[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 11, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5013-H5014]
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 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing once again that there are 
rumors going around that in January, when we come back and there is a 
new Congress, depending on who is in control, that we are going to be 
looking at privatizing Social Security again. We understand that the 
Republican Party wants to make it their top priority. The American 
people have already said ``no'' to this shortsighted plan. The money 
and trust fund belongs to the people who put it there, and they are 
entitled to guaranteed benefits. They don't want to use this money to 
gamble on the risky stock market.
  Those in favor of the Republican plan say that privatizing is the 
only way to save Social Security. Granted, the fact that people are 
growing older does mean Social Security needs to be strengthened. But 
in reality, Social Security can be saved with small changes, and we 
have time to make sure we do it right.
  As it stands today, the Social Security trust fund will begin taking 
in less in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits in 2018. That is 
12 years from now. But even if Congress doesn't act, the Social 
Security surplus won't be exhausted until the year 2040. That is 34 
years from today. And the worst case scenario is that 74 percent of 
benefits would still be paid.
  If the Republican plan is enacted next year, they won't be able to 
guarantee benefits in 2008, let alone 2040.
  In addition, these projections are based on an anticipated lower rate 
of productivity and economic growth than the U.S. has experienced 
during the last 20 years. If the U.S. maintains its current economic 
growth or grows at a faster rate, the trust fund surplus will expire at 
a later date.
  While I believe Congress needs to act soon, we don't need to do it in 
haste. Instead of radically changing our retirement safety net, we 
should follow the lead of former President Reagan. In 1983, President 
Reagan appointed a commission headed by Alan Greenspan and saved Social 
Security for the next 60 years.
  I urge President Bush to put aside his dreams of privatizing and do 
the same. Many Republicans won't want to hear this, but President 
Reagan's commission raised payroll taxes to save Social Security. But I 
believe we can come up with a better solution today. There is a middle 
ground between raising taxes and privatizing. Let's put our experts to 
work on finding this middle ground and creating a stronger Social 
Security.
  Everybody accepts that Congress needs to act to strengthen Social 
Security for the next generation of seniors. But any plan that cuts 
guaranteed benefits is a nonstarter. It is a nonstarter because the 
centerpiece of the Republican plan, to privatize portions of Social 
Security does nothing to address the program's long-term challenge, 
which is to make sure Social Security can pay full benefits for future 
generations.
  Privatizing means less money going into the Social Security trust 
fund. The President's plan means fewer benefits for more retirees. The 
President has yet to disclose how he would pay for this plan. 
Conservative estimates price the plan at over $2 trillion, driving the 
country deeper into debt and burdening future generations with the 
bill.
  With our current national debt, a multitrillion dollar expenditure 
would almost certainly rely on selling bonds to foreign countries for 
financing. I am not comfortable with China, Japan and the European 
Union controlling the purse strings of our retirement benefits, and 
neither are the American people.
  We should encourage individuals to invest money for retirement, but 
this should be done outside of Social Security. Social Security was 
never intended as the only source of income for retirees. It was 
designed as a safety net to ensure no retiree or disabled person falls 
into poverty. We simply cannot bet the future of Social Security on a 
risky privatizing scheme.
  Mr. Speaker, let's not make a hasty decision on Social Security that 
we will live to regret. People have to understand that Social Security 
is a lifeline for so many of our seniors. When we look at today, the 
people that are working at minimum wage, when we look where we see 
pensions not really being there for the American people, we need to 
certainly make sure that Social Security is there. Widows with 
children, it is the difference between being able to stay in their 
home, feed their children or becoming homeless.

[[Page H5014]]

  People say, well, if we privatize, it will save the government money. 
In the long run, I honestly don't believe it will. I have too many 
friends, women friends that have been married or widowed, that never 
had to work. Now they find themselves with nothing but their Social 
Security. And it is not even enough to live on, especially in New York.
  We must save Social Security.

                          ____________________