[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.
____________________