[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 43 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1386-H1389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL SECURITY TO ALL AMERICANS, AND ESPECIALLY TO 
                                 WOMEN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Speaker, tonight many of the Democratic 
women come to the floor to speak on issues that were raised during the 
recess when we visited with the women members and women constituents in 
our districts.
  Because I represent the caucus chair on the Democratic side, I have 
been asked to speak at a lot of organizations to talk about where we 
are going in terms of Social Security. Madam Speaker, tonight we will 
try to see whether we can find some sense of where Social Security is 
going, and in fact speak about the vital importance of Social Security 
to all Americans, but especially women and minorities and persons who 
suffer from disability.
  At the present time, it is a lightning rod here in the House, and it 
incites strong responses. That is what the women across this Nation are 
asking. We recognize that the administration and the majority here in 
this House have proposed to privatize Social Security, which has 
created a firestorm of controversy. This proposal, if enacted, would 
create the possibility of individuals to invest in the stock market 
through personal accounts.
  Now, women whom I have spoken with certainly say that this will not 
benefit them at all, and they believe that a proposal such as this is a 
bad idea, and reckless public policy.
  So the Democratic women have grave concerns about the implications of 
privatizing Social Security for the following reasons: Women constitute 
the majority of Social Security beneficiaries, equalling approximately 
60 percent of the recipients over the age of 65. Roughly 72 percent of 
beneficiaries above the age of 85 are women. So as a matter of 
necessity, 27 percent of women over 65 count on Social Security for 90 
percent of their income. These are reasons why they cannot see anything 
that will drive funding from a pot that they perceive will give them 
the benefits that they sorely need in the event of the death of their 
husbands.
  Privatization of Social Security will be devastating because women 
earn less than men, and they count upon Social Security's progressive 
benefit structure to ensure that they have an adequate income upon 
retirement. Women are also less likely to be covered by an employer-
sponsored pension plan. Hence, Social Security makes up a larger 
portion of their retirement income, and in many instances, it is their 
only source of income.
  So in the context of Social Security, women are also affected by 
other factors, which include living 6 to 8 years longer than men and 
having to stretch their retirement savings over a longer period of 
time. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, women lose an average of 14 years of 
earnings due to time out from the work force. We recognize what that 
is: from raising children to taking care of ailing parents. In most 
cases, a lot of women have to take care of sick husbands.
  So because women generally experience a higher incidence of part-time 
employment, many of them have less of an opportunity to save for 
retirement, thus relying completely on Social Security to subsist.
  There are also some startling economic realities that Americans need 
to be informed about relative to privatizing Social Security. 
Privatization would result in a drawdown of over $1.2 trillion from the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the next 10 years to 
finance individual accounts, thereby increasing the long-term deficit 
of Social Security by 25 percent.
  Furthermore, privatization efforts will not restore long-term 
solvency to the trust fund, and will result in reduced benefits for 
women, the elderly, and minorities who benefit from the progressive 
structure of the Social Security system. In fact, Madam Speaker, one 
plan put forward by the President's Commission on Social Security would 
reduce benefits to all recipients by 46 percent. Benefits for future 
retirees would be tied to growth in prices, rather than wages.
  Now, under this scenario, retirees would not be able to maintain the 
standard of living in retirement that they earn during their working 
years. The combined effort of the proposed changes would mean benefit 
cuts of 30 percent for a worker retiring in 2075.
  A very important fact, Madam Speaker, that is not being touted by 
advocates of privatization is that although investing in individual 
accounts is voluntary, benefit cuts would apply to everyone. Current 
reality makes it abundantly clear that it is foolheaded to trust a 
universal defined benefit and totally portable system to the variances 
of the stock market.
  If we want a glimpse of the future, we need to look no further than 
the Enron situation to get a glimpse of what might loom on the horizon 
if we allow Social Security to be privatized.
  As Democrats, we believe in supporting and protecting the interests 
of all American workers. Therefore, we cannot and must not allow 
privatization to become a reality. We are duty-bound to preserve Social 
Security into the future. Privatizing Social Security and raiding its 
trust fund would be unfair and irresponsible.
  As leaders of this House and as women representatives of constituents 
who have so much at stake regarding Social Security, we are compelled 
to tell Americans the truth about proposals to privatize Social 
Security.

