[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 26 (Tuesday, March 8, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H1016-H1021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DEFENDING SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gohmert). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to draw attention to 
some of the hundreds of letters that I receive every week from 
constituents who are outraged or frightened by the President's plan to 
privatize Social Security. Americans of all ages know that the 
President's private accounts are a risky change that will do nothing to 
alleviate Social Security's long-term financial pressures. As more 
details of this plan trickle out of the White House, Americans are not 
communicating a mandate; they are expressing outrage and fear.
  Social Security is the single most successful anti-poverty program in 
our country's and government's history. I intend to do all that I can 
to make sure that this program survives this current attack, and I know 
that millions of Americans are joining in this effort.
  I hear from those that I have the honor of representing in 
Wisconsin's Second Congressional District every day. They write to tell 
me about their profound concern with this plan, and they also write to 
tell me about the profound difference that Social Security has made in 
their lives. They write to share their fears about how privatization 
could jeopardize their retirement. They write to express frustration 
that our President has proposed a scheme that would dismantle Social 
Security, not strengthen it for future generations.
  I have come to the floor tonight to share portions of these letters 
that I receive on a daily basis, and I hope that those who seek to 
privatize and to dismantle Social Security are listening this evening. 
I will also be joined by colleagues tonight who wish to share the words 
and stories of the constituents that they represent with the American 
public.
  I would like to start this evening with excerpts from a few letters 
concerning the general importance of the Social Security program.
  Ann, from Madison, writes: ``I am appalled at the changes suggested 
for Social Security. If you have known anyone living on it entirely, 
the monthly

[[Page H1017]]

amount cannot be cut at all without leaving the retiree or the disabled 
person in utter poverty. Private plans have been tried and failed in a 
number of other countries. You only have to look at the last several 
years to see what could happen to someone reaching retirement age in 
the wrong time or period. If the administration wants to experiment, 
let the government do it and take the risks. If this fails, are we 
really going to let that frail, 80-year-old for whom work is no longer 
an option, starve sitting on the curb?''
  Mary, also from Madison, writes: ``I stand behind you in your fight 
against privatization of Social Security. I do not believe that 
privatization is a good idea at all. From everything I have learned 
about this issue, Social Security privatization would reduce benefits 
because of increased overhead costs and would also transfer the risk 
from the government to the individual. Also that move is likely to 
reduce benefits.''
  Mary continues: ``I am 31 years old, so I am a person who supposedly 
would be helped by the privatization of Social Security. But I don't 
believe it. And even if I were personally helped, I do not believe the 
financial risk to my fellow Americans that they would incur is worth 
any possible benefit I would receive.''
  Doug writes: ``Among many other things that concern me deeply in 
regards to the Bush administration, it is this whole Social Security 
business that is going on. Inherent in the definition of the name 
`security' and the principle of Social Security is the fact that it is 
secure and guaranteed. That fundamental right, that we pay in, that we 
will get out, is essential to the whole idea of the plan and the 
system. I think it would set a very bad precedent if that whole idea 
were struck down.''
  Marcie, from Madison, writes: ``I find the changes Bush proposes for 
Social Security to be very scary at best. There is already an ever-
growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in this country, and 
this will only make the situation worse. The haves already know about 
investing or can afford to hire someone to advise them. How many of the 
have-nots know much about investing or have the time or the ability to 
learn? If the changes go through, I hope they will at least change the 
name. There will be no social, all citizens contributing to the well-
being of others in our society, and no security. There will no longer 
be a safety net for those retiring and those who are disabled.''
  And Marcie brings up a very important point: ``Seniors are not the 
only people who rely on Social Security benefits. People receiving 
survivor benefits and disability benefits make up 31 percent of the 
Social Security program. Social Security is insurance, a safety net 
that we can all expect to benefit from when we retire, but it is also 
an insurance or safety net that you could benefit from before you 
retire. None of us aspire to benefit from the survivor or disability 
portions of Social Security, but they are there for all of us, just in 
case we need them.''
  Before I read some additional letter excerpts from those who have 
received Social Security for disability or as survivors, I would like 
to yield to my colleague who I thank for helping to co-organize this 
evening's Special Order on Social Security, my friend, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and 
I commend the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for truly putting this 
together and taking the time to make sure that all of America gets to 
hear what has got to be a mosaic of concern all across this country, 
because, like the gentlewoman and myself, several others have conducted 
town hall meetings and forums and have received letters of concern from 
our constituents all across this great country of ours. It is quite 
compelling when you both read the mail and you listen to the citizens 
of this great country speak their minds.
  I was particularly struck by a gentleman from Windsor, Connecticut, 
who wrote me and said: ``I would like to encourage you to oppose 
President Bush's Social Security personal accounts with every resource 
possible. I turned 54 this year, missing the cutoff for retaining my 
full promised benefit by 7 months. I am not a spend-thrift who has 
wasted his money over the years. In fact, I have placed at least 10 
percent of my earnings in retirement savings plans since 1978. I fully 
fund my 401(k) and my Roth. But I have no pension, and my wife is not 
even eligible for a 401(k) or equivalent since she works for the 
Manchester School District as a tutor.
  ``Despite all my efforts to save, I will not have enough to retire on 
without the guarantee of Social Security. Why? Because I worked for 
five companies between 1984 and 2000 that all went out of business or 
left Connecticut: Heublein, Ames, Shawmut, Northeast Savings and 
International Paper. Each time I was forced to find another job, I lost 
a year of contribution to my 401(k) and another year of employer match, 
through no fault of my own. That adds up to quite a bit of savings that 
have been lost. I am putting one child through college and I have 
another yet to go. I have no more to save. I have always supported my 
family and paid my own way. I am relying on the Social Security system 
my employers and I have already contributed about $200,000 to, to live 
up to its promises. If the government of the United States can turn its 
back on its promises to its own citizens, of what value is it?

