[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1461-1468]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as the senior Democratic woman of the 
Senate, I rise to tell my colleagues today that we, the Democratic 
women of the Senate, want to take the floor together and unanimously 
stand up for Social Security. We want to stand up for American 
families, stand up for American children, and stand up against the 
dismemberment of Social Security. This morning my colleagues will see 
all of us taking the floor to speak with passion, to speak with 
fortitude, to say that no matter what happens in the legislative days 
ahead, the outcome will be that Social Security will always be a 
guaranteed benefit and not a guaranteed gamble.
  When one gets old and they are sick, there are not many things they 
can count on but they should be able to count on Social Security. Our 
seniors' retirement should never rely on the bull of political promises 
or the bear of the market.
  We women are at risk, and that is why we want a guaranteed benefit, 
not a guaranteed gamble. We, the women, know the odds. We know that 
Social Security cannot be slot machine Social Security, that when one 
pulls the lever they get a lemon instead of three gold bars.
  All of our lives we have been placed in the penalty box just because 
of who we are. We earn less money than men, and we often work at jobs 
less likely to have a pension. We are in and out of the marketplace 
because of family responsibilities. We live longer, and the 
consequences are when we retire we get less. Social Security is a great 
equalizer and we want to be out of the penalty box and be in a 
guaranteed benefit box.
  Right now, even in the debate we are already getting ready to face 
discrimination. Chairman Thomas of the Ways

[[Page 1462]]

