[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3402-H3404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                SOCIAL SECURITY AND RETIREMENT FOR WOMEN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, what I want to do tonight is take a little 
bit of time to talk about, I think, an issue that is so critically 
important and vital to women in the United States, and that is Social 
Security reform.
  There is a very, very important debate that is going on about the 
future of Social Security right now, and I think it is important that 
women are included in this discussion. All of America's seniors have a 
stake in the conversation and the debate and the discourse about Social 
Security, but women have the biggest stake of all in the future of the 
program. We need to make sure that we undertake the right kind of 
Social Security reform for America's women.
  Since 1935, America's women have been able to count on the guaranteed

[[Page H3403]]

income of Social Security. I make a point here, because the bedrock and 
fundamental principle of Social Security is that in the retirement 
years there is a guaranteed income on a monthly basis for the duration 
of an individual's lifetime, based on the amount of work and income one 
made during their working years.
  Since 1935, as I said, women have been able to count on that 
guaranteed income of Social Security. No matter what the stock market 
does, no matter what the state of the economy, Social Security has been 
there giving America's seniors the ability to live with independence 
and with dignity. It is, in fact, one of America's greatest success 
stories.
  Times do change and it is clear that we need to look at how we 
strengthen Social Security and make sure that it is safe and secure 
today for America's seniors but as well for the next generations of 
retirees.
  In 1999, there were 3.4 workers for each Social Security beneficiary, 
but in the year 2035 there will be only 2 workers per beneficiary. It 
has to be the right reform for everyone, and particularly, as I have 
said, for women.
  Social Security is uniquely important to women because retirement is 
especially hard on women. My mother, who is 86 years old, once said to 
me, Rosa, these are supposed to be the golden years but somehow they 
are often the lead years. My mother was essentially expressing, I 
think, and giving voice to the expression of the frustration and the 
fear that many elderly women have.
  In old age, women face all sorts of obstacles, stability and 
security, and without Social Security these obstacles would be even 
larger. Women account for 60 percent of Social Security beneficiaries 
even though they only make up roughly one half of the population. 
Three-quarters of widowed and unmarried elderly women rely on Social 
Security for over half of their income, and because women spend less 
time in the workforce than men, they are less likely to have pensions 
or to have been able to save and invest for their future.
  So that Social Security is their bedrock. It provides women with a 
dignified retirement that they can rely on.
  Women live longer than men. Women make less money than men in our 
society today; as a matter of fact, about 75 cents on the dollar. Women 
are also more likely to be dependents of workers and are dependent on 
their Social Security in their retirement years. As I said a minute 
ago, that women oftentimes outlive their spouses.
  In my State of Connecticut alone Social Security lowers the poverty 
rate among elderly women from 46 percent to 8 percent, 46 percent to 8 
percent. That means that Social Security lifts over 100,000 Connecticut 
women out of poverty through Social Security. As I have just mentioned, 
during their years in the workforce women earn an average of about 75 
cents for every dollar that men earn. In fact, the average female 
college graduate earns little more than the average male high school 
graduate. Again, for all of these reasons, strengthening and preserving 
Social Security is essential to the financial stability of America's 
hard working women. Again, it has to be the right reform for women.

  This week George W. Bush, the governor of Texas, presented us with an 
example of what, in my view, is the wrong kind of reform for Social 
Security, the wrong kind of reform which introduces risk, takes money 
away from Social Security, undermines the guaranteed minimum Social 
Security benefit, undermines the guaranteed minimum Social Security 
income, and leaves the retirement of America's seniors in the hands of 
the stock market.
  In fact, when George Bush was asked whether or not, under his 
program, seniors could expect a guaranteed minimum income, George Bush 
told America's seniors, and I quote, ``maybe; maybe not.''
  That is not a risk that America's seniors should be forced to take. 
Just let me say, because I said at the outset, one of the bedrock 
principles of Social Security has been this guaranteed annual income. 
We turn Social Security on its head if we can no longer guarantee an 
annual income to seniors, so that this proposal, in fact, turns that 
principle on its head; does not make that guarantee and in addition to 
that increases individual risk.
  Now, the reason, one of the principal reasons, why Mr. Bush is forced 
to gamble with the retirement of America's seniors is because instead 
of using the historic budget surplus that we have, and it is historic, 
we have not seen a budget surplus in the last several decades, Governor 
Bush proposes to spend the bulk of that surplus on a trillion dollar 
tax cut that by all accounts, not my account, by economists, by some of 
the leading conservative publications, by the Wall Street Journal and 
others, is that its primary beneficiaries are those who are at the 
upper levels of the income scale, some of the wealthiest people in the 
United States.
  Now it is all right to think about giving people a tax cut, and I am 
a big supporter of tax cuts, but tax cuts that focus on working middle 
class families and not those who are doing well. That is not to say 
that they should not do well or they should not receive some 
acknowledgment or benefit from that wealth, but at this particular 
moment in the history of our country that is not where we ought to 
direct our attention.
  What we ought to do with the surplus is take this opportunity to 
strengthen Social Security, to strengthen Medicare, to build on 
Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, pay down our debt, thereby 
helping to lower the interest rates in this country, which directly 
benefits families who are struggling with mounting bills and credit 
cards and education loans and car loans. That is how we ought to 
utilize that surplus, in my view.
  It is the wrong kind of reform to take this surplus and focus it in 
on a trillion dollar tax cut. It is wrong for America's seniors and it 
is especially wrong for women.
  A more prudent plan would be to invest that surplus in Social 
Security. Let us not gamble with it, with the ups and downs of the 
stock market.
  We have seen in recent weeks and months about the fluctuation of the 
stock market. If we act now to use this historic opportunity, we can 
use the budget surplus to pay down that debt; to use the interest to 
strength Social Security; to protect its solvency through the year 
2050. This is a sure bet. It is a sound investment for America's future 
and for America's seniors.
  There are two visions of Social Security's future. One of the plans 
strengthens Social Security by using the budget surplus to pay down the 
national debt, using the savings from the interest to strengthen Social 
Security and extend its life. The other, in my view, jeopardizes the 
Social Security system by using the budget surplus for a tax cut.
  We are at a critical moment in a debate and dialogue, and I encourage 
people around the country to think about this issue, to make their 
voices heard on this issue.
  I want to try to provide a few specifics with regard to women and 
Social Security. I talked about women earning an average of 75 cents 
for every dollar that men earn, and women earn an average of $250,000 
less per lifetime than men. Three-quarters of widowed or unmarried 
elderly women rely on Social Security for over half of their income. 
Women spend less time in the workplace because they take an average of 
11.5 years out of their careers to care for their families. Social 
Security helps to compensate for this in the following ways: Social 
Security provides retirement benefits that equal half of a husband's 
benefit. Divorced homemakers who are married for at least 10 years can 
also receive these benefits. For widows, Social Security provides 
benefits equal to 100 percent of their husband's benefits. By working 
parttime, women reduce the amount of funds they can put away for 
retirement or their eligibility for employee-provided pensions. In 
1996, 49 percent of women between 25 and 44 were employed full-time, 
compared to 74 percent of men. That information is taken from the 
Institute for Women's Policy Research in a publication called the 
Impact of Social Security Reform on Women.

