[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 171 (Tuesday, December 11, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H9173-H9178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             KEEPING THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROMISE INITIATIVE

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 282) expressing the sense of 
Congress that the Social Security promise should be kept.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 282

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), 

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This concurrent resolution may be cited as the ``Keeping 
     the Social Security Promise Initiative''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) Social Security provides essential income security 
     through retirement, disability, and survivor benefits for 
     over 45 million Americans of all ages, without which nearly 
     50 percent of seniors would live in poverty;
       (2) Social Security is of particular importance for low 
     earners, especially widows and women caring for children, 
     without which nearly 53 percent of elderly women would live 
     in poverty;
       (3) each payday, American workers send their hard-earned 
     payroll taxes to Social Security and in return are promised 
     income protections for themselves and their families upon 
     retirement, disability, or death, and that commitment must be 
     kept;
       (4) Social Security payments to beneficiaries will exceed 
     worker contributions to the Social Security trust funds 
     beginning in 2016, as demographics, including the aging baby 
     boom generation and increasing life expectancies, will result 
     in fewer workers per beneficiary and threaten Social 
     Security's essential income safety net with financial 
     instability and insolvency;
       (5) deferring action to save Social Security will result in 
     loss of public confidence in the program, will increase the 
     likelihood of spending cuts to other essential programs, and 
     will expose beneficiaries, particularly those with low 
     earnings, to poverty-threatening benefit cuts or reduce 
     workers' take-home pay through burdensome payroll tax 
     increases;
       (6) workers' ability to save and invest for their own 
     retirement will continue to be particularly important, 
     especially for younger workers, to enhance their own 
     retirement security; and
       (7) the President should be commended for recognizing that 
     Social Security is not prepared to fully fund the retirement 
     of the baby boom and future generations and for establishing 
     the bipartisan President's Commission to Strengthen Social 
     Security, which will report its recommendations this fall.

[[Page H9174]]

     SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the President's Commission to Strengthen Social 
     Security, recognizing the immense financial commitment of 
     every American worker into the Social Security system, should 
     present in its recommendations innovative ways to protect 
     that commitment without lowering benefits or increasing 
     taxes; and
       (2) the President and the Congress should join to develop 
     legislation to strengthen Social Security as soon as 
     possible, and such legislation should--
       (A) recognize the obstacles women face in securing 
     financial stability at retirement or in cases of disability 
     or death and the essential role that the Social Security 
     program plays in providing income security for women;
       (B) recognize the unique needs of minorities and the 
     critical role the Social Security program plays in preventing 
     poverty and providing financial security for them and their 
     families when income is reduced or lost due to retirement, 
     disability, or death; and
       (C) guarantee current law promised benefits, including 
     cost-of-living adjustments that fully index for inflation, 
     for current and future retirees, without increasing taxes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of a century ago, any kind of income security 
was indeed rare. Today, however, the success of Social Security in 
providing income security and reducing poverty among the elderly is 
well known, and it is well known to everyone in this Chamber. Without 
Social Security, nearly half our seniors and over half of disabled 
workers would live in poverty today.
  Yet, Social Security faces significant financial challenges ahead. 
Unless we modernize the program's Depression-era financial structure, 
program income will not cover the full cost of paying promised benefits 
soon after the baby boomers begin retiring.
  Today we must let every American know that we will act as soon as 
possible to save Social Security, and we will not do it by placing 
undue burdens on today's retirees and workers by reducing benefits or 
increasing taxes.
  Social Security provides at least half of the retirement income for 
over two-thirds of our seniors and 100 percent of income for almost one 
in every five seniors. Reducing Social Security benefits would have 
serious consequences for the majority of seniors, and would increase 
their number in poverty, which is why we must find ways to strengthen 
Social Security without cutting the benefits.
  Social Security is also one of the largest financial obligations of 
many families. For around three-fourths of American families, the 
payroll tax is their largest tax liability. Increasing this tax burden 
would hit low- and middle-income families the hardest. In addition, it 
would reduce the already low rate of return on these contributions that 
workers may expect.
  So we must find ways to strengthen Social Security without increasing 
Social Security taxes. Our decisions on how to strengthen Social 
Security are particularly important to women.
  As we make choices, we must keep in mind the obstacles women face in 
ensuring financial security for themselves and their families and the 
key role Social Security plays in providing income security in the 
event of retirement, disability, or death. Without Social Security, 
over half of elderly women would live in poverty today. As we consider 
the program's improvements, we must not consider reducing benefits or 
cost-of-living increases that are so important, particularly to women.
  We must also remember the critical role Social Security plays in 
providing financial security for minorities of all ages. African 
Americans are more likely to receive disability benefits. Since their 
life expectancy is shorter than average, survivor benefits are also 
critically important.
  Also, about two-thirds of the African Americans and about three out 
of five Hispanic seniors would have income below poverty without Social 
Security. As we consider changes to the program, we must not reduce the 
benefits that are vital to preventing poverty among our minorities. We 
must protect Social Security for all Americans, especially for those 
who rely on it the most.
  However, we must also work to ensure Social Security is fair to all 
generations. Our kids and grandkids need us to find a way to improve 
the low rates of return they will receive from Social Security. For 
example, a single man who is 31 years old today and earns average wages 
can expect a rate of return on his contribution only a little more than 
1 percent, and kids born today can expect even less.
  We cannot, in fairness, allow this to continue. The President's 
bipartisan Commission to Strengthen Social Security has talked about 
the unique needs of women and minorities, as well as the system's low 
rate of return, in its interim report and throughout all of its 
meetings. Today, the commission will provide a draft report with its 
recommendations for several options for modernizing and strengthening 
Social Security. This information will help us along the road towards a 
solution for Social Security's financial woes.
  Ultimately, we, the Members of Congress, must make the final decision 
about which road to choose, and the American people are depending upon 
us to make the right choices. I hope we will make these decisions 
together on a bipartisan basis, because this is not a road upon which 
we can afford to falter or to lose our way. So let us begin today, as 
Congress first voices its views, and let that voice be a bipartisan 
one.
  Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that I encourage all Members on 
both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this critically important 
resolution. We must act now to assure Americans that any plan for 
saving Social Security will guarantee current law promised benefits, 
including cost-of-living adjustments for current and for future 
retirees, without increasing our taxes. Our children, our 
grandchildren, and future generations deserve no less.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that we will hear a lot tonight about 
privatization, and there will be some that will say that this 
resolution is a repudiation of individual retirement accounts for 
American workers. I would remind the Members that we just voted on the 
Railroad Retirement Fund, in which we took the railroad retirees out of 
Treasury bills and put them in stocks and bonds of corporations.
  Our Social Security people, and by the way, I tell my Democrat 
friends that only two of them voted against that particular bill. So 
when Members get up to criticize Individual Retirement Accounts, I 
would advise Members, and I would guess that every speaker here tonight 
that speaks on this resolution and that mentions that Individual 
Retirement Accounts are something risky, that begin with they can get a 
lot more than 1 percent over the ages and over the long haul, it 
certainly shows that this is not a repudiation of the Individual 
Retirement Accounts. We have already voted on going towards the private 
sector of investment for American union retirees. Our retirees on 
Social Security deserve no less.
  But let us not argue that tonight. Let us argue the future of the 
Social Security system and the need for us to work together to come up 
with a solution that will, in itself, nail down the fact that this 
retirement system is not only going to be there for our generation, it 
is going to be there for future generations and our grandkids. If we do 
less, they will turn our pictures to the wall. It is our obligation to 
do this. It is our opportunity to do this. So if we can break down the 
wall of partisanship and come forward with a plan that we can work 
together with, I will be most happy and anxious to work with Members on 
both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution because, like its 
author, I believe that the promise of Social Security should be kept 
for the millions of Americans, or in fact, all Americans who wind up 
qualifying for this vital program.
  But I do have to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a remarkable 
resolution in many ways, because in one section it praises President 
Bush's Social Security Commission.
  On page 3 it reads: ``The President should be commended for 
recognizing