and Means Committee said because women live longer, maybe our benefits 
should be reduced. That is outrageous. I thought we were all created 
equal under the Constitution, and we should all be treated equal under 
Social Security.
  I am taking a position, along with my women Democratic colleagues, 
that we will not support a plan that does not provide a guaranteed, 
inflation-proof, lifelong benefit.
  We, the Democratic women of the Senate, have certain criteria as this 
debate goes forward: Preserve Social Security's guaranteed lifetime 
inflation benefit; preserve Social Security for workers when they are 
disabled and for workers' spouses and children when they are disabled; 
and protect against the impoverishment of women by maintaining Social 
Security's benefit structure. Social Security provides a minimum floor 
against dire circumstances and that is part of the social insurance.
  When we talk about a guaranteed benefit, not a guaranteed gamble, it 
is very clear why. Today we know our benefits are benefits we can count 
on. We do not have to worry about whether the stock market doing well. 
We do not have to worry about did we make investments, do we know bonds 
and stocks and indexes? What we do know is this is the guaranteed 
benefit. All other private savings, private pensions, are built around 
it. Social Security is the anchor tenet. Let us not eliminate it.
  When we talk about why we need a lifetime benefit, I am concerned 
about the gimmicks and proposals that are being made now that people 
could outlive their savings. The great thing about Social Security is 
one cannot outlive Social Security. It is theirs until the day they 
die. One can outlive their IRA or their savings, but they can never 
outlive Social Security. This is an important anchor, particularly 
because we women live longer.
  The plan must be inflation proof. Today, Social Security does not 
penalize for living longer. We women live longer and we need an 
adequate cost-of-living increase. When one retires in 2030, they cannot 
have an income that has been pegged at 1990. That is why it has to be 
inflation proof.
  So we, the democratic women of the Senate, will not support any 
reform that takes us backward, instead of forward. We will use a 
checklist we developed to ensure that bad things do not happen to women 
and families in the name of improvements to Social Security. To have 
our support, any changes to Social Security must be able to answer 
these questions:
  Does the plan preserve Social Security's guaranteed, lifetime, 
inflation-protected benefits?
  Does the plan preserve Social Security's protections for workers when 
they are disabled, as well as when they retire, and for workers' 
spouses and children when workers are disabled, retire, or die?
  Does the plan protect against impoverishment of women by maintaining 
Social Security's progressive benefit structure?
  Does the plan strengthen the financing of the Social Security system 
while ensuring that women and other economically disadvantaged groups 
are protected to the greatest degree possible?
  These principles are the promises of Social Security we will fight to 
protect. We must keep the ``security'' in Social Security. It must be a 
guaranteed benefit, not a guaranteed gamble.
  Now let me talk about why these principles are so important and why 
privatization will specifically hurt women. This checklist is important 
because Social Security is the primary, or only, income for retired 
women, disabled workers and their families, working families in 
retirement who usually do not have access to a pension or other 
retirement and spouses of retired workers.
  First, we need to preserve Social Security's, guaranteed, lifetime, 
inflation-proof benefits. The plan must be a guarantee. Today you know 
what your benefits are. You know what you can count on. It is 
guaranteed. We do not have to worry if the stock market is doing well. 
We do not have to worry if we invested wisely. We do not have to worry 
if our husbands planned well. We do not have to worry if we suddenly 
become disabled that we will also suddenly be poor. The benefit is 
there for us. It must be a guarantee. The plan must last for our whole 
lifetime.
  People are terrified that they will outlive their savings. Any 
proposed plan must guarantee you cannot outlive your Social Security 
benefit. You can outlive your IRA. You can outlive your savings. But we 
must guarantee that you will never be able to outlive your Social 
Security. This is especially important for women. Women live longer 
than men. But you must never, ever be able to outlive your Social 
Security. You must know what your benefit is. It must keep pace with 
inflation. The plan must be inflation-proof.
  Today Social Security also does not penalize you for living longer. 
Women live longer than men. Women need a plan with adequate cost-of-
living increases. $800 a month in 2005 will not buy the same things in 
2015.
  Think about it: How does rent today compared to 10 years ago, and 
what will it be in 2005, 2025? We must have a guaranteed plan that 
protects against inflation.
  Second, we need to preserve Social Security's protections for workers 
when they are disabled as well as when they retire, and for workers' 
spouses and children when workers are disabled, retire, or die.
  Social Security guarantees that if you suddenly become disabled you 
will not also be suddenly poor. If a woman's husband dies, Social 
Security guarantees that there will be an income for her. If your 
spouse suddenly dies, Social Security guarantees that your children 
will be provided for.
  Three million children in this country receive Social Security 
benefits because their parent was disabled or killed; 52,000 in my 
State of Maryland alone. We must be able to depend on these benefits. 
Honor your mother and father.
  It is a great commandment to live by--and it is a great commandment 
to govern by not only as a commandment, but in the federal law books. 
Make sure it is in the federal checkbooks. Now, this is family values.
  Third, we need to protect against impoverishment of women by 
maintaining Social Security's progressive benefit structure.
  Social Security rewards work and recognizes that all work has value. 
Someone may work for minimum wage but make maximum effort. Social 
Security provides a minimum floor of protection to keep seniors out of 
destitution. Social Security has a progressive benefit structure. That 
means it protects women who work part-time to be a full-time mom. It 
protects stay-at-home moms who do not earn wages, though what they do 
is priceless. It protects women who work at minimum wage.
  Social Security, with its progressive benefit structure, guarantees 
there will be enough benefit to live on, even though you may not have 
earned much while working. Though you may struggle to make ends meet 
now, the program will make sure you receive a benefit you can live on. 
Social Security makes sure you won't be poor.
  Fourth, we need to strengthen the financing of the Social Security 
system while ensuring that women and other economically disadvantaged 
groups are protected to the greatest degree possible.
  For many elderly women, Social Security is not a supplement to their 
income, it is their income. Compared to men, most women do not receive 
employer-provided pensions. One-third of women must rely solely on what 
they receive from Social Security. When you are old and when you are 
sick, there are not many things you can count on, but you should be 
able to count on Social Security.
  Social Security is more than a safety net. It is a life boat. We need 
to make sure more senior women and all low-income workers get the 
benefit of the safety net, and share the life boat. To the people of 
Maryland, I am on your side. For today and tomorrow, I am going to 
fight for you to have a benefit that you can count on. In my state, 
732,000 people receive Social Security

[[Page 1463]]

