[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3632-H3637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Toomey). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, and I plan 
extensive remarks this evening in regards to Social Security, I think 
it is a very important subject and I hope that as many as can will stay 
so that they can hear these comments. I look forward to a debate in the 
future on these comments in regards to the Social Security system. I 
think it is awful critical, but before I get there I have a very 
special announcement this evening.
  Thursday of this week, at 9:00 in the morning, in Grand Junction, 
Colorado, our little baby, Andrea, graduates from high school. I never 
imagined that I would see my youngest child all of a sudden now a fine, 
beautiful, intelligent woman. I mean, she grew up overnight. So as soon 
as the vote on China is finished tomorrow night, I will depart promptly 
for Colorado.
  I do want to say how proud I am. I am sure all of you have 
experienced this as well, but my wife and I now face the empty nest 
syndrome. We are not looking forward to that. We have had awful good 
years with Daxon, Tessa, and Andrea, but we will adjust.
  We are pleased to announce that all three of the children will be in 
college; unfortunately all at once so as one can see, our budget does 
not have a lot of fluff to it.
  Now let us move on to Social Security, the subject of which I really 
want to focus on this evening. I am going to talk about several things 
in regards to Social Security, but let me make something very clear at 
the beginning of this speech, and that is the speech is not intended to 
be partisan but it is necessary to distinguish between generally what 
the Republicans feel about Social Security and generally what the 
Democrats feel about Social Security.
  There is a dramatic difference between the policies in regards to 
Social Security of the Vice President, Mr. Gore, and the policies of 
the governor of the State of Texas, George W. Bush.
  So as I go through my comments this evening, I hope to distinguish 
for those out there in this audience here, Mr. Speaker, because there 
are two distinct directions that we can go in hopes of doing something 
with Social Security. So, again, let me repeat it once more. My 
comments are not intended to be a partisan attack, but I fully intend 
to distinguish between the Republican position and the Democratic 
position in general as it regards Social Security and the future of 
Social Security.
  I think a way to begin a discussion about Social Security is to talk 
just a little about the history of Social Security. As many people 
know, Social Security was started in 1935. Now, it was not an idea that 
just sprung up overnight. It was an idea that was created as a result 
of many years of the harshest economic times this country has ever 
faced, the Great Depression, 1929. In the 1930s, things were very, very 
difficult in this Nation, but our country came together. The President, 
at the time, felt that we needed to have some type of system to assist 
our senior citizens who could no longer work. So in 1935, the President 
signed in a system called Social Security, which was designed for the 
individual.
  In 1939, the United States Congress broadened the new program from a 
focus strictly on an individual to a focus on the family. Now, is 
Social Security in trouble? And why is Social Security in trouble? And 
to the extent Social Security is in trouble, we should discuss that 
this evening.
  Clearly, Social Security on a cash basis, that means the money in the 
bank today, the money in the bank today, Social Security has a huge 
surplus, but it would be like a pilot flying through the clouds coming 
to the conclusion that because they have not hit a mountain they have 
clear sailing ahead. Social Security does not have clear sailing ahead. 
There are mountains in those clouds; and all of us, the people of this 
country, are in that airplane. And, frankly, we are flying with 
instruments that are not appropriate to get that airplane through those 
clouds without hitting those mountains.

  Right now the plane is flying fine. On a cash basis Social Security 
has a huge surplus of money, but on an actuarial basis, meaning we look 
into the future, we figure out what our liabilities are and we figure 
out what our assets are, and as we go further and further into the 
future we find that our assets dwindle and our liabilities increase, 
and at some point about 2035 as we know it today, about 2035 those two 
will meet.
  In other words, the assets equal the liabilities. Immediately 
thereafter, the liabilities, in other words the cash going out, exceeds 
the cash coming in.
  Now one good thing about the United States Congress, one good thing 
about other policymakers in this country, and the various senior 
citizen organizations, is that, for a change, Congress is looking into 
the future. Instead of waiting for the crisis to actually beat at our 
doorsteps, we are looking at a crisis that is 35 years out. Now that 
does not mean we can wait for a very long period of time, because at 
some point that actuarial liability is accelerating at such a fast 
speed that if one does not catch it early on they cannot stop the 
momentum. But we have some time if we act on a reasonable and prompt 
basis. That is why the discussion of Social Security should play a very 
predominate role in the elections this fall.
  Now let me visit just for a moment why Social Security is in trouble. 
It is really pretty simple. It is called demographics. Look at these 
numbers. In 1935, in 1935 when the Social Security system started, we 
had 42 workers for every one worker who was retired. So in 1935, 42 
workers were in the workplace. One person was retired. Today that ratio 
is no longer 42. Look how dramatically that number changes.