[[Page H9175]]

that Social Security is not prepared to fully fund the retirement of 
the baby boom and future generations, and for establishing the 
bipartisan President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security,'' 
which is, coincidentally, reporting today.
  That commission was established in order to push privatization 
proposals, and hopefully to come up with one privatization proposal. 
But this resolution contains no mention of the central purpose of the 
commission, which was to find a way to privatize Social Security, in 
full or in part.
  When we go to the last section of the resolution, it is a sense of 
Congress that legislation should be developed which, among other 
things, would guarantee current law promised benefits, including cost-
of-living adjustments that fully index for inflation for current and 
future retirees without increasing taxes.
  That is an admirable goal, one that I support, but one that is 
exactly the opposite of what the President's Social Security Commission 
is recommending. In fact, what we now know, what some of us have been 
arguing for a long period of time but we now know from the commission's 
report itself, is that if we do nothing but privatize Social Security 
and create these partial accounts, it will consume $1 trillion of 
Social Security or other funds over 10 years, $1 trillion.
  In response to the point of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 
that all of us, almost all of us, voted to allow the Railroad 
Retirement Fund to invest in the stock market, I would point out that 
that does not cost $1 trillion in transition costs in order to do. So 
in that case, it made some sense.
  But $1 trillion is real money. The fact of life is that there are 
substantial administrative costs for creating private accounts, which 
is, after all, why Wall Street is so interested in having an individual 
account for virtually every member of Social Security.
  Another point, another area of disagreement between us, is that the 
way we calculate the rate of return is subject to disagreement. We do 
not agree that it is 1 or 2 percent, we think the number is closer to 4 
percent, and that that is comparable to guaranteed investments in U.S. 
Treasuries.
  But beyond that, when people have Social Security, they have two 
things that go along with that program:
  First, they have a form of disability insurance, because Social 
Security is there to provide a form of disability insurance. There is 
money there for survivors' benefits. In the aftermath of September 11, 
one thing we know about Social Security is that all those children who 
lost a parent in the attack on the World Trade Centers are qualifying 
for survivors' benefits. They will be helped by this program because 
that is part of what it does.
  Now, over the last 2 years, and let me say, as I said before, Wall 
Street loves privatization of accounts. They will make a lot of money 
doing that, but ordinary Americans should be terrified. In the last 2 
years, the loss in value in the stock market approaches $5 trillion. In 
those 2 years, Social Security did not lose one thin dime, not one. It 
provides the kind of assurance that we need.
  The commission report coming out today did not do what the President 
wanted and have one plan for privatization; they rolled out three plans 
for privatization. But they do exactly what this resolution said we 
should not do. They do reduce Social Security benefits in different 
ways.
  For example, they tie future COLAs to growth in prices, not wages, 
which will reduce the increase that Social Security beneficiaries are 
expected to get every year. There is a disguised increase in the 
retirement age. There is a reduction in disability payments.
  What we are really talking about, Mr. Speaker, here is that we cannot 
privatize Social Security in full or in part without substantial costs. 
It is simply not possible, Mr. Speaker, to privatize Social Security, 
in full or in part, without these very substantial transition costs.
  It is worth pointing out that in the space of less than 12 months we 
have converted the Federal budget from a situation where we could see 
surpluses virtually as far as the eye could see to a situation where we 
now see deficits virtually as far as the eye can see. And most of that 
loss, most of that loss, 55 percent, is due to the tax cut passed by 
this House and signed by the President in June.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now using Social Security surplus dollars to fund 
the ordinary expenses of this government, and we are doing that in 
major part because of the tax cut that was passed here that was twice 
what a tax cut of reasonable size should have been.
  So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is very important, I believe, that 
we pass this resolution because the promise of Social Security should 
be kept; but let us not cloud this debate by what is really going on 
here.

