[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 22 (Tuesday, March 5, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H667-H668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a full and fair debate on 
Social Security. Three months ago, the President's commission issued a 
report. It called for sweeping changes to the Social Security system. 
It called for the creation of private accounts. It called for three 
plans to meet these goals. Then last week, in a speech to the Cato 
Institute, the majority leader urged a debate on this issue. He urged 
us to reform Social Security. He urged us to privatize Social Security. 
And the President of the United States argued the same in speeches also 
delivered last week. Yet in Congress, Republicans are refusing to have 
that full and fair debate on their schemes of privatization. Do they 
have something to hide?
  We hear that soon we are going to get a proposal to send certificates 
out to seniors, at a cost of $14 million, that tells them that if you 
are over the age of 62, your benefits will never be cut. The first 
question is, What if you are under 62? What should they assume? We are 
also told that CRS and other agencies have said that there is no legal 
effect to this document. It is not anything that anybody can rely on. 
Jo Anne Barnhart, the Social Security commissioner, suggests that the 
plan would drain millions of dollars from the administration's fund and 
alarm seniors who did not get their certificates. I could not agree 
with her more. The certificate idea is a political exercise that will 
squander taxpayer time and taxpayer money. It will create confusion. 
And it is an insult to seniors who put their faith and trust in Social 
Security.
  We do not need a secret plan on Social Security. We do not want 
people to go into the voting booth and elect candidates next fall who 
say, ``Oh, I'm going to guarantee your Social Security benefits,'' and 
then turn around the day after the election and cut their benefits in 
some scheme of privatization.
  I am not afraid to stand on this floor and fight for my beliefs. I 
say to my Republican colleagues, in the words of the old hymn, ``be not 
afraid.'' That hymn says that if you believe in something and you care 
about it, you ought to go ahead without fear. I want a debate on this 
issue before the election, not after the election. If Republicans fail 
to put Social Security on the floor, I intend to mount a discharge 
petition to bring up the Presidential commission's plans so that we can 
have a full and free debate, the House of Representatives at its best.
  I think it is essential. Social Security is at the heart of our 
retirement security system. Thanks to Social Security, millions of 
Americans avoid poverty. They have lived their lives free from fear. 
People with disabilities and surviving family members have put food on 
the table because of Social Security. They have roofs over their heads. 
For 67 years, Social Security has been there for the people of this 
country when they have needed it.
  My mother is 94 years old. She lives in an independent-living 
facility in St. Louis, and about half the costs of that facility every 
month come from her Social Security. You better believe she cares about 
Social Security. And you better believe I care about Social Security. 
And you better believe that millions of Americans care about Social 
Security. And you better believe that there are millions of people out 
there who care about Social Security and are concerned and rightly 
concerned about secret Republican plans to wait until after the 
election to put forward plans that will cut their benefits.
  We are not talking about an academic exercise here. We are talking 
about people's lives and what happens to them every month. We are 
talking about the biggest changes in the program that the President has 
proposed in the history of the program. We are talking about a sea 
change in the way this program works. The Republican Party has always 
sought to weaken Social Security. In 1935, they voted against it. In 
1964, they wanted to make it voluntary. And in 1994, Representative 
Armey appeared on national television admitting that ``I would never 
have created Social Security.''
  Today, the Republican slogan seems to be, ``Save Social Security 
last, not first.'' In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman is dead on. 
His argument is that Social Security has never been a simple pension 
fund. It really, he says, is a social contract. Each generation pays 
taxes that support the previous generation's retirement and expects to 
receive the same treatment from the next generation. Republicans 
propose to allow younger workers to place their payroll taxes in 
private accounts, in effect to break this ongoing contract, in 
Krugman's words.
  He says, we are left with two options: make room for the trillions 
diverted into private accounts by slashing baby boomer benefits, or use 
money from other, unidentified sources to replace the diverted funds. 
The Republican plan makes promises that sound too good to be true, 
because they are too good to be true. According to Krugman, private 
accounts will create a financing crisis requiring sharp benefit cuts or 
large infusions of money from unspecified sources, or both.
  Republicans say privatization will not cost a dime. The Social 
Security actuaries say it will drain $20 trillion from the budget. 
Republicans say privatization will strengthen people's retirement 
security. Tell that to the employees at Enron. They cannot even pay the 
cost of health care for their kids. Republicans say that 40 years of 
neglect have permanently damaged Social Security's financial health, in 
the words of Majority Leader Armey. Bob

[[Page H668]]

Ball, an expert on the subject, calls this statement flat out untrue.
  Our challenge is to strengthen Social Security into the future. We 
need to honor our commitments. We need to strengthen the trust funds. 
We need to save Social Security first. America had a golden opportunity 
about 15 months ago. Fifteen months ago, we could have passed tax cuts 
to promote long-term economic growth while paying down the national 
debt and investing in Social Security for Americans everywhere. 
Republicans rejected our approach. Today, the President's budget breaks 
pledges by both parties. Both parties promised to safeguard the trust 
funds. The President's budget invades them for the next 10 years. It 
drains $1.5 trillion from the trust funds, and plans proposed by his 
commission fail to explain how we will pay for privatization. And they 
will lead to cuts in benefits for seniors, even for individuals opting 
out of private accounts.
  This is not a debate about numbers. It is a debate in the end about 
our values. What is the value we place on Social Security? Our values 
call for understanding that Social Security will be solvent for the 
next 36 years, at a minimum. Our values call for recognizing that 
people have faith and trust and confidence in our most respected 
program. Our values call for realizing that Social Security offers 
economic security not just to seniors but to widows, disabled 
Americans, and children of parents who die before the age of 65. Our 
values call for keeping our intergenerational contract and commitment 
in the 21st century.