[[Page H3633]]

  Today, instead of being 42 that number is 3. So, in other words, in 
our workplace today, we have three workers for every person who is 
retired. Within the very near future that number will drop to two. This 
is one of the problems that we have.
  Now that problem is one of the factors we have to consider that has 
created the demographical situation with Social Security. The other 
problem really is pretty good news for all of us. That is the American 
health care system. Because of preventive medicine, because of the fact 
that we have made successful assaults on many different diseases since 
1935, the life expectancy has increased dramatically. In 1935, the 
average male could expect to live until he was 61 years old and the 
average female could expect to live until she was 65. Now, today, look 
at how that has changed. This has gone up to about 74 years, and this 
has gone up to about 78 years.
  Now what has happened in the meantime is, no adjustment that is 
proportionate to that increase in age has occurred in regards to the 
Social Security system. So we have these dynamics. We have people 
living to an older age. We have people healthier, and we have more 
people in the retirement category than we do in the work stage. When we 
put those elements together, one can see that there is a collision 
course that is going to occur out there at some point in the future. We 
can avoid that by putting proper instrumentation into the airplane.
  Now, what do I think is the most dangerous risk that we have with 
Social Security today? What would we, as elected Members of the United 
States Congress, as Members who have fiduciary duties to our 
constituents, what do I think we have the most to fear? What risk would 
we put the people that we represent, what would be the most dangerous 
risk that we could place them in in regards to Social Security? It is 
very simple, two words: Do nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, we will break a bond with the people that we have 
committed to serve; we will be in breach of our fiduciary duty to the 
people that we represent and to the next generation that follows the 
older generation we now have, if we sit here and we do nothing. That is 
why I think it is so important for me to be here this evening and have 
the kind of discussion that we are going to have, because I do not 
believe that we can afford to sit idle and do nothing. To me that is 
just as dangerous as sitting in that airplane flying through the clouds 
saying, look, we know we do not have the right instrumentation but let 
us just relax.
  Let us talk about it. We cannot do it and we will not do it, and I 
will say why we will not do it because there are enough of us in here 
that understand the dangers that face Social Security, that understand 
the option of do nothing is, in fact, no option at all. So what do we 
do? What kind of differences do we have?
  Let me say that, first of all, what we have is not a dangerous 
situation for people today that are on Social Security. Any individual 
out there who today is collecting a Social Security check faces no risk 
as a result of the factors I just told them about. In fact, really 
anybody over about 40 years of age does not really face any kind of 
risk of losing their Social Security benefits. It is that other 
generation, it is the generation of my Andrea or my Tessa or my Dax, 
those three children of Lorie and mine, that is the generation which 
faces that risk.
  If our generation fails to act for that generation, we should hold 
our heads in disgrace. There has been a generational trade-off in 
Social Security, and what has occurred is that the younger generation, 
frankly, is now subsidizing the older generation. That is okay if there 
is a system that when the subsidizing generation moves up the 
generation behind them can actually subsidize and on an actuarial basis 
subsidize the generation in front of them. That is not what is 
happening today. What is happening today is that the average couple on 
Social Security takes out about $118,000 out of the system more than 
they put into the system.

                              {time}  2130

  That is being subsidized by this younger generation.
  So the older generations in our country, say from 40 up, and I fit in 
that category, their Social Security will be safe. But those 
generations from 40 and under, they have a right to demand of every one 
of us in these chambers, of every elected Federal official in this 
country, not what are you going to do for us, but what are you going to 
do for our generation, especially when it comes to Social Security.
  Let me read a letter that I received from a gentleman, a friend of 
mine, named Roger Zion. He belongs to the 60-plus senior citizens 
organization. It is a brief letter, but I think it is succinct.

       I want to talk about Social Security. Thanks to the lockbox 
     provision, which by the way was Republican activated, ``my 
     Social Security, such as it is, is assured. But I am 
     interested in my children. They should have a chance to 
     choose between the Gore plan in which they invest in a 
     government plan that grows slower than the rate of inflation 
     or the Bush plan where they invest in the market. Just think 
     of the boost the market would get with thousands of new 
     investors.
       Under the Gore plan, at my children's death the money goes 
     to the U.S. Treasury. Under the Bush plan, it is left to my 
     grandchildren. They can invest it to stimulate the market, or 
     they can spend it to stimulate the economy, or they can 
     contribute it to the Boy Scouts or the Girl Scouts or some 
     other charity.
       I wish I could have had that choice 50 years ago. I would 
     be a rich man. Now I want my children and my grandchildren to 
     have that choice.