                              {time}  2030

  This resolution rejects the principal purpose and the principal 
finding of the President's Commission on Social Security which was set 
up in order to push a privatization proposal, which now we know is the 
wrong thing for America.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Social Security for bringing this particular 
resolution to the floor. My concern goes beyond the particulars of this 
resolution, but clearly underscored in all of the discussion that we 
have about Social Security is the sensitivity in terms of the money 
that people pay into the payroll tax.
  That is why I was stunned today to hear a prominent Member of the 
other body announce on the floor that he was willing to accept an idea 
that would mean an immediate $40 billion loss in payroll taxes to the 
trust funds that we have all showed we have great concern about.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I, too, do not understand and was quite amazed 
and disappointed to see when this Senator was willing to ask Social 
Security to bear the burden of the economic stimulus, when the program 
is facing its own serious financial challenges.
  Mr. THOMAS. Apart from the obvious in immediate lost to the trust 
funds, there has been some concern about the ability to execute the 
proposal. The loss of funds is bad enough, but when we strip it to the 
essentials of the proposal, those organizations which are charged with 
the responsibility of dealing with the way in which payroll taxes are 
paid and accounting procedures are dealt with, the American Payroll 
Association, the American Society for Payroll Management, the National 
Payroll Reporting Consortium and the Society for Human Resource 
Management, all agree that it would take 6 months or more to try to get 
it correct in making this scheme work, but they had no guarantee that 
it would, in fact, be sound.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, as a former certified public accountant, I can 
assure my colleague that making such a change would dramatically 
increase the risk of error in reporting Social Security wages. These 
wage reports must be accurate in order to assure beneficiaries receive 
their full and correct benefits in a timely way. This is very 
important.
  Mr. THOMAS. Of course, it does not even address the game playing that 
would go on if we were able to set up a system and we were losing $40 
billion out of the trust fund. We would have employees negotiating with 
employers where particular benefits or amounts were going to be given 
so that they would just happen to fall within this holiday period, 
further complicating an attempt to make this system work.
  Mr. SHAW. Not only would the employer be faced with employees trying 
to shift their wages to the payroll tax holiday month, employers would 
also have to contend with implementing a payroll tax holiday at the 
same time they are preparing W-2s and 1099s to meet the January 31 
requirement as provided as a deadline. Having employers having to deal 
with these changes at once would only risk incorrect reporting of 
Social Security wages. It could only risk incorrect reporting of income 
for Federal tax purposes.
  Mr. THOMAS. In addition, of course, not everybody has the luxury of a 
large

[[Page H9176]]

