[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4716-4723]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE WOMEN OF AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the minority leader.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Democratic women of Congress are so 
concerned about the potential for harming Social Security that we will 
see during this hour a number of us come to the floor to alert our 
colleagues and the women of our country about the very high stakes for 
them as to what we do with Social Security.
  Let me emphasize that this is the highest stake game, if I may call 
it that, of all during the 106th Congress because we have a chance to 
protect and secure the most popular and one of the most important 
programs that our country has ever had the good sense to create.
  I approach this issue from the peculiar perspective of an official 
who served as chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
under President Carter, a post that gave me a very special concern 
about the gap between men and women's wages.
  When we are speaking of Social Security, of course, we are speaking 
first and foremost of women who have

[[Page 4717]]

smaller wages than men and, of course, women who have no wages 
whatsoever. For that reason, we have introduced a resolution in the 
Congress that recognizes the unique effects that proposals to reform 
Social Security almost surely will have on women.
  Three-quarters of unmarried and widowed elderly women rely on Social 
Security for over half of their income. So when we deal with Social 
Security, when we tamper with it, who should be in our mind's eye first 
and foremost are women because they are so disproportionately affected.
  Everyone is aware of the low statistic that is used over and over 
again that we who are women are, according to what year you look at, in 
the 1990s, 70 percent, 74 percent, 72 percent of men's income. I want 
my colleagues to look at the 1997 figures. $24,973 for full-time, year-
round wages for women, compared to $33,674 for full-time, year-round 
wages for men. Those figures are very important for what women can do 
with their disposable income today.
  But I want to focus us on what that means for women 20 years from 
now, 30 years from now, and longer. Because it translates directly into 
too little money to live on when they are elderly; and for that reason, 
it means that today, at least, those women can count on a progressively 
structured Social Security system that will keep them from abject 
poverty. And in case we believe that that is crying wolf, let us not 
forget that most of the credit for cutting poverty for the elderly 
really belongs to Social Security.
  As recently as 1959, 35 percent of the elderly were poor. By 1979, we 
had gotten it to only 15 percent. And in 1996, it was 11 percent. And 
when we say the elderly are poor, who we are really talking about are 
elderly women.
  I have given my colleagues the wages for full-time, year-round 
workers. But only 56 percent of women are in this category at all. 
Seventy-two percent of men are in this category. And we can see how 
that would translate into retirement income.
  In essence, we are not talking about retirement when we talk about 
Social Security; we are talking about a family protection system. 
Because not only are the main beneficiaries women who have almost no 
work history, but they include disabled family members and deceased 
family members.
  For all of the talk about private accounts, there is almost no talk 
about how to deal with people who have no accounts or people whose 
accounts would be very shallow because they have so little work 
history.
  We need to protect Social Security in the name of America's women, 
not change it. We need to shore it up, not shift it. It is structured 
now to help the elderly who fit the profile of the average elderly 
woman. That is who we have in mind. That is why it is progressive. That 
is why it is inflation adjusted. That is why it has lifetime benefits. 
That is why it has dependent benefits.
  The shift to personal accounts, of course, takes away the 
progressivity that has been critical to lifting elderly women out of 
poverty. And in personal accounts they get what they put in, if that, 
plus what the market gives them, if anything.
  Let us start with where women are. Women put in less as workers or of 
course as housewives, where they stand to lose altogether. The 
progressive formula now in place for Social Security means higher 
benefits to low earners. That translates into women.
  I do not think we want to say to America's women we want to have them 
depend on the market when we consider the fluctuations up and down in 
their income. If we say that to women, we in effect are saying to women 
they lose.