  As we begin the detailed assessment of both of these plans that I am 
going to address my colleagues with this evening, let us start with an 
example. Let us start by putting ourselves in a place of, all of a 
sudden, coming upon a great deal of money. For example, let us say one 
of my colleagues here in the Chamber won the Lotto, and one won a great 
deal of money. Let us just say one won $10 million. So one decided 
wisely that one is going to put a percentage of that $10 million aside 
for one's retirement. So one decides one is going to take a million 
dollars and put it aside for one's retirement.
  Let me ask my colleagues, would any of them in this room send that $1 
million to the United States Government Department of Social Security 
to invest it with the other funds in Social Security? Any one of them? 
Of course they would not. There is not a one of my colleagues in these 
chambers, there is not one of them in these chambers that would take a 
million dollars of their own cash and invest it in the current Social 
Security system.
  Why? Because they know that the chances of them seeing that on the 
other end are diminished significantly. They know that almost any other 
management policy, including the lowest paying savings account at any 
bank, the lowest paying at any bank in this country, find the lowest 
paying savings account that one can and one will still do a whole lot 
better putting one's money in there than one will into the Social 
Security system.
  So how do we change this? What are the plans out there? It has been 
very clear to me, and I am sure it is very clear to my colleagues that, 
in the last 2 weeks, 2 different paths have emerged; that the policy of 
the Vice President and that the policy of the governor of the State of 
Texas, who is the Republican nominee, obviously, for President. The 
Vice President obviously is the Democratic nominee for President. For 
one of these two people is going to be leading this country. One of 
those two paths would be advocated by that individual when they become 
President.
  So let us take a look at them. The Vice President's policies, in my 
opinion, what we have seen in the last several months are simply fear 
tactics of, oh, my gosh, the sky is going to fall down if we dare try 
and do something different with Social Security. The Vice President's 
policy has been to support the status quo. If one dares even talk about 
changing the status quo, why, for some reason, one has committed an 
assault on senior citizens. Remember, that senior citizens, and this is 
a fact that should be disclosed in their commercials, senior citizens 
face zero threat, no threat of losing their Social Security dollars. 
Persons over 40 years of age face no threat of losing their Social 
Security dollars.
  So, the status quo means the generational trade-off, that is what I 
call it, the generational trade-off. That is a do-nothing policy. It 
means that the older generation is fine, but the younger generation is 
at risk.

[[Page H3634]]

  We need a man that keeps the older generation safe and allows the 
younger generation who have 20 or 30 or 40 years left in their working 
career, give them an opportunity to have something a little better than 
what our seniors have today.
  We are not asking for dramatic change. In fact, I do not think we 
have to guide the plane, so to speak, the airplane dramatically to 
avoid hitting that mountain. But if we do not change the direction of 
the plane ever so slightly, we are going to hit that mountain. My 
colleagues know what the results are.

