[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 172 (Wednesday, December 12, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H9327-H9333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




TAX RELIEF FOR FAMILIES OF SURVIVORS OF SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS, ECONOMIC 
     SECURITY, AND HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR DISPLACED WORKERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss a number of topics 
tonight; and I know I am going to be joined by at least one of my 
colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).
  But I wanted to say that in the last couple of weeks before the 
holiday break, which I guess most of the Members of Congress are hoping 
that there will be some sort of holiday break, what I find, both here 
in Washington, in this Chamber, as well as back at home, is that while 
people continue to be concerned about the war on terrorism and also 
security here at home, they are also increasingly concerned about the 
economy and the recession that we now face, and the fact that so many 
workers have lost their jobs, the unemployment rate continues to rise, 
and that those displaced workers oftentimes have a problem, obviously, 
finding a new job, but also with their health care, their inability to 
keep their health insurance, as well as the fact that many Americans 
now face a problem that even if they have health insurance, they find 
that it costs them more, either because the premium goes up or because 
they have more copayments.
  There is a tremendous amount of concern also, I think, by Americans, 
by the average American, about retirement security and whether Social 
Security, for example, or their pension, is going to be there when they 
retire.
  So on the one hand, we continue the war on terrorism, which the 
President has very successfully continued in Afghanistan against the 
Taliban and al Qaeda; but at the same time, there is increasing concern 
about the economy at home and the recession that faces us.
  I wanted to start this evening very briefly by talking about an issue 
that kind of goes together and concerns what happened September 11, and 
also is an economic security issue.
  About one week ago, last Wednesday, in fact, there were about a dozen 
women who lost their husbands during the September 11 terrorist attack 
who

[[Page H9328]]

boarded a train in my home State of New Jersey, leaving their children 
behind, and came down to Washington. They did not want to be here. They 
were visiting with not only members of the New Jersey delegation, as 
well as our two U.S. Senators, but they also met with the Speaker and 
they met with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the 
Democratic leader in the House.
  When I say that these women did not want to come to Washington, that 
was obvious. They said many times that they were concerned about their 
children at home and about even being here. In fact, I would say that 
they were really angry over the fact that they had to personally come 
to the Nation's capital and ask in this case the House Republican 
leadership to bring up a bill that provides tax relief for their 
families.
  The reason I bring it up tonight, and I have to say, I am going to 
bring it up every night until we adjourn for the holidays, is because 
when the women met with the Speaker, according to them, the Speaker 
promised them that the House would consider a tax relief bill for the 
victims' families from September 11 and that that bill would be brought 
up the following Tuesday, which was yesterday.
  Well, it is pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker, that Tuesday has come and 
gone and nothing has happened in this regard, and they are still 
waiting.