                              {time}  1745

  And homemakers, above all, beware, because this system has you in 
mind even before it has working women in mind of any description, 
including those who work part-time. It is homemakers, women who have 
spent their working life caring for a family, who are the major 
beneficiaries of the present structure of the Social Security system. 
Above all, we should remember that the market has no spouses or widows 
benefits.
  Women have two characteristics that mean that they must insist that 
any new system retain them when any new structures are put in place. 
One, of course, is less earnings. And the other is living longer. 
Imagine, living longer can hurt you. It certainly can hurt you if you 
have a system that is different from our own because you could exhaust 
your retirement income. You can never exhaust your Social Security 
income. Moreover, less earnings is going to be true for the foreseeable 
future. We hope not forever. Women spend 15 percent of their careers 
out of the labor force.
  Finally, let me say that I am sorry to inform you that the gap in 
life expectancy between men and women is not likely to decrease. By the 
year 2030, for example, the actuaries tell us that there will be almost 
no decrease in that gap, which means that women are going to continue 
to live longer. Men may live longer as well, but this gap is going to 
be here and that gap translates into a need for income from somewhere. 
We are not going to get it from the market. We do get it now from 
Social Security.
  Any change in the Social Security system ought to, therefore, be sure 
to bear in mind that it is a system that involves your mothers and your 
grandmothers, your aunts and your female cousins. We want to protect 
men every bit as much, but the demographic facts of life, the actuarial 
facts of life, are that it is women who stand to be the biggest losers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, when I last rose to speak, I told you a 
little bit about my district. I represent southern Nevada which is Las 
Vegas, Nevada. I represent the fastest growing district in the United 
States. I have the fastest growing veterans' population. I also have 
the fastest growing population of women seniors in the country.
  Women comprise over 60 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries. 
Therefore, women in Nevada would feel significantly the impact of any 
changes to the current Social Security system. It is my job, it is my 
responsibility to ensure that their financial security is not 
undermined. Instead, that it is strengthened.
  Like most Nevada women, I fear that privatization of the Social 
Security system would risk the retirement benefits of millions of 
female beneficiaries throughout the country.
  As an example, I would like to profile someone that I have known 
since I was a young girl, a woman that I represent who lives in Las 
Vegas. Mrs. Lois Olsen is currently existing on her and her husband's 
Social Security benefits. Sadly, her wonderful husband Fred is 
suffering a life-threatening illness, a toxic reaction to his 
medication. He is in the hospital as I speak. During this difficult 
time, Mrs. Olsen is thinking about how she would live if she were to 
lose her husband and half of her benefits. Will she be able to afford 
the upkeep of her mobile home? Will she have to choose one day between 
buying food to eat or prescription drugs to live? While these are 
agonizing concerns, Mrs. Olsen knows that the current Social Security 
system will not allow her to plummet into poverty. Mrs. Olsen, however, 
is not so sure about the future, not so sure how privatization of the 
Social Security system would affect her daughters and her 
granddaughters. She fears privatization, because it lacks the built-in 
protections for women that our current system now has.
  There are reasons why our Social Security system is the most 
successful social insurance program in the world. It provides a 
guaranteed benefit that lasts as long as you live. It is a guaranteed 
benefit that is risk-free. And it is a guaranteed benefit that is 
annually updated based on the cost of living adjustments.
  Strengthening Social Security based on these fundamental components 
may not be easy, but the majority of southern Nevadans believe that a 
risk-free, guaranteed benefit is worth fighting for. It is worth 
working for. They all cannot be here to fight for this issue

[[Page 4718]]