  Back to the Vice President's policies. They have no choice, if they 
continue on the course of which they have supported, but to raise 
payroll taxes. That is the highest tax one sees on one's check today.
  By the way, I heard, I got an e-mail the other day that Members of 
Congress and Federal Government do not pay Social Security tax. We pay 
Social Security. I faxed out a copy of my pay stub today to some people 
who said, how can you talk about Social Security. You do not even pay 
Social Security. We do pay Social Security. Our retirement system, by 
the way, in the United States Congress is the same as other Federal 
employees.
  But back to my point. As we begin to reach that actuarial basis where 
we need to have cash and we do not change the system, the only answer 
we have, we are never going to be able to shut the people off, nor 
should we.
  The only response that we have is one of several things. One, we 
start to tax the benefits. We go out to these seniors and we say, Look, 
we have got a cash crisis. We have got a crisis. We should have planned 
for it 30 years ago, but we did not. So we have to tax the benefits.
  The other course of action that we are going to have to do is raise 
the payroll tax. Both of those are approaches which I think are 
punitive to the workplace out there.
  The other thing that we would have to do, we would have to raise the 
retirement age. Now, there are some arguments in raising the retirement 
age. If we do increase retirement age far enough out as people begin, 
as their life span begins to increase, perhaps there is some basis for 
that type of argument.
  But the first two policies of the Vice President, raising the taxes 
and taxing the benefits, are not the answer. We have got a better 
answer.
  The other way, some other things that we can do that we have heard 
discussed, reducing the cost of COLA's, adjusting the benefit formula.
  Now, in the last couple of weeks, we have heard some discussion, 
maybe what we ought to do with Social Security, maybe what we ought to 
do is do what Federal employees do, what Members of the United States 
Congress do. This is nothing new. The Vice President's plan stays the 
course.
  The question comes up to all of us, do we want a President who is 
going to stay the status quo, or do we want a President that is going 
to take a bold move and do something and move? That point comes out 
here in the last 2 weeks. The governor of the State of Texas has 
proposed that the members, people who work out there, have a system 
very similar to what the Federal Government has, that is, that they be 
allowed to own, literally own a portion of their Social Security, only 
2 percent of their withholdings. So one takes 2 percent of the 
withholdings, and one would allow the worker out there to own a piece 
of the action.
  What has the response been? Now, by the way, as I will get into the 
further details, that proposal is voluntary. We are not saying to the 
worker, they have to join this system. It is the same thing as the 
Federal employees.
  The people of America need to know, Mr. Speaker, that the system we 
are under allows us ownership, that the retirement system that every 
Federal employee can participate in addition to Social Security allows 
choice by the employee. It allows one to go to very, very conservative 
guaranteed investments or to direct a small percentage of one's salary 
towards high-risk investments. One gets to participate.
  We do it for 2\1/2\ million Federal workers. Why not take a look at 
that system which has proven highly popular and highly successful? Why 
not take what we have learned from that system, says the governor of 
the State of Texas, and move it over to Social Security.
  The response has been interesting. Some of the negative arguments 
that have surfaced, i.e., it is stock market roulette, one could lose 
all one's money. Well, one has got to talk about a concept that I think 
is very important, and it is called dollar cost averaging. The only way 
that one would lose all of one's money on the stock market investment 
like this is that one puts all one's money in the market one day and 
one loses it all the next day.
  My position is that one goes into what is called dollar cost 
averaging, and that is one invests, it is a very small percentage, just 
like we do with the Thrift Savings with the Federal Government 
employees, one invests those dollars over time. Through time, one has 
cycles, one has up days or, like today on the market, one has a down 
day. But over time, it is the average of that dollar that brings one 
the return.
  We are going to talk about returns here in a moment. But the clear 
message that we have here is that the Social Security, the people who 
participate in the system, could actually get that opportunity to 
participate without the kind of risk and the fear tactics that are 
being thrown out there.
  Do my colleagues know what we hear about when we talk about change, 
and, frankly, this is a difference, when the Republicans talk about 
change, the Democrats jump up and immediately try and convince, in my 
opinion, through their policies that the seniors are going to lose 
their Social Security.
  Let me reiterate it very clearly. That is not what is happening here. 
I have not seen a plan by anyone on either side of the aisle that 
threatens seniors who are currently on Social Security in any way 
whatsoever. It does not happen. The real threat comes for that 
generation under 40.
  Frankly, the Vice President's policies throw people under 40, our 
young people in this country, my colleagues better tell their 
constituents who are under 40 to take a very careful look at the 
present Social Security system. They also ought to take a very careful 
look at who is going to make the first move, the bold move to protect 
Social Security for those under 40.
  I can tell my colleagues that to protect the people under 40 they 
cannot accept the status quo. This airplane, referring to the Social 
Security system, is headed for a mountain. It is not going to get there 
for a few minutes. It is not going to get there for the people that are 
40 and above. But for those people 40 and below, if we do not change 
the course of this airplane, it is going to hit a mountain.
  Let us talk about a quote that the Vice President himself made in 
January of 1999. The Vice President said, ``One of the single most 
important salient facts that jumped out at everybody is that, over a 
10-year period in American history, returns on equities,'' that refers 
to the market, the stock markets, ``are just significantly higher than 
these other returns.'' At any given 10-year period of time, those 
returns are significantly higher.
  Now, the Vice President's policy ignores that today. But the fact is 
his statement that he made in January of 1999 is, in fact, accurate.
  Let us take a look at what the rate of return has been in Social 
Security. For today, for those people under 40 years old, let us say, 
for example, we have a young working couple, let us pick a couple, 30 
years, 35 years old. They have got children. Do my colleagues know what 
their return is averaging today on Social Security? 1.23 percent. Find 
me one savings account, Mr. Speaker, anywhere in this country at any 
bank, at any credit union, any savings and loan, find me one bank that 
pays interest rates that low.
  That is exactly what a young couple, the people that I am talking 
about this evening, the professional women, the professional men, the 
young couples, the homemakers, that is what they are facing.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues something else a little more alarming. 
For those of my colleagues who are particularly adept at minority 
issues, because the life span of some minorities in this country 
statistically is lower than others, that return actually is below that.

