[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             INTRODUCTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY RESOLUTION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JERROLD NADLER

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 23, 1998

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce House 
Resolution 483 regarding strengthening of the Social Security system. I 
am pleased that this resolution has 59 original cosponsors and has been 
endorsed by 14 national organizations representing millions of 
Americans.
  This is a very important day for Social Security. It marks the true 
beginning of our national debate about the privatization of this great 
social insurance program.
  I say the true beginning because, until today, the Social Security 
debate has been one-sided and has shut out the voice of the American 
people. For too many months, there has been a growing consensus in 
Washington that privatization--substitution private individual accounts 
for all or part of Social Security--is a done deal, that economists 
think it's the only way to go, that young people are clamoring for 
private accounts, and that Americans in general want it.
  This is simply not true. There is no wellspring of public support for 
privatizing Social Security, there is merely a wellspring of expensive 
public relations creating the illusion of public support. Today, I am 
introducing a resolution into the House opposing the creation of 
private accounts as a substitute for Social Security. This resolution 
has 59 original co-sponsors and the initial endorsements of national 
advocacy groups representing Americans of all ages and all walks of 
life. Together, these initial endorsers represent tens of millions of 
Americans who are opposed to wrecking the promise of Social Security by 
privatizing it. Together, I believe this alliance represents the true 
sense of the American people: that privatizing Social Security is a bad 
idea and is unnecessary. The early support for this resolution, still 
in its early stages, should make us question the myth that there is 
massive public support for partially replacing Social Security with 
private accounts.
  The introduction of this resolution also debunks the myth that there 
is overwhelming Congressional support for privatization. Fifty-nine 
Members of Congress, so far, have endorsed this resolution, more than 
have spoken out in favor of private accounts in general.
  This resolution also debunks the well-financed myth that Social 
Security is in a state of grave crisis. As this year's Trustee report 
tells us, Social Security--at the very worst--faces a manageable gap of 
2.19 percent of taxable payroll. This gap can be closed without 
reducing Social Security benefits, without raising the retirement age, 
without forcing individuals to put their retirement income at risk 
through individual private accounts, and without raising tax rates. 
This 2.19 percent is not only manageable, but it is quite possibly 
overstated by the Trustees, who, out of fiduciary caution, use economic 
assumptions that have been described as extremely pessimistic by 
leading economists. Let me state it clearly--Social Security is not 
going bankrupt; Social Security faces a manageable gap which can be 
closed without dismantling the basic insurance functions it provides.
  Finally, I would like to express my hope that the introduction of 
this resolution will spark a more realistic analysis of privatization. 
With few exceptions, the creation of private accounts has been 
presented as a panacea for Social Security's troubles. This view is 
baffling to many of us in that it overlooks obvious problems with using 
private stock market accounts as a substitute for Social Security. For 
example:
  The creation of private accounts doesn't account for the millions of 
children, disabled workers, and widowed spouses who collect disability 
and survivors' benefits from Social Security;
  The switch from a self-funded social program to private accounts will 
cost Americans many billions of dollars, a transition cost that will 
hurt the youngest workers the worst;
  Individual private accounts fail to protect individuals from severe 
downturns in the market; and
  Even a system of individual private accounts that enjoys a good 
average return on investment means that millions of Americans whose 
investment perform below average will be thrust into poverty.
  Social Security is not just a retirement program. Social Security is 
a national insurance program which, for a remarkably low premium, 
protects Americans from economic misfortune at every stage of our 
lives. Even at the best of times, people need insurance, and it is 
vital that we protect Social Security and preserve its current 
structure. It is my hope that this resolution will help clarify the 
public debate and move us in that direction.

                          ____________________