staff being paid to manage payroll and computers to deal with it. So we 
do not know the uneven burden that is going to be placed on employers 
who would now have to add a temporary change to the difficult, ongoing 
structure that is necessary. Of course, that does not even address the 
precedent of taking an enormous amount of general fund money and then 
moving it over to cover the losses out of the trust fund in the first 
place.
  Mr. SHAW. I agree. Even if the lost payroll taxes were replaced with 
general revenue funds, we would be obscuring the clear connection 
between a person's contribution and the benefits he will receive. This 
is what President Roosevelt intended when he established Social 
Security and set up this separate trust fund. We should not take 
lightly the idea of breaking this critical connection, this firewall, 
if I may. Otherwise, we will find ourselves looking to the payroll 
system for every economic fix that we need.
  Mr. THOMAS. Especially when they are arguing that we need to do this 
very risky scheme, jeopardizing the ability to be accurate, and 
committing enormous general funds to the trust fund to replace the hole 
in the trust fund that would bring insolvency from 2017 to 2006, and 
argue that they feel they need to do it for stimulus purposes. There 
are a whole lot better ways to stimulate the economy. The legislation 
passed by the House, the discussion between, just as recently today, a 
moderate group of Senators, both Democrats and Republicans and the 
President, none of those discussions involved risky schemes like this 
exposure of the payroll tax.
  Mr. SHAW. My colleague is once again right. Now is the time for us to 
act wisely and not overreact. Several excellent ideas have been put 
forth by both parties. A payroll tax holiday was not in the House 
passed bill. The Senate has never passed such a bill and should not, at 
any time, be used in a stimulus package passed by either body.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Social Security for the colloquy, and I want to praise 
him for his continued vigilance in not allowing people to play with the 
trust fund as was proposed by a prominent Senator just today.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall consume.
  I was listening with interest to my distinguished colleagues, and I 
think their colloquy was an example of true bipartisanship in this 
sense. As I heard them, I think what they were describing was initially 
proposed by a Senator from their party. I hope they will send their 
colloquy to that gentleman.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that?
  Mr. LEVIN. No. Let us talk about this resolution. The gentleman used 
the time to talk about something that is not relevant to this 
resolution, and I thought that I would just put it in some perspective. 
Let me talk about this resolution, if I might.
  The resolution before the House has very little to do with 
strengthening Social Security, which is indeed necessary, and it has 
very much to do with providing political distance to some Member of the 
majority party.
  Does anyone seriously believe that it is a coincidence, a 
coincidence, that this resolution is being brought to the House floor 
on the very same day that the President's hand-picked Social Security 
Commission unanimously adopted its recommendations? The recommendations 
of the Commission should come as a surprise to no one. From the day the 
President appointed a one-sided commission, I do not, for a moment, 
challenge the views in terms of the integrity of their point of view, 
but it was very one-sided and the outcome was predetermined.
  Indeed, the President's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said it very 
clearly very early on in quotes, ``The Commission will, of course, be 
comprised of people who share the President's view that private 
retirement accounts are the way to save Social Security.''
  This is the spokesperson of the President of the United States. It is 
now apparent from the Commission's recommendations that privatization 