[[Page H3635]]

                              {time}  2145

  They deserve more. They deserve better. And, frankly, those of us who 
are over 40, our generation is enjoying the benefits of the previous 
generation. It is an obligation of ours to do something with that 
return. It is not their job, the under 40, to change the direction of 
that plane, it is our job. That is our job to do and we should do it. 
And we have a plan that I think will work.
  Now, take a look at stocks. Take any 10-year period of time. On 
average, we should expect stock returns around 7 percent. Now, remember 
that is dollar averaging. Around 7 percent. Now, tell me what kind of 
rocket scientist does it take, with a small amount of money, not the 
entire retirement, but to be able to just take a small amount of money, 
a small percentage, 2 percent of money that is earning 1.23 percent, 
and moving it into an account that is earning 7 percent over a 30- or 
40-year period of a work career. That makes a big difference. And that 
is the difference that these young people in our country deserve.
  If we want to talk about doing something for the children, look at 
the plan that the Governor of the State of Texas, George W. Bush, has 
put forward. If we really want to not just be talking out there, 
buffaloing people about doing something for the children, if we really 
want to do something for the children, look at this Social Security 
System and look at that plan that the Governor of the State of Texas 
has proposed.
  Let us go into a few details about exactly what the Governor of the 
State of Texas has proposed. Let me explain first of all the attitude 
that we can see in the plan, the attitude that comes out, that just 
beams out of that plan. First of all, it is a can-do attitude. We can 
do something. It is a can-do attitude. We can do it. We can come up 
with a system that, without putting at risk an individual's retirement, 
we can give them a better return than 1.23 percent. We can do it.
  We see it. We see the feeling of that, let us do something attitude. 
My colleagues, we cannot just sit here, and this is exactly what the 
Governor of the State of Texas's policy is, we cannot sit here with the 
status quo. Those who are not willing to participate should move aside, 
because we have to try something. And here is something, by the way, 
that has already been tried and tested and has been successful. This 
plan tracks the plan that, my guess would be, every one of us in these 
Chambers participates in and 2\1/2\ million Federal employees also 
participate in. It works. And it took somebody to make a bold move to 
put us into that. I think it is very interesting.
  Now, let me go through what the Vice President has said; that seniors 
on Social Security and people close to retiring would stay in the 
current system. I have mentioned that several times. The seniors should 
have no concern, and they should not listen to any of that advertising. 
Do not be frightened as we get into a political season by those 
advertisements, which were primarily run by the Democratic National 
Committee last time talking about our policies and trying to drive the 
seniors' thoughts and decisions through fear tactics. Let us drive it 
through simple arithmetic. Let us drive it through the math.
  The plan would take about 2 percent of payroll-taxed income and would 
set up personal-managed accounts. Now, what does that mean? That means 
that Social Security takes a certain percentage out of our payroll 
checks, and out of that amount of money, let us just imagine it in a 
pot. Here is an individual's pot of money. The government takes it from 
that person's check and puts it into Social Security. Out of that pot 
there would be a huge safety net. In other words, most of the money in 
that pot would go into the Social Security System so that no matter how 
an individual's own personal-managed account did, they would always be 
guaranteed at least a minimum retirement supplement.
  As it is today, it is a supplement. It is not intended to be a full 
retirement, and I should have mentioned that when I talked about the 
history of Social Security. It takes the majority of that money and 
puts it into the safety net, but it takes a small percentage of that 
money, which, over time, can really, on a cumulative basis, add up, and 
it takes that small percentage of money and allows the worker, the 
person paying the bill, the person that is getting stuck with the tab, 
it allows them to manage the account. For younger accounts, for the 
younger generation, it makes that generational reverse. It begins to 
come back. It begins to be fairer to our children, to our people, to 
our young couples under 40.
  Now, how would the system work? The individual, very similar to what 
we have at the Federal system, would take that small percentage of 
money. And, by the way, they do not keep it in their pocket. The worker 
does not keep it in their pocket. They are simply assigned an account 
of which they own. Which means, by the way, if they die, they can pass 
that on to the next generation. They can give it to the local charity. 
So they actually have ownership of that small percentage, and they get 
to direct how it should be invested.

