[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10511-10512]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 OPPOSING SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight the importance 
of Social Security to millions of individuals and their families. 
Social Security is the Nation's most successful antipoverty program. It 
has lifted over 11 million seniors out of poverty. The program has been 
especially important for women. Sixty percent of all Social Security 
recipients are women. Nearly two-thirds of all women 65 and older get 
half or more of their income from Social Security. Nearly one-third of 
those receive 90 percent or more of their income from Social Security.
  Without Social Security, the poverty rate for elderly women would be 
more than 50 percent. It is currently about 12 percent. While this 
statistic is still too high, it shows how important the program is. But 
the President and some Members of Congress want to fundamentally change 
Social Security, preventing Social Security from carrying out its 
important role. The President and other supporters of privatization are 
using the program's long-term financial problems to advance their 
political agenda. The President suggests that by allowing individuals 
to divert part of their payroll taxes into private accounts, Social 
Security will return to firm financial footing and will still be able 
to continue helping recipients. However, this simply is not true. 
Privatization will harm Social Security, leaving the well-being of 
millions of people uncertain. Privatization will likely result in 
benefit cuts and increase the retirement age for individuals.
  In early 2001, the President announced the formation of a commission 
to develop a plan to strengthen Social Security. The commission's 
report advocated three plans, all of which would allow for some level 
of private accounts. What the report fails to mention, though, is that 
all three plans have significant drawbacks. For example, accounts would 
likely lose 20 to 40 percent of their value due to administrative 
charges and management fees. Therefore, senior citizens would have less 
money at retirement. I am also concerned that individuals would be 
exposed to significant risk under privatization. Under current law, an 
individual's benefits are determined by their earnings and payroll tax 
contributions. He or she is guaranteed a monthly benefit, adjusted for 
inflation, for life.
  Under the President's plan, individuals would be required to play the 
stock market, exposing themselves to the whims of the market. A person 
would then have to pick the right time to retire. No matter how skilled 
an individual is in reading the market, he or

[[Page 10512]]

she should not have to gamble with retirement savings. This is unfair. 
It leaves too much up to chance.
  We are not trying to scare our senior citizens. Rather, we want to 
provide them with both sides of the argument. While Social Security's 
financial outlook needs to be made more certain, we should not rush to 
embrace a particular solution that may end up being worse than the 
current system. As Congress proceeds with this very important debate, 
we should be providing our seniors with facts, not lofty promises about 
reforms. Our seniors deserve no less.

                          ____________________