                              {time}  1845

  Our values call for keeping our word to the seniors of this country. 
Our values call for investing in Social Security today, not tearing it 
down as baby-boomers retire a few years from now.
  I urge Republicans, be not afraid. Let us get about having a real 
debate before the voters speak in November of this year. Let us get 
about the task of saving Social Security first and today.

                         Breaking the Contract

                           (By Paul Krugman)

       If converting Social Security to a system of private 
     retirement accounts is such a good idea, why can't advocates 
     of that conversion try, just once, to make their case without 
     insisting that 1+1=4?
       Last week George W. Bush did it again, contrasting Social 
     Security benefits with what retiring workers would have if 
     they had invested all the Social Security taxes in the stock 
     market instead. As an article in The Times pointed out, this 
     was a misleading scenario even on its own terms; financial 
     planners strongly advise against investing solely in stocks, 
     and a diversified retirement account wouldn't have risen 
     nearly as much in the 1990's bull market.
       But there's something much more serious wrong with Mr. 
     Bush's story. Indeed, the latest remarks perfectly illustrate 
     how he uses bogus comparisons to make private accounts sound 
     like a much better idea than they really are. For by 
     emphasizing what today's 65-year-olds could have done if they 
     hadn't paid Social Security taxes, Mr. Bush has forgotten 
     something rather important. Without those taxes, who would 
     have paid for their parents' benefits?
       The point is that when touting its plan to privatize Social 
     Security, the Bush administration conveniently fails to 
     mention the system's existing obligations, the debt it owes 
     to older Americans. As with so many other administration 
     proposals, private accounts are being sold with deceptive 
     advertising.
       The truth--which Mr. Bush's economists understand perfectly 
     well--is that Social Security has never been run like a 
     simple pension fund. It's really a social contract: each 
     generation pays taxes that support the previous generation's 
     retirement, and expects to receive the same treatment from 
     the next generation.
       You may believe that Franklin Roosevelt should never have 
     created this system in the first place. I disagree, but in 
     any case Social Security exists, and older Americans have 
     upheld their end of the bargain. In particular, baby boomers 
     have spent their working years paying quite high payroll 
     taxes, which were used mainly to support their elders, and 
     only secondarily to help Social Security build up a financial 
     reserve. And they expect to be supported in their turn.
       Mr. Bush proposes to allow younger workers to place their 
     payroll taxes in private accounts--in effect, to break this 
     ongoing contract. But then what happens to older workers, who 
     have already paid their dues?
       There are only two possibilities. One is default: make room 
     for the trillions diverted into private accounts by slashing 
     the baby boomers's benefits. The other is to buy the baby 
     boomers out--that is, to use money from other sources to 
     replace the diverted funds.
       Those really are the only alternatives. Last year the 
     special commission on reform of Social Security, which was 
     charged with producing a plan for private accounts, came to 
     an ignominious end--it issued a deliberately confusing 
     report, then slunk quietly out of town. But wade through its 
     menu of options, and you'll find that in the end the 
     commission grudgingly rediscovered the obvious: Private 
     accounts won't ``save'' Social Security. On the contrary, 
     they will create a financing crisis, requiring sharp benefit 
     cuts, large infusions of money from unspecified outside 
     sources, or both.
       But nervous Republican members of Congress want to send all 
     Social Security recipients a letter (at government expense, 
     of course) assuring them that their benefits will never be 
     cut. And now that the magic budget surplus has turned back 
     into a pumpkin, the government is in no position to infuse 
     new money into Social Security--on the contrary, the 
     government at large is now borrowing from Social Security at 
     a furious pace.
       So why is the Bush administration reviving its push for 
     private accounts right now? Did it really learn nothing from 
     the implosion of the reform commission? I doubt it; the 
     administration's economists aren't fools, though loyalty 
     often requires that they pretend otherwise.
       A more likely interpretation is that this is entirely 
     cynical. War frenzy is subsiding, the Bush domestic agenda is 
     stalled, and early indications for the November election 
     aren't as good as Karl Rove expected. So it's fantasy time: 
     tantalize the public with visions of sugarplums, then blame 
     Democrats for snatching the goodies away. And it doesn't 
     matter that the numbers don't add up, because the plan will 
     never be tested by reality.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. LIPINSKI addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter 
in the Extensions of Remarks.)

                          ____________________