[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 20, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6179-H6180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have recently 
unveiled a new plan to carve out private accounts from the surplus of 
the Social Security trust fund. This is the same trust fund that 
President Bush said was nonexistent just a few months ago. The 
President traveled with great fanfare to West Virginia where he said, 
There is no Social Security trust fund, just a bunch of IOUs stacked in 
an old filing cabinet.
  Let me tell the Members something. That old filing cabinet was a new 
filing cabinet before it got $639 billion taken out of it; and before 
the year is up, it will be $800 billion that was taken out of the 
Social Security surplus used for anything but Social Security. That is 
the problem.
  And now it seems that the Republicans in Congress have come to a 
stalemate. The President wants to privatize Social Security and cut 
benefits for the middle class. The congressional Republican leadership 
would rather avoid benefit cuts, but they too want to privatize Social 
Security.
  While the White House and congressional Republicans struggle to 
decide which privatization plan they want to be for, I suggest a 
totally different approach to Social Security: save Social Security 
first. The surplus should have been for Social Security. It should 
always be for Social Security. And my suggestion is on the $800 billion 
they already took out of it, before they do anything else with some 
grand plan to cut benefits or privatize it, pay back the $800 billion 
they took.
  I worked in an administration where we cut taxes for the middle 
class, balanced the budget, and extended the life of the trust fund by 
10 years. Why? Because we had an economic plan that worked. It grew the 
economy. It grew middle-class incomes. It helped homeownership. It 
reduced the poverty rate, and we added 10 years to the life of the 
Social Security trust fund, and we cut taxes for the middle class, and 
we balanced the budget, unlike the $2 trillion of additional debt we 
have added on to the books and on to the shoulders of our children. But 
it requires leadership and priorities, which is in short supply around 
here.
  Before we create any private accounts or do anything else to 
fundamentally alter the character and nature of Social Security, our 
task here is to strengthen Social Security for the future and guarantee 
its future. And none of the plans, none of the various privatization 
plans, none of the ideas of benefit cuts or raising the age, none of 
that adds to the solvency. And the task here, Mr. Speaker, is to 
strengthen Social Security.
  The American people have rejected the President's plan. They have 
rejected the congressional plan. They have rejected anything to do with 
privatization because they know it is the wrong way. I am going to tell 
the Members something as a person who represents a lot of employees 
from United Airlines: folks like the security that comes with Social 
Security.
  They have had it up to here with risk, and all they are providing 
with privatization is more risk on top of more risk. They have it in 
their health care. They have it in their jobs. They have it in their 
own retirement savings. They do not need more risk, and they like the 
foundation of security that comes with Social Security. Ask any steel 
worker, any person who works for United Airlines or the airlines 
industry who lost their pensions or the 14,000 people at Hewlett-
Packard, and they will say that privatization of Social Security is a 
nonstarter.
  Middle-class families are struggling. They have flat wages, a 55 
percent increase in energy costs, 10 percent increase in health care 
costs, 11 percent

[[Page H6180]]

increase in college costs. And what are we suggesting? Putting more 
risk in their retirement plans. Public servants such as teachers, 
police officers, fire fighters are being pressed out of the housing 
market. American families face more risk today, not less; and they do 
not want the risk they are selling.
  With a savings rate at a historic low, falling to just 1 percent last 
year, we can pass the right legislation now to help people save for 
their retirement. Privatization stands in the way. Privatization of 
Social Security has become the poison pill to progress.
  The truth is both Republicans and Democrats have good ideas on 
retirement savings, and we could take several steps right now to help 
Americans save for their retirement outside of Social Security. First, 
Congress should appoint a commission like in 1983 that said no to 
privatization and we developed a plan that saved Social Security for 75 
years and in the meantime developed a bipartisan consensus on how to 
help Americans save for their retirement.
  I have a couple ideas on what to do. First, I have introduced 
legislation on the automatic enrollment into 401(k)s so people are 
automatically enrolled in 401(k)s. My employees at RR Donnelley did 
that, a Fortune 500 company; and their participation of savings went 
from 62 to 92 percent of employees participating. The Wall Street 
Journal reported today that 21 percent of all companies have 
implemented automatic enrollment, up from 14 percent last year. This is 
good news, but we can do more.
  Second, at tax time, when people are filling out their taxes, allow 
direct deposit of tax refunds into the savings account. Once a year 
about $215 billion gets moved. It should not be moved to consumption, 
but to savings. And if people pick 10 percent, 50 percent, 100 percent 
of their tax returns to go to savings, we would add not only who saves 
but the amount of money that is saved in this country. A report by the 
Retirement Security Project of the Brookings Institute found that for 
every year, 100 million people receive a Federal income tax on average 
of $2,000. We can have that directly deposited into their savings 
accounts like companies do today, and more and more Americans will not 
only save for their retirement, but more dollars will be added to 
savings.
  Third, the Retirement Savings for Working Americans Act of 2005 makes 
the saver's credit; so people who are earning $60,000 or less, the 
first $2,000 that they save would be matched by $1,000 by the Federal 
Government. It would help 50 million families with new incentives to 
saving.
  Fourth, we should consolidate the confusing ``alphabet soup'' of 16 
different savings plans into one portable pension.
  Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Americans have rejected the idea of 
privatization of Social Security. By taking these steps, we can boost 
savings outside of Social Security and provide Americans with a real 
savings plan.

                          ____________________