                              {time}  1900

  My question really is how much longer are they going to have to worry 
about receiving relief from the Federal Government?
  I do not want this to be partisan, but I understand, and I think they 
totally understand, that it is the Republican leadership that has to 
bring up this bill because they control the House. And I would say 
tonight, and I will say every night between now and when we leave, that 
it is time for the Speaker and the Republican leadership to step up and 
provide this tax relief by accepting the language that was passed last 
month by the U.S. Senate. The Senate passed a bill that accomplishes 
the goal of giving these women, in this case, widows, not only relief 
from their income tax for the 2-year period, but also relief from the 
payroll tax, from estate taxes. And it has other provisions that would 
help them out in this time of need.
  Mr. Speaker, and now I am talking about ``the Speaker,'' these 
families have not forgotten the promise that was made to them last 
week, and I would urge that this bill be brought up quickly, tomorrow, 
the next day, or as soon as possible. And as I said, I will continue to 
come to the House floor every day until the Republican leadership 
brings this legislation to the floor, because I think it is the only 
right thing to do.
  I would like to, before I get into the economic stimulus issue, 
because I really believe very strongly that we need to pass an economic 
stimulus package also before we go home for the holidays, but before 
getting into that I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
who, I understand, is here because she wants to comment on this report 
that was recently put out by the President's Commission on Social 
Security.
  I have to say, again going back to what I said initially, I know in 
New Jersey and throughout the country that people continue to be 
concerned about terrorism but, at the same time, I also know that I am 
getting a lot of concern on behalf of my constituents about the 
economic issues, whether it be the recession, Social Security, or 
Medicare, and we were hopeful that this commission was going to make 
some recommendations with regard to Social Security that would deal 
with the solvency problem.
  We know in a few years that Social Security is going to start to 
diminish. The money will not be there, at least at the levels that are 
promised. And I know that the gentlewoman and I were very disappointed 
that their recommendations really do not deal with the solvency 
problem, and make recommendations with regard to privatization and 
other matters that I think are not really going to help.
  So I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. THURMAN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to 
me.
  I first would say to the women who came from New Jersey here to speak 
to the body, we heard so eloquently today somebody talk about ``we the 
people,'' and this being ``the people's place of business,'' and so we 
do need to be paying attention to what is being said for those people 
who are having to suffer as a result of these September 11 attacks. 
They are the survivors, the families, their children. We need to be 
very cognizant of the issues and the needs that are facing them, and 
particularly not only at the tough time, but the holiday time, when 
they are already suffering from their losses, but then to be 
economically strapped because of the consequences.
  Mr. PALLONE. If I could just reclaim my time. I did not go into the 
issue in a lot of detail, in part because, I have to be honest, it 
concerns me so much that it is difficult to talk about. But what has 
happened to them, and I think a lot of people do not realize this, is 
that the nonprofits, I guess primarily the Red Cross, basically 
provided assistance for the victims' families for a 3-month period. 
That ended essentially December 1.
  So a lot of people think that the families of these victims are 
continuing to be helped by nonprofits, and in fact, that is not true. 
Some of them are in a position where they have a little money, but a 
lot of them do not.
  I yield back to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. THURMAN. And I would say to the gentleman that that kind of 
walks into the issue of Social Security. So often we think of Social 
Security as just being something for those that have reached the age of 
62 or 65. But the fact of the matter is we also recognize that Social 
Security provides essential income also for survivor benefits, and 
those survivor benefits in this case would be those children who are 
under the age of 16. They would have these benefits available to them.
  Even as of last night, this House debated a resolution that pointed 
out why keeping Social Security was so important. And in the resolution 
it said, in the findings, ``This Congress finds that; one, 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. 
Social Security is of particular importance for low earners, especially 
widows and women caring for children,'' similar to what the gentleman 
is talking about, ``without which nearly 53 percent of elderly women 
would live in poverty. And 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.''

  In this resolution it says, ``and that commitment must be kept.'' 
Well, as we go through this resolution there is also a part that says 
``the sense of Congress,'' and it says, ``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 that the 
President and the Congress should join to develop legislation to 
strengthen Social Security as soon as possible.''
  And it goes on to talk about what such legislation would have: 
``Recognizes obstacles that women face in securing the 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.''
  It also says, ``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 ``It should guarantee current law promised benefits, including 
their cost-of-living adjustments that fully index for inflation for 
current and future retirees without increasing taxes.''
  Like the gentleman from New Jersey, I had great hopes. I thought the 
commission was a bipartisan commission that was going to come back with 
some recommendations, or a recommendation, not only on how we keep 
Social Security solvent but also how we extend it into the future, and 
we have

[[Page H9329]]