benefits, including nearly 400,000 women. They all need a guaranteed 
benefit, not a guaranteed gamble.
  Without Social Security, almost half of elderly women in Maryland 
would be poor. Honor your mother and father? We need to protect them 
and the whole family. We often forget how Social Security protects 
children. There are 52,000 children in Maryland who depend on Social 
Security. That means that something happened to one of their parents. 
They either died or became disabled. We must keep our promise to 
protect our children. We cannot gamble their future. Now this is a 
family value. What will privatization cost Americans?
  Another big issue for our children is the debt that privatization 
will create, not just for us, but our children, our grandchildren, and 
their children.
  The transition to a private account system will cost trillions of 
dollars--yes, trillions of dollars--trillions of dollars that we will 
have to borrow from another country.
  This will cause higher interest rates for our mortgages, our credit 
cards, our cars, our student loans.
  Privatization will squeeze our federal budget even tighter. It will 
lead to higher taxes on everyone, and cuts in the funding for essential 
Federal programs besides Social Security, such as Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  This will be bad for the economy, bad for family budgets, and bad for 
future generations. This is not the legacy we want to leave to our 
children and grandchildren. Why must we prevent privatization?
  Now let me repeat why privatization is bad for America. Privatization 
will replace the security of a guaranteed check for a guaranteed 
gamble. Privatization will eliminate the dependability and 
predictability of seniors income. Privatization will not be inflation 
protected so year after year seniors incomes will go down. 
Privatization will eliminate guaranteed survivor benefits for widows.
  Our seniors would have to give all this up for the hope that every 
single one of them will successfully invest in the stock market. We 
know how unpredictable and brutal the stock market can be. We cannot 
place the security of our senior citizens in the private market. They 
deserve better. They have been promised more. I am here to say we are 
going to live up to those promises.
  We are not going to go back to a time when elderly poverty was 
commonplace and accepted. We need to strengthen Social Security and 
improve it. How? By not playing politics, by not being ideological, by 
working together, by being bipartisan, and doing what is right for 
America. I am prepared to do that. Democrats are prepared to do that.
  We did it last time Social Security faced problems. I worked with 
President Reagan on Social Security. He created a climate of civility 
and respect. We all worked together, across the aisle stabilized the 
Social Security program.
  We need to make some changes in the Social Security program, but only 
modest changes to strengthen the program, not gut it, not gambling with 
our seniors.
  President Bush should follow the Reagan Social Security model, seek 
responsible changes to Social Security, work with Democrats, do what is 
right for our seniors, and do what is right for America.
  I will join him.
  I know the Democrats will, too.
  There are colleagues on the floor and I want to yield so they have 
the time to talk. There are many more things on which I am going to 
elaborate, such as how this privatization will increase debt, how it 
will cause rising interest rates, how this foolhardy plan is based on a 
model that we are taking from the Government of Chile. I respect the 
people of Latin America, but their pension program has gone bust. This 
is not what the United States of America should be.
  So when I cast my vote, I want to vote for the stability of a social 
contract that has a guaranteed lifetime benefit. I will not vote for 
something that is a gamble and then puts us in the wheel of misfortune. 
I am deeply concerned that if we pursue some of the recommendations 
that are being made, we will have lower benefits, we will have rising 
interest rates, and we will have instability in both the market, in 
pensions, and in Social Security.
  What is the wheel of misfortune we could end up with? People could 
end up outliving their savings. They could end up disabled and broke. 
Social Security could lead to poverty rather than a minimum floor. It 
could be that there has been a market crash and people could never 
retire and while that is going on interest rates go sky high.
  I remember a time in the late 1970s and early 1980s when one could 
not get a mortgage for less than 15 percent. If one got a home equity 
loan at 10 percent, they thought they had died and gone to heaven. Car 
insurance was at 22 percent. Credit cards were at 24 percent. We do not 
want to ever go there.
  I worked with Ronald Reagan to stabilize Social Security in 1983. I 
want to work with George Bush in 2005. But I will vote for a guaranteed 
benefit, not a guaranteed gamble. And I would never want to have Social 
Security just turn to the wheel of misfortune.
  I note that my colleagues are in the Chamber, and I now yield 10 
minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very proud to join the senior 
Democratic Senator from Maryland, along with all of my Democratic women 
colleagues, to declare that we are going to fight to make sure we have 
a guaranteed benefit to keep the security in Social Security.
  A few short years ago, just after the 1932 stock market crash and the 
onset of the Great Depression, one of our Nation's greatest leaders, 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, set out to create a program to provide peace 
of mind and a sense of security to America's retirees. During his 
crusade to create that program, FDR said there is no tragedy in growing 
old, but there is tragedy in growing old without means of support.
  The program that he created to this day is the single greatest social 
insurance program in our Nation's history. Social Security has been a 
resounding success by keeping millions of people out of poverty in this 
country. We are here today to remind this country that women in 
particular benefit from the guaranteed benefit that is in Social 
Security, and we are going to fight to make sure it remains there for 
the women who follow us.
  Months before the new program was enacted, back in the early 1930s, 
FDR laid out his vision of how important this program was and how it 
should be implemented. He said:

       We can never ensure 100 percent of the population against 
     100 percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we 
     have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of 
     protection to the average citizen, and to his family against 
     the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. This 
     law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is 
     being built, but is by no means complete . . . It is . . . a 
     law that will take care of human needs and at the same time 
     provides for the United States an economic structure of 
     vastly greater soundness.