would result in cuts in Social Security benefits. That is clear from 
the two plans of the Commission that spell out how to pay for 
privatization. Any doubt on this score has vanished over the course of 
the last year with the depletion, I think, the reckless depletion of 
the non-Social Security surplus. But this resolution wants to have it 
both ways.
  It refers appropriately to the vital nature of Social Security, its 
guaranteed lifetime benefits, its COLAs, its important anti-poverty 
role and its special protections for women, low earners and minorities. 
It also says it rejects benefits cuts but it does not reject, it does 
not reject the misguided policy that would necessitate benefit 
reductions, the Bush administrations quest to privatize Social 
Security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution because it reaches 
the right conclusion. To vote no would only confuse the picture. But no 
one should believe that voting yes will make the President's 
privatization quest go away. That horse already left the barn.
  The public deserves a thorough discussion of the Commission's 
privatization plans. The impact of these plans can not be obscured by 
any smoke screen. As true in this instance, they are too transparent to 
work.
  I want to just say a couple of other words in response to what my 
friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) had to say. He said that 
this resolution is not a repudiation of privatization. Maybe I will let 
those words stand. I wish it had repudiated but it is silent.
  Mr. SHAW. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to correct his 
statement as to my statement. I said a repudiation of private accounts, 
not privatization. There is a big difference.
  Mr. LEVIN. All right. We will see as time unfolds if there is a 
difference. I do not see it. Indeed, in reference to the railroad 
retirement bill I think is misplaced. There are not individual 
accounts. The retirement monies are allowed to be invested as a whole. 
They are allowed to be invested. That is not privatization, nor is it 
private accounts.
  So I think we need to understand what is going on here today with 
this resolution. We should vote for it. But we should not be misguided 
as to what is really going on here. I do not think there is any way in 
the end to duck the issue of strengthening Social Security. The 
President embraced privatization. He appointed members of a commission 
that embraced privatization. There was no effort to have any diversity 
on that key issue on the Commission.
  So essentially, the President and his party have ended up with a 
Commission report that supports privatization, and in the only plans 
that spell out how they would pay for it, they provide for benefit 
cuts; and I do not know any way out of that equation. I do not think 
there is any way for anybody to explain it away. I think we owe it to 
the public to have a forthright discussion as to how we should 
strengthen Social Security. And those who favor privatization or 
private accounts should simply say so, indicate how they would be 
structured, indicated how they would be paid for; if they want to 
suggest general funds when those general funds by their own plans have 
been diminished, indeed I think destroyed, they can do so.
  But if we are going to move ahead in strengthening Social Security, 
we are going to have to really tell the American people what we really 
mean and like it is.
  So I support this resolution with the qualifications that I have 
mentioned.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
that the Commission was made up of half Democrats and half Republicans. 
Only one former Republican Member of Congress and one Democratic former 
Member of Congress and one Democratic former Senator, and so that is a 
2-to-1 Democratic, as far as elected officials are concerned.
  I would also say that no one in this body that I know of and the 
Commission report certainly did not endorse privatizing Social 
Security. That idea is not even out there and is not even under 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