                              {time}  2115

  ``Please, help me and every other person in my shoes.''
  It is this kind of poignant response that we have heard from our 
citizens all across the country that screams out for this Congress to 
take action.
  One little woman in my district, part of the golden girls, her name 
is Gracie Vigneau, stood up and said, I understand that there are three 
legs to this stool. I understand the importance, having lived through 
the Great Depression, having fought and persevered through the Second 
World War, having come home and rebuilt this Nation, but I always felt 
that we had this special contract, that guarantee from our government, 
that third leg of the stool, if you will, that was the Social Security 
guarantee. It provided the floor, the safety net from which nobody 
could fall through. That was the contract that came out of the, well, 
the Great Depression and its aftermath, and what it did to so many 
people and how it ruined their lives. Yet, today, we see the problems 
that exist both in pensions and personal savings, which are in far 
greater crisis than Social Security.''
  And so she asks, ``Why would we place any element of risk in the 
program that is there for our guarantee?'' She said, ``I will be long 
gone.'' She said, ``I am concerned about my children and their children 
and their children's children.''
  This has been the most successful program in the history of this 
country, and it has kept so many people out of the depths of poverty. 
Just last week we talked about the impact that this program has had on 
women and how they are disproportionately disadvantaged and how 
crippled they would become if the so-called Bush plan were ever to go 
into effect.
  So I commend the gentlewoman. I have other things, other letters to 
read as well in this dialogue that we have here this evening, this 
important dialogue with the American public, that they have with us 
placed their trust, and where we have sworn to give our very best.
  I know that we are joined by the gentleman from New Jersey, and I 
will yield back to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin so that she may 
recognize another outstanding member of this caucus.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin and 
the gentleman from Connecticut for arranging this discussion.
  Madam Speaker, America is all abuzz about this discussion on Social 
Security, and that is because it is recognized from coast to coast, 
from every little village to every city, as very important. It is 
recognized, I would say, as one of the great accomplishments of America 
in the past century.
  One of my constituents wrote me saying, ``Representative Holt, please 
remind the Members of the House of Representatives how important Social 
Security has become for American families.''
  And she tells an important story that brings up a part of Social 
Security that