  Those were the words of FDR in 1935. But today, this cornerstone, 
this basic American value, is now under attack. We are here today to 
say we are fighting back. President Bush is currently traveling the 
country, saying Social Security is in crisis and needs to be radically 
restructured. I rise today to reaffirm the values and the spirit FDR 
laid out 70 years ago. Social Security has pulled seniors from poverty 
and put millions of retirees' minds at ease. America's insurance 
program is a guaranteed benefit all Americans can count on. It is a 
promise that, if you work hard, you will have some security when you 
retire or if you become disabled. It is a promise our seniors will not 
live in poverty. It is a promise if your spouse passes on, you will 
continue to have the support and the security you need.
  Of course, this program is more than just security. It is about 
community. That is a value we as women share--community. In America, we 
believe it is important to take care of the generation that came 
before. It is important to guarantee them a quality of life. It is 
important that we guarantee

[[Page 1464]]

benefits after a lifetime of hard work. I am concerned that President 
Bush's so-called restructuring will imperil the security of all 
Americans, from young workers who are going to retire decades from now 
to seniors who are retiring today.
  The problem with this plan is it is not a guaranteed benefit. It does 
nothing to fix the long-term issues this system does face. It adds 
trillions of dollars to our national debt at a time we cannot do that 
any longer, and it is dangerous. We cannot and we will not let 
President Bush tear apart our Social Security system.
  While some are trying to enrich Wall Street or push an ideology of 
market experience on our senior citizens, our priority in this 
discussion should be to ensure we are doing right by those who are 
relying on Social Security, from current workers to retirees, from the 
disabled to widows.
  Current and future retirees need someone to stand up for them. If I 
see something that is going to hurt our workers, our families, our 
seniors, and women in particular, I want the Senate to know I am going 
to fight, along with my women colleagues, with everything I have.
  Any discussion about Social Security that we have has to meet 
criteria if it means to be productive. You can call it a test. Any 
proposal we discuss must pass this test if it wants to move from this 
body.
  First of all, we have to ensure Social Security has a guaranteed 
benefit. Second, we need to make sure Social Security protects workers 
when they become disabled. Next, we must protect against benefit 
reductions for women, minorities, and others. And we have to protect 
our budget from growing deficits. Anything short of this would be an 
unnecessary, dangerous gamble, as the Senator from Maryland has pointed 
out, unworthy of an important insurance program.
  While we are at the beginning of this discussion in this body, my 
female colleagues in this body have worked for years to ensure some 
basic principles to follow as we move forward. The promise of Social 
Security is especially important to women because women face unique 
challenges in retirement. Women make less money than men throughout 
their lifetimes. Women leave the workforce to raise their families and 
stay home, something we should value in this country. Women live longer 
and women are more likely to suffer from chronic health conditions.
  Even with those special challenges, today Social Security keeps 
millions of older women out of poverty. Its benefit formulas are today 
tilted to give a greater rate of return for lower wage workers such as 
women and minorities. If the President succeeds in privatizing Social 
Security, he will destroy the guaranteed benefit that low-wage earners 
need in their retirement years.
  Social Security is not just a retirement program; it is also a 
program that protects disabled workers and protects their families. 
That is a value we women want to make sure we protect. If Social 
Security is privatized, what happens to a worker who is disabled and 
cannot contribute to her account? Today, under Social Security that 
worker is protected. But there is no guarantee under the Bush plan. 
President Bush could undo the progressive structure that older women in 
