Register of Notch
Victims. It also asks them to send in $15, $20 as a special gift. That
is cruel. That is cruel, because we know in this body that bill will
never pass. We do not have the $50 billion.
So I say let us take politics out of the debate, but that goes to
both sides of the aisle, not only in this reform legislation that we
are talking about but also other bills that are introduced. I am
disturbed that there is talk in this body about a person who is 45
today would have to live to 85 to collect all their money. My friends,
this is a pension plan and not a deferred savings plan.
Our family had the unfortunate event of losing not only my sister but
my brother-in-law some 13 months ago. They had worked all their lives
and paid into Social Security. Never once did their four children come
to me, my nieces and nephews, saying, ``That's unfair. Give us the
money back.'' Why? Because my father had the good fortune of living to
82. He clearly collected more than he put in. A few weeks ago we went
to Chicago to celebrate Auntie Marie Ducha's 90th birthday. She is
getting more than her and Uncle John paid in. That is the system.
If we devise a reform plan and bring it to this floor that gives
everyone their money back in total, we are going to put at peril the 40
to 50 million people currently receiving benefits because we are going
to cut off that revenue stream.
We all have preconditions as we enter this debate. Mine is very
simple: Do not tamper with the revenue stream now that pays those
benefits for those who are currently on the system. If you want to take
politics out of this debate, vote for the motion later today that would
reserve this surplus, because this reform bill will have some enormous
costs connected with it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue
on Social Security Act. Social Security reform is one of the most
talked-about issues around Capitol Hill tables and kitchen tables
across the Nation. As with any issue of this magnitude, everyone has a
different solution and method of reforming the Social Security system.
Some people want the program to remain exactly as it is, while others
call for total or partial privatizing, or an increase in the retirement
age, or tax incentives like Individual Retirement Accounts.
One condition for reform, however, is that we guarantee a sufficient
revenue stream to make good on our promise of benefits to those who are
retired or planning their retirement around the current system.
In order to achieve this, we need to have a constructive and
comprehensive national discussion about the future of Social Security,
which annually pays benefits to nearly 50 million retired and disabled
workers and their dependents and survivors.
The bill on the floor today will foster such a dialogue. It creates
an 8-member commission to develop reform recommendations and solicit
feedback from the American people, partly through the Internet.
The President and both Democratic and Republic Members of Congress
will then use these recommendations to design a single package of long-
range reforms to strengthen the Social Security trust fund. The
deadline for presenting suggestions to Congress is February 1, 1999.
This gives us sufficient time to draft a comprehensive and fair plan.
The proposed commission complements bipartisan forums being held
around the nation, such as the one held by the President, the American
Association of Retired Persons, and the Concord Coalition in early
April. That meeting also sought to solicit ideas from the American
public and inform them of many reform options.
Other private sector groups, such as Americans Discuss Social
Security, are also hosting town hall meetings across the country and on
the Internet. Again, these meetings are facilitating a nationwide
debate about the future of Social Security and providing a framework
for restructuring the Social Security system.
I am pleased these forums are including the opinions and ideas of
people across the country. A healthy dialogue will now ensure that
Congress passes a meaningful and equitable product to ensure the
solvency of this program. I look forward to hearing from my
constituents as they take part in this national debate about the best
ways to preserve Social Security for our children, grandchildren, and
beyond.
I urge support of the bill before us so we will be armed with all
suggestions and solutions as Congress goes about the task of major
reform of this most important national program.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrich).
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Kentucky
for yielding me the time and also recognize the extraordinary
leadership he has shown as the chairman of the subcommittee which has
worked so hard to save Social Security and to make sure that Social
Security will be there for our parents and that it will be there for
the baby boomers and their children. I think nobody in this House has
done more to really try to develop the database, to hold the hearings,
to do the investigations, to lay the framework for saving Social
Security than the gentleman from Kentucky.
I simply wanted to rise in strong support of this opportunity to
engage the American people and to make the point that this is different
than past efforts. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first
commission developed with an inherent Internet base to it that will
allow every American to have an opportunity to find out what all the
different proposals will do for them, which proposals for the future
are best for all Americans.
I think it is very important for people in Washington to realize that
in the information age we need to share information and share
opportunities to participate with all of our citizens. When we talk
about something as important and as personal as Social Security, we
have a particular need to truly be in a position to have everybody feel
comfortable that they know what is being proposed, they know how to
deal with it, they know how it will affect their lives and they have
had a chance to have input and to offer advice.
In addition, this commission is designed so that the age breakout,
with one-third baby boomers, one-third older than baby boomers and one-
third younger, is designed to create a generational dialogue rather
than generational warfare. It is designed to bring Americans together
rather than to separate Americans, to have Americans, grandparents and
grandchildren, children and parents, all talking together about how we
save Social Security and how we create a better future.
Finally, this commission, I think, offers us a tremendous opportunity
for
[[Page H2499]]
every Member to participate. I have talked with the American
Association of Retired Persons, for example. They are very eager on a
nonpartisan basis to work with every single Member, to have meetings
where everything is laid out, no preconditions, but look at all the
different options that have been created, all the different
possibilities, have a dialogue with the entire community.
I hope that we will be able next year, in 1999, to take major steps
towards creating a 21st century information age Social Security system
that is sounder, stronger and better than the current system. I want to
make sure that my mother and my mother-in-law who are currently on
Social Security get every penny of their cost-of-living increase, that
they get the money they should get from the system that they have
depended on, I want to make sure that the baby boomers have a fair
chance to have an even better future with a system that will not
collapse when they retire, and I want to make sure that my two
daughters, who are younger than the baby boomers, have an opportunity
to have an even better system and do not have to fear that they are
simply throwing their money away.
{time} 1715
This commission is a key step towards rebuilding faith with America's
young people when we learn that, pollsters tell us, that people under
30, more of them believe in unidentified flying objects than believe
that they will get Social Security.
We know that we have a problem in cynicism and a problem in people
simply not believing that they have been considered. I think we have a
chance by creating this commission to create a dialogue where everybody
has a better future, everybody has a better opportunity to know that
their savings are going to go to a system that they will have a chance
to survive with, and I think that is very, very important. This is a
step towards saving Social Security for the baby boomers and their
children and saving it by making it more modern and even better.
And I thank my friend again for the leadership he has shown in really
being a pioneer at recognizing that saving our parents for our
generation and saving our children, while making sure we also survive,
is a tricky, complicated business, but if we talk together as
Americans, we can do it.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this
time to me, and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Kennelly) for their wonderful work on Social Security.
I could come to the floor this afternoon with charts and graphs and
statistics to underscore the critical nature of Social Security to the
people of this country. But instead, in the next minute or so, let me
just tell my colleagues what this program has meant for me.
My father died years before he ever received one retirement benefit
under Social Security. But because my brother and I were minors at the
time, we received vitally needed survivors' benefits under Social
Security. Frankly, that allowed us to continue to get our college
education and get on with life.
I have a very good friend who is incapacitated with mental illness
and cannot work. He receives and lives entirely on his Social Security
benefit.
My mother, now age 77, lives independently, would simply not be able
to but for her Social Security check; and whether she lives to be 87,
97, 107, with that guarantee of the Social Security check, as long as
her health holds out, she can continue to live independently.
Now I am absolutely determined to make certain that these core
assurances, survivors benefits, disability benefits, a retirement
benefit that is there as long as one may live, continue to be part of
any Social Security program on into the future, and I have some plans
in terms of how we get that accomplished.
I am forced to vote against this commission idea today, however,
because it omits one critical facet, and that is the one thing this
House can do today that really has bearing on taking a positive step
forward in Social Security, committing that we do not touch the surplus
until we have this Social Security reform idea all figured out.
Mr. Speaker, the President said it first, and he said it best. We
must save Social Security first.
The Speaker, testifying to the Committee on Ways and Means, says he
wants to take that surplus and put it in individual accounts this year.
That would be exactly the wrong thing to do. We have to have the
constructive national bipartisan debate the majority and minority have
been talking about today. We must lock up this surplus until we have
figured out Social Security reform.