[[Page H1018]]

we sometimes forget. The discussion often concerns retirement. But she 
tells the story of how her mother was widowed, and she and her two 
brothers were left without their father when he died in 1931. This was 
before Social Security was passed. ``We had to return,'' she said, ``to 
my mother's family home where we were reminded constantly how fortunate 
we were that we were from a family willing to take us in.'' She grew up 
feeling like a charity case.
  But the story goes on. A couple of decades later, when her brother 
died young at age 38, his five children received Social Security 
survivor benefits until they were able to care for themselves. They 
stayed in their own home, went to the same school and never had to feel 
like charity cases.
  Social Security survivor benefits, just as Social Security retirement 
benefits, bring with them not just money but dignity. This story, I 
think, highlights one of the important aspects of Social Security.
  Another constituent wrote to me and said, ``The President claims that 
placing Social Security savings into mutual funds will yield a positive 
result. Mutual funds still have risk. They go up and down. I have lost 
capital in several mutual funds. The average person is not an 
investment sophisticate.''
  Another resident of Central New Jersey writes to his representative, 
``It is bad enough that corporate America is trying to take away 
employee retirement and benefits. Now the President is talking about 
taking away Social Security.''
  Madam Speaker, they see this as taking it away something that they 
have earned, something they are entitled to.
  Anyway, he says, ``I don't want to save Social Security just for my 
generation, but for all generations. I believe it is the best and most 
needed program the government ever came up with. I believe Senator Dole 
said it best when he headed a committee a couple of decades ago dealing 
with Social Security. When large corporations or even the State of 
California wanted to drop out, the Senator said, Social Security is not 
a tax; it is a Federal retirement plan that everyone has to be in for 
it to work.''
  I am sure my colleague from Wisconsin has had a similar situation, 
has had similar experiences. When I go before a group of Social 
Security recipients, I ask: Is there anyone here ashamed to take Social 
Security? And they all chuckle and say, of course not, because we have 
earned it, because Social Security is for everyone. And everyone knows 
that it is for everyone. It is not for the ones who are clever in the 
market. It is not for the ones who are welfare cases. It is an earned 
benefit that brings with it dignity in the non-wage-earning years, 
those years of retirement or years after the family breadwinner has 
died or those years when disability makes it impossible to earn wages. 
It brings income and dignity in all of those cases. And like my 
colleague, I have heard it now from thousands, and I am not 
exaggerating, of my constituents.
  I thank the gentlewoman for arranging this discussion.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words and 
also for the spotlight he has put on the words of his constituents.
  I was mentioning, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) just 
did, about the 31 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries who are 
not retirees but are, in fact, disabled workers or survivors. I would 
like to have my colleagues hear from some additional constituents of 
mine who fit in that category and are advocating in that manner.
  Martha from Madison writes, ``I can speak to the power of Social 
Security professionally as well as personally. I work for an agency 
that assists adults with developmental disabilities. For these 
individuals, much, if not all, of their livelihood comes from monthly 
Social Security checks. Few of us could live on $58.77 a month. Their 
lifestyle is not extravagant, but it is possible. More personally, my 
family has seen the effects of Social Security.''
  Martha writes, ``My husband became unable to work just as he was 
entering the prime of his life. How would a privatized plan secure my 
family as we raise our three children? How would a privatized plan 
continue to address my family's needs over the next 40 years as we age 
and retire? My greatest fear is that those who are most removed from 
poverty are in the decision-making positions. It is perhaps too easy 
for the President and those like him to assume that all Americans have 
the means to weather life's most unexpected storms.''