heard the magic number of 75 years. I was rather concerned when the 
commission came back and released this long-awaited report on the 
privatization of Social Security.
  Rather than releasing a consensus document with a single 
recommendation on how to lengthen the life of the trust fund, it 
released a list of three options, with little in the way of details. We 
just met with the commission and we said, are you going to give us 
details; how are we going to pay for this; what are we going to do? But 
what happened in this is that all three of the plans that were 
presented have what is called a ``claw back.''
  Now, these plans then are set up so that the retiree does not get the 
full amount of what they earn on their private accounts. So they get 
the difference between what their account earned over time and an 
arbitrary number that the commission has set. That is what is called 
the ``claw back.''
  All three of these options also carve private accounts out of Social 
Security. Here are the options: Option one diverts 2 percent of the 
payroll taxes into private accounts. This comes at a cost of $1 
trillion over the next 10 years. How does this option extend the life 
of the trust fund? And, by the way, we do not think it does.
  The commission also recommended reducing Social Security checks to 
seniors. But the cuts would not be enough to offset the $1 trillion in 
cost to the trust fund, so the commission failed to meet their goal of 
extending the life of the trust fund.
  Option two diverts 4 percent of payroll taxes up to a maximum amount 
of $1,000. How does this get paid for, we asked? It reduces Social 
Security checks by changing the way payments are calculated for each 
new generation of retirees.
  In making this seemingly small change, benefits for new retirees will 
gradually fall over time. Over time this adds up to a dramatic cut in 
benefits. It would mean a benefit cut of 24 percent for someone 
retiring in the year 2040. By 2070, the cut would be over 40 percent.
  Option three combines a 2.5 percent payroll tax diversion with a 1 
percent investment of your total paycheck. This option, we found, was 
so expensive that numerous cuts in benefits would have to be made.
  The Wall Street Journal put it best when it wrote in its editorial 
page, ``Benefits for all retirees would be changed in so many ways that 
grandma's head would spin.''
  The option that the President's commission has put out leaves several 
questions that we need answers to. What are the costs to the transition 
to private accounts from the current system? If tax increases are off 
the table, as the majority of this Congress voted for today, what 
Federal spending would have to be cut to provide additional revenue? 
What, if any, protections are in place for those who retire during a 
market slump? How will disability and survivor benefits be affected?
  The President's commission was vague about how their three options 
would be financed. They mentioned that the revenue would be raised, but 
neglected to explain from where. The money has to come from somewhere. 
How can the President or Congress weigh the pros and cons of making 
these large changes to the Social Security System without this 
information? It is a question.
  I believe, and I think many of us believe, there should be some 
investment component to Social Security. However, I would say that 
these are not the way. All three options that the President's 
commission put forth include a reduction in benefits, including a 
reduction in disability benefits. One option has so many cuts in 
benefits, as I said earlier, the Wall Street Journal said, again, 
``Grandma's head would spin.''
  The commission's report leaves too many unanswered questions. No one 
knows exactly how much these options would cost or where the money 
would come from to pay for these options. What we do know is this: We 
know that future seniors would face a reduction in their Social 
Security checks each month; diverting as little as 2 percent of payroll 
taxes to private accounts would cost $1 trillion in just the first 10 
years; and we also know that none of these options will keep Social 
Security solvent over the long haul.
  The gentleman from New Jersey and I have been here for a couple of 
years, we have been involved in this debate, and we care about this 
debate. The fact that this commission has come back and has left us 
with three options, has given us no knowledge as to how to pay for 
them, and leaves us probably with more questions than answers means 
that this debate will fall upon Congress once again.
  I believe that if we were taking these dollars and, instead of 
diverting them, that we could actually, as we know from past reports, 
continue to make the Social Security System solvent by putting these 
dollars in the system that we have today versus trying to come up with 
another way of funding this or coming up with these privatizations.
  We had some very good conversations last year to take some of what we 
used to have, the surplus, divert it to Social Security, to even 
actually take some of those dollars and use them in some accounts to 
extend the life of Social Security, that would be benefits for 
everybody, and now we are in a situation where we are left with a lot 
of questions, and talk of diverting funds, and no way to pay and no 
surplus.
  I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey, and I know one of the 
reasons he is here tonight is to talk about the shape of the economy 
and the stimulus package, but the fact of the matter is we have left 
some false hopes for those seniors on the table today, and to those 
with disabilities, and to those that he spoke of so eloquently earlier, 
those that are survivors.
  Mr. PALLONE. Well, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I know that on 
the Committee on Ways and Means, that this is one of the major issues 
that she has struggled with.
  It all goes back to what we were saying in the beginning, which is 
that September 11 came, and we know what a dramatic impact it has had 
on the lives of the average American and on what we do here. But the 
bottom line is that before September 11, we had these outstanding 
issues; how were we going to deal with Social Security and the 
potential insolvency? How were we going to deal with the need for 
prescription drug benefit?
  Mrs. THURMAN. If the gentleman will yield, I have to tell him that 
tomorrow in my district, and I cannot be there, obviously, because I am 
here, but I would recommend my seniors in Spring Hill and in New Port 
Richey, Pasco County, attend a rally they are holding.