  Now, let me explain very briefly just exactly how our Thrift Savings 
Plan works, because the Bush plan, the plan of the governor of the 
State of Texas, as I said repeatedly throughout my comments so far this 
evening, tracks very closely the Thrift Savings Plan that is offered to 
all Federal employees. Now, currently, today, as I mentioned several 
times, 2\1/2\ million Federal employees take advantage of this plan. I 
have yet to find one Federal employee, I have yet to find one of my 
colleagues, including any of them on the floor, and I look forward to 
discussing this with them after I conclude my remarks, I have yet to 
find one that is disgusted with this system; that is afraid the system 
endangers their future retirement; that believes any kind of fear 
tactic about this system. It is not there. The system works, and it can 
work for Social Security. That is what the Governor says.
  Now, how does thrift savings work? Let us take an example: Myself. I 
get a paycheck once a month from the Federal Government. I am a Federal 
employee. I do pay into the Social Security System; but on top of that, 
we have the Thrift Savings program. And what that does is it allows for 
me to designate up to 10 percent of my salary and put it into a plan 
called the Thrift Savings Plan. If I put in 5 percent, the Federal 
Government will match it with a 5 percent put-in as well. Now, I can 
contribute up to 10 percent, but the Federal Government only matches 
the first 5 percent.
  When it goes into the Thrift Savings Plan, I then own that. I own 
that plan. It is under my name. If something happens to me, there is an 
amount of money that can be transferred to whoever I would like; to my 
family, in this case.
  So once it goes into the system, then what do I do? Basically, we 
have three choices as a Federal employee. The first choice that we have 
is to put it into an investment that is absolutely safe, has 100 
percent guarantee by the government, but the rate of return is very 
small. I think last year, and maybe I have got the return figure here, 
very small, maybe 4 or 5 percent, but it has a 100 percent guarantee. 
So those of us that want to participate in thrift savings but do not 
want anything to do with the risk, we can go ahead and designate our 
personal account that is in our name and put it in that ultra safe 
investment.
  Or we have two other choices. Those choices are we can go into the 
bond market or we can go into the stock market. Now, the bond market 
has no guarantees to it, but it has a higher return. Remember, the 
higher the risk, the higher the return. The lower the risk, the lower 
the return. So in our first account option that we have as Federal 
employees, we get a low return but we have low risk.
  And by the way, the Thrift Savings Plan, just like the proposal for 
Social Security, is voluntary. None of us in this room have to 
participate. Not one Federal employee out there has to participate in 
this. But if we want to increase our risk a little, then we can go into 
the bond market or we can go into the stock market.
  Now, in the stock market fund, for example, over the past 10 years, 
the average rate of return from the stock-based option under that plan 
has been 18 percent. Now, that sounds like a great return. It is a 
wonderful return, but there is risk involved there. And everyone who 
invests in the Thrift Savings Plan signs a statement. They go over very 
carefully what the risks are

[[Page H3636]]

of the three different options. They give the historical average of 
what the returns have been. There are no secrets in this plan. It is a 
very employee-oriented plan.
  On the bonds, over the last 10 years, their rate of return, the 
government bonds was 7 percent and corporate bonds was 7\1/2\ percent. 
Last year's return was 20.95 percent. This is the Thrift Savings Plan. 
This is the plan that the Governor of the State of Texas has said we 
should take a look at for Social Security. Why can we not apply those 
principles, what is good for government employees, what is good for the 
United States Congress, to Social Security?
  The minute that the Governor of the State of Texas proposed that, we 
heard generally from most of the Democrats, oh, my gosh, the sky is 
going to fall in. Even though, in fact, they are beneficiaries. The 
Democrats are beneficiaries of the plan that we are proposing to give 
to the workers at large. Why should this sort of plan be restricted to 
us? Why restrict it to Federal Government employees? Why not let the 
entire country share the benefits of it?
  The Democrats are the first ones to jump up and criticize, oh, my 
gosh, what happens if we change the status quo? We cannot change the 
status quo. Let us get out there with the people that are most 
dependent with Social Security and let us scare them. My colleagues, we 
owe more to the people we represent. Let us lay out both of these 
plans, as I am attempting to do this evening.