[[Page H1387]]

  My colleagues and I will be vigilant in our efforts to raise national 
awareness about the crisis our Nation will face if we adopt a policy of 
privatizing Social Security. The women around the country are watching 
very closely to see what this House does with reference to benefits of 
Social Security and putting them into, whether it is voluntary or 
mandatory, privatizing accounts. They recognize that this trust fund 
was set there for the purpose of making sure that their retirement 
benefits be given to them, and to allow them to do what they want to do 
with it.
  We can ill afford to speak on behalf of the women of this country, 
and certainly can ill afford to take their money that they have put in 
for their benefits and to even suggest that there be individual 
accounts through a privatized type of system.
  Madam Speaker, we all know that women are hamstrung in trying to find 
the benefits and the financial wherewithal to support themselves upon 
retirement. To even suggest the privatization of any types of trust 
funds of Social Security and Medicare would be devastating to women of 
this country. We will continue to keep them posted, as they will 
continue to watch us in this House as we move into the realms of 
reforming Social Security.
  I am happy tonight to be joined by women of this House on the 
Democratic side who will speak tonight on this issue, and to raise the 
awareness of what is at stake if in fact the trust fund is raided and 
the Social Security funding is put into any privatization account.
  We have with us the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), who is a 
point person and the expert on Social Security. She comes with a wealth 
of knowledge, and is the leader, with all of us, on the issue of Social 
Security.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Thurman).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will reallocate the balance of the 
time, approximately 50 minutes, to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. 
Thurman).
  Mrs. THURMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for those 
wonderful remarks, but most of all, I think that we appreciate her 
leadership on women's issues, and bringing us here together tonight to 
talk about these important issues.
  Madam Speaker, I know the gentlewoman from California talked already 
about some of the statistics, but I have to say that the thing that we 
most need to remember is that Social Security is so important, and why 
is it important. So repeating these statistics I think is probably good 
for all of us to continue to keep in our minds why we will fight so 
hard to keep this safety net.
  Remember that women rely more on Social Security income than men. 
About two-thirds of all the women 65 and older get at least half their 
income from Social Security. For one-third of these women, Social 
Security makes up 90 percent or more of their income.
  Women live longer than men. We all know that women live longer than 
men, approximately 7 years longer, so fully 72 percent of Social 
Security recipients over 85 are women, and on average, women over age 
85 rely on Social Security, again, for 90 percent of their income.
  Traditional Social Security continues to pay benefits as long as the 
beneficiary is alive. However, in talking about private accounts, women 
risk exhausting their savings in their most vulnerable years because 
they are not lifelong.
  Women take time out of the work force to care for children and 
elderly parents. This is a big issue for families. This is not just 
about women at this point, it is about families, because in fact we 
take that time out of our work life to care for what we have been asked 
to do, which is our children and our elderly parents.
  So, because of that, we rely more heavily on our husband's Social 
Security benefits. Over 60 percent of women on Social Security receive 
spousal benefits, while only 1 percent of men receive such benefits. 
So, again, listen to this: Over 60 percent of the women on Social 
Security receive spousal benefits, with only 1 percent of men receiving 
that same benefit.