  Kathy from McFarland, Wisconsin, wrote, ``I lost my daughter in July. 
She was 31 and left two children, ages 12 and 8. It is Social Security 
that is providing a safety net for my grandchildren. My daughter paid 
for this. My husband and I paid for this. And my son, who served in 
Iraq, paid for this.''
  Stephanie from Madison writes, ``I am writing to encourage you to 
reject President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security. 
When my father died in 1958, my sister and I were 9 and 15 years old. 
My mother had never graduated from high school, so she was only able to 
get low-paying jobs. If it hadn't been for our survivor benefits, I 
don't know what we would have done. As it was, my mom's budget was very 
tight. People need to realize that Social Security isn't just for 
seniors; it also pays out survivor benefits as well as disability 
benefits. All of us are simply one accident or disease away from 
needing Social Security.''
  Before proceeding to other letters from my constituents, I would like 
to yield time to my distinguished colleague from the State of Michigan, 
a leader on this issue, a champion on this issue on the Committee on 
Ways and Means, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and congratulate 
her on doing this. What we are doing here tonight, I say to my 
colleague from Connecticut and, later on, from California, and my good 
colleague from New Jersey, is to read some of the letters that we have 
been receiving from constituents. There are so many, I thought I would 
read just three of them, and then let others carry on. I hope we will 
continue to do this, because it brings home to Washington what we hear 
at home and what comes from home, what comes from home.
  The first letter comes from a constituent in Clinton Township, 
Michigan. She wrote to a colleague of mine, and under our procedures, 
it was transferred to our office. And it reads, ``The Bush 
administration has placed Social Security on the top of the domestic 
priority list, but should it be? The `crisis' '', and that is in her 
quotes, ``they are trying to fix has been taking in more money than it 
has paid out since the 1980s. If left untouched, our current system 
would be capable of paying full benefits until 2042 and 75 percent 
after that.''
  ``If this administration wants to fix a crisis, they should begin 
with the national debt that'' and there is a word left out I think, 
``that have created over the past 4 years. Increasing the deficit each 
year has weakened our country tremendously. Furthermore, allowing 
Social Security reform would cost the government between $1 trillion 
and $2 trillion. We live in an economy of job loss, underfunded 
schools, costly health care, and debt. The problems of today still need 
to be confronted, so why is this their focus in 2042? Reducing benefits 
would deprive citizens of the stability they deserve during retirement. 
The Bush administration is attempting to undermine the very concept of 
Social Security by doing so. If we allow this reform, the future of 
numerous citizens would be placed in jeopardy. This need to privatize 
Social Security is fiction, but the national debt is not.'' This is a 
wise constituent. All our constituents are wise; this is one who may be 
especially wise.
  ``Our government should be working to strengthen stability within our 
country, not weaken it. My suggestion to the Bush administration is 
this: Fix the problems you have created before addressing those of 
2042. Continuing to ignore the issues of today will not ensure a better 
future for tomorrow.''

                              {time}  2130

  It was sent, and we checked with this constituent to make sure we 
could use her name, Colleen Szeliga.
  Let me just read a second letter that is much briefer. I think the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) mentioned a letter from 
someone who had worked in the system. This is a brief letter from 
Jeanne Polisei who says the following in a letter to me: ``I worked for 
SSA for 18 years. I know,''

[[Page H1019]]

