[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.
____________________