And I will be offering a motion to recommit later that will make one
change to the proposal before us but a vitally needed one. It will
direct that the surplus is held absolutely until Social Security reform
is completed.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
I want to echo the words that the Speaker said a few minutes ago in
congratulating the gentleman from Kentucky, others on his subcommittee
and the full committee for the work that has been done in this area.
There can be no more important thing for us to talk about today,
tomorrow, this year or next year than preserving Social Security and
making sure it works for those who get it now and those who will need
it in the future.
This is not the first time we have had to deal with the troubled
Social Security program, and no one is going to argue that it has been
one of the, if not the most, successful social programs that we have
today. It is one of the reasons that poverty among the elderly has
declined as dramatically as it has.
But, like many nations around the world, all nations, we are
embarking on a major, unprecedented demographic transformation which
threatens the promise of Social Security in the future.
Most experts agree that a long-range deficit in the Social Security
program needs to be addressed in the near future so that we can change
it for the future. We really cannot delay reform.
Now the legislation that is before us today would create a national
dialogue on Social Security, and I believe that is the key to having a
successful reform and change of it. It is imperative that Americans
must be engaged in this discussion, understand the parameters of what
we are talking about and to develop a national consensus for change. We
need to hear what people are saying, to really listen to them.
I like to think that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I
began this process 3 years ago when we created the House Public Pension
Reform Caucus, which includes now more than 70 Members of Congress from
both sides of the aisle. It began the process here in the House of
educating the Members of Congress, providing a forum to discuss, to
research, examine the problems that plague Social Security.
Additionally, I have recently convened a group of my own in Tucson,
30 people, called my own task force on retirement savings to encourage
a dialogue with constituents. They represent their own constituents'
groups. The idea is for them to go back, have a dialogue with their
individuals, their members, and bring it to my own task force. Again,
this is part of reaching out that I think is necessary, that we must do
on a national basis.
Now this legislation also creates a bipartisan panel to design a
long-range Social Security preservation plan, and I strongly agree with
my colleagues that Social Security reform must be bipartisan if it is
going to receive the confidence of the American people or the needed
support in Congress. But I would like to mention there have been a lot
of commissions and panels that have diagnosed the problems that are
facing Social Security and offered countless options for ways in which
we could improve it or fix it.
One commission which I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to
participate in is the CSIS National Commission on Retirement Policy.
Along with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and
with Senators Gregg and Breaux, this commission has helped to bridge
the gap between House and Senate, private and
[[Page H2500]]
public sectors. Next month, this commission, after more than a year of
work, will unveil its bipartisan, bicameral public service sector
reform proposal.
Mr. Speaker, we have grappled with the difficult decisions necessary
to advance a bipartisan Social Security reform, such as the long-term
solvency of the system, national savings, equity of benefits across
income, across generations and income levels, designing the individual
retirement accounts to supplement Social Security, the administrative
feasibility of accounts, the management and regulation of accounts and
the distribution of those funds upon retirement.
I absolutely agree that this bipartisan panel that is created by this
legislation needs to look at all of these different proposals that are
out there, and I believe if we do that not starting from ground zero we
can accomplish this next year, which I believe is the critical year for
us to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) for yielding this time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this bill for dialogue is something I really support and
agree with. As a matter of fact, I have already had a public dialogue.
But this bill is worded so that the surplus could be spent to create
private retirement accounts, and that is favored by the gentleman from
Georgia (Speaker Gingrich) and the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich). What they do not tell us
is that they intend for these private accounts to replace Social
Security benefits.
In the State of the Union speech this year, President Clinton lost a
national debate with the American people about what they want Social
Security to look like in the 21st century. The President pledged to
enter into negotiations with Congress by early next year on Social
Security reform legislation.
Now I do not believe that we should preempt the American people by
spending the budget surplus on private retirement accounts before we
decide how and if private accounts fit into a comprehensive Social
Security reform package. There are inherent dangers in relying on the
stock market as something as important as Social Security that really
must be discussed and people must be clear on that.
Everyone's retirement income would depend on the ups and downs of the
market. Benefits for widows and children of deceased workers would be
jeopardized, people would have to buy private disability insurance if
they could find one to sell it to them for a policy that would be
comparable to Social Security disability benefit at a price that they
could afford.
The fiscally responsible thing for Congress to do is to guarantee
that all of any present and future budget surpluses be used for Social
Security reform in whatever form it might take after we complete the
year of dialogue. Saving this money will reduce the Federal debt as
well as shore up the Social Security Trust Fund. Such action is a much
more effective means of assuring future retirement security for future
generations than spending the budget surplus to establish these private
funds. I do not believe we ought to leave the people at the whims of
the stock market.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security on which I am
privileged to serve.
Mr. Speaker, my dear friend from Texas offers a picture-perfect
example of why we need to have a national dialogue on Social Security,
because perhaps she misunderstands the intent of what many people have
talked about here. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the gentlewoman
joining with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security in
sponsoring H.R. 3351 if, in fact, she is afraid that somehow Social
Security will be taken from today's seniors.
Let me humbly suggest, Mr. Speaker, that nothing could be further
from the truth, and those who offer that argument, no matter how well
modulated and how reasonably stated, are sadly succumbing to the
temptation of rhetorical terrorism. Let us state clearly and
unequivocally from both sections, from both aisles, that the challenge
for us remains, first and foremost, to keep Social Security intact for
today's seniors. But, at the same time, we should welcome a national
dialogue on something this vitally important.
I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from
Arizona. Because I, too, have formed a citizen's committee on
retirement. I, too, invited not only current retirees but baby boomers
and members of the next generation to join in a dialogue. That is the
key to dealing with this problem. That is what this modest proposal
suggests.
Indeed, a look back at recent history would suggest that Washington
gets into trouble when Washington experts listen to each other, when
they are walled off from the rest of the people, when they fail to take
into account the concerns of average American citizens, most notably
today's Social Security recipients.
So this legislation, which I am pleased to support, says that we will
set up a dialogue not as Democrats or as Republicans but as Americans,
not to succumb to the temptations of rhetorical terrorism but, instead,
to offer sound, sensible solutions. Because the stakes are too high,
the stakes are too high to succumb to the temptation of sloganeering
for campaigns just a few months away.
{time} 1730
Please support the legislation.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, if I might, let me broaden this discussion a little bit
and put it into a somewhat different context.
Mr. Speaker, the United States has by far the most unfair
distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world and the
greatest gap between the rich and the poor. In recent years in this
country, we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires,
while at the same time about half of the senior citizens in this
country are trying to survive on incomes of $15,000 a year or less, and
12 percent of the seniors live in poverty.
Many senior citizens today cannot afford their prescription drugs. In
my State seniors make a choice between heating their homes in the
winter and buying the food they need and the prescriptions drugs they
need. That is a crisis which we should be dealing with.
What is not a crisis is the fact that Social Security today will pay
out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 33
years. Now, what other program do we have that is going to pay out all
of their benefits for the next 33 years? How many businesses in America
today can say, gee, if I do not do anything, things are going to
continue to go okay for 33 years?
Should we begin to address the fact that as our population ages and
we have fewer workers, that we are going to have a problem? Of course.
Should we discuss it today? Yes, we should. But let us not fool the
American people and talk about a crisis and the bankruptcy of the
Social Security system which today is going to have an $80 billion
surplus this year.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3546,
the National Dialogue on Social Security Act. According to the trustees
of the Social Security Trust Fund, the system is going broke. By the
year 2013, the Trust Fund will be paying out more in benefits than it
takes in through payroll taxes. By the year 2032, the Social Security
Trust Fund will be completely bankrupt.
Saving Social Security must be our Nation's most important priority,
and we must all work together to move this process forward. Social
Security is much too vital a program to have just one party or one
branch of a government push for reform. Saving Social Security should
not be a Republican versus Democrat issue; it should not be a
conservative versus liberal issue, and
[[Page H2501]]
it should not be a Congress versus the President issue. It should be an
issue where we all stand together, placing the interests of our Nation
first.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today puts us on that road to
reform. The proposal has two parts. First, it seeks to engage the
public on the future of Social Security. Earlier this month I held town
hall meetings in each of the 10 counties that make up my congressional
district in northern California. At these forums, literally hundreds of
citizens of all ages shared with me their ideas and suggestions about
how to improve the health of the Social Security system. This
legislation will make sure that the voices of the American people
continue to be heard throughout the reform process.