and to work for this issue. They have sent me here as their voice. That 
is why what we do not want to happen is have a privatization solution 
that puts women in particular in uncertain and unstable situations 
during their senior years.
  There are substantive reasons why women fear privatization. Women 
earn only about 74 percent of what men earn. Based on this factor 
alone, women like Mrs. Olsen would have much less to invest than any 
other Americans. We also know that women spend roughly 11.5 years out 
of the workforce caring for their children and their families. This 
reduces retirement benefits once again. Finally, it is well known that 
women live an average of 7 years longer than men. These factors dictate 
that women would receive far smaller monthly retirement checks should 
we privatize the Social Security system. Without Social Security 
benefits, the majority of elderly women in our great Nation would be 
plummeted into poverty.
  At this time, when Congress is considering Social Security reform, it 
is important that we remember the spirit and the reason for which it 
was created. It is a guaranteed benefit to ensure that when someone 
like Mrs. Olsen retires, she will not live in poverty. It is a 
guaranteed benefit to ensure that when heart-wrenching circumstances 
like death and disability, when they occur, and they unfortunately do, 
that the surviving spouse will have means to survive.
  I urge my colleagues to stand firm, to protect and strengthen our 
current Social Security system that President Franklin Roosevelt vowed 
would defend Americans against a poverty-ridden old age. When one 
realizes that two out of every three seniors depend on Social Security 
for more than half of their income, it is easy to understand why we 
must strengthen this program. It is our Nation's most successful social 
program. It is worth saving. It is worth protecting. It is worth 
fighting for. Let us prove to all of our constituents, to all 
Americans, that we can work together for the common good. Let us 
protect women, seniors, the disabled and our children, all of whom 
depend on this very important program.
  The people of my district, the people from Las Vegas, like to gamble. 
We are used to it. But Social Security is an issue that they are not 
willing to gamble with. Privatization of the Social Security system 
would be like playing Russian roulette with their lives. Their lives 
are important enough and valued enough for us in this country that we 
must not play Russian roulette with them.
  My constituents have sent me a message loud and clear. They tell me, 
Do not privatize Social Security. Do nothing that will take the 
``security'' out of Social Security.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my esteemed colleague the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for yielding, and I am so pleased to 
participate today, because as we grapple, and we are, and we will and 
we must, grapple with this issue of Social Security, one of the most 
critical aspects of the analysis is recognizing the unique role that 
this wonderful program, securing the lives of our seniors, plays in the 
lives of women. As has been stated, more than half of the recipients of 
Social Security, 60 percent, are women. And we women depend on these 
benefits for a longer time and for a greater proportion of our income 
than do men. In addition, the poverty rate among women over 65 would 
nearly triple if Social Security were taken away. For these reasons, we 
must think very carefully before radically changing Social Security 
from a government safety net to a private investment program. Social 
Security is especially important to women senior citizens during this 
discussion for several reasons. The bottom line is that the benefits 
are disproportionate. Currently, women receive fewer benefits than do 
men.
  This is for several reasons, as I mentioned. First, women continue to 
earn less than men. Currently the average woman earns about 75 percent 
of what the average man makes in annual earnings. Second, the man's 
connection to the workplace is very strong and firm. The woman's 
connection to the workplace is much more tenuous. Women are much more 
likely to interrupt their careers to stay home and raise children, or 
to stop working in order to provide care for elderly parents and other 
relatives. On average, women spend 11.5 years out of the workforce 
during their working lives. These two factors mean that building a 
personal savings is more difficult for women. Recent studies show that 
on average a woman's pension is worth only slightly more than half of a 
man's pension. Women also live an average of 7 years longer than men do 
and therefore run a much higher risk of exhausting any personal savings 
and, therefore, must rely on Social Security for almost all of their 
retirement income in so many instances.
  The underlying idea behind Social Security has been that in concert 
with a company's pensions or today's 401(k) plans and personal savings, 
Social Security should be one of the three legs for a family's 
retirement stool. This remains as important today as when this program, 
Social Security, was started in the 1930s. Converting the program to 
just another retirement program based strictly on earnings would do a 
disservice to millions of women and increase the already high rate of 
poverty among elderly, single, widowed women.
  I am committed to working with my colleagues who join us on the floor 
today, and we are determined to ensure that Social Security is made 
solvent for the long term, and that any reforms take into consideration 
the very unique role of all of the women in our economy.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for those comments and yield to 
yet another gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) for all 
of their work on strengthening and improving our Social Security system 
and paying particular attention to the needs of women.
  Right now, we have a plan from the President to strengthen the future 
of Social Security. In contrast, the majority party supports a plan 
that would replace Social Security with a complicated system of 
individual accounts that would benefit high-income individuals, 
particularly men, and endanger the parts of Social Security such as the 
standard of living index that are so very important to women.
  Being just a few years shy myself of legal retirement age, I have a 
good idea how women across the Nation are feeling about the safety net 
of Social Security. I know that many retired women count on Social 
Security income to meet their basic needs, food, clothing, shelter. 
Twenty-five percent of unmarried women rely on Social Security benefits 
as their only source of income.

                              {time}  1800

  A recent GAO report showed that 80 percent of women living in poverty 
were not, and I would like to emphasize ``were not'' poor before their 
husbands died. Because a woman lives an average of 7 years longer than 
a man, the danger of her golden years turning into years of poverty and 
struggle is very real.
  In this great country, women earn 76 cents for every dollar a man 
earns. In fact, women earn much less than men over their lifetime 
because even those in high-paying positions tend to leave the work 
force to give birth, to raise a family and to care for parents. This 
means many women must truly depend on their Social Security benefits. 
If we privatize Social Security, as some people want to do, this could 
cut spousal benefits by at least one-third because women earning less 
over the course of a career have much less to invest. Also, because 
women generally live longer, annuity companies could shrink their 
monthly benefits and privatization would not adjust benefits annually 
for the cost of living.
  This is not the first time women in Congress have gathered together 
to

[[Page 4719]]

