[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 2961-2962]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 23, 2002, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, we could have no higher goal than to 
protect and improve the financial security of retirees, survivors, 
dependents, and disabled workers.
  For 67 years, Social Security has been the bedrock of that security. 
Nearly 46 million people living in one out of every four households in 
this country today receive monthly benefits from Social Security. 
Social Security provides critical insurance protections against the 
future loss of income due to retirement, death, or disability for 96 
percent of all workers, their spouses, and their children. Social 
Security provides over half of the total income for the average elderly 
household.
  For one-third of women over age 65, Social Security represents 90 
percent of their total income. Without this program, half of older 
women in this country would be living in poverty.
  It is our responsibility to ensure that the Social Security program 
guarantee is here today, tomorrow, and for generations to come. It is 
our job, as elected officials, to enact the policies needed to maintain 
that guarantee and to reject policies that undermine Social Security; 
it is not our job to spend taxpayer dollars to send out worthless paper 
certificates designed to provide a false sense of security to American 
seniors and their families. We should not be engaged in a public 
relations campaign, but rather in a serious policy discussion that lets 
us debate how best to continue the Social Security commitment, to 
guarantee lifelong and inflation-proof benefits.
  I understand why the Republican leadership may want to delay that 
debate until after the next election. I can understand why they want to 
distance themselves from recent history.
  First, there is the budget record. Despite all the rhetoric about 
putting Social Security revenues in a lockbox, the lock to that box has 
been picked by Republican budgets. It is true that the lockbox 
resolution passed in the House provided certain exceptions, such as war 
or recession, but it is not true that one of those exceptions was 
providing tax breaks to the wealthy. The Congressional Budget Office 
has indicated that the single largest factor in the disappearing budget 
surplus is last year's tax cut.
  As Members know, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
even without new taxes or spending, we will take $900 billion from the 
Social Security trust fund over the next 9 years. Now President Bush is 
proposing new tax cuts of $675 billion over 10 years and $343 billion 
to make last year's tax cuts permanent, most of which go to the 
wealthiest, money that will come out of Social Security and Medicare.
  The Bush budget proposes to take $553 billion of the Medicare surplus 
and $1.5 trillion of the Social Security surplus over the next decade, 
and I doubt that any certificate will assure senior citizens that 
Social Security solvency is a priority, given those figures.
  Second, there are those unfortunate statements by Treasury Secretary 
O'Neill.
  Last May, in an interview with the Financial Times, Secretary O'Neill 
stated that ``Able-bodied adults should save enough on a regular basis 
so they can provide for their own retirement and, for that matter, 
health and medical needs.'' In July, Secretary O'Neill stated that 
``The Social Security trust fund does not consist of real economic 
assets.''
  Again, it is hard to argue that those are ringing endorsements of 
Social Security. If the Treasury Secretary believes that the assets in 
the trust fund are just worthless paper, why should Social Security 
beneficiaries have any faith in a certificate or in an administration 
to protect their best interests?
  Most important, there is the President's Commission on Social 
Security. All of those appointed to the Commission last May were 
supporters of privatization, which may explain why none of those 
appointed to the Commission last May represented recognized senior, 
disability, women's, or minority organizations.
  The three plans put forth by the Commission last December all include 
variations on the privatization theme. All the plans would jeopardize 
the Social Security guarantee in one way or

[[Page 2962]]

another. Privatization would drain between $1 trillion and $1.5 
trillion from the Social Security trust fund over the next decade 
alone. Privatization would shorten the life of the trust fund. One plan 
would increase the long-term Social Security deficit by 25 percent. 
Another tries to deal with the deficit by transferring $6 trillion from 
the U.S. Treasury between 2021 and 2054 to make up the deficit.
  Taking general revenues might help Social Security, but it would also 
eliminate resources necessary for Medicare, Medicaid, the Older 
Americans Act, job training, education, and other essential programs.
  Privatization would jeopardize benefits to current and future 
beneficiaries. One of the Commission's proposals would cut benefits for 
future retirees by calculating initial benefits on the basis of growth 
in CPI rather than wages, which would greatly reduce the standard of 
living. Privatization would force workers to work longer in order to 
maintain benefits.
  What we should be doing is rejecting privatization of Social 
Security. We should be working to strengthen it, and we should be 
strengthening Social Security, not privatizing it.

                          ____________________