Second, this proposal establishes a bipartisan intergenerational
panel to design a single package of long-range reforms. I believe that
this panel represents our Nation's best hope for securing the broad
bipartisan, intergenerational support we must have to tackle this
monumental task.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to support this very important legislation.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I think it is
important we have an open and honest debate about how we assure the
solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. I think it is terribly
important we work off the same set of facts as we debate that.
But our first order of business has to be to use the proposed surplus
to repay the massive Federal debt, starting with that portion of the
debt that is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. Well, how do we do
that? We do that by exercising discipline in our spending habits. We
resist the temptation to use the surplus to pay for new Federal
programs or tax cuts at the expense of the Social Security Trust Fund.
If we are going to increase spending and programs or reduce taxes, find
the money in the existing Federal budget, but do not use the surplus.
And how do we go about doing that? Well, the first step is we need to
take up and pass a House budget resolution. We are running almost 2
months behind in doing that for no valid reason whatsoever. The budget
resolution is our road map, it is our spending plan in which we limit
ourselves as to where we are going to spend money, how we are going to
pay for tax cuts, how we are going to pay for existing programs and new
programs, and most importantly of all, how we are going to protect that
surplus and use that money to begin paying back the Social Security
Trust Fund.
Without passing that budget resolution, we are in serious danger of
passing spending bills in the House of Representatives without
appreciating how we are going to pay for them, and with potentially
spending the surplus; and, perhaps worst of all, Mr. Speaker, we are in
serious danger without passing this House budget resolution of passing
spending bills on the floor of the House, spending the surplus without
admitting to it ourselves or to the American public.
So what we do is far more important than what we say. We need to have
a national dialogue, but we need to take up and pass the House budget
resolution, and we need to protect the surplus in the budget
resolution.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would suggest to the gentleman from Florida that he look at H.R.
3351. It is a bill that will do just exactly what the gentleman says.
It is a bill that will wall off the surplus, and until we have a
settlement on Social Security, no one can touch it. It will buy the
debt down until that time, and I suggest that the gentleman look at
H.R. 3351, which I am the principal sponsor of.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Very quickly, in terms of whether it is bankrupt or not, if we just
kept increasing taxes on the American workers, there would always be
tax revenues coming in. But just to caution everybody on the danger of
tax increases, that is how we solved the problem in the 1970s, that is
how we solved the problem in 1983. In fact, we have increased the
Social Security tax 36 times since 1971. More often than once a year we
have put additional tax on American workers. I would just suggest that
it is very dangerous if we continue to rely on tax increases to solve
this problem.
Today, the American working families pay more, 75 percent of American
working families pay more in the FICA tax, Social Security tax, than
they do in the income tax. So I would hope, even though I suggest we
keep everything on the table, let us at least consider the imposition
of increased taxes.
I would plead with my colleagues not to use as an excuse the fact
that if the government pays back everything that it has borrowed from
the Social Security Trust Fund, that we will continue to have enough
money until the year 2032.
Just look at this chart a minute. The little blue blip up here on the
left is the additional money that is coming in from current taxes that
is over and above paying out the existing benefits. That runs out, in
the new estimate, in 2013. But look at this year, for example. And the
rest of the chart in red is how much money the general fund is going to
have to come up with to pay back what has been borrowed.
In the year 2032, for example, somehow the general fund is going to
have to come up with $200 billion, and we either do that by cutting
other spending, by increasing taxes or by more public borrowing, but
again, it is not all that easy to pay back what has already been used
up and is now in the Trust Fund.
Some people suggest that using the surplus is a way to start solving
the problem. I agree, let us do it. I just got the actuary's report
today, though. Based on using all of the projected surplus up until the
year 2016, it would only solve less than 20 percent of the Social
Security problem.
Some people have suggested if government would just simply stop
borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, it would be okay. I
agree again. Let us stop that. Let us at least make that borrowing
marketable certificates so the trustees at any time can go around the
corner to the local bank when they need additional benefits and cash
that in to pay those benefits. But as we see from this chart, we are
now spending the surplus, which is approximately $72 billion this year,
$84 billion next year, $100 billion the year after that, and then we
start going downhill with less and less of a surplus going to the Trust
Fund. Let us not put off this very serious problem. Let us deal with
it. The longer we put it off, the more drastic the solution.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, saving Social Security is absolutely critical. Social
Security is one of the cornerstones that has made our country great. It
was 50 years ago, or more than 50 years ago, when it took great courage
on the part of FDR to stand up and say that too many older Americans
were living in poverty and that we needed to do something about it,
just as it takes great courage on the part of this President to stand
up and say, we cannot let the Social Security program become unglued at
this time.
It is time to ensure that Social Security will exist for generations
to come. Today I want to thank the Members on the other side of the
aisle who have followed the President's lead and said that our budget
surplus must be reserved for saving Social Security first. I look
forward to working with leaders from both parties to develop solutions
that will ensure the continued success of Social Security without
putting the retirement benefits of current and future citizens at risk.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of
the bipartisan Commission on Social Security. I represent the
congressional district in Florida that has more seniors than any other
district in the Nation, so the solvency of Social Security, like
Medicare, is very important to me and my constituents.
[[Page H2502]]
But I am concerned about Social Security, not only for today's
seniors, but also for their children and grandchildren. We have all
heard that the Social Security Trust Fund will go broke by the year
2032. I know that may seem like a long way off, but when baby boomers
begin retiring and become eligible for Social Security, it will be very
difficult to make changes. We need time to transition to a new system
and give Americans time to prepare for their retirement.
That is why we must have the courage to reform Social Security now,
before we enter a crisis mode. Good public policy is not achieved in
crisis.
The Commission would take this debate out of partisan politics while
the American people learn the facts and constructively discuss the
options for reform.
What are the facts? The first fact: America is getting older and
living longer. In the 21st century we will witness big demographic
changes. As the baby boomers cross into retirement and life expectancy
increases, the number of Americans on Social Security will also rapidly
increase. Meanwhile, the number of workers paying taxes to support the
elderly will decrease. Simply put, we will have more seniors living
longer and fewer workers to support them. As good as it has been,
Social Security is unsustainable in its current form.
The second fact: Americans need more information. Americans, young
and old, know there is a problem, but they are not sure why it exists
or how to solve it. The Commission's national dialogue would help
dispel the myths about Social Security and allow for complete
discussion of reform options among seniors, baby boomers and young
people, because any reform proposal must have trigenerational support.
Social Security reform must be a win/win/win.
Why is the Commission critical? At first, I was skeptical that a
commission was the right answer. I feared it would take too long and
offer too many solutions. But this Commission would only offer one
recommendation by February 1999.
{time} 1745
In other words, the commission would take swift and decisive action.
This commission would provide a solid basis for enacting broad,
bipartisan changes to Social Security, changes that will ensure a
secure retirement for all generations.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan
commission. It is the right time and a prudent measure.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, there are people who say they want a
dialogue on Social Security. I suggest such a dialogue would be like a
cat having a dialogue with a mouse, or maybe a crocodile having a
dialogue with a frog, or perhaps a shark having a dialogue with a tuna.
Because Wall Street having a dialogue over Social Security with
senior citizens is just as predatory, because they do not really want a
dialogue. They already know what they want to do with Social Security,
I would say to Mr. and Mrs. America. They want to take benefits from
them and use those benefits to fuel growth in the stock market.
Mr. Speaker, it is really about privatization. That is what they mean
when they say, ``Let us have a dialogue.'' A dialogue with Wall Street
is about how to grab Americans' retirement funds through privatization.
Mr. Speaker, there is no crisis. The current tax and benefit rates
remaining constant, Social Security will pay 100 percent of the
benefits of future recipients until 2032 without any change whatsoever.
In today's Cleveland Plain Dealer, my hometown, it says, ``Social
Security's health is improving.''
A problem that could develop in 35 years is not a crisis, it is a
projection. The privatization dialogue would dismantle a hugely popular
and successful government program and deliver a hugely profitable kitty
for Wall Street investors to charge fees on.