talk about the special needs of women, and I am sure it will not be the 
last time. But with Social Security the stakes are high and the issues 
are complicated. We cannot proceed with reforming our Social Security 
system without addressing how each and every proposal will affect 
women. We need to seize this day to ensure that Social Security reform 
includes the unique and overwhelming needs of women in this Nation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey) for her comments, and I yield now to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, to my great colleague from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) and the other women who have come together for this 
special order on women and Social Security, I thank them very much. As 
a newly-elected Member of this body, I welcome the opportunity to speak 
to this most important issue.
  As a member of the baby boom generation, I have benefitted from 
social changes that have made it easier for women to achieve success in 
the work force. Women of my generation have enjoyed opportunity never 
realized by previous generations in this country. Blessed with the 
ability to pursue my goals and dreams, it is my pleasure to join my 
colleagues in this debate to ensure the security of our mothers, 
grandmothers, our own daughters and granddaughters.
  Women typically outlive their mates. This is not ground breaking 
news, but it does mean that there is a greater population of single 
women over 65. These women live an average of 19 years past the age of 
65 and need expensive prescription medicines, deserve quality care from 
physicians and still must make ends meet at home.
  A comfortable retirement is something every American looks forward to 
and deserves. For many women retirement years are not what they expect. 
Unlike most men, women of a retirement age do not usually have a 
pension on which they can rely. Women who do earn a pension find their 
income is significantly less than men on the average of nearly 5,000 
annually.
  Here is the problem:
  The average income of women over 65 in 1996 was nearly $9,300, while 
a man over 65 in 1996 had an income of about $16,200. For those who 
cannot tell, men over 65 in 1996 earned almost twice what women did 
during the same time.
  We all know there is a difference in pay between men and women, but 
having such a difference in retirement pay is dangerous. I commend 
President Clinton for addressing the pay and equity in the State of the 
Union and look forward to his action.
  We talk about a surplus exhaustively, but at the same time there are 
single women in this country living in poverty. The percentage of women 
living in poverty who are either divorced or separated is nearly 28 
percent, and those who have never been married living in poverty is 
above 23 percent.
  The problem is not going to fix itself. Although wages for women have 
increased over time, they are still less than most men. Data shows that 
of 1997 women earn 74 percent of the wages of men for full-time work.
  There are several programs we consider to help older women on Social 
Security and Medicare. As a body, I urge my colleagues to strengthen 
the survivor benefits aspects of Social Security. Today nearly 74 
percent of the widows receive benefits based upon the earnings of a 
deceased spouse. We must not take away a widow's benefits in our 
efforts to alter Social Security and the Medicare system. We need to 
prevent proposals seeking to withdraw Social Security and Medicare 
dollars prior to retirement.
  The women we talk about living on Social Security and Medicare are 
mothers and grandmothers. In some case we are talking about women who 
are providing primary child care for grandchildren or other relatives. 
In other cases women work several jobs simultaneously to provide for 
their families over the years.
  Unfortunately, these jobs might have been either part-time or for 
short periods of time, not allowing for a pension. The traditional role 
of woman as a caregiver for both child and parent means that many women 
are now at a huge disadvantage. This is especially true for minority 
women. African Americans and Hispanics over the age of 65 are 2 to 3 
times likely to be living in poverty.
  Part of the reason for this race poverty rate is the fact that their 
income has been traditionally less for minorities. For every dollar a 
white household has earned, the black family earns 27 cents while 
Hispanic families earn 30 cents. This history of inequity makes 
retirement extremely difficult on minority women trying to live on 
Social Security and Medicare. These women have cared for their 
families, and now we must provide the care they need.
  We urge our colleagues to give them better Social Security and 
Medicare benefits. We must ensure that they can eat, that they are 
healthy and that they are able to afford the things needed to live and 
continue to mother us. By helping women on Social Security and Medicare 
now we will help those women who will be on the rolls in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The balance of the hour 
allocated by the minority leader may be controlled by the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to my colleagues, 
my colleague from Ohio. Let me say a thank you to my colleague, the 
delegate from Washington, D.C., who took the charge of this special 
order with my having to do something else for a few minutes, but it is 
a great turn out of Members on this floor today on an issue and an area 
that is critical particularly at this point because we are at the 
threshold of discussing where Social Security is going for the next 75 
years, and, as part of this effort, women, and the effects currently of 
Social Security on women and what happens when the Social Security 
system changes is incredibly important and critical to women in our 
society. So I thank my colleagues so much for participating and for 
their good words.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deepest 
appreciation to the Women's Caucus for taking the time this afternoon 
and engaging discussion on Social Security.
  Somewhere along the line of our political discourse the whole subject 
of Social Security has become one of enormous breadth, there is a sense 
of urgency that hangs on to this issue as people discuss it, 
notwithstanding the fact that I often tell my constituents who are most 
worried, and these are generally the elderly women that come together 
in various organizations; I tell them that Social Security is perfectly 
safe now, it will be probably in some fiscal strain in the year 2014, 
but it is the year 2032 when the whole system will come to a financial 
standstill because there will be insufficient moneys. For the first 
time Congress has an opportunity to really look at this issue, and to 
debate it and to come up with some long-term solutions for the 
financial security of this system.
  I am here today because I know that the elderly women in my State are 
very deeply concerned about this issue. They receive mail, they belong 
to all sorts of elderly organizations that continue to tell them about 
the crisis, and they have this mounting fear that truly they are not 
being dealt with fairly. Their number one concern, of course, is that 
we do nothing to jeopardize the stability of the benefits they are now 
receiving on a monthly basis. The benefits may be very low and 
insufficient, but they do not want any sort of discussion or 
formulation of a new plan which will in any way jeopardize their 
opportunities to survive, and this is what brings us to the floor 
tonight to debate this issue, because women across America have the 
greatest stake in this whole debate on Social Security. They are the 
ones that are most dependent upon the Social Security monthly benefits. 
It may not be very much, but they depend upon it, and therefore we have 
to pay special

