[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 76 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3429-H3430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       WOMEN AND SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, before the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) leaves, I want to congratulate her on her presentation. Social 
Security is a very important issue, and certainly I think she laid out 
to the public what is happening here in Congress. And I agree with her 
that we should not be spending the Social Security money on anything 
other than Social Security. And quite frankly, this is something that 
almost every Member of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, agreed 
to last year by overwhelmingly passing the lockbox for Social Security 
and Medicare. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the Social 
Security trust funds would lose two-thirds of its surplus under the 
President's budget. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that 
$740 billion of this money would be used to fund things other than 
Social Security benefits such as the tax cuts.
  In the Nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, they 
estimate that the size of the tax cut is more than twice as large as 
the Social Security financing gap. So we could have used these 
resources that we were talking about and we continue to talk about to 
actually fix the Social Security instead of being used for this tax 
cut.
  I think we all need to remember that our seniors continue to remain 
secure in their retirement, and I particularly want to talk about women 
as we have potentially come on a debate about the privatization 
proposals that many of us believe needs to be talked about a little 
bit, and certainly the concerns. But let us look at women in this 
country and how they rely on Social Security.
  Women rely actually more on Social Security income than men. Almost 
two-thirds of all women 65 years and older get at least half of their 
income from Social Security. For one-third of these women, Social 
Security makes up 90 percent or more of their income. Guess what? 
Women, we live longer than men. We all know this. And, in fact, we live 
about 7 years longer. Fully 72 percent of Social Security recipients 
over 85 are women. And on average, women over age 85 rely on Social 
Security for 90 percent of their income. I will repeat that, 90 percent 
of their income. Traditional Social Security continues to pay benefits 
as long as the beneficiary is alive.
  Now, when we start talking about private accounts, we honestly 
believe that women risk exhausting their savings in their most 
vulnerable years. Women take time out of the workforce to care for 
children and elderly parents. We have all been there; we have heard 
those stories. As a result, they rely much more heavily on their 
husband's Social Security benefits. Over 60 percent of women on Social 
Security receive spousal benefits while only 1 percent of men receive 
such payments.
  So why is it important that we preserve traditional Social Security 
for women? Unlike private accounts, Social Security is automatically 
adjusted for inflation. For women, who live longer lives, private 
accounts run the risk of being worth less due to inflation or devalued 
accounts.
  Well, then why are we having this debate? Well, the President in his 
guidelines for the Social Security Commission stated that we, in any 
proposal we 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. The 
commission, which was commissioned by the President, recommended three 
options for reforming Social Security. But let me warn you that all 
three options divert at least some percentage of payroll tax to private 
accounts.

                              {time}  2015

  Diverting as little as 2 percent to private accounts the commission, 
and the commission recommended as much as 4 percent will result in a 
loss of trust funds of $1.1 trillion dollar over 10

[[Page H3430]]

years or at 1 percent $558 billion over 10 years. That money has 
already been designated to pay for benefits for future retirees, not to 
mention the fact that we do not have $1 trillion left because it has 
been spent on the tax issues.
  One option affected seniors' benefits to such a degree that the Wall 
Street Journal wrote, ``Benefit options would be changed in so many 
ways that grandma's head would spin.'' The President's guidelines also 
leave only one option for supporters of privatizing Social Security, 
and that would be to cut seniors' Social Security benefits.
  Why in the face of a recession and the impending retirement of baby 
boomers would we take the money to be paid to future retirees and 
gamble on it? I ask the American people that question. I hope we stay 
tuned for this debate on privatization and we say ``no'' to 
privatization.

                          ____________________