Privatizing Social Security is a radical, extreme measure. It would
guarantee that there would be retirees who would go poor because their
private investments failed. For every winner in the stock market, there
will be a loser. Wall Street goes up, 9,000 points, and Wall Street
will come down. And then where will retirees be when they need their
monthly check?
Privatizing Social Security will endanger one of it greatest
accomplishments, that it has saved millions of seniors from the despair
of poverty because it guarantees benefits. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members
to reject this bill.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support a 60-year success story
called Social Security. Almost half of our senior citizens were in
poverty before its enactment, and now literally millions of seniors
have been able to live and have a good quality of life because of that
safety net called Social Security.
I also rise to ask my colleagues, in addition to voting for this
resolution, to vote for what I believe is the most significant vote
that will be in front of us today, and that is the motion to recommit
offered by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), my good
friend, who will be offering to us the opportunity to truly put Social
Security first by indicating that every single penny of any surplus
that we have now would be put aside and held until we solve the Social
Security situation.
Mr. Speaker, we have time to do it right. We in fact know that as of
yesterday, we now hear that it will be 2032 before Social Security runs
out. That gives us time to do small steps in order to solve the
problems in a big way, and I would urge us to do it quickly, to
preserve and protect Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, I would also urge my colleagues then to do the
additional things that we need to do to make sure that our citizens
have retirement security, expanding savings opportunities. First we
have Social Security. We need to protect it and preserve it. Secondly,
we need to expand those kinds of things that we did in the Taxpayer
Relief bill last year where we expanded IRA options and make sure we
have other options to encourage savings.
Third, I would urge my colleagues to focus on pensions for small
businesses. I have a bill, as do others of my colleagues have important
legislation, that would give future opportunities for the 42 million
people who work for small businesses, work hard every day, or who own
their own small business and need a pension. All three of those things
together will help us to guarantee every American retirement security
for the future.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no particular problem with the
creation of a another commission to study the needs of the Social
Security program, so long as it is balanced and without agendas other
than the true need to preserve the safety net for America's workers.
But equally important is that we begin this debate with a clear
understanding of what Social Security is and why it was created before
we begin proposing radical solutions. And also we must be careful not
to confuse the issues while trying to solve the problem.
First and foremost, we must remember that Social Security is a safety
net below which no American will fall. It is a retirement security
program, it is a disability insurance program, and it is a survivor
insurance program. It is not a 401(k) or an individual retirement
account. Any reform must not destroy the safety net or it will destroy
the essence of the program.
Second, we must not confuse solvency with return on investment. The
foremost issue is the preservation of the existing Social Security
system through and beyond the baby boom retirement period. Since it is
a pay-as-you-go social insurance program, as the ratio of workers to
retirees contracts, annual benefit costs will exceed revenues and
eventually reserves. To maintain the current benefit structure is a
solvency question addressed more by structural issues than return on
investment.
Third, most so-called privatization proposals do not address either
the
[[Page H2503]]
safety net or solvency, but rather return on investment. This is not a
panacea and we should be cautious. Replacing the existing Social
Security system with private retirement accounts may well increase the
return on investment over the current system for some, but it could
also eliminate the safety net without a huge government subsidy costing
trillions of dollars. And even in the era of the bull market and the
9,000-point Dow, we must remember that with yield comes risk. Seven
times in the 1970s and the 1980s the real value of the S&P 500 was 40
percent below what it has been in the previous 10 years. If investors
missed the market, it could cost them.
Fourth, the bill we should be debating is the budget resolution and
what to do with the surplus. Included in the $5.4 trillion debt is $600
billion of Treasury bonds owned by the Social Security Trust Fund. We
should give some serious thought to begin paying down the debt, growing
national income, and making Social Security solvent for the baby boom
generation.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the Chair how much time
is remaining on either side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the
work of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the Committee on
Ways and Means on this legislation. However, I respectfully disagree
with the assessment that the solution to Social Security reform is
establishment of another commission.
Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous commissions, panels, et cetera,
that have diagnosed the problems facing Social Security. They have
offered countless options to address these problems. We do not have a
shortage of proposals for reforming the Social Security system.
Next month the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I will join
Senators Judd Gregg and John Breaux in introducing legislation
incorporating the recommendations of the National Commission on
Retirement Policy organized by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. This proposal will address the issue of
retirement savings in general, in addition to the future of Social
Security.
It reflects several months of work of a bipartisan commission
composed of a diverse group of experts as well as Members of Congress.
I doubt that an external commission will know what is politically
viable. Only Members of Congress, the people's elected representatives,
are qualified to decide what are forms the American public is willing
to support in a program as important as Social Security.
Members of Congress are elected to provide leadership on issues
facing our Nation. Our constituents expect and deserve to have their
elected representatives make the tough choices necessary to ensure that
the Social Security program is strengthened and preserved.
Expert commissions are useful in bringing new ideas into the debate
and helping Congress understand the issues. We are past that point on
this issue. There are more than enough expert reports that identify the
problems and offer ideas for solutions. Now is the time for elected
officials to begin doing our job of taking these proposals and putting
together a politically viable proposal that the public will support.
Earlier this year, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I
introduced legislation establishing a special bipartisan bicameral
committee of Congress so that those of us elected to make tough
decisions would be able to work through the regular legislative process
to take all the proposals that have been developed and put together
bipartisan Social Security reform legislation that can be voted into
law. We submitted an amendment to the Committee on Rules yesterday that
attempted to incorporate some of the ideas from our super committee
proposal into the commission, but were not able to offer that amendment
today.
There is no question that legislation of this magnitude cannot
receive the confidence of the American public or Congress unless it is
bipartisan from the beginning. The failure of health care reform in
1994 made this crystal clear.
I am pleased that the President has learned this lesson by allowing a
bipartisan discussion to go forward on Social Security instead of
unilaterally offering a proposal of his own. While I agree very
strongly that we must maintain bipartisanship in the Social Security
debate, I do not believe that a commission is necessary. The President
is demonstrating the presidential leadership that will be essential to
maintaining bipartisanship. Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Lott and
other Republican leaders have all expressed a commitment to Social
Security reform. And I am committed to doing my part to speak out
against those who attempt to politicize this debate from left or right.
Also, I want to speak briefly in support of the motion to recommit
stating that the entire budget surplus be reserved until we enact
Social Security reform. Reserving the budget surplus for Social
Security is not a substitute for structural reforms of Social Security
but it will give us a running start towards structural Social Security
reform. Reserving the surplus for Social Security reform will make it
easier to enact policies which provide a strong Social Security system
for future retirees.
Proposals to use the surplus for any other reasons, including the
proposals to create individual savings accounts to supplement Social
Security reform now, will make our task much more difficult, that task
of comprehensive Social Security reform. While I strongly support the
concept of individual savings accounts within the context of
comprehensive legislation, we should not enact individual accounts on a
piecemeal basis without knowing how they will fit within a
comprehensive reform.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Kennelly) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have a
``three-fer'' here from Texas.
Social Security represents one of the most successful programs ever
enacted by our U.S. Government. It along with Medicare are the crown
jewels, as we call them, of Democratic legislative accomplishments from
Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson.
Today I will vote to establish a national dialogue on Social
Security. It is important that we start this process immediately, so
that we have ample time to consider a variety of proposals and have
time to develop the best way to save Social Security for the future
generations. As Members of Congress, this is one of our greatest
responsibilities.
Congress created this program to raise the income level of senior
citizens above the poverty line. It has been so successful in the 63
years, and I hope that my Republican colleagues have learned how
important Social Security and Medicare is to all Americans. We do not
need to gamble with Social Security funds and invest them in fly-by-
night schemes. We need to make sure they are there not just for the
generation that is enjoying the benefits now, but for the next
generation and the next generation, to make sure we do not slip back
into poverty for our senior citizens.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink).
{time} 1800
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, this is a great debate for us to have. Many
people may not realize it, but my home State of Pennsylvania has one of
the highest populations of rural elderly, and I cannot tell my
colleagues how important Social Security is to them and to their
families.