this country depend on today, and they should be able to depend on it 
tomorrow. This is one reform that could have disastrous results and we 
will not stand for it.
  Under this administration, many things we take for granted--from 
overtime pay, to community police, to safe drinking water--have been 
threatened. Now President Bush wants to dismantle Social Security. I am 
here with the women, the Democratic women of the Senate, to say some 
things are too important to American families. Providing real security 
to all Americans is a basic value worth protecting. We will make sure 
President Bush does not gamble that security and break the promise 
Social Security keeps for millions of women and their families.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Maryland.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Washington State for her 
eloquent statement and her passion. I would now like to yield 10 
minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Mikulski for 
taking the lead in organizing the Democratic women. We don't always 
agree on every issue, but here is one that has united us. I think what 
is interesting about the Democratic women is we are very different. We 
are very different ages. We range from the 40s to the 70s. We go from 
the west coast to the east coast, and places in between--the north and 
the south. When we can come together like this--knowing that some of us 
are progressive, some of us are more conservative--in a whole group and 
say we are going to protect Social Security, we hope it sends a very 
powerful message to the people of this country, particularly the women 
of this country and to their families, that we are going to be there 
for you. That is what this is all about.
  Whose side are we on, anyway? I think in the battle over Social 
Security the sides are becoming very clear. You are either on the side 
of the families, of our people, young and older, or, frankly, if you 
follow money you are on the side of Wall Street because Wall Street is 
going to get billions of dollars if George Bush is successful, and it 
will come straight out of the pockets of working families.
  I used to be a stockbroker so I have absolutely nothing against 
stockbrokers and I loved working on Wall Street. But I can tell you, 
and I am sure you know it is true, that markets go up and markets go 
down. I have seen elation and I have seen devastation. One thing I 
never saw was a sense of security that the stock market was going to be 
there necessarily when you need it to be there.
  This year is Social Security's 70th birthday. It has been enormously 
successful. Before Social Security, over half of all seniors were poor. 
Today, 10 percent live in poverty. That is too much and we want to take 
care of that. What we do not want to do is go back to the days when 50 
percent were living in poverty. So we, the Democratic women, are going 
to use every tool at our disposal to make sure the people of this 
country do not wind up in poverty.
  Certainly we know Social Security needs adjustments, as your own 
family budget needs adjustments. We did a major adjustment in 1983. I 
was over in the House side. Senator Mikulski was over in the House 
side. With Ronald Reagan as President, we all got together, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, and we strengthened Social Security. Under Bill 
Clinton, we made some efforts to strengthen it again. The fact is, we 
have to strengthen Social Security, not destroy it. The fact is, Social 
Security is not a handout, it is a promise we make to working men and 
women in this country: You pay into the system, it is insurance, and it 
will be there for you in your retirement years.
  Basically, when the folks on Social Security look at me and say, Will 
you fight for my Social Security? do you know what I tell them? You 
earned it, and of course I will make sure it is never taken away from 
you.
  Unfortunately, President Bush's solution is to dismantle Social 
Security. He can call it anything he wants. He can say he is not going 
to change it for those already on it. But what about those who are not 
already on it? Don't they have a right to have this insurance program, 
which has been there for so many years?
  I will show you what the LA Times wrote. This is not a new issue for 
George W. Bush. He has been at it for a long time:

       Even as a young man, Bush was sympathetic to revamping the 
     program. When he ran for Congress in 1978 he argued that the 
     program would go broke by 1988 if people were not given the 
     ability to invest money themselves.

  So here you have the candidate George Bush, way back in 1978, calling

[[Page 1465]]

for privatizing Social Security. He said it would go broke in 1988.
  That is what he said. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. We have 
to call it the way we see it. He underestimated the bipartisan will of 
Congress and President Reagan to keep Social Security for current and 
future generations. Instead of seeking to follow the path of Ronald 
Reagan, who was supposed to be one of his heroes, he is seeking a path 
that was plotted over 20 years ago to destroy Social Security. In the 
course of this debate--not today, at other times--I will share with my 
colleagues the roadmap that was laid down in the 1980s, a plan to 
destroy Social Security. George Bush was right there in 1978.
  So he is misleading the American people by calling Social Security a 
crisis. According to the Social Security trustees, there is enough 
money to pay full benefits until 2042. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, there is enough money to pay full benefits until 2052. 
So, yes, we need to make adjustments so we can keep this program 
secure, but we do not have to destroy it.
  While President Bush is traveling around the country on Air Force 
One, telling people there is a crisis in Social Security--this is what 
is amazing--he is giving lip service to the real crises that are right 
here, right now, under his own nose and on his own watch. What about 
the crisis of the budget deficit? It is well over $400 billion, that 
deficit. You want to talk about bankrupt? In my family, if you are 
spending that much more than you are taking in, you are bankrupt. Let's 
call it what it is.
  What about the crisis of the trade deficit, and the plummeting of the 
dollar? What about the crisis of the IOU that is given to our kids and 
grandchildren the day they are born? As Senator Reid has said, there is 
a birth tax on every child today--$36,000 worth of debt. We know the 
President is going to have to borrow trillions for his plan.
  What about the crisis of 40 million Americans without health 
insurance? What about the crisis of millions of Americans, including 10 
million children, who live within 5 miles of a toxic waste dump that is 
wreaking havoc on their health? What about the crisis of being 
unprepared for a domestic terrorist attack because we have not invested 
enough in rail security, port security, chemical plant security, 
aviation security, nuclear plant security? What about the crisis in 
afterschool programs, where hundreds of thousands of kids are left out 
because the President has frozen funding for 3 consecutive years?
  I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. The President's solution to Social Security is to borrow, 
borrow, borrow, throwing us deeper into debt. I will tell you, this is 
not going to happen under our watch.
  I will show you one more chart very quickly.
  The plan the President has talked about a lot results in benefit cuts 
of 45 percent. The average yearly payment for a widow would only be 
$5,700. Who can live on that? Certainly not those of us here or those 
in the White House. Widows would be 35-percent below the poverty line 
if the President's plan goes into effect.
  We think Social Security Plus is a place we can start. Keep Social 
Security and strengthen it, as Ronald Reagan did. We can work together 
to do that for our young people. I think we can solve this problem and 
keep one of the greatest programs ever known in the history of our 
country.
  I thank the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
her longstanding commitment in standing up for what is right in this 
country, for her eloquent statement on why we need to preserve Social 
Security, and for outlining what is the real crisis in our country.
  We are going to continue our debate with the other Democratic women.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 34\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan is in the 
Chamber, a sister social worker, and actually a person who is licensed 
to be a do-gooder in our country. She is one who stood up for seniors 
and who spoke with such passion on the need for prescription drugs. I 
now yield 10 minutes to her to speak on Social Security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the dean of our women in the 
Senate, the woman who was first and blazed the way for all of us, the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland. I thank her so much for her 
leadership on this and other issues.
  Our dean has said so many times, honor thy father and thy mother. 
They are not just important words in the Bible, but they are important 
words to live by. This debate about Social Security certainly reflects 
our values in honoring our fathers and our mothers. So I thank her for 
that.
  I rise with my colleagues to speak today about the greatest American 
success story of our time, Social Security. Prior to Social Security, 
50 percent of our retirees lived in poverty. Today, it is 10 percent. 
If that is not a great American success story, I don't know what is.
  We are here unified to say that we want to keep that success story by 
keeping the ``security'' in Social Security. That is what this is 
about. We join in advocating for additional ways for people to save. I 
know my 20-something-year-old children are tired of hearing from me 
about the fact that they need to be putting dollars aside for the 
future and not just rely on Social Security.
  There are ways we can come together. I was, frankly, disappointed 
last evening that we did not hear more from the President about ways we 
can come together to be able to develop those opportunities for 
everyone to create wealth and retirement security. But we don't do that 
by undermining the ``security'' of Social Security. Social Security 
represents the best of who we are, the best in American values. Our 
belief is that if you work hard and you play by the rules, you earn 
retirement security. We pay into that, all of us together pay into this 
insurance policy called Social Security. We deserve a basic quality of 
life and dignity in older years. Everyone does. And that comes from a 
joint community effort called Social Security, into which we all pay.
  I think it is also important to look at the fact that Social Security 
is not just about tomorrow. It is an insurance policy, whether you are 
a 25-year-old like my daughter who is starting a career or you are a 
78-year-old like my mother, whom I can barely keep up with, and who is 
in her retirement years. The fact is, Social Security is there for both 
of them. Heaven forbid that something were to happen to one of my 
children and they become permanently disabled. But Social Security 
would be there as a disability policy. When they have children, if 
something were to happen and they would no longer be able to care for 
their children, Social Security steps in as a life insurance policy.
  Think about it. This great American success story is a retirement 
policy, a life insurance policy, and a disability policy. We all do 
this together. That is what the ``I'' in FICA means. It is an insurance 
system.
  We want to build upon that just as Federal employees are able to 
build upon that with thrift savings, and there are others, such as 
401(k)s, and so on.
  By the way, that is on top of Social Security--not in the place of 
Social Security.
  But we stand here today, particularly because we know this insurance 
plan is of particular importance to women in the country. In fact, 60 
percent of all Social Security recipients are women; 1 in 10 adult 
women receive Social Security disability benefits. As we get older, 
since we tend to live longer--I think once you get over age 85, you in 
fact see that the vast majority of people on Social Security are women. 
This is a fundamental women's issue of economic security.

[[Page 1466]]