[[Page 4720]]

concern to this population and make sure that whatever formulation 
arises out of this debate, that that very minimal, modest monthly 
benefit that they are now enjoying is in no way jeopardized.
  So when we get to the discussion of privatization, immediately their 
concerns are even more exacerbated because they are concerned about 
what this means. Putting the assets of Social Security into a private 
sort of investment; how are they going to be able to handle it? What do 
they know about the stock market? And how are they going to be able to 
make the decisions should that be the course that we take? So, they 
feel very much in jeopardy, and we need to take into consideration the 
fact that whatever plan we come up with does not leave this very large 
group of Americans in quandary, in jeopardy, in fear of losing the 
benefits they now enjoy.
  Social Security today pays cash benefits to 44 million retired, 
disabled and other dependents and survivors. That is a very large 
constituency that we are affecting every time we talk about a, quote, 
solution in the long view. One out of 6 Americans receives Social 
Security. Social Security benefits make up half of the income of 66 
percent of Americans over age 65. That is a very large part of our 
constituencies, and the important thing to remember however we feel 
about the system, that it has kept these individuals out of poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, if we did not have Social Security, these individuals, 
at least 50 percent of them, would be in poverty today, and those are 
the individuals for which we must have special concern. Sixty percent 
of all Social-Security-aged recipients are women, and so we stand today 
here as members of the Women's Caucus of this Congress because we have 
a special responsibility to acknowledge our debt, our obligation, our 
responsibility to the 60 percent of these recipients who are female. 
Seventy-two percent of the Social Security recipients aged 85 and over 
are women, and the population is aging, women live longer, and 
therefore the older our population grows. The women basically have 
lower benefits because for many, many years they were child bearing, 
child rearing, they could not get a job, and what jobs they could get 
were very low paying, and therefore the benefits are very low, and 
therefore they make up the lower sector of our benefit scale.
  So overall the history of the women's participation in the Social 
Security program is as very low income beneficiaries, very much on the 
verge of the poverty category, very vulnerable, so whatever proposals 
this Congress deals with, we plead as special representatives of this 
constituency, as spokespersons of the Women's Caucus, that this House 
pay special heed to the concerns, considerations, agonies and concerns 
of the women of America.

                              {time}  1815

  To this point, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) 
for yielding me this time. I hope the Congress will heed the words of 
the Women's Caucus.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) for her comments. If I might, the gentlewoman pointed out 
some very specific issues that face women directly and talked about 
some statistics. I think it is important just to get a few more of 
those statistics on to the record here that are truly incredible about 
women's dependency on the Social Security system. Women make up roughly 
half of America's population. They account for 60 percent of Social 
Security beneficiaries.
  As has been pointed out, three-quarters of widowed and unmarried 
elderly women rely on Social Security for over half of their income. 
The median income of women over 65 in 1996 was around $9,300. Men over 
65 have a median income of approximately $16,200, twice that, almost 
twice that, of women.
  Older white women had a median personal income of $9,900. Older black 
women's median income equaled approximately $7,100. One-fifth of older 
black women received less than $5,000 and nearly three-fourths had 
annual incomes under $10,000. Older Hispanic women's median income 
equaled around $6,400. Thirty-two percent had personal incomes under 
$5,000, and 80 percent had incomes under $10,000.
  Women are so dependent on this system that at their peril, and our 
future peril, if we are not mindful of these kinds of statistics and 
how we have to have a system which allows for women today to be 
beneficiaries of a Social Security system, and that if we change it 
radically and we move to this privatization effort, that women will, in 
their older years, be placed further and further and further in 
poverty, because women are living longer and they earn less and they 
are in and out of that work force because of family needs. Whether it 
is for their children or whether it is for their older parents these 
days, women find themselves caught in between.
  So I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, another important point, a lot of 
women feel, well, we are getting ahead, equal opportunity. We are going 
to college, we are getting better jobs, but the statistic that is 
really glaring is that the average female college graduate earns less 
than the average earned by a male high school graduate.
  Now that shows the income disparity. We all know that the formula for 
Social Security is based upon income. So right off, the women, even the 
college graduates, are getting much less under Social Security than the 
men and therefore our special concerns have to be noted.


                             General Leave

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the subject of the special order today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentlewoman from 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for making sure that women are put 
front and center in this debate on Social Security.
  So often women have been really an afterthought in the public policy 
debates of this United States Congress.
  In his State of the Union address, President Clinton vowed to use a 
major portion of the Federal budget surplus to strengthen Social 
Security. The President has given us a plan which will secure Social 
Security to the year 2055. Now, I wholeheartedly endorse the 
President's guiding principles in reforming Social Security. He said 
when we judge any plan to save Social Security, we need to ask whether 
it cuts the poverty rate among single elderly women and other groups in 
our society that are at risk.
  Social Security has been instrumental in reducing poverty in the 
United States. It often has been the only source of income which has 
kept the elderly women and people of color out of poverty.
  As was pointed out earlier, 60 percent of older Social Security 
recipients are women who earn less than men and are more likely to 
depend on Social Security for most, if not all, of their retirement 
income. Thirty-one percent of elderly African Americans and 28 percent 
of Latinos have been lifted out of poverty because they received Social 
Security benefits.
  Privatizing Social Security should not be an option. We have 
witnessed the stock market go up and down. It makes no sense, in fact 
it is wrong, to put any portion of a person's Social Security subject 
to the whims and the uncertainty of the stock market.
  We also must not forget that Social Security is an insurance program, 
not simply a source of retirement. The system provides life and 
disability insurance, which guarantees protection for