                              {time}  1915

  They are holding a rally. They have not forgotten the promises that 
were made during election time. They are talking and having a rally. 
They are expecting somewhere around 250 people to talk about the 
procedure issue. The article that I read today on it said we are going 
to send a videotape to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) with 
the stories and the plight of these families and the cost of procedures 
in this country.
  I would invite once I get this videotape for any Member of this 
Congress to come and sit with me and watch and see what so many of 
these people are struggling with on everyday life-threatening 
situations, and that is the inability for them to pay for their 
medicines.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman has done a fabulous job on 
this issue. I enjoy working with the gentleman on the Democratic Health 
Task Force. I think we have done some very good things. But again, 
prior to September 11 when everything was done with the tax cuts, 
nothing is paid for, there is nothing left. Every month we are spending 
a billion dollars out of dollars that we do not have today that we had 
before.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the fact of the matter 
is, and I do not want to make it so partisan and go back to the Clinton 
administration, but the fact is during the Clinton years we had finally 
gotten to a situation where we had a surplus. That had a major positive 
impact on the economy because it meant that the Federal Government was 
not borrowing so much. Money was freed up for companies to borrow and 
build factories and create new jobs. It was an important part of why 
the economy did so well.
  I cannot believe when President Bush came in he started preaching 
essentially that we had to have huge tax

[[Page H9330]]