                              {time}  1815

  So it is important to preserve the traditional Social Security for 
women. Unlike private accounts, Social Security is automatically 
adjusted for inflation, and for women who live longer lives, private 
accounts run the risk of being worth less due to inflation or devalued 
accounts.
  Let us talk a little bit about privatization. Seems to be what 
everybody is running from now. There was something in the newspapers 
today that actually talked about that, and I only bring this up because 
I think it is important that, there are new polls out and focuses that 
are designed to prepare for an election year and they are saying you 
cannot attack, you cannot talk about privatization. So people are 
running from that.
  The fact of the matter is it has been a key cornerstone in many of 
the discussions that have gone on up here, to the point that there was 
a commission, a presidential commission, and it was stacked in the 
favor of those people who believed in privatizing.
  I have to say, after what we have seen with the economy over the past 
year, we do not want our seniors to have to rely on an unstable market 
for their retirement. With privatization, the potential is too great 
for retirement savings to vanish in a weak economy.
  The President, in his guidelines for the Social Security Commission, 
stated that any proposal they create must not invest Social Security 
dollars in the stock market. He also stated that the Social Security 
payroll taxes must not be increased. However, the President wants 
people to be able to use a portion of their payroll taxes for investing 
in stocks.
  So what happened? The Commission recommended three options for 
reforming Social Security. What they had all in common was all three 
options diverted at least some percentage of payroll tax to private 
accounts.
  Listen to these numbers. Diverting as little as 2 percent of payroll 
taxes to private accounts, which the Commission recommended as much as 
4 percent, would result in a loss to the trust fund, the Social 
Security trust fund, of $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Diverting just 1 
percent, well, does not take much to figure out, would result in a loss 
of $558 billion over 10 years.
  What we need to remember here is that that money is already 
designated to pay for benefits for future retirees. One option in the 
Commission's work said, and the Wall Street Journal wrote this, benefit 
options would be changed in so many ways that grandma's head would 
spin.
  The President's guidelines leave us only one option for supporters of 
privatizing Social Security, cut senior's Social Security benefits. 
Today, again, in this very same article that I talked about earlier 
where there are new polls in focus, we have to promise not to raise the 
retirement age and pledge not to touch the benefits of current and soon 
to be retirement. Guess what? In what we have been talking about and 
what has been the options, the fact of the matter is that is the one 
way we could do it.
  So, one, we have to dip into the trust fund or we have to cut senior 
Social Security benefits. Why in the face of a recession and the 
impending retirement of baby boomers would we be taking the money to be 
paid to future retirees and gamble on it? With lower economic 
projections and money going to support other important efforts, it 
becomes even more important to oppose the privatization of Social 
Security.
  Currently, Social Security, as I said, helps women. It helps 
minorities and it helps the disabled. It would be impossible to protect 
disability and survivor benefits for these groups in a private account 
system. Benefits for spouses and children could not be protected in 
such a system.
  So I would also say to my colleagues that there are women across this 
country, and us in this Congress, who have gathered to do these special 
order speeches, are not only women against the privatization proposal, 
but quite frankly, there is a letter that was put out April 9 of 2002 
by a group of women, 150 women's organizations signed a letter to 
Congress against the three privatization options earlier this month, 
and this was put together by the National Council of Women's 
Organizations.

[[Page H1388]]