  Let me tell my colleagues, the leader in objections to the Governor's 
plan has been the Vice President. Do we want a new president that 
decides to keep things status quo? I want a president that is going to 
be dynamic. I want a president that is willing to take bold moves. I 
want a president that can look at a system that needs to be fixed and 
fix it. And fix it.
  And how interesting. I did a little research this evening. I found 
something very interesting. In 1988, when the Members of the United 
States Congress decided that they wanted to secure their future a 
little better than Social Security secured it for them, that they 
wanted to get out of this category of a 1.23 percent return, they 
created the Thrift Savings Plan that allowed them that ownership. And 
guess who one of the supporters of that was? The Vice President. The 
Vice President's policy at that point in time, when he was a Member of 
Congress, was to allow Congress and Federal employees to have this 
thrift savings system where they get the option of individual choice.
  How interesting that in 1988, the Vice President's policy was that 
this is a good viable plan and today, even though the plan has been a 
tremendous success, the Vice President says, oh, my gosh, it is too 
volatile, we cannot do this kind of thing.
  It is very, very simple, in my opinion. It is very simple, and we 
should lay it out in as simple terms as we can. Let me point out, 
before I go on a little further in that regard, one way to help us 
understand this. There are some Web sites on the Internet, and 
actually, some of these Web sites actually have calculators on them so 
we can go to these Web sites, take our own personal examples and we can 
look and determine what happens to us if we stay under Social Security 
under the Vice President's policy of maintaining the status quo, of 
keeping a system that is crippled, a system that is actuarially 
bankrupt, and we can actually look at this site and determine what our 
return, a pretty good guess of what our return is going to be. And it 
also allows the option to look at the proposal by the Governor of the 
State of Texas, George W. Bush, which is, as I said, very similar to 
the Thrift Savings Plan, and figure out what the return would be there.
  Let us look at these very carefully. The first Web site, 60plus.org/
SavingSS/savings.htm. I will leave this up here so my colleagues can 
have an opportunity to write it down. The second site that I will put 
right here is empower.org/html/, and the third one is 
socialsecurity.org/index.html.

                              {time}  2200

  I will keep these up here for a few minutes, colleagues, so my 
colleagues can write it down, and what I would urge my colleagues to do 
is pass these Web sites on to your constituents. Be straightforward 
with your constituents, and I do not doubt that my colleagues are all 
going to be that way, but do not let politics drive us into putting out 
propaganda or into slanting the people out there and letting them 
believe that the status quo is going to be good for those people 40 and 
under.
  Clearly, as I said earlier, and it is a statement I repeated numerous 
times, but we need to repeat it, for those of you who are 40 and over; 
the status quo will protect you, the proposal by the governor of the 
State of Texas does not threaten anyone age 40 and over. What it does 
is enhances the opportunity for those who are 40 and under, it enhances 
their opportunity to avoid the mountain that this plane is headed 
towards.
  It allows those 40 and under to actually have a piece of the pie, to 
own some of the action, to be involved in the investment decisions. 
Now, it is true that some will make careless decisions, that some may 
decide to put all of their 2 percent into the stock market, and they 
may lose it.
  Let us say over a short period of time on dollar averaging, the 
return could come out shorter. The beauty of this plan and the beauty 
of the Thrift Savings Plan is, no matter how badly you mess up in 
Thrift Savings because of your own personal management, and you have 
the opportunity, I mean, you want higher risk, you get a higher return, 
you have higher risk. No matter how bad you mess it up, the bulk of 
your retirement is still in place, because you are only managing a 
small portion of it. It is the same thing with this proposal on Social 
Security. We are not talking about 100 percent of your Social Security 
goes under your management, but what we are talking about is that you 
are going to be able to take a small percentage of your investment and 
invest it; and I think you are going to do a lot better than 1.23 
percent, but if you did not, the bulk of your Social Security for those 
of you 40 and under will at least still be protected.
  Now, the question we face tonight and the questions the American 
people face tonight is do we go ahead and bury our heads in the sand in 
regards to Social Security, or should we accept some bold leadership 
that is willing to set sail in a storm; that is, willing to step 
forward and say, look, do not accept the status quo, move aside. If you 
do not want to work on it, move aside, but do not prevent me from 
coming up with a plan that will be viable for the American people, and 
that is exactly what the governor of the State of Texas, George W. 
Bush, is saying.
  Now, keep in mind my comments earlier that this is not a new 
invention. This is not something that a rocket scientist suddenly came 
up with. This is kind of a copycat. We have had somebody else break the 
snow through the mountain forest; somebody else already has a path 
through the forest. We have been following this path and, frankly, we 
followed it for 40 years under Democratic leadership, and they would 
not change it.
  So for 40-some years under the Democratic leadership, we followed 
that path, but now we have discovered another trail. Somebody has 
showed up in the horizon; it happens to be the governor of the State of 
Texas. He says why do you not try this path? And by the way, it is not 
a new path. Who has walked in the path before? That is a legitimate 
question for you to ask.
  Before you go through the forest with this person, it is a legitimate 
reason, a question for you to say now, wait a minute, governor of the 
State of Texas, what kind of path are you going to lead us through? We 
are going through some pretty tough mountain country here. What kind of 
path? Anybody else been on this path? And the answer would be yes, 2\1/
2\ million Federal employees have walked through this path. They have 
plowed the snow; that is a plan that Federal employees get to 
participate in, and 2\1/2\ million of them have chosen to do so.
  And you know what, they are coming out on the other side of the 
mountains. And you know what, when they come out, to date, those 
Federal employees since 1988 have said, hey, this is a good system, 
including the Vice President of the United States, who in 1988 endorsed 
going on that different path. He supported it. And in January, he also 
acknowledged the returns were better, although today, the Vice 
President's