cuts that went to corporations and the very wealthy. As a consequence 
of that, we now have a deficit once again. I know that September 11 has 
aggravated that, but nonetheless we were there even before September 
11.
  When we talk about the Social Security system, I was amazed when I 
was looking at the analysis of this commission, they are suggesting 
using unspecified general revenues to restore solvency. President 
Clinton was saying exactly that, use the surplus to shore up Social 
Security. Some actuaries have said if we continued to do that over a 
number of years, that might have solved the problem itself, and we 
might not have had to do anything else. Now they are mentioning that in 
the report, knowing full well that the surplus is not there any more 
because of the Bush tax cut. There is some hypocrisy.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is missed in this 
debate is that we watched the Social Security solvency, as well as 
Medicare, increase by year. Every year we were moving ahead, not 
backwards. So at first when we heard about Social Security, it was 
going to be 2029. All of a sudden we were able to increase the solvency 
until 2037. The reason for that was because of a strong economy, people 
were working and unemployment was low. People were paying into Social 
Security and Medicare. We watched Medicare go from something like 2011 
when we did the 1993 bill. We took some of those dollars and we 
transferred them into Medicare from the Social Security part of it to 
make sure that we could keep Medicare solvent. We pushed the number out 
into the future.
  So not only is the economy affecting us with the whole issue of 
whether or not we have any surplus left, but it is also reducing, 
because unemployment is going up, those dollars that would be going 
into the system that would be extending these programs. So we are 
really kind of getting a double whammy here. It is not like we can 
forget without the growth in the economy, it also dwindles the dollars 
that goes into these programs.
  So not only are we talking about what the options are, we have to try 
to figure out how to extend the solvency from where we are; and the 
best way to do that is to make the economy grow. There are ways to do 
that; and if we could sit down in a bipartisan fashion, do a bill that 
is fair across the board, is paid for, we could be going home with a 
gift to our constituents that helped all Americans and not just a few.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. I know that the gentlewoman can be 
very hard hitting, and in some ways she is almost being nice about the 
Social Security commission. It is not only the hypocrisy in talking 
about using general revenues that do not exist any more, but also they 
did not make it clear that any kind of privatization is ultimately 
going to aggravate the solvency problem.
  I know that there are different suggestions here, but there is no way 
to create these private accounts and take any percentage of the money 
away from the Social Security trust and invest it and not impact the 
solvency. They are disguising what they are doing with the three 
options; but ultimately by privatizing, they are making the solvency 
situation worse, not better.
  Maybe we need to be a little harsher about it than we have been, 
frankly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, we just got the report. It is 150 pages 
long. We are going to continue to dissect it and try to figure out if 
there are some things that we might catch onto. But there is an issue 
in the report that does concern me, and it is the one that I spoke 
about earlier called the ``claw back.'' This claw-back issue is 
enormous because people think they are going to get their Social 
Security plus this investment. It does not work that way.
  That is a really big concern because I think we are giving some false 
hope that we are going to take this 2 percent and invest it for you 
and, oh, by the way, you are going to get this, but you are also going 
to get all of this money that you supposedly made, and it does not work 
that way.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I agree. I am going to sound very partisan, 
but both President Clinton and Vice President Gore were suggesting that 
there be a private pension system over and above Social Security. That 
is the only way we could actually accomplish this. Americans would 
still get their Social Security benefits, but then Americans put money 
aside into their own pension system which is matched with Federal 
dollars and then there is something beyond. But the only way to create 
that is if we bring new money into the system either because the 
individual is contributing it during their working years or the 
government matches. We cannot take it out of the existing trust fund 
without impacting the trust fund. That is why they have to claw back, 
obviously.
  Mrs. THURMAN. The issue there was to encourage savings.
  Mr. PALLONE. Exactly.
  Mrs. THURMAN. It was to also recognize that Social Security was never 
supposed to be what people would have to live off of. So if we could 
find these U.S.A. accounts or whatever magic name we wanted to call 
them, the fact of the matter was that they would be there for the 
purposes of folks who do not make but a small amount of money, and they 
would invest into this on their own to be matched. It gave them 
incentives.
  Mr. Speaker, guess what we have found. When people save, it is good 
for everybody in America. It is part of the economy. Savings is a part 
of what we rely on. So there was a plan with an outcome that was good 
for everyone and with no false hopes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be with the 
gentleman tonight. He has always brought the critical issues to the 
floor and has really given the public the information that is true and 
real. A lot of times they hear the pontificating on this floor, and it 
is absolutely just loaded with all types of hypocrisy and 
misinformation and misgivings. But when the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) comes to this floor, the public knows that he is coming 
in to speak the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, as I look at my lapel and see the burqa cloth, I am 
reminded today that we pretty much stood with the Afghanistan women to 
say free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at 
last.
  As I look at the burqa, I am reminded of the issue of Social Security 
and women, and how they are not saying free at last because of this 
report that has just come out from the President's commission. There 
were some of us who went and talked with the commission to let them 
know some of the adverse provisions of Social Security and how it 
impacts women, the elderly and the disabled; and yet this report comes 
out, and indeed it has those very things that we thought it would have, 
and how it impacts in an adverse way women and the disabled and the 
elderly.
  I would like to just speak a little bit about what we have seen in 
our research and the fact that this report is very disappointing to me 
as the recommendations contained in the draft final report of the 
President's commission to strengthen Social Security is in fact going 
to weaken it. The fact that the commission could not agree on a single 
plan and released three separate options is a matter of deep concern, 
as Social Security is an issue of critical importance to my 
constituents and the people around and across this great country.
  The three proposals all require profound and fundamental changes to 
the Nation's retirement plan. I am concerned in particular with the 
impact any changes to the Social Security system will have on women, 
retirees and disabled workers.
  The three approaches taken by the commissioners share several 
problematic features. The plans call for benefit cuts for retirees and 
disabled workers, and also for individual workers to open voluntary 
private investment accounts to provide them with an income in their old 
age, and we do know that once you rob out of the trust fund, it does 
not retain solvency at all. It weakens it.
  So to even call this report strengthening Social Security is a farce. 
It is absolutely a discredit to those who are looking for something 
different than what this report is saying. Each of the plans diverts 
Social Security resources

[[Page H9331]]

elsewhere, and none of the plans balance Social Security without the 
use of massive transfusions of general revenue.