and it is underlined, ``what a great program it is. I know it has done 
wonders for people who would otherwise be poor. Please do all you can 
to keep this program as it is. Wall Street is not dependable but SSA 
is.''
  If I may take a minute to read an excerpt from a letter. I will just 
read an excerpt because we did not have a chance to reach this 
constituent, so I will not mention the name or place this fully in the 
Record. Just the heart of this letter that was written November 10, 
2004. This is her handwritten letter and I will read it exactly as it 
is: ``My daughter is on childhood benefits on her dad's work record and 
this is the only source of income, just as I am on widows benefits. We 
are both on Social Security. This has made'' and I think the word me is 
left out ``so sick with worry. What Bush wants to do is `privatize' 
Social Security.''
  And then she goes on to say: ``The late President Roosevelt set this 
up as a trust fund for families and their children and the disabled. 
This is not his money.'' And then I finish with this: ``My husband 
worked hard for this money and died before his time. I pay the 
mortgage, the utilities, and food on the table. It is a daily struggle 
just to make ends meet from month to month.''
  So this letter and the others and the ones other Members have read 
and those that will be coming express so directly and poignantly what 
this struggle is all about. It is to indeed to save and strengthen 
Social Security. We are willing to step up to the plate as we were 20 
years ago. What we do not want to do is to weaken and dismantle it. And 
these letters express why this is so important for the people of our 
Nation.
  So carry on with more letters. We are going to keep reading the 
letters to get this message across as to what the diversion of monies 
from Social Security to private accounts would really mean for the 
people of this country. And I think another time we will be reading 
letters from younger people because they have so much at stake and 
would be hurt so badly by the effort of the President to take monies 
out of Social Security, put them into private accounts, making the 
shortfall worse, not less, and undercutting a program that has meant so 
much in terms of independence for those on Social Security and will 
mean so much for my children and my grandchildren.
  I thank the gentlewoman very much for giving me this opportunity.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the leading 
Democrat on Social Security on the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) discussed very eloquently and 
poignantly, as the gentlewoman pointed out in her letters, the number 
of people outside of the retirement benefits, but survivors benefits 
and also those on disability, what are the statistics on that?
  Mr. LEVIN. About 30 percent of Social Security benefits go to those 
who are disabled and those who are family members. And the President 
said, if I might take another 30 seconds, that they would not be 
affected, the disabled. But that does not work out because what he has 
called a good blueprint provides for major benefits cut. And the plan, 
the second plan of the commission that is part of that good blueprint 
does affect the disabled. And if you were to have these massive cuts 
over time, especially hurting younger workers, for retirees and not for 
the disabled, it would mean deeper cuts yet for younger workers who are 
going to retire.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. So when the gentleman says the President's 
good blueprint will in fact weaken Social Security, that is exactly 
what it is doing?
  Mr. LEVIN. It would not only weaken it; but one last point, it would 
in the end shrivel it next to nothing and mean its demise because of 
the cuts in benefits and what is called the claw-back which would be an 
offset against your Social Security of what is in your private accounts 
and that would be for younger workers, about 70 percent of what was 
left in your Social Security benefits. So in the end the younger worker 
in most cases would end up less in both, end up with less in both than 
if Social Security had not been destroyed. And the Social Security part 
of it would be so small that it would no longer be sustainable. And 