[[Page H9177]]

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Social Security needs to be 
preserved once and for all. By passing this legislation which was 
introduced by the chairman of the Social Security subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the House of Representatives will 
make a strong statement that we do support reforming Social Security 
and ensuring its solvency once and for all without cutting benefits, 
increasing taxes on people whose payroll check does not go far enough 
as it is today.

                              {time}  2045

  We may have different ideas, but let us first agree that the current 
system is not financially sound for the baby boomers and the 
generations that follow. Common sense tells us that we must transition 
from this pay-as-you-go system that will run out of money to a 
traditional retirement plan where our money grows over time into a 
bigger nest egg. The only question is how and how soon. And let us 
agree that we ought to keep our Social Security promises, cost-of-
living increases each year that really do reflect the cost of living 
for seniors, and keeping our promise on benefits and not increasing 
taxes.
  Some people in Washington do not want to face up to this issue. They 
want to make it an election campaign issue. They want to run ads; they 
want to scare seniors with the phrase of privatization. Well, I think 
people in America want us to work on Social Security. They want to hear 
the good ideas. They want to be part of this process. And when we ask 
people up here who do not want to touch Social Security, who do not 
want to tackle Social Security, what their plan is for preserving it 
once and for all, there is nothing but silence.
  I applaud the President for appointing this commission. They are 
tackling issues that we really need to tackle. This was an important 
first step in getting Congress and Washington to focus on preserving 
Social Security once and for all. Do not get me wrong, while I support 
the urgency, I strongly disagree with the committee's recommendations 
that reductions in benefits will be necessary to ensure Social 
Security's future solvency. I hope President Bush rejects those ideas.
  Nonetheless, I look forward as a member of the committee to working 
with my colleagues in the House, the President, my Democratic 
colleagues, and others in moving the ball forward on Social Security 
and preserving Social Security once and for all.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The chairman of the subcommittee mentioned bipartisanship, and I just 
want to say a word about that.
  I do not challenge or question the sincerity of the members of the 
commission. Indeed, very distinguished people. But true bipartisanship 
means, I think, if it is going to be at all effective, a reflection of 
the mainstream within each party. This commission, as Ari Fleischer 
said, had on it people who favored privatization. And that is what Mr. 
Fleischer said; these were his terms, private retirement accounts. All 
of them share the President's views that these accounts are the way to 
save Social Security.
  So what we put in, we get out. And when we put in a uniform point of 
view that does not encompass the mainstream of both parties, we are 
going to get out of it deep division.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. May I ask the Speaker how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), who has worked long and hard on the problem of 
trying to do something with Social Security.
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, everybody talks so calmly about 
Social Security. Let me just stress that the greatest danger is doing 
nothing.
  I would suggest to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that 
everyone that criticizes anybody else's plan should come up with their 
own plan that is going to keep Social Security solvent. Look, we all 
agree this is a great program. Fifty percent of the people on 
retirement today would be at the poverty level if they did not have 
Social Security. So what are we going to do?
  I just feel so strongly, and it is somewhat irritating that it is 
easy to criticize, to nit and pick. But I would humbly suggest that 
everybody that criticizes anybody else's plans, including the 
commission's, should come up with their own prompt proposal that keeps 
Social Security solvent.
  Now, some people say, well, look, just pay back what we owe the trust 
fund and we will still be able to pay 70 percent of the benefits in 
2034. Well, it is all going to take money. After there is less revenues 
coming in starting in 2018 than is required to pay benefits, the money 
has to come from someplace. So we will come up with the money and pay 
back everything we owe the trust fund and then benefits are going to be 
cut 30 percent, and then, a few years later, 65 percent. That is not 
acceptable. The longer we put off a decision, the more drastic the 
changes are going to have to be made.
  Let me suggest that nobody is suggesting privatizing Social Security. 
The commission came up with three proposals today. The middle proposal 
says, for example, an individual can invest, and it is optional, it is 
all optional, an individual can invest 4 percent of their taxable 
earnings, if they want to, into their privately owned account. So if 
they die before 65, it goes into their estate and not back to the 
government; and they are going to offset future benefits, assuming that 
they get a 2 percent rate of return on that interest. Even government 
bonds can do better than that.
  Let us move ahead, let us be positive, let us come up with proposals 
that will save Social Security. Things have changed so much since I 
introduced my first Social Security bill in 1994. Now we are talking 
about the reality of a problem. America is becoming better informed. 
But until America realizes where their Social Security checks come 
from, we are probably not going to convince most Americans that we need 
to fix the problem.
  Where it comes from is existing workers. It is a Ponzi game. Existing 
workers today put in their money, and it is immediately sent out to 
existing retirees. That needs to be changed over time, and let us get 
with it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Opposing private retirement accounts is not nitpicking. It is a major 
issue. And among Democrats and some Republicans there is deep 
resistance to it.
  In terms of specific proposals, I would suggest, as was true in the 
early 1980s, if we are going to have a commission, let it be diverse, 
let it have a broad range of opinions. Do not have anybody, whether it 
is the President or the Congress, picking people who agree with them; 
in the President's case, people who believe in private retirement 
accounts, which is, I think, a legitimate privatization method in terms 
of what we call it. I do not think it is legitimate, but we can 
legitimately call it privatization.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the issues really are clear. I think the 
discussion here has been even more to the point than I expected in 
terms of what this resolution is all about and what is behind it. And 
therefore, within those qualifications, I suggest Members come here and 
vote, if a vote is called for.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman from Michigan and I worked for many years on welfare 
reform. The President vetoed my bill twice. In the end, we came 
together and we worked together, and America is better off for it. We 
supported it in a bipartisan way. We can do the same with Social 
Security.
  The gentleman does not like the idea of investment in the private 
sector. If he has a better idea, bring it to me. I will have hearings 
on it. And if it is better than the investment in the private sector, I 
will support it.
  The reason we are looking at investment in the private sector through 
individual retirement accounts is that is the only way we figured out 
we can get