                              {time}  1930

  That surplus that they thought we had, and I suppose they must still 
think that, is not there anymore. So that is another misconception, a 
misnomer, a misdirection. Hypocrisy. No independent actuarial analysis 
was released, making it difficult to assess the commission's claims. 
What is clear is that each plan would ``carve out'' private accounts 
from Social Security, thus they would divert a portion of the trust 
fund revenues into private accounts.
  Let me give you just a couple of things. We will not go into this 
plan. I am urging all of the Members to read this plan, to synthesize 
it, to dissect it, because it has several plans and all talk about this 
``claw-back'' that my dear friend the gentlewoman from Florida just 
mentioned. I would like to just give information as to why women really 
need a good Social Security plan. We recognize that women, on the 
average, earn less than men, meaning that they count on Social 
Security's weighted benefit structure to ensure that they have an 
adequate income in retirement. Women are less likely to be covered by 
an employer-sponsored pension fund, which means that Social Security 
comprises a larger portion of their total retirement income. Women lose 
an average of 14 years in earnings because they take time off from the 
workforce to raise their children or to care for an ailing parent or 
spouse. When women are in the workforce, they often work in part-time 
jobs. This means that they have less opportunity to save for 
retirement. So to even suggest that one would take voluntarily or 
otherwise from already a very weak type of income that they have, an 
income that is not conducive to caring for their family adequately, let 
alone talking about a private savings account.
  Since women live 6 to 8 years longer than men do, they must make 
their retirement savings stretch over longer periods of time. 
Consequently, women depend considerably upon Social Security's 
progressive, lifelong, inflation-indexed benefits. Privatizing Social 
Security would undermine many of the features that benefit American 
women, retirees and the disabled the most. Privatization would 
encourage individuals to invest their proceeds in private accounts, 
especially through the investment marketplace and the stock market. 
Private pension plans require sophisticated knowledge of the stock 
market. Many women, and even men, lack the skills involved in making 
investment decisions, decisions that would be vital to their long-term 
financial security. In addition, because women earn less, live longer 
and spend less time in the workforce, they will have less to invest in 
their private pension plan. The result would be that women would have 
to live on smaller benefits from smaller accounts.
  Finally, besides the risks evident in investing in the stock market, 
there is nothing to prevent individual private pension plans from being 
eroded by inflation, for heaven's sake. This is particularly 
devastating for women who have less money to retire on and the need to 
make their money last longer. Social Security resolves this problem by 
increasing benefits each year through a cost-of-living adjustment, 
which is COLAs. This safety net, it appears, will no longer exist, 
though, under this President's Social Security plan.
  I say to you that the women across this country will now have an 
opportunity to look closely at this new strengthening Social Security 
proposal that the President's commission has come out with, and they 
too will be rallying in the streets, thinking that what they thought 
they were going to get, they will not get unless some of us rescue the 
Social Security plan and put back into the trust fund those types of 
benefits that one should put back in and should have in terms of 
strengthening the solvency of Social Security.
  Another issue that my friend spoke about is the fact that 
unemployment and people who are laid off work cannot invest in Social 
Security. Therefore, the solvency will be eroded, eradicated, we will 
not have that. And so to mention and to even suggest that one can 
invest voluntarily into a privatized pension or an account is really 
suggesting that you will have more people on the street, poor people on 
the street, homeless people on the street, women who have no sense of 
security because if they invest, not knowing and not having the skills 
as most of us do not have, they will come out losers. This is a losing 
proposition, not strengthening but weakening Social Security. I thank 
the gentleman for allowing me to just make some statements tonight as I 
continue to work with women across this Nation to look at this plan 
that does nothing for us but to weaken the position that we are already 
weakened in.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. She is right when she 
says that we need to have a lot more analysis of this because it just 
came out. But in pinpointing the difficulties in particular that women 
or low wage earners would face, I think that anybody who looks at this 
should be very concerned about the impact. The gentlewoman from Florida 
talked about the fact that Social Security is not just for people over 
65, but also for people who are disabled and for survivors. 
Particularly with those groups, there is a lot here that they should be 
concerned about.