that is why this privatization by diversion of Social Security monies 
is essentially a path to the dismantling of Social Security.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Has the administration now admitted that 
that will not in any way, shape, manner or form close the gap that 
exists?
  Mr. LEVIN. The privatization proposal does nothing to address the 
shortfall and, indeed, makes it worse.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for clarifying that.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman for his tireless leadership on 
protecting our Social Security system and amplifying the voices of your 
constituents' very powerful letters. I would like to yield to my 
distinguished colleague from the State of California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, we held two public forums in the 33rd 
Congressional District in Los Angeles, California; and I would like to 
just quote from three of the speakers that participated.
  This one is from Miss Nina Diamantle Vera, and she is worried that 
the proposal for private accounts would put her hard-earned retirement 
savings at the mercy of the stock market. She was compelled to write me 
a letter to warn me of the perils of private investment. And she said: 
``I lost $90,000 in the stock market. The privatization program will 
only make stockbrokers richer. It is the stupidest thing that President 
Bush has done.'' That is the quote.
  The stock market is a fluctuating vehicle for savings. It goes up, 
but it also goes down. The administration should be working with 
Congress to promote personal wealth and savings through investment but 
not at the cost of Social Security.
  Then Ms. Verdine F. Alston. Ms. Alston is an 89-year-old widow. She 
is concerned about the Republican proposals for Social Security. This 
is an American that has contributed to society for most of the 20th 
century. And she states: ``Please stop President Bush from privatizing 
Social Security. I have paid into Social Security since it started and 
before I was to vote. I am now 89 years old and a widow. My husband has 
been deceased for 10 years, and his pension just expired. I am 
dependent solely on Social Security.''
  Now, it is unacceptable to pull the rug out from under our senior 
citizens. A proud American, Ms. Alston stressed the wisdom of a past 
President and said, ``The very first time I voted was for President 
Roosevelt when I was 21 years old. Social Security is not welfare.''
  And according to the National Partnership For Women and Families, 
Social Security provides 90 percent or more of the total income for 44 
percent of nonmarried women 65 and older, 66 percent of nonmarried 
Hispanic women 65 and older, 74 percent of nonmarried African American 
women 65 and over, and 35 percent of all nonmarried men 65 and older.
  Now, Marvin Tavlin, who is a 90-year-old legislative chairperson for 
the Westside Chapter Alliance of Retired Americans, said it is 
important to remember that our country is made up of compassionate 
Americans, many of whom study the history of our great country. And 
during the town hall meeting that I just held in February, Mr. Tavlin 
asked if he could share his modern Gettysburg Address with us, and it 
goes like this:
  ``Three score and 10 years ago our fathers brought forth to this 
Nation a new idea, a compact between the government and the people to 
promote the general welfare and for the first time in our history to 
guarantee the Social Security of our senior citizens. We are now 
engaged in a great political battle testing whether the new concept can 
truly endure. The dedicated men and women, living and dead, who fought 
so long to achieve this worthy goal inspired us to carry on their 
tradition. It is now up to us, the living, to rededicate ourselves to 
the great task remaining before us, to guarantee that this renowned 
social program for the American people who have worked and struggled so 
long and so hard for their families, their communities and their 
country; yes, that this great social program shall never perish from 
the land.''
  We gave him great applause because I think he spoke for most 
Americans.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for sharing with 
America the powerful words and