For many people of my district, the Social Security system is the
only protection that they and their families have from being totally
impoverished. Without Social Security, half of our most vulnerable
seniors and disabled citizens would be living in poverty.
[[Page H2504]]
We are all concerned about Social Security. Created by a Democratic
President, Social Security has kept millions of American seniors out of
poverty. It is a sacred covenant between the American people and their
government which the Democrats are dedicated to preserving.
A national dialogue on the future of Social Security is a good idea.
Bipartisan panels on Social Security are a good idea. A White House
conference is a good idea. All of these things are good.
But my main concern is we sit here in Washington, make ourselves look
good by really setting up a panel and opportunity to talk about Social
Security, but then, Mr. Speaker, none of this is going to amount to
anything more than a lot of hot air unless we all commit ourselves
right here and now to make sure that the budget surplus does not get
spent on tax cuts or government programs, but is held in reserve until
we have ensured the future of the solvency of Social Security.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Dialogue
on Social Security Act. Social Security is one of our greatest success
stories. For over 60 years, since its creation by President Franklin
Roosevelt, it has been an independent provider of financial security to
hard-working men and women in their retirement years.
When we consider its success, prior to Social Security's enactment,
retirement meant insecurity and poverty for too many of our senior
citizens. Today the program has become a safety net for millions of
seniors and their families. It is estimated that without Social
Security, over half of the elderly would be living in poverty.
We are all aware of the demographic shifts that threaten the solvency
of the Social Security system in the next 30 years. It is our
responsibility as Members of Congress to unite Americans in the effort
to reform and preserve Social Security. It must be there, not just for
our generation, but for our children and our grandchildren, too.
I caution my colleagues, however, any change must be thoughtfully
debated and carefully considered. Any reform must strengthen Social
Security's future while maintaining the underlying philosophy which is
the foundation of its success, a guarantee of financial stability for
the elderly.
Contrary to what some of my Republican colleagues believe, we cannot
play fast and loose with Social Security. It must not become just
another investment vehicle subject to the uncertainty and the
fickleness of the market. That is not a guarantee. It also should not
be sacrificed for tax cuts or experiments with personal retirement
accounts. Social Security must come first. The guarantee of a secure
retirement must come first.
I support recommitting this bill for amendment to save the budget
surplus until Congress takes real action on Social Security. The time
for reform is now, but it must be real reform. We must guarantee that
American men and women who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the
rules will not have to struggle in their golden years. I look forward
to the coming discussion of how we, in fact, preserve Social Security,
support real reform, support future generations, support the dialogue.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3546,
the National Dialogue on Social Security Act, and urge my colleagues to
support this worthy piece of legislation.
The intent of this legislation is to initiate a national dialogue on
the future of the Social Security Program. Such a dialogue is a
necessary component of any future reforms that are needed to ensure the
long-term stability of the system.
While Social Security has been an unparalleled success over the past
sixty years, its future is being driven by negative demographic trends.
The baby boomer generation is nearing retirement and subsequent
generations are not large enough to subsidize the boomers' projected
demands on the Social Security system.
Current estimates disclose that the Social Security system will start
paying out more benefits than it receives in contributions around the
year 2013. This incoming/outgoing ration will gradually worsen until
the program reaches insolvency in 2032.
The problems facing Social Security are not immediate. However, the
longer we wait to make reforms, the more painful those reforms will be.
The President has already initiated a dialogue on Social Security
reform. I am pleased that this bill will allow Congress to join this
discussion. It is important to address this subject while our window of
opportunity remains open. Furthermore, Congress needs to do this in a
manner that is above politics. The subject of Social Security reform is
far too important to be influenced by partisan politics. This bill
provides for this through the creation of a bipartisan panel to examine
all of the various proposals that have been advanced over the past
year.
Mr. Speaker, Social Security has played a vital role in our Nation's
success and prosperity this century. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues
to support this worthy legislation to ensure that it continues to do so
long into the future.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the nation is now engaging
in a dialogue about the future of Social Security, our most important
government program. President Clinton deserves credit for fueling this
discussion. Without a doubt, we must take steps to preserve Social
Security for today's seniors--and tomorrow's. But as part of this
effort, we must also address the current inequities facing women of
retirement age across America.
Let me share a few facts. Women live seven years longer than men on
average--so they have an increased need for economic security in their
later years. Women move in and out of the workforce more than men to
raise children and care for elderly relatives so their earnings can
change dramatically from year to year. And, women are still paid less
than men--about 70 cents less on the dollar and three quarters of women
earn less than $25,000 per year.
As a result, women have far less retirement income than men. Less
than a third of all female retirees have pensions. And of those women
with pensions, the average benefit is 40 percent less than men's.
Equally troubling, women's average monthly Social Security checks are
25 percent smaller than men's.
Given these disturbing figures, is it any surprise that fully one-
quarter of women over 65 live in poverty, that women make up three
quarters of the elderly poor?
The good news is that there are ways to make Social Security fairer
to women. I am working on a package of Social Security measures to
improve the system for women. For example, one bill would improve
Social Security benefits for those who take time out of the workforce
to provide child care or elder care.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that these issues are getting the
attention they deserve. As economist Kathleen Feldstein recently noted
in the New York Times, some reform proposals currently on the table
would perpetuate or even exacerbate the problems facing women in
retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I am not passing judgment on any reform plan today. I
would simply urge that as my colleagues, the Administration, and the
citizens of this nation work together to preserve Social Security, we
pay close attention to the unique circumstances which affect women's
retirement. We must use this crucial debate to improve the economic
security of older women and future generations.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly speak out
against H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act of
1998. This bill will do injustice and harm to the effort to resolve the
problems facing the Social Security system. The odd adage ``if it aint
broke, don't fix it'' applies to this bill. Our bipartisan task force
is working hard toward resolving the problems of the historic ``third
rail'' of American politics. We do not need another task force to
undermine the hard work and difficult decisions that need to be made.
As a member of the Social Security task force, I must commend the
collegial bipartisan manner in which the task force has conducted its
business and I take this moment to recognize Congressmen Roy Blunt, R-
Mo. and Bill Delahunt, D-Ma. for their leadership.
I am, however, mystified at Republican efforts to implement this
legislation. In my opinion, H.R. 3546 duplicates the current bipartisan
process instituted to resolve the problems facing Social Security. This
is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars and the energy and effort of
members of Congress.
Social Security, created by a Democratic President, and used by
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents has kept millions of seniors
out of poverty. For a majority of minorities who are elderly, Social
Security is their major source of income. While I applaud my colleagues
efforts to begin another discussion to save Social Security, the fact
that the members of the ``Dialogue Council'' and ``Panel'' will be
chosen by the majority leadership is surprising. Such a nonpartisan
issue should not be drawn into the maelstrom of politics.
[[Page H2505]]
I find it more than a coincidence that this bill sounds a lot like
the current national discussion about the future of Social Security
which the President began in Kansas City. The mandates of this
legislation directly compete with the process currently underway. I
maintain that this legislation, put forth by the republican leadership,
is simply an effort to confuse an issue vital to the well being of the
nation. Unfortunately, this legislation reeks of an election year
attempt by the Republicans to appear concerned about an issue that the
people have mandated important.
I am further concerned that because the bill appoints a Council and
Panel so clearly skewed to favor the majority, it will not foster the
bipartisan debate needed and desired by most in the House. This bill
will allow the Republican leadership in the House and Senate to stack
the Dialogue Council and Panel with members who clearly support the
privatization of the Social Security system.
As a member of the Social Security Task Force, I am objectively
analyzing the pros and cons of privatizing social security. Any
conclusion on this issue must be made after Congress and the nation has
had the opportunity to examine all options as to what is clearly
demonstrated to be in the best interest of the American people. The
actions we take today on Social Security will affect our parents and
the lives of our children. The actions we take today will affect the
course of America in the coming decades. It is my charge, as a member
of the Task Force, to make the tough decisions and recommendations to
preserve this vital program. I only hope the American people see this
bill for what it is, and recognize that this is an election year
attempt to appear to address this critical issue.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a
national dialogue on Social Security. I was honored that the Concord
Coalition and the American Association of Retired Persons chose to host
the first town hall meeting on Social Security reform in my district,
the Fifth Congressional District of Missouri. The President's
participation in this bipartisan forum and numerous others around the
nation, ensures that a thoughtful and inclusive national dialogue will
enable all Americans to express their views as to the future of Social
Security well into the 21st century.