  If I could just mention three things with regard to people who take 
an early retirement, the plan includes a provision that really further 
reduces early retirement benefits. Again, you have people that because 
of the economy now and the recession, there are a lot of these early 
retirement packages being offered in lieu of losing your job, so to 
speak. People who are taking those packages under this are going to 
have a problem, because they are going to be living a long time, 
particularly if they are women who tend to live a little longer, and 
they are going to be suffering because the amount of benefits they are 
going to be getting are going to be significantly reduced.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. If the gentleman will yield, indeed they 
will. As we speak about the disabled, there is still not anything that 
is focused in a positive way in this report. So the disabled is out of 
luck in trying to find any redeeming qualities in this proposal. Then 
in addition to that, you are right. When people are now opting out and 
retiring early, they expect something in their Social Security benefits 
that will not be there if this is passed and institutionalized. I hope 
and pray that it is not, because the women of this country will be in 
an uproar, and men, too, those who opt to take an early retirement, 
thinking that what they are going to get is indeed what they will not 
get under this President's commission's plan. Again, to strengthen is 
the operative word. It does not strengthen. It weakens.
  Mr. PALLONE. Just this last thing I wanted to mention is that 
apparently there is some effort on the part of the commission that 
suggests that the benefits would be improved for widows and low 
earners. But from what I can see, it is just not true. It is just 
overstated. The Social Security benefits widows would receive under the 
commission's proposal for an improvement in survivor benefits would 
actually be less than they would receive under current law. The reason 
is, from what I understand, because the commission imposes sharp 
reductions in the basic benefits on which the survivor's benefit is 
calculated, so basically undermining the apparent increase in the 
survivor's benefit. So it is really very confusing and not what it 
pretends to be. It also says here that the benefit improvements for low 
earners may also be smaller than suggested in the commission's 
documents because few low wage workers have 30 years of steady earnings 
at the minimum wage. So few would receive the full antipoverty 
protection that the commission proposes. They are suggesting somehow 
that survivors and low wage earners are going to do better, but when 
you look at how they achieve those improved benefits, very few people 
would qualify.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. This is very true. This is another reason why 
when we talked with them about that and they were trying to give us the 
formula, that formula was not adding up. Now that it is in print, it 
does not add up. The one thing that they should do is give us a 
stimulus package that really gives unemployment benefits to workers and 
to bring workers

[[Page H9332]]

back to work. You bring workers back to work, then you can continue to 
buy into the Social Security trust fund, and then you might be able to 
do some of the things that they are talking about. But without the 
actuarial analysis, we cannot dissect this thing, we cannot really see 
all of the potentialities that they are talking about, but what we can 
see is that it is not strengthening Social Security. For that reason, 
we will have to denounce this. We will have to simply get our own plan 
going so that the American people, especially those women, the disabled 
and the elderly, will find comfort in a Social Security plan. This is 
no comfort at all.
  Again, I thank the gentleman so much. We look forward to working with 
the gentleman as we bring about a plan that is a real plan for those 
Americans who are looking to Social Security for their benefits.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. I am glad that we 
brought up the issue of the Social Security commission tonight, because 
I know that the report has come out but it has not received the 
attention that I think it needs to receive.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. The report and some of the analysis that we 
have done through the Democratic staff will be sent to all Members, so 
you will get that. We will continue to be on the floor to talk about 
it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, before I conclude tonight, I did want to 
spend a little time on the issue of an economic stimulus. I wanted to 
stress again how important I think this is. As we all know, we probably 
have only another week, maybe 2 weeks but probably not even, just days 
before the holiday.
  I know that there is talk now that we may not even do an economic 
stimulus package because either this House and the other body cannot 
get together or Democrats and Republicans are trying to come together 
and have not been able to so far. I do believe very strongly, though, 
that we must have an economic stimulus package.

  As I said in the beginning of this special order, more and more of my 
constituents are telling me about the problems that they face because 
of the recession, either higher unemployment or the fact that many 
displaced workers do not have access to health insurance, do not have 
access to a lot of the benefits that they would normally have if they 
have a job. That is why the Democrats have stressed that this economic 
stimulus package has to primarily focus on displaced workers, 
unemployment compensation, health insurance coverage for people who no 
longer have a job. And also provide some help to low-income workers. In 
other words, we have talked about a rebate for those who did not get a 
rebate as a result of President Bush's tax cuts that took place about 6 
months ago.
  The emphasis on the part of the Democrats is to do things that will 
make people spend money. In other words, give money back to low-income 
workers, provide unemployment compensation, provide certain 
expenditures on infrastructure to protect the country from terrorism 
which also would create jobs. The problem on the Republican side, 
particularly with the bill that passed the House with the support of 
the Republican leadership, is that all the emphasis in that bill and on 
the Republican side in this Chamber was towards accelerating those same 
tax cuts that passed as part of the President's initiative about 6 
months ago.
  The fear that I have and that many of the Democrats have is that by 
accelerating those tax cuts, which primarily were to corporations and 
wealthy people, that that will not spur the economy, that will not 
bring money back into the economy because it is not necessarily the 
case that those tax cuts would be used and spent on things that would 
stimulate the economy.
  I just wanted to mention briefly, if I could, some of the differences 
between the Democratic and the Republican plan, not because I insist 
that the Democratic plan be passed. I understand that there have to be 
some compromises if we are going to reach a majority in both Houses, 
but I do think that the emphasis has to be on what stimulates the 
economy. If you look at the Democratic bill, I will just mention four 
or five points.
  With regard to unemployment compensation, individuals who exhaust 
their 26-week eligibility for State unemployment would be eligible for 
an additional 52 weeks of cash payments funded entirely by the Federal 
Government. Individuals who do not meet their States' requirements for 
unemployment insurance, in other words, part-time workers, would 
receive 26 weeks of federally financed unemployment insurance. This is 
in the bill. This is the substance of the Democratic proposal.