[[Page H1020]]

stories of those who she proudly represents.
  I am now delighted to yield to one of our new colleagues who we are 
so proud has joined us from the State of Missouri. We know that this 
gentleman has been home in his district listening to his constituents 
actively providing them an opportunity to speak to him and tonight to 
America through him. I am honored to recognize the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in tonight and 
share some of my experiences over the last few weeks.
  Like many of our fellow Members here in the Congress, my office has 
been flooded with letters about Social Security and what it has meant 
to people across this country by many people in my district in the St. 
Louis area of Missouri. I have received in my office alone over 1,000 
letters from people concerned about these privatization schemes that 
have been talked about in Washington. I scheduled, based on those 
meetings, two town hall meetings. Each one had over 200 people that 
attended.

                              {time}  2145

  It was not just seniors. We had people there that were baby-boomers 
and my generation. We had young people there. We had people that were 
not just retirees, but people who had been survivors and people who had 
disabilities. They all had been beneficiaries in some way from this 
vital American program.
  We talked about what it has meant to our country, to their families. 
We also talked about the success of the program, how it has been 
studied and mentioned as one of the most efficient programs in our 
government's history, only having 1.5 percent overhead. So it is a 
great model to look at in terms of efficiency and delivering vital 
services to our country.
  People are very concerned about their Social Security, the real 
bedrock foundation of their retirement security being subjected to 
benefit cuts, being subjected to broker fees, being subjected to the 
risk of the stock market.
  One of my constituents in particular stood up and shared her own 
personal story. She knew too well the potential risk of depending on 
the stock market for a guaranteed source of income. She was a 70-year-
old grandmother from Arnold, Missouri, and she shared her story in 
front of about 200 people.
  In 1999, a stockbroker had encouraged her to transfer $155,000 from a 
mature CD and invest it with the broker's local firm. The broker put 
her money into an aggressive investment account that, at her age, would 
not have been highly advised. Her investments now were worth only 
$85,000. She says that if it were not for her monthly Social Security 
checks she and her husband would be under great financial strain. For 
people like her, privatization would be a disaster.
  Social Security beneficiaries, including survivors, children and 
those who are disabled, stand to lose the most under President Bush's 
plan. His proposed changes will not help preserve benefits for those 
who depend on them the most.
  Let us strengthen Social Security, the very foundation of retirement 
security in this country, and if we are going to have discussions about 
private accounts, let us talk about those in addition to and on top of 
this solid foundation of Social Security.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the Congressman and I am very 
pleased that he brought up the issue of the risk that Social Security 
would be subject to if these private accounts were allowed to occur, 
and I have just a couple of letters on that point too that I wish to 
share.
  Jack from Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, writes me, ``Tammy, thanks for 
your hard work to keep the promise of Social Security. This 
privatization plan is about the dumbest thing that Bush has come up 
with besides the war in Iraq. We have a privatization deal now via 
IRAs, and let me tell you, my wife and I lost over half of our 
investment in our IRA accounts after 2000. The only people that will 
make money in this deal are the brokers.''
  Another one here, Cheryl, from Madison, writes, ``I have deep 
concerns with President Bush's proposal. By privatizing a portion of 
Social Security, you have added an element of risk. Some people may 
come out ahead, others may not. The safety net is gone. For many people 
Social Security will only be a small part of their retirement. These 
people can invest their disposable income in the many options 
available, IRAs, 401(k)s, et cetera. Those that are not as well off and 
are not able to put much away on their own should be able to count on a 
known amount from Social Security.''
  Before continuing, I would like to yield to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson ), my colleague, who is a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means and has really tackled this threat to 
Social Security with great vigor, and I appreciate his organizing this 
evening's Special Order with me.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin again for her diligence and hard work in this effort and 
deeply appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening.
  I honestly believe that Congress should do more of this. I hope that 
people all across this country are listening to these heartfelt 
responses from our constituents, and in so many ways, they are often 
more eloquent than any Member of the United States Congress because 
their needs and concerns are so heartfelt and real, and this is what I 
think makes this such a special evening for this Special Order.
  I would just like to read one more letter that I have, with the 
gentlewoman's permission, and this is from a woman in Newington in my 
district who writes, I am very concerned about what Mr. Bush is doing 
to the country. I have been working for 37 years, and I have been at my 
current position for 28 years. From day one, I was told that I would be 
given a pension at the end of my tenure. Over the years, the company 
has changed hands and, in fact, changed leaders. Now, the pension has 
been changed to a cash balance. Because of this change, I will be 
getting about one-quarter of what I would have been getting in my 
pension, and now, Mr. Bush claims that under his privatization plan, 
Social Security benefits would go up. Yet the Congressional Budget 
Office says Bush's privatization plan will cut benefits by 45 percent 
or more for seniors. The Bush plan will reduce benefits for all 
seniors, even those who choose not to invest in private accounts. I am 
too old to build up a substantial plan and account. Have we not been 
traumatized enough under this man? I do not want you to vote on this 
plan or make such a drastic change to the system. If the politicians 
put a lock on it, like Mr. Gore wanted to, we most likely would not be 
in this situation. Mr. Bush should stop spending the money. We have the 
money for Iraq but not for our seniors in this country. I am asking 
you, please, not to vote for this.
  She, like so many others we have heard tonight, I think speaks to 
what is their concern. Some of our colleagues on the other side have 
said that these are fear tactics. Hardly.
  Grace Vignean again points out that we were a strong generation that 
persevered through the Great Depression, a Second World War, the Korean 
and Vietnam Wars. We raised families, rebuilt these countries. We do 
not scare easy. What we want is the truth. What we need, I think, is 
for all of us to come together with an understanding, and it is my 
sincere hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
listening, as well as the President.

  President Roosevelt said it best. He said he was concerned that they 
had become frozen in the ice of their own indifference. Frozen in the 
ice of their own indifference towards collapsing pensions and shriveled 
up savings that, for the most part, have to go for the care of your 
health. Indifference to the 45 million people in this country that are 
uninsured, indifference to the women and minorities whose drops off in 
benefits will be so dramatic.
  That is why the voices of these citizens need to be heard and why 
this Congress needs to act in a responsible and bipartisan manner in 
order to continue to strengthen and preserve the most successful social 
program and governmental program in the history of this country.
  Again, I thank the gentlewoman for providing us the opportunity to 
discuss these letters and the concern of our constituents.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) mentioned the fear tactics that are being used.

