[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4564-S4565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CONGRESSIONAL RETIREMENT AGE ACT

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the 
senior Senator from Florida about Social Security. In my State--and it 
is not much different in Rhode Island, the State of the Presiding 
Officer--the average Social Security benefit is $14,000 a year. A huge 
percent--I think about half--of Social Security beneficiaries in Ohio 
rely on Social Security for more than half of their income.
  When I hear proposals here, which Senator Nelson also was speaking 
against, to make significant cuts to seniors who are getting $1,000 a 
month from Social Security and letting off hedge fund managers who are 
paying significantly lower tax rates than most people in the middle 
class--that the sacrifice is aimed toward the middle class and aimed 
toward seniors and not spread more evenly among people who are the most 
privileged of society--it bothers me, as it does, I know, the Presiding 
Officer.
  I rise today about a similar issue, about a Social Security issue 
also, calling on my colleagues in the Senate and in the House of 
Representatives to practice what we preach.
  Presently, the Congress and the White House are working to find 
agreement on ways to balance the budget, as we should. I was part of 
the effort in the 1990s. During the Clinton years we balanced the 
Federal budget. In fact, during those 8 years, we took a terrible 
deficit and high unemployment, and even though taxes for upper income 
people were raised to 39 percent, we saw 21 million private sector jobs 
created, we saw incomes going up, and we saw that President Clinton 
left office with the highest budget surplus in American history.
  We saw the policies of the next 8 years and what they did to our 
country: tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of Wall Street, bad 
trade agreements, a giveaway to the drug and insurance companies, and 
two unpaid-for wars and where that got us to this budget situation--
exacerbated by this recession in the last 3 years. So we clearly need 
to move forward in balancing the budget.
  Some Washington politicians want to balance the budget by cutting the 
Social safety net upon which millions of hard-working Americans rely. I 
oppose those efforts.
  In a time of fiscal belt-tightening, Members of Congress should also 
share the burden of reducing that deficit. That is why I have 
introduced the Congressional Retirement Age Act of 2011.
  The bill is simple. As Congress and the White House seek an agreement 
on a deficit reduction package, Members of Congress cannot permit 
themselves to receive benefits denied to ordinary working Americans.
  While the wealth of Members of Congress varies, there is no doubt we 
receive a healthy salary and benefits compared to millions of American 
families who do not.
  Members of Congress also have an added benefit. We can access our 
Federal retirement benefits early, whether we serve as few as 5 or as 
many as 25 years. Millions of seniors--who have worked their lives in 
factories or have worked their lives in construction or have worked 
their lives walking the floor of retail outlets, department stores or 
diners--millions of seniors cannot do the same. For too many Americans, 
Social Security has become their retirement plan, as pensions disappear 
and 401(k)s plummet.
  All Members of Congress are able to collect their pensions at any 
time--starting at age 50--if they have served 25 years. Most have not 
by the age of 50, obviously, but once they have served 25 years, they 
can receive full pensions. If they have served as few as 5 years, they 
can collect their pensions beginning at age 62.
  So with 25 years of congressional service, Members of Congress can 
receive pensions immediately upon retirement. If they have served 5 
years, they can receive a pension--not a large one at that point but a 
pretty decent pension--at age 62.
  But what about a Youngstown steelworker, what about a Columbus store 
clerk, what about a Cincinnati nurse, what about a Toledo sheet metal 
worker, what about an Akron worker in a rubber plant? Do they get that 
option? Of course not. They have to wait until age 65, or age 62 at a 
discounted amount, to receive retirement benefits.
  No longer should any Congressman, no longer should any Congresswoman, 
no longer should any Senator be treated differently from other 
Americans. That is what the Congressional Retirement Age Act of 2011 
would ensure.
  This bill would amend the Federal Employees Retirement System and the 
Civil Service Retirement System to directly tie current and future 
Members of Congress' access to their Federal retirement benefits to the 
Social Security retirement age.
  It is that simple and it is bipartisan. Senator McCaskill of 
Missouri, a Democrat, Senator Johnson of South Dakota, a Democrat, are 
cosponsors. The House companion, introduced by Representative Bobby 
Schilling of Illinois, a Republican, has seven Republican cosponsors.
  This idea is endorsed by the conservative National Taxpayers Union, 
that calls it ``one of the few serious attempts to reform Congressional 
pensions in recent memory.'' I do not agree with the National Taxpayers 
Union on that many issues; they are too willing to cut benefits for the 
middle class, in my view. But together, on this issue, we share the 
belief that Members of Congress should be treated as any other citizen. 
There is no reason that the benefits of being a Member of Congress 
should be more generous than being a member of the middle class.
  According to reports, 13 sitting Senators and 31 Members of the House 
of Representatives today have accrued annual pensions worth at last 
$50,000, if they were to retire today. Meanwhile, American workers age 
65 or older receive a median private pension payment of about $8,000 a 
year.
  Elected officials do not, frankly--I think you look around this body 
and you know that most House Members and Senators, at least a number of 
them, simply do not know enough people who work in construction, who 
work in a retail store, who work at a

[[Page S4565]]

diner, who work at a manufacturing plant, who work in a hotel cleaning 
rooms, who stand up all day as a cosmetologist or as a barber, working 
in jobs where their bodies simply cannot work until the age of 70.
  Members of Congress, dressing like this and doing what we do, can 
often work--obviously, if the voters say so--can, obviously, work into 
our 70s. It is not that hard for most of us. But while we go to work in 
a suit and tie, tens of millions of American workers work in factories 
and mines and fields and diners and hotels and their bodies simply 
cannot work until the age of 70.
  So when I hear my colleagues say we should raise the Social Security 
retirement age, I think of people working in the service industry, I 
think of people doing demanding work in agriculture and on shop floors 
and in construction and hairdressers, and all that.
  Why should they wait longer for their retirement security--albeit it 
is too small to begin with in many cases; it is minimal, often, at 
best--but why should they wait longer for their retirement security 
than Members of Congress?
  So for those who think about raising the retirement age for Social 
Security, think about raising the retirement age for ourselves. There 
is simply no reason we, as Members of Congress--no matter how many 
years of service--should be able to retire at full pension before 
Social Security beneficiaries in this country.
  Why should Members of Congress be treated better than a steelworker 
or a store clerk or a nurse or a hotel worker?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________