The President is encouraging Congress to reserve the anticipated
budget surplus for bolstering Social Security and reducing the national
debt. Congress must take steps to implement the President's call for
action. I urge my colleagues to resist any delays in action which would
result in the anticipated surplus being dedicated to other programs. We
must preserve the integrity of Social Security to afford all citizens
of this country that this successful safety net will be there for them
when they retire, as it has been since President Roosevelt initiated it
in 1935.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton recently initiated a
national dialogue on the future of Social Security, which will enable
Americans of all ages to participate in any decisions that are made
about Social Security's future. By introducing H.R. 3546, the National
Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998, the Republican leadership has
shown that they, too, believe it is critical to have a thoughtful
discussion about Social Security before taking action.
Fortunately, we have time to have that discussion. Yesterday, Social
Security's trustees reported that the trust fund will be fully solvent
until 2032 under current policies. This does not mean we should ignore
Social Security's long-term problems. But it does mean we can take time
for a thorough and thoughtful discussion of all the issues involved.
We do not yet know what the short-term cost of fixing Social Security
will be. That is why it is critical that we save all of the budget
surplus until we know what the Social Security program needs and how
much it will cost.
Some people would like to spend the surplus now. Their suggestions
range from tax cuts to new government programs to small individual
retirement accounts. But it would be fiscally irresponsible to spend
the surplus. By saving it, we guarantee that the money will be there if
we need it for Social Security and we reduce the public debt, fueling
economic expansion and a higher standard of living for future workers
and retirees.
Social Security is one of the most successful programs ever--without
it, over half of the elderly would be extremely poor. Thirty-eight
million elderly people depend on Social Security to pay for the most
basic necessities of life. We owe it to them and to the next generation
of retirees to save all of the surplus for Social Security while we
have a careful and thoughtful discussion about how to protect the
program over the long term.
I strongly support the amendment to H.R. 3546 which Representatives
Rangel and Kennelly offered in the Ways and Means Committee. It would
have guaranteed that the surplus was saved for Social Security. By
contrast, the much weaker amendment that was adopted would allow the
surplus to be spent before we have discussed all the options for Social
Security. I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit,
which would amend the bill to prevent the surplus from being spent for
any purpose until we decide how to solve Social Security's long-term
problems.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, we face--all of us--a daunting challenge.
To solve it, we must begin our work now and put partisan differences
aside.
As we proceed, we must do two things: First and foremost, we must
honor our commitment to today's seniors and those who will retire soon.
The green checks the Social Security Administration mails each month to
one in six Americans are the backbone of retirement income for the
nation. Secondly, we must also protect younger Americans so that Social
Security works for them as well.
Today is a good time to reaffirm that Social Security was originally
intended to supplement retirement. It is just one leg of what is
referred to as a 3-legged stool with the other two legs being private
pensions and personal savings. On the latter point, Congress continues
to look for ways to encourage personal savings so that thriftiness
is rewarded not punished.
This discussion today is about the extent to which future retirement
should be a public responsibility and how much it would be a private
one. If we delay reform, we shorten the time needed by the American
people to accumulate savings and adjust their plans for retirement.
Long-term changes must be made while the ``baby boomer'' generation is
still in the work force and has time to make adjustments.
While the solvency of Social Security is a slow-motion crisis, to
America's workers in their 20's and 30's, there is an immediate
crisis--a crisis of confidence. Instead of taking advantage of the
tried and true power of compound interest, taxpayers are faced to put
retirement savings in a Washington program that earns much less than a
traditional savings account.
We are standing on the threshold of a great new opportunity: the
first federal surplus in a generation. Ladies and Gentlemen, the
American people have never retreated from a crisis and we must not do
so on this issue.
Former President Gerald Ford, in a speech a year ago, pointed out
that the Founders of our country designed a government in which it is
easier to do nothing than to do a great deal all at once. But they also
counted on the will and wisdom of Americans to conceive and implement
reforms where necessary. Our conscience demands what our children
deserve. God willing we will disappoint neither.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3546, the
National Dialogue on Social Security Act. This legislation could not be
more timely with the announcement yesterday that in the year 2032, the
Social Security Fund will be exhausted. We must take action to address
the long-term needs of the Social Security system and it must be done
so that Americans are confident they will have a reliable source of
income during their retirement years.
The intent of this bill is to create a bipartisan, eight-member panel
which will report its recommendations on long-term changes to Congress
by February 1, 1999. The other important component of H.R. 3546 is to
initiate and coordinate a truly inclusive national dialogue which will
also issue a report. The national dialogue will allow representatives
of all Americans, from the children of the Great Depression to the
children of the third millenium, to participate in a process affecting
their future. It is my strong belief that proposals to incorporate the
private sector and promoting options can be developed that will, at the
same time, ensure that the current beneficiaries continue to receive
the benefits they have been promised. In any event, I look forward to
receiving the panel's recommendations at the appropriate time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to
create an expert panel to study Social Security reform. I agree that we
need to accelerate a national dialogue about how the Social Security
system should prepare for the challenges it will face when the baby
boom generation begins to retire, and that a bipartisan panel to design
long-range Social Security reform would serve a necessary role in
evaluating potential reforms.
The time is now for Social Security reform. We are on the verge of
balancing the federal budget for the first time since 1969 and I
believe that it would be a clear abdication of our responsibilities if
we do not seize this historic moment to implement a lasting reform of
Social Security.
The best way to save Social Security is to take politics out of the
equation.
As you know, I have been working on Social Security reform since the
1980's. In this Congress, I have introduced H.R. 2929, the most recent
version of my Individual Social Security Retirement Account (ISSRA) Act
legislation. This bill, developed with noted economist Peter Ferrara,
would create a new retirement option for all Americans and fully
address the
[[Page H2506]]
impending shortcomings of our Social Security system. Rather than using
my time here today to advocate any specific legislation, I would like
to illustrate my beliefs about how our existing Social Security system
should be reformed, and highlight some issues that the proposed expert
panel will have to address.
My legislation adheres to three fundamental principles that must be
present in any reform to our existing Social Security system. First,
existing benefits must be guaranteed without reductions for all current
retirees. Second, workers must have the option of staying in existing
Social Security, or choose to start an individual account. Finally, we
simply cannot levy new taxes to further extend the Ponzi scheme that is
our current Social Security system. In contrast, we must consider an
eventual tax cut for individual account participants.
The individual accounts created by my ISSTA legislation are not only
fiscally sound, but also necessary to any reform that will ensure the
survival of our national retirement system. For example, under my plan
the Social Security taxes (currently 6.2% of wages paid by both worker
and employer, or a total of 12.4%) of those workers who choose to
create an ISSRA would be redistributed. Workers and employers would
each contribute 5% of wages to an ISSRA (10% total), and workers could
make additional contributions of up to 20% of gross income. The
remaining 2.4% of the payroll tax would continue to help fund the
ongoing obligations of Social Security but could be eliminated 10 years
into the transitional period, thus providing a 20% tax cut. Current
workers who opt out of traditional Social Security would also receive
``recognition bonds'' from the government that would pay a portion of
their retirement benefit based on the proportion of taxes they had
already paid into the current system.
These individually owned and managed accounts should be governed by
the same rules currently utilized for IRA accounts, with the exception
of the right to withdrawal. All workers choosing to form an individual
account could choose from among approved private investment managers.
This safeguard would make the system easy to use, and protect
unsophisticated investors from potential fraud and abuse.
Like the current system, employee contributions to ISSRA accounts
would not be tax deductible, while employer contributions would remain
deductible. Investment returns over the years would be tax free until
withdrawal, in a manner identical to today's IRAs. During retirement,
only half of the benefits would be included in taxable income.
Benefits at retirement would be based on what the individual's ISSRA
account could support. The worker could choose to purchase an annuity
or make periodic withdrawals in such a manner that the account would
not become exhausted within the beneficiary's lifetime. Retirement age
for individuals choosing to utilize an ISSRA would be variable after
age 59 and one-half, based on funds available in their account.