                              {time}  2100

  In 1996, almost one-third of women between 25 and 44 were employed 
part-time compared to less than one out of five for men. Because women 
do take

[[Page H3404]]

time out to care for their families, and because they only earn 75 
cents for every $1 that men earn, women will have much less to invest 
in private retirement accounts.
  Privatization, as has been suggested by George Bush, would cut 
spousal benefits by one-third, leaving many wives at near poverty level 
and penalizing them for taking time out of the labor force to care for 
their families.
  This notion of privatization is very dangerous for women. While it is 
suggested today that there only be 2 percent of the benefits invested 
in private accounts, there is some information that George Bush talked 
about with reporters over the last couple of days that in fact could 
lead, that his plan could lead to complete privatization of social 
security. Let me just mention some of this information.
  On May 17, George Bush said it was possible that workers would 
eventually be allowed to invest their entire social security tax, not 
just a portion. The Houston Chronicle reported, ``Bush on Tuesday said 
his plan to create private savings accounts could be the first step 
toward a complete privatization of social security.''
  The New York Times reported, answering a question about his plan, 
that Mr. Bush said, ``The government could not go from one regime to 
another overnight. It is going to take a while to transition to a 
system where personal savings accounts are the predominant part of the 
investment vehicle. So this is a step toward a completely different 
world, and an important step.'' That was reported in the New York Times 
on May 15.
  The other information here that I think, when asked the question 
about whether or not Americans could lose money through the plan that 
he proposed, he said that it was ``conceivable that a worker taking 
advantage of the investment accounts would get a lower guaranteed 
income from social security.''
  The New York Times reported that, and I quote, ``Bush also refused to 
say how much benefits might be reduced for workers who created private 
investment accounts. `That is all up for discussion,' Mr. Bush said.'' 
That was reported in the New York Times on May 17.
  As I said earlier, as reported in the Dallas Morning News, ``Asked 
whether he envisions a system in which future beneficiaries will 
receive no less than they would have under the current system, Mr. Bush 
said, `Maybe, maybe not.' ''
  He has also admitted that he has not accounted for trillion dollar 
costs in making a transition to this new program. He acknowledged that 
he has not fully accounted for the cost of moving from the current 
system to his proposed one, costs that Vice President Gore pegs at $900 
billion.
  It is not only the Vice President that has pegged these costs at a 
high rate, but we can again look to conservative publications, 
economists, people who understand what the transition would mean, and 
the millions of dollars that it would cost and billions of dollars that 
it would cost to make that transition.
  The Washington Post reported on May 11 that, ``The plan laid out by 
George Bush leaves out one of the most important factors, the cost. 
According to a new report published by the Center for Budget and Policy 
Priorities, Bush's privatization plan would cost $900 billion over the 
first 10 years. These costs occur because the social security system 
must simultaneously pay out current benefits while privatization drains 
over 16 percent of the amount of money coming into the system. Combine 
this with the costs of George Bush's nearly $2 trillion tax cut, and 
the Bush plan will leave multitrillion dollar debts as far as the eye 
can see.''
  The essential issue here is that there is not any question that we 
must do something to make sure that we strengthen and protect the 
social security system in the future because of what it has meant in 
the lives of working Americans.
  Today, two-thirds of seniors rely on social security for over one-
half of their income. We cannot play fast and loose with reform of the 
social security system. At a time when we need to make the reforms, we 
have a clear opportunity, given the historic surplus that we have.
  In a prudent society and in a commonsense society, it makes all the 
sense in the world to say, let us take this opportunity to put the twin 
pillars of retirement security, social security and Medicare, on the 
path to real stability for today's people who need to take advantage of 
these systems and are eligible for them, and for those who come along 
in the future.
  That is what I am trying to suggest here this evening, as well as to 
make the point that, particularly for women in our society, if we play 
fast and loose with the social security system, we will increase the 
ranks of poor older women.
  Today one of the largest groups of our society who in their later 
years find themselves in poverty are older women. We should not 
compound that problem at this moment in our history, not when we have 
worked so hard and diligently to try to put our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues and I call on the American 
people to engage in this debate and in this discussion, and pay 
particular attention to what happens to women in our society as we go 
about trying to reform our social security system.

                          ____________________