[[Page 4721]]

families and workers. Without this protection, many American workers, 
especially women and people of color, would be doomed to live under 
poverty conditions.
  Social Security is the essence of America's social insurance program. 
This Congress must pass a plan to preserve Social Security for women, 
for people of color, for all Americans. Our mothers, our grandmothers, 
our great grandmothers, our aunts, our sisters, our nieces and, yes, 
our daughters are relying on us to secure their future.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) for her remarks and especially her last 
commentary, which was really eloquent. This is a responsibility that we 
have, and those of us who are engaged in the debate which is happening 
now, and part of the reason for the special order, is public education. 
I am not sure the extent to which the public knows that we are engaged 
in a very serious and will be in a serious debate about the future of 
Social Security, and I am not sure that there is a great body of 
knowledge out there that understands what the risks are for women and 
that whatever problems we may have with the Social Security system, if 
women are left unprotected because the current progressive benefit 
formula is no longer there, and that is people earn less who now have 
more and that women are dependent or likely to be dependent and that 
will go away if there is privatization and there is, in fact, a cost of 
living every single year on Social Security and if it is privatized and 
money goes into an account, there is no longer a cost of living, it is 
at the whim of the stock market that they will be engaged and, in fact, 
that over the lifetime of retirement that every month they get that 
annuity that goes away as well.
  For all the difficulties that people may have, again, as the 
gentlewoman's commentary stated, it is just our sworn obligation and it 
is the valves that we hold that make this so important an issue for 
women in this country. I thank the gentlewoman very, very much for 
participating tonight.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, a new Member 
of this body, not a new Member to these issues, and someone who is not 
afraid to stand up and be counted on a whole variety of issues.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that the gentlewoman says that this is 
really an educational process because I have to say as I have myself 
been looking into this issue I have found so many really startling 
facts about the way that Social Security has changed the life of women 
and how women in our society depend so heavily on Social Security.
  As the gentlewoman mentioned, this is a woman's issue. Sixty percent 
of the Social Security beneficiaries are women. In my district, I have 
the largest concentration of elderly people living alone. Most of those 
people are women and they rely heavily on Social Security.
  We know that one out of every four unmarried older woman relies on 
Social Security for all of their income. That is a pretty startling 
fact right there. That we are talking about Social Security, everybody 
knows we do not get rich off Social Security and yet one out of every 
four women is relying on Social Security for all of their income. 
Imagine if there were any cut in that what would happen, how the 
poverty level would soar.
  We know that despite recent gains that women are still discriminated 
against in terms of income. Women earn 74 cents for every dollar that 
men earn, but in Illinois it is even worse. Women earn 72 cents for 
every dollar that men earn.
  Women are more likely to have gaps in their employment, and I did not 
know this but the average woman spends over 11 years out of the work 
force on average because women still bear the majority of 
responsibility for caring for children and family members with illness 
and chronic diseases. So their employment history is more spotty.
  Women are less likely to receive private pensions. Only 38 percent of 
women have pensions compared to 57 percent for men, and even when women 
do have pensions, private pensions, they are liable to be much lower.
  Women are more likely to be part-time workers, work in service and 
retail industries that do not offer pensions, change jobs more 
frequently and therefore they are less likely to be vested in pension 
plans.
  Older women are less likely to be wage earners. Another surprising 
fact to me, 37 percent of women beneficiaries have no earning history 
at all. The majority, 63 percent of women beneficiaries, receive wife's 
or widow's benefits on their husband's earnings. So what we find is 
that the Social Security system really does work for women.
  Social Security benefits that women receive are guaranteed for life. 
Unlike private individual accounts, Social Security benefits are safe, 
reliable, guaranteed for life.
  I think it is worth pointing out that never in the history of the 
United States has a Social Security check not shown up for lack of 
payment by the government. It may not show up for other reasons at the 
post office box, but it has never not shown up because the government 
has not issued a Social Security check. This is a totally reliable 
system.
  Social Security benefits protect against inflation as many other 
plans do not. Because of the cost of living increases that are built 
into Social Security, women have an anti-poverty protection right 
there. Private investments do not protect against inflation or devalued 
investments.
  Women live an average of 7 years longer than men. Private accounts 
place women in danger of outliving their accumulated funds. Under 
private accounts, women could live their most vulnerable years in 
extreme poverty.
  So I am just so glad that the President has made as a top priority 
using the surplus funds to make sure that we have a Social Security 
system that is going to be there when I retire, that is there for many 
of us in the baby boom generation who are worrying about elderly 
parents, making sure that those benefits are going to be there for 
them.
  As my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) said, as 
to our daughters, and our children as well, we want to make sure that 
into the future that women can rely on that. Obviously we want to see 
those wage gaps closed. We want to see women earning as much as men. We 
want to make sure that women can rely on Social Security being there 
when they retire.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her comments. An issue that we are not 
talking about here tonight but we will sometime very soon is all about 
pay equity and the Paycheck Fairness Act, a piece of legislation that 
is there which the President has endorsed, which talks about women only 
making 74 cents on the dollar. That is true for professional women, for 
all women.
  Women have to work an extra four months in order to make the same 
amount of money that men do; clearly not fair. These things are not 
separate and because women earn less, in fact that if we went to a 
system where there was investment that they are going to have less 
money to invest because of the way our system is structured today.