  We stand here unified to say we will fight to keep the ``security'' 
in Social Security for every woman and their families.
  In my home State of Michigan, many Social Security recipients, of 
course, are retired. We also have 64,000 people who receive benefits 
either as a widow or widower, a spouse or child of a retired worker or 
disabled worker. Again, the majority of those are women and children.
  We know that strengthening Social Security will require a lot of hard 
choices. We stand ready to join with colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle and the President to do that. But first we have to get this 
notion of privatizing Social Security and undermining it, unraveling 
it, off the table.
  I suggest one approach for us to look at. This is something I feel 
very strongly about because we make decisions every day on values and 
priorities. Just like all of us do, we open our checkbook and we pay 
the bills and write checks. That reflects our values and priorities.
  Right now, when we look at the overall Federal revenue in the budget, 
as I do as a member of the Budget Committee, we have to reflect and 
look at what we are really saying about our values and priorities for 
the future.
  Consider the fact that keeping Social Security secure for 75 years 
requires only one-third--about 33 percent--of the costs of the tax plan 
enacted by the Congress and President Bush for the wealthiest 
Americans. Think about that.
  In other words, if we were to ask those who are most blessed in this 
country through hard work, through inheritance, through other means, 
those who are most blessed with retirement security, if we asked them 
to keep 70 percent of that instead of 100 percent--70 percent is huge. 
It is billions of dollars in tax cuts. But if they kept only 70 percent 
of that over the next 75 years, you could keep the ``security'' of 
Social Security for 75 years.
  To me, that makes sense. If we are really about making decisions and 
investments for all Americans, it certainly makes sense. And it 
certainly makes more sense than privatizing Social Security.
  Here is why. Privatization will cut benefits by one-third to one-
half, even for working women who choose not to risk their money in 
privatized accounts.
  This is important. We are not just talking about cutting benefits for 
those who choose to privatize accounts but for those who do not choose 
to go this direction. The average retiree would lose more than $152,000 
in benefits over the course of a 20-year retirement--$152,000 in 
benefits over 20 years.
  An insurance policy was never meant to be a high-risk investment. We 
encourage people, on top of Social Security, to make investments. But 
this was meant to be the foundation for retirement.
  I wonder where women would be without the ``security'' in Social 
Security today.
  Beyond the deep benefit cuts and added risks, privatization would add 
$2 trillion in debt over 10 years. That is almost a 50-percent increase 
of the debt we have now, which is the largest in the history of the 
country. It is unbelievable. Unfortunately, much of that would be 
borrowed from countries such as China and Japan. That raises a whole 
range of issues economically in terms of our national security.
  I think most women would agree that we don't want to pass the debt on 
to our children and grandchildren, forcing them to bear the burden of 
ever more debt and higher taxes.
  I stand here today with by colleagues to say we will fight to keep 
Social Security secure, and then we will join in those efforts to both 
strengthen Social Security in the long run but also to create other 
opportunities for people to be able to save, people to be able to 
create wealth, to be able to have retirement security. If we take 
privatization off the table, which we know doesn't solve any of the 
problems of Social Security--it only creates more risk and 
uncertainty--we can then work together to get something done.
  That is what people expect us to do. That is what we are here today 
to pledge to do. The women in this country, every one of our daughters 
and our granddaughters, and our mothers and our aunts, and all of those 
girls yet to come, as well as their brothers, deserve a secure 
retirement. They deserve that under Social Security. They earned that. 
They pay into it, and they are counting on it.
  We are going to stand ready to make sure Social Security remains 
secure.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there are other Democratic women who 
wish to speak. They are sprinting from the prayer breakfast. I notice 
that the senior Senator from Arkansas is here, Mrs. Blanche Lincoln. I 
will be yielding her time.
  I want to note for those observing the proceedings that Senator 
Lincoln is a member of the Finance Committee. She is the only 
Democratic woman on the Finance Committee. We look to her to champion 
our position, and at the same time we recognize her longstanding 
commitment to the people of Arkansas--especially those people who work 
in those rice mills, end up with a bad back, varicose veins, dirt under 
their fingernails--and their Social Security.
  I yield 10 minutes for her to tell us about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. I especially thank my 
colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who has just been a 
tremendous mentor to me and so many others with her great leadership. I 
very much appreciate all of the female Senators who are here to join 
with us today--to join our voices and make sure that as we begin this 
discussion on Social Security, which is such a vital program for not 
just the elderly of our Nation but the disabled, as well as the 
survivors, that we do it with thoughtfulness, that we do it in 
reflection of the people we represent, not only their hardships but, 
more importantly, the dedication they have given to raising the 
families of this great Nation, and providing the kind of unconditional 
love and support that makes up the fabric of this great country.
  We are proud to be here on the floor of the Senate. I am proud to 
rise today to speak about the enduring commitment that the American 
people have made to themselves and to future generations through the 
Social Security Program.
  We find oftentimes that people like to grumble and gripe about 
government. And we know that government can at times be a little bit 
rusty, that it is sometimes awfully large. We find that it in many ways 
may not be a one-size-fits-all, but there is one thing for sure, we 
know what this country has done right. That is Social Security. It is a 
program that we can all be proud of and which has allowed us as a 
nation to espouse the values that are at the core of our being.
  I have heard my colleague from Maryland say all the time, honor thy 
father and thy mother.
  Here we have designed a program in years past to allow us to espouse 
those values that are so important to us; that is, to care not only for 
our seniors, our mothers, fathers, grandfathers, and grandmothers but 
also those who might be less fortunate; those who are in dire need of 
us being able to wrap ourselves around them and provide them the kind 
of quality of life that we as Americans are proud of--the disabled, the 
survivors. This is one program we got right. Government got it right.
  Has our Nation changed over the last 70 years? Absolutely. And we 
have an opportunity in a very thoughtful way to look at how we can 
build upon this program to make sure it meets the demands of today and 
tomorrow.
  Almost 70 years ago, the Social Security Act was signed into law. 
This law did embody the will of the American people to make sure those 
who are near and dear to us--the elderly, the sick, the widowed, the 
orphaned--would not lapse into poverty or deprivation on our watch. 
That is our charge again today. We are up to the job if we are willing 
to work together and remind ourselves what our purpose is.