As a safeguard, a minimum benefit would be guaranteed for all
individuals assuring that no worker would fall below the minimum
necessary for a dignified retirement. This benefit would supplement an
individual's shortfall in private benefits and would be financed from
general revenues and the eventual surplus in the Social Security Trust
Fund.
Under my ISSRA plan, and similar reform plans utilizing individual
accounts, benefits for retirees would grow enormously. Of particular
importance to me is the plight of the working poor, who would receive
increased benefits under my plan as opposed to their level of benefits
under Social Security. Indeed, the working poor would experience the
largest gains in retirement benefits under my plan. For example, an
individual working for a minimum wage would receive more than three
times the benefits promised by our current system. In addition, these
financially vulnerable individuals would also have substantial funds to
leave their heirs thereby breaking the cycle of poverty.
Up until now, the costs associated with the implementation of a
Social Security reform like my ISSRA plan were thought to be too severe
to be addressed through reasonable measures. However, projections of
the fiscal impact of this plan have demonstrated that the transition
costs can be financed without new taxes or any benefit cuts for current
retirees. According to a recently published analysis by Peter Ferrara,
transition deficits under my ISSRA plan would disappear within only 14
years.
Indeed, in any reform plan using individual accounts, transition
costs can be accommodated through a number of reform measures designed
to strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund. The first would be the
displacement of Social Security benefits as workers choose the private
system. Although starting slowly, these savings will grow substantially
over time. Immediate savings would be realized by transferring
responsibility for the disability and pre-retirement benefits of all
individuals who opt out to private disability and life insurance
carriers. Rather than using Social Security funds, these benefits would
be accommodated by the private marketplace through Treasury Department
approved ISSRA fund managers.
Further savings would result from the waiver of past tax payments.
Recognition bonds will be waived for individuals under the age of 30
who choose to utilize the new ISSRAs, and the Social Security Trust
Fund will not be expended for their retirement benefits.
Several sources of revenue would also be available to finance the
transition. The continuing payroll tax of 2.4% for workers opting out
of traditional Social Security would be credited to the Trust Fund for
a period of ten years. This revenue, when combined with revenues
resulting from the sale of a new issue of ``Social Security Trust Fund
Bonds'' would finance the majority of transition costs.
The net effect of these measures would be a Social Security Trust
Fund with net revenues in 14 and a large positive balance after 22
years. Eventually these surpluses would grow large enough to cover
losses in revenue from a 20% payroll tax cut and reduce the national
debt.
Not directly accounted for in my plan, but substantially aiding the
federal government in meeting transition costs would be the generation
of substantial new revenues as a result of new savings and investment
in a reformed Social Security system. The net increased savings
resulting from the implementation of my ISSRA plan or another plan
utilizing individual accounts would also lead to significant economic
growth, and increases in productivity, wages and jobs.
Clearly, support is growing among the American people for Social
Security reform. A recent CATO Institute poll indicated that 69 percent
of respondents favor reforms that would allow them to invest privately
the amount they pay into Social Security; 74 percent support a plan
that gives people a choice of staying in traditional Social Security or
moving to a new system; and 77 percent want a system that allows
individuals to control investment of their retirement funds. My ISSRA
plan includes all of these desirable features, as should any serious
Social Security reform proposal. Clearly reform involving optional
individual accounts is a comprehensive way to protect the benefits of
current retirees, preserve the integrity of the system for future
generations, and help sustain the long-term health of our economy.
Our efforts must result in a return to integrity and solvency in a
reformed Social Security system that gives every American worker
control over his or her retirement destiny.
In closing, I commend Chairman Archer for his efforts in moving
forward with a national debate about the future of Social Security, and
I fully support this critical legislation.
As America ages, we must work together to create new solutions that
go beyond Washington's typical quick fixes--and without raising taxes.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I support this bipartisan effort to
further a national dialogue on Social Security.
Social Security is the towering achievement of our democracy in the
twentieth century. It has bestowed on millions of Americans a measure
of financial security and freedom from fear of spending their
retirement in impoverishment.
It has taken us decades to build a program that has worked so well to
keep retirees out of poverty.
That has been so successful in supplying survival income for widows
and their children when their loved one dies unexpectedly. And that has
given so many disabled people income when they were unable to work.
It would be a national disgrace if we damage a program that has done
so much good for so many people. We shouldn't take any steps that would
drastically change the nature of Social Security. And we should make no
changes without engaging in an intense dialogue with the American
people who overwhelmingly support and fund it.
We are hearing a lot about Social Security from people who want to
divert the stream of Social Security payments from the trust fund into
equity markets. Who want to change the whole nature of the Social
Security system, from one where there is a sacred bond between
Americans and their government, to one where there this bond is
eliminated.
Many advocates of radical reform want to change Social Security from
a safe and secure source of income into a bet on the performance of the
stock market.
They want to transform the system from one where Social Security
payments are guaranteed, to one where the level of payments will
fluctuate based on the volatility of the market.
In their rush to revolutionize, they have forgotten one thing. For
most beneficiaries, their Social Security check is not money to put
aside, or a source of extra income. For many Americans, their Social
Security check is all that stands between them and poverty--it is their
only source of income.
To accomplish the drastic changes which they ultimately want,
proponents of radical reform are trying to create a panic among all
[[Page H2507]]
Americans who have a stake in Social Security. From their comments over
the last several months, you would be convinced that the entire system
was in risk of imminent collapse. That the best bet would be for
Americans to take their money and head for the hills, or at least for
Wall Street.
This is irresponsible and just plain wrong. As yesterday's trustee's
report made clear, there is absolutely no risk of imminent or long-term
collapse of the system.
We should be open to all reforms that work to protect the health of
Social Security into the second half of the next century, but the basic
structure of Social Security must endure.The system must continue to
serve retirees, survivors, and people with disabilities. Benefit levels
must remain adequate to allow beneficiaries to live a life of dignity.
And the payments must be guaranteed to all participants in the system.
The President has told the American people that all budget surpluses
should be dedicated to the Social Security trust fund until long-term
reform is accomplished.
If we are serious about protecting Social Security for the next
century, for all present and future beneficiaries, it is critical that
we earmark these funds. This is the best use of this unexpected bonus,
not for short-term election-year fixes.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit that will
reiterate the intention of the Congress to dedicate budget surpluses to
Social Security. This is the best way to begin our dialogue with the
American people--kicking off the process with a real sign of our
commitment to the system.
I know when I go door to door in St. Louis, there is no groundswell
or razing the system or privatizing the process. Seniors and younger
workers are all concerned about the ability of the system to pay out in
the future. But no one I have talked to wants to dispose of the system
which so many have relied on for so long.
I agree with Bob Dole's recent remarks--that ``this is an issue which
is easy to demagogue, but where we have an obligation to tread
carefully.'' We need to move forward without destroying the system
which has taken so long to achieve.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, most Americans living today were born well
after the Great Depression. They are not marked by the fear of economic
loss because--as a society--they have not experienced it.
It may well be that those who have not lived through the Depression
do not appreciate the need for a social safety net. Today's adults
almost assume that a good economy will last forever.
In such a climate, more people may be less appreciative of safety
nets, like Social Security, and more convinced that self-reliance will
suffice.
But economic self-reliance is only workable for those who are
reasonably well off and who understand the value of savings. Nobel
prize winning economist Modigliani, my economics professor at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, taught me this lesson: people
save only when they have money to save and perceive the need to save.
With our national savings rate at an all time low of 3.8% of disposable
income. I cannot help but conclude that Americans today do not perceive
the need to save for the future.
Self-reliance also assumes a certain level of sophistication to
ensure that invested savings will grow. That requires knowledge about
how to balance investment opportunities and risks. Americans have a
ways to go in this regard as well.
Social Security was never intended to meet all the requirement needs
of Americans. The three-legged stool of secure retirement also requires
worker pensions and private savings.
We have a voluntary, employment-based pension system. Sadly, only
about half of all Americans have an employer-based pension; small
businesses tend not to cover workers at all.