[[Page H9178]]

a sufficient return that is going to leave the program there strong 
enough for our kids and our grandkids.
  What we are talking about tonight is working together to preserve 
that program in a bipartisan way, to preserve it so that our kids and 
our grandkids are going to get a fair deal. Can we go to our kids and 
our grandkids, can I go home and tell them they are going to pay 12.4 
percent of their wages and FICA taxes and, oh, by the way, you are 
going to take a cut after taking care of my generation and our Social 
Security benefits? That is wrong. That is wrong. And we do not need to 
do it. But if we continue the partisan bickering, we will need to do 
it.
  I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to come 
forward with a plan. The reaction has been absolutely absent. There are 
not even phantom plans out there to deal with this. We have to work 
together. Come forward with a plan, sponsor a plan, have it programmed 
and say that it is going to save Social Security for all time and we 
will work with it and have it scored that way. For us to continue the 
bickering on both sides of the aisle with regard to this is terrible.
  This commission has worked hard, and as the gentleman correctly 
pointed out, they are distinguished individuals. They worked hard. 
Maybe the gentleman does not like the results, maybe I do not like the 
results, I think we can do better; but their job was not to legislate. 
Their job was to come forth with ideas, and this is what they have 
done.
  I commend the President for putting together this bipartisan 
commission to come back to us. They have shown there is a problem out 
there. This resolution very clearly states that the Social Security 
System is going to be in trouble in 2016. So tomorrow when we get a big 
vote, and I am going to ask for a recorded vote, this is going to be an 
acknowledgment by the Congress that there is a problem that must be 
faced.
  Let us face it now and let us face it together.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
282, Keeping the Social Security Promise Initiative. This resolution 
simply reaffirms Congress's resolve to strengthen the Social Security 
program for future generations without lowering benefits or increasing 
taxes. Mr. Speaker, Social Security provides essential retirement 
security for more than 45 million Americans. With each paycheck, 
workers send their hard-earned payroll taxes to Social Security with 
the promise of security in their retirement. In reforming the system 
Congress should not do anything that will jeopardize that security or 
break our promises to America's seniors.
  President Bush has recognized that Social Security cannot sustain the 
imminent retirement of the baby boomers and future generations. He 
should be commended for creating a bipartisan Commission to Strengthen 
Social Security. The final report is due on December 21, 2001. The 
Commission has proposed three options to date, two of which would 
reduce benefits.
  The responsibility for reforming Social Security ultimately lies with 
the Congress. I believe we can protect Social Security's commitment to 
our current and future retirees without lowering benefits or raising 
taxes while providing cost-of-living adjustments. With Social Security 
anticipated to run a deficit in 2016, now is the time for Congress and 
the President to work together in a bipartisan fashion to put Social 
Security on sound financial footing for generations to come.
  I ask my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 282.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
282, which reiterates Congress' commitment to our seniors to keep the 
promise of Social Security.
  For years now, Congress and the public have known that Social 
Security would soon be facing serious financing challenges due to 
shifting demographics. With the aging of the baby boom generation, the 
number of retiring Americans receiving benefits is beginning to 
overwhelm the number of working Americans paying into the Social 
Security system. In addition, thanks to important medical advances and 
healthy behavioral changes, Americans are living longer. The result of 
these factors is that beginning in 2016, Social Security payments will 
exceed worker contributions into the trust funds.
  This is a scary prospect for the millions of Americans who receive 
Social Security benefits. Many of those individuals depend upon their 
monthly Social Security checks to survive. As we fight our global war 
on terrorism, we must not lose sight of the fact that terror can come 
in many forms. It is every bit as frightening to an elderly man or 
woman that the Social Security check might be late--and far more real. 
Too many of these people are living from one check to the next and 
balancing food against medicine. As their Representatives in Congress, 
we should at least provide them with the security of the promise of 
Social Security.
  It is also a scary prospect, Mr. Speaker, for the millions of 
Americans who are approaching retirement. They have been paying into 
the Social Security trust funds because they have to, not because they 
believe in Social Security. In fact, numerous studies have shown that 
more young Americans believe in UFOs than in their future Social 
Security checks.
  It is clear that Social Security in its current form--the form it has 
had since the Great Depression--is unsustainable. If we are to keep the 
promise that so many seniors and working Americans have relied upon for 
years, we must reform this program. There are many possibilities for 
reform, including adding personal investment options. The President 
appointed a commission of experts from business, think tanks, and 
government to explore these alternatives and to make recommendations to 
Congress for change. They are expected to vote on their final report 
today, and Congress should consider their recommendations with due 
deliberative speed. We must act quickly, but more importantly, we must 
act right.
  But throughout our deliberations, Mr. Speaker, we must maintain our 
steadfastness to keep the promise of Social Security. We should not 
raise Social Security taxes and we should not cut benefits. We must use 
the innovative spirit that is America's hallmark to meet this challenge 
and find a way to strengthen and improve Social Security.
  Building upon the Social Security lock box legislation that this body 
has already approved, this resolution lays the groundwork for our 
coming debate, reaffirming our commitment to Social Security's 
beneficiaries, in particular, the most vulnerable beneficiaries--the 
low-income, the women, and minorities. I look forward to reviewing 
these issues with my colleagues and developing a real solution to this 
challenge.
  I urge all my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 282.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) that the House suspend the rules and 
agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 282.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________