[[Page H3637]]

policies are do not dare go on a new path. We have got to stay on the 
same old path through these mountains.
  Well, what we are saying is that same old path is bringing some pain 
to some people. Those people 40 and over are going to be able to walk 
the old path just fine, because they are most of the way down it. They 
are almost to the other side of the mountains, but the young people in 
our country, those people that are out there in the workplace 40 and 
under, and those who are not old enough yet to work, they are going to 
have to start on this side. And the conditions are worsening on the 
path.

  Those 40 and over have missed the snowstorm. There is now snow coming 
down on that path. We have got treacherous weather ahead, but we had an 
option. And that, again, is what I stress to all of us tonight, put 
your politics aside just for a little while and say does the Thrift 
Savings Plan work for me as a Federal employee?
  And there is not a one of you in this room that will not say yes to 
that. Of course, it works for you, or you would not be participating in 
it. And by the way, you do not have to participate in it.
  Then the next question you would logically asks if it works for me, 
why do not we apply it to Social Security? Why do we not try and take a 
plan that allows a worker to direct and participate in the management, 
a small percentage of the money that is taken out of their payroll 
check and put it into the Social Security system.
  I intend to have several more discussions with my colleagues on the 
floor in regards to Social Security. I think it is probably one of the 
top four issues that should be discussed in every election and every 
debate this season.
  And as it is brought up in debates, I would urge my colleagues, put 
aside the fear tactics, talk the numbers. We know factually that this 
plan, Social Security, if we stay on the same path, that in 2035, this 
plan will be actuarially bankrupt; we know that. You do not argue it; 
we do not argue it. It is a fact. So use that in your debate.
  We know that the seniors who are currently on the Social Security 
today and those who are 40 and above face no danger of losing their 
Social Security benefits. You know that on this side; we know that on 
this side. That is a fact. Put it in there; list your facts in this 
debate.
  We know that somebody has to change. Now, that is debateable. The 
Democratic leadership, the Vice President's policies are continuing 
down the same path. Our policies, our new proposal is let us just 
change the path a little. We are not saying change the path 
drastically; we are saying change it a little. Go on the trail that has 
been traveled before. Go on the trail that has been successful.
  Go on the trail that when those young workers get to 2035, they do 
not have to look at a return of 1.23 percent; they deserve more. We owe 
them more. So colleagues, I hope all of you participate with me in this 
Social Security debate.
  I look forward to debating any one that wants to discuss the subject; 
but if you are a Federal employee, and I am referring to all of the 
Congress people here today, if you are a Federal employee when you get 
ready to debate me, you better justify with me at the beginning of the 
debate, you better justify why it is okay for you to have a Thrift 
Savings Plan that allows you management and ownership and inheritance 
rights under that plan, but it is not good enough for the average 
worker, American out there, unless they are a Federal employee.
  If you cannot justify that at the beginning of the debate, I win by 
default. I win the debate by default. I win the argument by default. 
You know that and I know that.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of you to go back to the 
American people and say, look, it is time for new leadership on Social 
Security. It is time for a slight change, not a dramatic change. The 
sky is not going to fall down, but it is time we look beyond our 
blinders; it is time that we moved it just a little. Because if we move 
it just a fraction, over a period of time that angle becomes 
dramatically different and our airplane will not hit those mountains.
  Let us follow through with the fiduciary obligation we have to our 
people. Let us save Social Security, not just for the next two 
generations, but for the next 15 generations so that those generations 
can in turn save it for the next 15.

                          ____________________