                              {time}  1830

  So that is an important issue, one which we will talk about at 
another time.
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is true that because of wage 
discrimination during working years that women carry that disadvantage 
with them into retirement years, and that is why Social Security is so 
important. Also, as the gentlewoman said, the fact that it has a 
progressive system of payment helps to ameliorate somewhat the fact 
that women have these lower pay scales.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have an 85-year-old

[[Page 4722]]

mother and she once said to me, and not too long ago, she said, you 
know, Rosa, these were supposed to be the golden years, she said, but, 
they are the lead years.
  She was just generally expressing the frustration that many elderly 
women face. But it is not only my mother, my mother's generation, it is 
our generation, it is our children's generation. And they are not 
women's issues, neither the paycheck fairness bill nor what we are 
talking about tonight with Social Security and its effect on women. 
These are family issues. And it in fact speaks to where our values lie, 
because if one does have an elderly parent, an elderly mother, and if 
this system works against them, where do they turn? They turn to their 
families, if they have families, and hopefully they do, that they are 
not out there by themselves; they turn to you, they turn to me, and 
they turn to others. They are going to need help.
  That means that we owe an obligation to our parents to be able to 
take care of them. Our children are going to owe an obligation, feel an 
obligation to us if this system changes. We all want for our children 
the very best so that they are able to make their future and their 
lives and to be able to succeed. No one wants to be a burden or a 
drain, the same as my mother feels that way, and I am sure the 
gentlewoman's folks do. We do not want to do that to our kids. We want 
to maintain some dignity, some independence, and that is what Social 
Security has meant to people in this country, and particularly with 
what we are talking about tonight with women in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman again for sharing in the 
Special Order with me this evening.
  We are going to try to continue this effort of raising the issues 
that are important, and particularly with regard to Social Security, 
over the next several months. This debate will be ongoing.
  I have introduced a resolution in the House which has now been 
cosponsored by 108 Members to keep the spotlight on this issue. The 
resolution calls on the Congress and the President to take into account 
the unique obstacles that women face when considering proposals to 
reform Social Security. We are also going to ask all 108 cosponsors to 
join in signing a letter to the Speaker of the House and to the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to help us to bring this 
resolution to the floor of the House for a vote, because what it does 
is to elevate and talk about the importance of this issue.
  Each of us, and men and women in this body, I believe, need to take 
this message, not only deliver it here on the floor of the House, from 
the well of the House, but we need to take it each to our own 
districts. We have an obligation to engage the public and to be 
involved in a public education campaign about Social Security and about 
its effects on women. That is what we are going to try to do over the 
next several months in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for the reasons that have been 
talked about here tonight, it is critically important.
  I now yield some time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).