  Tomorrow, we are going to be doing or trying to make tax cuts 
permanent. Well, I would just want to say that we should not be 
spending Social Security on anything other than Social Security. This 
is something that almost every Member of Congress, Democrats and 
Republicans, agreed to do last year by overwhelmingly passing the lock 
box for Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, the Social 
Security trust fund would lose two-thirds of its surpluses under 
President Bush's budget, and the Congressional Budget Office projects 
that $740 billion of this money would be used to fund things other than 
the Social Security benefit, such as what we are going to be talking 
about tomorrow, which is the tax cuts.
  The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and I thought 
this was an interesting piece of information and certainly something to 
think about, estimates that the size of the tax cut is more than twice 
as large as the Social Security financing gap. So we could be fixing 
Social Security by using these resources instead of doing what will 
probably pass the House tomorrow.
  I would just say I think we need to make sure that our seniors 
continue to remain secure in their retirement. Women who live longer 
and take more time off from work to care for loved ones would be hurt 
by the President's privatization proposals.
  In summary, I have to say the privatization of Social Security cannot 
be ignored as an issue of great national concern. The effect 
privatization would have on women and seniors in general is alarming. 
Reducing Social Security benefits for women who typically rely more 
heavily on Social Security than men is not the way to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be leaving, but I would like to turn the 
additional part of this hour over to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of South Carolina). The Chair will 
reallocate the balance of the time, approximately 40 minutes, to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight the importance 
of Social Security. Social Security is important to millions of people, 
but it is particularly important to women and I think that it is so 
very, very important that we as women in the Congress of the United 
States pay very special attention to what is happening to Social 
Security.
  I would like to thank my colleague the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Millender-McDonald) for organizing this hour for us to talk about 
Social Security. It is very important that we talk about it, and 
particularly because we will have a vote tomorrow to make the tax cuts 
permanent.
  We take Social Security for granted. Many people think, well, it has 
been there for a long time and it will always be there, and most people 
know that Americans depend on the fact that Social Security will be 
there for them in retirement.
  The poverty rate for Americans age 65 and older is 1.2 percent. The 
poverty rate for elderly women is almost 12 percent, nearly double that 
of men. While this number is tragic, it could be worse. Without Social 
Security, over half of all women aged 65 and older could be poor. 
According to the National Women's Law Center, the average monthly 
benefit for a widow is $775. For about two-thirds of women, this is 
half of their monthly income. For nearly half of women 85 years of age 
and older, it is 90 percent of their income.
  The reality is that of all the people that Social Security lifts out 
of poverty, three-fifths are women. Social Security is an extremely 
important program. On average, women live 5 to 7 years longer than men. 
In addition, because women are more likely to stay home while raising 
children, they work less than men and often have smaller pensions and 
other retirement savings to help them through their twilight years.
  Social Security allows these women to live in a secure and 
comfortable retirement. However, Social Security is on shaky grounds. 
By 2017, Social Security will begin to pay out more than it takes in. 
The program will continue its important role for another 24 years after 
that, until 2041, before it becomes completely empty. Then recipients 
will only be able to receive 72 percent of their promised benefits or 
will be subject to either a tax increase or delay of the retirement 
age.
  Despite the obvious importance to women, the Bush administration and 
the Republican leadership have shown they have no plan to preserve 
Social Security. In fact, over the next 10 years the Republican budget 
spends nearly all of the Social Security surplus, completely throwing 
away any opportunity to strengthen the program.
  Despite voting six times to preserve the Social Security surplus, the 
Republican budget will spend 86 percent of those funds. In January 
2001, the Federal Government was expecting a Social Security surplus of 
over $3 trillion, but today, we are operating on a $1.6 trillion 
deficit, a reversal of over $4.5 trillion.
  The Republican party can no longer be called the party of fiscal 
discipline. It is obvious that we need an open discussion on the best 
way that we can return Social Security to firm financial standing.
  Lately, the debate has been hidden by smoke, mirrors and budget 
gimmicks. We cannot protect our seniors if we resort to these budget 
games. Far too many individuals, men and women, black, white and 
Hispanic, depend on it to allow them to retire in relative comfort.
  The longer we put this off, the more severe the problem and the more 
difficult it will be to fix.
  So I urge my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican alike, but 
particularly my friends on the opposite side of the aisle, to get real 
about Social Security and let us talk about how can we make tax cuts 
permanent and stop this drain, and at the same time, preserve Social 
Security. It cannot be done and I think we need to face up to it. Now 
is the time to do it.
  Again, we must share with the American public that Social Security is 
not guaranteed if we continue down the road that we are going. As a 
matter of fact, it will put many, many people in this country in great 
jeopardy.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I join with my colleagues to 
emphasize that Social Security must be preserved, and not privatized, 
for the sake of women and children.
  Social Security in America's most comprehensive and important family 
protection system. It provides not just retired worker benefits, but 
also important benefits for elderly and surviving spouses as well as 
for disabled workers and their dependents and the young surviving 
children of workers who die before retirement.
  Several months ago, the President's Commission on Social Security's 
final report failed to advance the cause of Social Security reform. Of 
three plans put forward by the Commission, not one achieves the goal to 
``restore fiscal soundness'' set out by the President by closing the 
gap in the program's solvency over the next 75 years.
  Each of the proposals put forward by the Commission require specific, 
massive cuts in defined benefits--even for those who do not opt for the 
voluntary accounts. The Commission should consider ways to encourage 
workers to invest and save more. Unfortunately, this Commission was 
limited only to the option of investment accounts to be carved-out of 
the revenue currently earmarked for defined benefits.
  Although Social Security is gender neutral, it matters more for women 
for four reasons:
  First, women live longer than men. In 2000, a 65-year old woman was 
expected to live an additional 19 years, almost four times more that a 
man of the same age. A longer life expectancy translates into a greater 
need for retirement resources and more secure sources of income. Social 
Security provides guaranteed life benefits and full annual cost-of-
living adjustments.
  Second, women spend fewer hour and fewer years in the paid workforce 
than men. Although the percentage of women ages 25 to 65 participating 
in the labor forced increased sharply, women's workforce experiences 
still differ from men. Women, on the average, accumulate fewer hours of 
paid employment than men over their lifetimes because they are more 
likely to hold part-time jobs or more likely to be ``contingent'' 
workers. Social Security provides vital protections such as spousal 
benefits, exspouse benefits and full benefits calculated using only a 
35-year work history.
  Third, women are paid less than men. According to the U.S. Census 
Bureau, women earn 72 cents for every dollar that men earn. The 
situation is even worse for women of color. Half of all year-round, 
full-time African--American women workers earn less than $25,142 per 
year, and the median for Latinas was $20,052.
  Women are concentrated in low-paying jobs. Roughly 62% of women 
workers earn less