                              {time}  1945

  With regard to health care benefits, the Federal Government would 
fully reimburse eligible individuals for their COBRA premiums. 
Individuals who do not qualify for COBRA and are otherwise uninsured 
would be eligible for Medicaid, with the Federal Government covering 
100 percent of the premiums. These benefits, these health care 
benefits, would last for a maximum of 18 months.
  Then I mentioned the rebate checks. Under the Democratic proposal, 
low- and moderate-income workers who did not qualify for the rebate 
checks issued earlier this year under President Bush's tax cut would 
receive a one-time payment of up to $300 for a single person and $600 
for married couples.
  Finally, with regard to these homeland or domestic security upgrades, 
the Democratic package includes up to $9 billion in spending programs 
to improve our Nation's infrastructure to protect against terrorism. 
Included would be funding for bioterrorism prevention and food safety, 
local police and fire departments, border security, airport security, 
and highway, bridge and tunnel improvements.
  The idea of these upgrades is to basically hire more workers, and, 
therefore, lower the unemployment rate and put more money into the 
economy.
  If you contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with the Republican tax cut bill 
which passed the House, just to give you some of the provisions, of the 
$99.5 billion in tax cuts in 2002, $70.8 billion benefits corporations, 
$14.8 billion benefits affluent individuals, and only $13.7 billion 
goes to workers with lower incomes.
  Then you have the sweetheart things for the corporations, the repeal 
of corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. The bill not only repeals the 
corporate AMT, but it allows companies to receive refunds based on past 
AMT payments back to 1996. Capital gains tax cut, multinational 
financing tax cut, the list goes on.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I am about to conclude; but I just wanted to 
stress again, I understand that if we are going to have an economic 
stimulus package, that we have to have the parties come together and 
the two Houses come together. But I also think it is crucial that 
whatever is done actually accomplishes the goal of stimulating the 
economy. I am very fearful that the Republican proposals that we saw in 
that House bill, that Republican bill that passed the House, would not 
accomplish that.
  If I could just, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, read part of this 
editorial that was in the New York Times on November 26. I know it is 
almost a month ago now, but I still think it says everything that needs 
to be said about what we should be doing with regard to economic 
stimulus. The sections I want to quote are as follows:
  ``Congress has only a few weeks left before adjourning for the year. 
Yet there is still no legislative agreement on measures to boost 
economy. President Bush needs to help break the impasse on both issues.
  ``Ideally, Congress should quickly pass a balanced fiscal stimulus 
bill aiding those who need help most without widening deficits in the 
years ahead. An appropriate homeland security measure would spend more 
than the $8 billion the administration wants.
  ``Right now there are two competing stimulus bills, and the one 
supported by most Senators is by far the better. It would channel tax 
breaks and spending to those most hurt by the economic downturn, 
whereas the bill passed by the House Republicans would cut taxes 
disproportionately for the rich and for big corporations.
  ``Congress could reach a financially responsible compromise if 
Republicans dropped their worst ideas, a speed-up of the tax cuts 
enacted earlier this year for the wealthiest Americans and a separate 
measure to make it easier for big corporations to pay no taxes at all. 
The

[[Page H9333]]

final bill could then focus on tax breaks, tax refunds and health 
benefits for the poor and the working poor, while helping small and 
medium-sized businesses with adjustments and write-offs for 
depreciation and expenses.''
  Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why we cannot come to a compromise 
along those lines. I would urge our leaders here over the next few days 
to try to reach a compromise because I think it is very important for 
the future of the economy.

                          ____________________