                      Budget for Veterans Services

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about 
the budget for veterans services. Today, before the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs, the Disabled American Veterans expressed their 
disappointment with the dangerously low funding levels for veterans 
services.
  As the latest issue of DAV Magazine tells us, we are in a budget 
disaster. DAV is a member of the Independent Budget, which has helped 
us in finding the places in the proposed VA budget that are dreadfully 
underfunded.
  I agree that the flatline budget in a period of serious health cost 
inflation is a budget reduction, and a flatline budget with important 
new initiatives is also a budget reduction. We are all talking about 
giving away the budget surplus. Let us keep in mind that there is no 
surplus when all of the bills have not been paid. Let me repeat that. 
There is no surplus when all of the bills have not been paid, and we 
owe our veterans.
  This budget leaves $3 billion unpaid, and we in Congress bear the 
final responsibility for this. This past Monday, those of us on the 
committee who saw this need, spelled it out in detail in our 
``Additional and Dissenting Views and Estimates.''
  Just last week, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking 
Democratic member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, attempted to 
introduce a proposal calling for and adding $3 billion to the 
administration budget and was not allowed to do so by the committee 
majority. This is not a partisan effort. It is simply a statement of 
dollars and common sense, and we would welcome Republican support.
  We do need $3 billion more for our veterans who put their lives on 
the line for our freedom and only want what is rightfully theirs. A lot 
of us talk about how we support the veterans, but talk is cheap. It is 
important that we walk the walk for the veterans who have given to us 
in their prime their service to the country. It is time for us to stand 
up for the veterans.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we discuss various plans 
for saving Social Security, we must take into account the specific 
concerns of women. Women represent 60% of older Social Security 
recipients. Women must be able to depend on Social Security as a 
foundation for economic security.
  Any proposals for Social Security reform must maintain the safeguards 
for women. Changes in the guaranteed benefit structure would make women 
more vulnerable to poverty.
  The poverty rate for elderly women is higher than that of men. In 
1997, the rate for women was 13.0% compared to 7.0% for men. Among 
elderly unmarried women, the poverty rate is 19%. Without Social 
Security benefits, the poverty rate for elderly women would be 52.2%. 
For women of color, the poverty rate is higher than that for white 
women. Approximately 30% of African American women 65 years and older 
live in poverty. The percentage for Hispanic women is 28% compared to 
11% of older white women.
  Women are living longer than men at an average of six years and 
exhaust other retirement income resources sooner. Thus, women become 
more dependent on Social Security as they get older. Three-fourths of 
unmarried and widowed elderly women rely on Social Security for more 
than half of their income.
  Although working women earn more than past generations, women earn an 
average of 75 cents for every dollar earned by men. There is a 
disproportionate effect of the wage gap on women of color. While white 
women earn 71.9% of the earnings of white men, African American women 
receive 62.6% and Hispanic women receive 53.9%. Women also tend to work 
in traditionally lower-paid occupations such as sales, clerical and 
service positions. Women of color are highly represented in these low-
wage earning occupations.
  Women spend an average of 11 years out of the workforce to care for 
children or elderly parents. Because of these care giving 
responsibilities, women change jobs more often than men. Overall, this 
means that women typically receive less than Social Security when they 
become eligible for benefits.
  Women work more part-time and temporary jobs than men and are less 
likely to receive a pension. When women do receive pensions, their 
pensions are worth less than those received by men.
  Social Security must make women feel secure as they approach 
retirement. We need to propose changes such as a benefit formula that 
is generous to low-wage earners, yearly cost of living increases, and 
survivor benefits for the lower earning spouse. We must consider these 
concerns as we propose to reform the Social Security system.
  Mrs. McCarthy of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to address 
the needs of women, especially young widows, as we debate the future of 
Social Security. I know personally what it is like to be widowed at a 
young age. My husband, Dennis, was killed by a gunman and my son was 
seriously injured when I was 50 years old. I spent weeks taking care of 
my son in the hospital nursing him back to health. At that point the 
last thing on my mind was my future income security.
  But as my son's condition improved, the financial consequences of my 
husband's death became more and more real. I had worked for many years 
as a nurse, but took time off to raise my only child. I thought to 
myself, will I have enough money to pay my son's hospital bills? How 
will I get by once Kevin is back on his feet? How will I pay my 
mortgage, buy groceries and make car payments?

[[Page 4723]]

  These are thoughts that thousands of women have each year when their 
spouse dies young, be it from violence or sickness. Think of the two 
widows of the Capitol police officers tragically killed here last 
summer. If it weren't for the fund established by our Capitol Hill 
community, would they have the means to provide for their children and 
pay their bills? Scores of women everywhere ask themselves this same 
question every day.
  As we debate the future of Social Security, it is critical that we 
take the different circumstances of women into account. Women are more 
than half of the population. They are also a significant majority of 
those 62 and over. And when it comes to Social Security, we are often 
left behind and at a disadvantage. Many women take lower paying or 
part-time jobs that do not provide pensions. Women earn less than men. 
Women do not spend as much time in the workforce as men. Women live 
longer than men by an average of seven years. And the list goes on.
  The unique challenges faced by all women are even worse for young 
widows. For example, many women take time off to raise children and 
work at lower paying jobs or part-time jobs. They expect their husbands 
to work enough time to establish their retirement. It's part of being 
in a partnership.
  This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. We should not let 
politics get in the way of doing what is right. Millions of women--
those on Social Security right now and those who will depend on it in 
the future--are depending upon us to keep this program strong and 
accessible. We must address their needs.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments 
and for her passion with regard to what is happening to veterans in our 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, with my remaining time, let me just say that we will 
continue to focus our time and effort on talking about issues that we 
believe are relevant to the people in this country and focus our time 
and attention on Social Security and its effects on women.

                          ____________________