The erosion of pension security in the United States has been
dramatic. Thirty years ago, most large employers structured pensions to
look like our Social Security system with an employer and employee
contribution and a guaranteed benefit payment related to the workers
wages.
More and more today, Americans have voluntary savings plans with a
percentage of salary saved with each paycheck. These savings plans
allow us to see how much workers are saving in voluntary, tax-
subsidized plans, how sophisticated they are about their retirement
investments, and whether workers actually use their retirement savings
for other purposes.
Early results are troubling. Workers often withdraw their persion
funds when they leave a job and do not redeposit their pension into
another savings plan. And some withdraw their pension funds even though
they do not change their place of work.
1996 data on pension withdrawals show 60% of the distributions (in
terms of the number of withdrawals, not dollars) from pension plans
were not redeposited into another retirement savings plan. 79% of all
the dollars distributed from pensions were redeposited in a pension
savings plan.
Overall, affluent people with large pensions tended to redeposit
their pension funds; lower-income people with smaller pensions often
withdrew pension funds for consumption.
Put another way, 95% of the distributions over $100,000 were
redeposited into a new pension savings plan.
Only 20% of the distributions under $2,500 were redeposited into a
new pension savings plan.
In addition to size of the pension, age and sex are factors in
whether pensions will be reserved for retirement needs: young workers
and women tend to withdraw all their pension funds more often than
other workers.
A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report studies the
implications for women in particular, should the United States move
toward a privatized retirement system. The report points out that
women's Social Security benefits are lower than men's benefits, due to
their lower earning levels.
Proponents of privatization argue that individuals might take on more
risk in the management of individual accounts to achieve a higher rate
of return. But privatization could exacerbate the gender differences
now found in retirement income for men and women.
Men's pensions funds, on average, are twice the size of women's
pension funds.
Women make more conservative investments than men when they direct
their retirement savings investments themselves, according to GAO and
other economic studies.
The GAO found that women ages 51 to 61 had a lower percentage of
their total assets in stocks, mutual funds, and investment trusts than
men did. These assets are riskier, but have higher yields than others,
such as certificates of deposits, savings accounts, or government
bonds. With very conservative investments, the investment return may
not be adequate to see many women through their retirement years.
Before we enter down the path of privatization, we should be mindful
the current savings rates and practices of Americans. We should not
assume that voluntary private savings will ever replace the benefits of
Social Security.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder
of our time.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and
call for the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 410, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Pomeroy
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Is the gentleman opposed to
the bill?
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I do oppose the bill in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Pomeroy moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3546 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE III--SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY FIRST
SEC. 301. SAVING THE UNIFIED BUDGET SURPLUS UNTIL
COMPREHENSIVE ACTION HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN TO
SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY.
The unified budget surplus should be reserved until--
(1) the Congress has undertaken comprehensive action to
save social security for current and future generations, and
(2) the Bipartisan Panel to Design Long-Range Social
Security Reform has reported its recommendations.
SEC. 302. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this title shall be effective through
March 31, 1999.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of
his motion.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Kennelly), who has been such a strong and constant leader on
Social Security.
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion to
recommit because it says in no uncertain terms we intend to save Social
Security first. By that I mean we intend to save the budget surplus for
protecting Social Security's long-term solvency.
[[Page H2508]]
The bill before us has a statement that begins in that direction but
leaves some room for doubt. This motion makes clear that we should act
to maintain Social Security solvency before we establish any new
programs, including private retirement accounts.
I should not have to remind my colleagues that two-thirds of retired
Americans count on Social Security for more than one-half their income.
This is a system that has worked. It will continue to work if we
dedicate ourselves to that purpose. Again, let us keep the old promises
before we make any new ones.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this commission by its very design is about
analysis and discussion now, leading to legislative action later,
hopefully in 1999. Now, the motion to recommit will put present meaning
to a bill that is otherwise merely about future action. Let us agree,
and let us agree across this partisan aisle that today we make the
commitment jointly that the surplus will be preserved for Social
Security.
What a wonderful opportunity this surplus presents to us to show the
country how seriously we hold Social Security and our resolve to do
something meaningful for the long-term security of this vital program.
Protect the surplus. Dedicate the surplus. Hold the surplus for Social
Security.
Let us face it, the great majority of us in this body have never seen
a surplus. The first one we have had since 1969 and, oh, the things we
would love to do with it, the investments we would like to make in
highways and other things, the tax cuts, the many ways we could devote
this surplus. Some would even like to begin to move to individual
accounts on Social Security this year with the surplus. But let us
forestall those plans.
In direct accord with the bill introduced by Chairman Bunning and
cosponsored by seven Republican Members, this motion to recommit takes
the Archer bill and makes only one change to it, an addition; that
addition, committing this Congress to holding the surplus for the
future of Social Security.
I do not think there is a more important step we can take, in
addition to what the bill of the gentleman from Texas represents, than
to add to that bill what this motion would achieve, and that is the
commitment right here, right now that the surplus will be held for
Social Security.
It was only 3 months ago when the President challenged us from that
pulpit, save Social Security first. This is our first opportunity in
this forum to cast a vote on that commitment, save Social Security
first.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of
commitment and accord between this body and the American people. We
will address Social Security. We will address Social Security in a
bipartisan and responsible way to preserve it through the 21st Century.
But let us begin today by committing that surplus to this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Kentucky opposed to
the motion?
Mr. BUNNING. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from
North Dakota if he has looked at H.R. 3351. It was a bill that I put in
in March. It is a bill that does exactly what the gentleman's motion to
recommit does, only it does it separately from this commission bill. It
walls off any surplus that we get in the year 1998 and says that none
of this money can be recycled out in debt, and all of it is dedicated
to when we have a settlement in the Social Security system.
We debated this issue at length in the Committee on Ways and Means.
We worked very hard to get a consensus on language that is in the bill
in section 206 of the report language. And it says a Sense of The
Congress: It is the sense of Congress that, pending the report of the
panel under subsection (a), which is the panel the gentleman spoke
about, the Federal unified budget surplus should be dedicated to
reducing the Federal debt by the public, which is what my bill would
do, increasing the retirement income security of individuals and
ensuring the solvency of the Social Security system.
It is my contention that the gentleman's motion is unnecessary and
duplicates language already in the bill. We think that it is totally
appropriate that the agreement that was reached in the Committee on
Ways and Means and is in the language of the bill should be voted on
without consideration of the gentleman's motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy)
for a question.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want
to tell the gentleman that I have been relieved to have a leader of his
stature and with his jurisdiction on Social Security advocating
capturing the surplus for Social Security and exclusively for Social
Security as he has done and does in his legislation.
I therefore believe that we might be in accord on this motion to
recommit, which essentially takes the gentleman's legislation and would
enact it today. If I had a bill and the gentleman had a motion to
recommit that essentially passed my bill today, I would probably think
that was a good thing.
Mr. BUNNING. We already debated this in the Committee on Ways and
Means, and the bill that we passed out has consensus language that has
three issues involved. One is to reduce the debt held by the public,
which my bill would definitely touch upon. The other is increasing the
retirement income of individuals, which is what we want to do with the
salvage of Social Security. The other was to ensure the solvency of the
Social Security system, which is exactly why we have formed the
commission.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. BUNNING. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, those provisions do not begin to have the
clarity the motion to recommit offers. While the gentleman does talk
about some consensus effort within the committee, in fact there was a
protracted debate in the committee and a voice vote where there was a
clear divide against including language that spelled out surplus----
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time and be able
to close at least.
I sincerely believe that this is a totally unnecessary and
duplicative motion to recommit. I urge defeat of the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 223, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 115]
YEAS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
[[Page H2509]]
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--223
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Barr
Bateman
Brown (CA)
DeLauro
Dixon
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Meek (FL)
Sandlin
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Wise
{time} 1835
Mr. BOEHNER and Mr. HOEKSTRA changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 413,
nays 8, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
YEAS--413
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H2510]]
NAYS--8
Conyers
Frank (MA)
Kucinich
Martinez
Nadler
Oberstar
Paul
Sanders
NOT VOTING--11
Barr
Bateman
Brown (CA)
Dixon
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Meek (FL)
Sandlin
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Wise
{time} 1848
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________