[[Page H1021]]

  The President, in advocating for his privatization, has made the case 
or attempted to that Social Security faces an impending crisis, and I 
just want to let the administration know I think the American public 
sees through this fear tactic, this scare tactic.
  I just want to read one quick letter on that point from Robert from 
Madison in my district. As he writes, ``Bush has in recent weeks been 
repeatedly inflating the significance of 2018 and 2042, especially the 
early date, so as to imply that Social Security is in imminent danger 
of bankruptcy and must be overhauled very soon. The sheer urgency of 
Bush's tone is unsettlingly consistent with his demonstrated tendency 
to conjure up a crisis where none exists, as he did during the run-up 
to the war with Iraq.
  ``The overblown nature of Bush's alarms over Social Security is 
reflected in the Social Security trustee's estimate that, even if 
nothing drastic is done between now and 2042, Social Security will 
still be able to pay retirees'' almost 75 percent ``of the promised 
amount'' and ``this timeline hardly suggests any crisis that 
necessitates pounding away at a need to overhaul Social Security'' or 
dismantle it ``now.''
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my 
colleague.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin raises this 
approach of fear tactics, and of course, it leads to the question, 
well, why? Why does the President, why do some of our colleagues, why 
are people trying to change this program that our constituents tell us 
over and over again has meant the difference between dignity and 
destitution for them? Why do they want to change a program that works 
so well?
  The spokesman from the White House and the President himself have 
said that privatization is not likely to help the finances of Social 
Security, but then they have gone on to say, well, even if it does not, 
it is the right thing to do. Then we have these youngsters at some of 
the President's road shows around the country chanting, ``Hey, hey, ho, 
ho, Social Security has got to go.''
  We begin to understand what this is about. It is to overturn a 
program that they find ideologically unacceptable.
  Leslie from Milltown, New Jersey, says, I think we have evidence that 
the motivation of these politicians for proposing individualized 
private accounts is driven by ideology, not by a real concern for 
strengthening and preserving Social Security.
  That ideology I think is best summed up with the phrase, you are on 
your own. You are on your own and you will do well in the market. You 
are smarter than the market and you will be fine.
  Let me tell my colleagues, my constituents say over and over again, 
we have tried private accounts. Before 1935 you were entitled to invest 
as much as you wanted in private accounts to prepare for your 
retirement, and you know what, a majority of the elderly lived below 
the poverty line. That is why we have Social Security. It is a program 
that is, I think, one of the most successful we have had in America.
  Let me just finish by saying we have had testimonials from so many of 
our constituents. Let me give a personal one.
  My father died when I was six, without insurance, without a pension. 
My sister and mother and I received Social Security survivor benefits. 
She was teaching at a junior college on a small teacher's salary. That 
made an enormous difference.
  When I talk about Pat from Lincroft who said Social Security for her 
brother's children brought dignity, whereas when her father had died 
before Social Security came into place, they had to live as charity 
cases, I know what she is talking about.
  Social Security binds this country together in a way that no other 
program that has come out of this body has, and we should not throw it 
out just because of some ideological whim which is what is happening 
right now. That is why the country is so upset, why we are getting so 
much mail.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, if the gentlewoman would 
yield, on that point, we heard the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
discuss that earlier, that even the President's so-called privatization 
plan does nothing to close the gap or the shortfalls that potentially 
exist in Social Security if we do not act on a bipartisan basis.
  So to the gentleman's point, this is all about ideology and politics 
and not substantively about doing what is in the best interest of the 
American public. I think that is what has citizens so outraged, that 
this seems to be from the very get-go, from whether you go back to 
Hoover and Landon and Friedman and Stockman, who said we must starve 
the beast, that beast being Social Security, that is what has American 
citizens outraged at this proposal. That is what has them writing 
thousands of letters to each and every one of us because of their deep-
seated concern of where this administration is taking us, to a ``me'' 
society versus ``us.''
  The gentleman said it very eloquently and passionately, and again, I 
want to thank the gentlewoman for arranging this dialogue and these 
letters which I hope we continue to come to the floor and discuss.

                              {time}  2200

  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, 
and I would like to thank all of my colleagues who joined me here 
tonight in giving voice to these very real, very human stories. These 
are real letters from real people, and privatization would have a real 
and ultimately negative effect on their lives.
  I know that those who seek to dismantle the Social Security System 
must receive similar letters, and I sincerely hope that they pause and 
consider what Social Security means to Americans. It is not an 
arbitrary government program. Social Security is a support system, it 
is an insurance program, and, in many instances, Social Security is the 
difference between a comfortable life and a life of poverty. We must do 
all that we can to protect this vital safety net, this lifeline.

                          ____________________