[[Page H1389]]

than $25,000/year, compared with less than 42% of men who work. Social 
Security provides progressive benefits that replace a higher portion of 
preretirement income for low-income workers.
  Fourth, women are more likely to be widowed than men. Longer life 
expectancy, combined with the fact that women, on average, marry older 
men, means that most women die unmarried. More than one-half of women 
ages 65 and older are unmarried. Three-fourths of unmarried Americans 
ages 65 and older are women. And four in five nonmarried older women 
are widowed. Social Security is the one source of retirement income 
that guarantees benefits to widows. The elderly survivor program is 
especially important to women.

  We cannot jeopardize the solvency of Social Security because a strong 
Social Security is critical for older women. Today, 60 percent of all 
Social Security recipients are women. Of recipients over age 85, nearly 
three-quarters are women. These women rely on Social Security for 
nearly 90 percent of their income. Without Social Security, over half 
of elderly women would be poor. If elderly women cannot rely on Social 
Security when they retire, they will need greater financial assistance 
from their middle-aged children.
  For elderly people of color and women, the challenges confronting the 
Social Security system are cause for alarm, because elderly African-
American and Hispanics rely on Social Security benefits more then 
elderly Whites. According to the National Committee to Preserve Social 
Security and Medicare, from 1994-1998 African-Americans and Hispanics 
and their spouses relied on Social Security for 44 percent of their 
income while elderly Whites received 37 percent of total income from 
Social Security. And, 43 percent of elderly women received their income 
from Social Security during the period 1994-1998. This fact is 
important because on average, Social Security payments replace 54 
percent of women's lifetime earnings in relation to men, coupled with 
the fact that women tend to live longer than men, which results in us 
receiving more benefits for a longer period of time.
  Today, Social Security works in ways that are important to women 
because of their different life experiences. The administration's 
proposals threaten the guarantees that make the current Social Security 
system so beneficial for women. We must work together to protect the 
future of women and children.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________