[[Page 1467]]

  We are now faced with long-term challenges to this very successful 
program in part because our Nation is growing older. Folks are living 
longer. My husband's precious grandmother, who turned 107 last year, 
sat in front of me in church on Sunday, a remarkable woman with an 
unbelievable quality of life. She does the crossword puzzle every 
morning, plays bridge 4 days a week, and I make sure she has a good 
balanced diet of fruits and vegetables. She is remarkable. There are 
many more centenarians in this country living healthy lives. They need 
assurance they will not have to live in poverty.
  How we deal with these challenges will affect millions of Americans 
for generations. It is not just those in the present day, the working 
individuals of today and the children of today who will be the adults 
of tomorrow, but it is just as important to me as a young mother of 
small children that the elderly in my community--my mother, my mother-
in-law and father-in-law--have the advantage of this program to provide 
them the assistance they were promised.
  I grew up in a small community within walking distance of both sets 
of my grandparents. It was easier for us then in those circumstances to 
go over and care for them, to be able to be a part of their lives. Our 
worlds are not like that anymore. How many live far distances from our 
parents or our children? How difficult is it to care for them?
  This is a program that ensures, whether you live next door or you 
live 10 States away, that your parents, the elderly of that community, 
will have what they need.
  I am certainly proud, again, that it is not just the elderly we take 
care of but the survivors as well as those who are disabled. A young 
woman on my staff mentioned to me the other day her father died the 
year she was born and she received those benefits, which was the vision 
of this Nation and its values, wrapping its arms around her mother and 
those children to say: Your Nation will be there for you to help you 
care for these precious children.
  Today I will take a few moments to speak on behalf of the millions of 
women who never made much money during their working lives perhaps, who 
now depend heavily on their Social Security benefits and could be 
especially hurt by privatization.
  In my home State of Arkansas, more than 272,000 women rely on Social 
Security benefits. Without Social Security, virtually two-thirds of the 
elderly women in Arkansas would be forced to live in poverty. Many of 
those women use Social Security as their only source of income.
  I can remember going to the store with my mother and being a bargain 
shopper. I find myself as a young mother doing the same thing. But it 
would break my heart to think that my mother had to choose between 
food, utilities, or pharmaceuticals. Many women find themselves in that 
position even today. If we privatize Social Security, that will 
explode. Many of these women do not have trust funds or stocks or bonds 
to rely on. Their money was spent in different ways. They did not have 
a lot of expendable money to put into savings accounts. It was used to 
feed their children, to place a roof over their heads, to educate them, 
to send them out into the world with hope for a brighter future. They 
spent their time, their money, their energy, and their soul in creating 
the lifeblood of this Nation. They also may have spent down their 
resources to care for a spouse or perhaps a disabled child. These women 
went to work, and they played by the rules. They baked cookies for the 
Cub Scout meetings, they paid their taxes on time, they supported their 
husbands, and they supported their families. And when they became 
eligible to receive their benefits, Social Security was there for them.
  I have heard the rhetoric that those who are close to or in 
retirement will still receive their full benefit under privatization. 
What we never hear, however, is that under privatization proposals, 
younger workers will have their benefits cut significantly. When we 
talk about privatization and allowing the diversion of payroll taxes 
into private accounts, we have been told by the Congressional Budget 
Office and actuaries that there is no way we can do that without 
cutting benefits, increasing taxes, or creating an enormous debt. We 
know that when we borrow dollars and we create debt, we are increasing 
taxes on someone. It will be the children down the road who have to pay 
that debt.
  We have to take seriously the consequences of the decisions we make 
on this program. Each Member in this body knows our decisions are based 
on our values and our priorities. But those decisions have real and 
substantive consequences, and we must remember that every stretch of 
this debate and understand what those consequences could be. It is not 
acceptable to tell retired women that we will support you in your 
golden years, but your daughter and your granddaughter are on their 
own. We will privatize this system, and we do not know what will 
happen, so your daughters and granddaughters will be on their own.
  Seventy years ago, the American people made a promise to protect 
future generations of Americans from poverty, and for 70 years the 
American people have kept their word. We are going to do no less. That 
promise has allowed hundreds of thousands of low-income elderly women 
in Arkansas to live lives of dignity. That is what we are here to 
ensure.
  Many women in Arkansas who receive those Social Security benefits 
live in rural areas. The money they receive is used to buy groceries, 
to have lunch at the local diner, or to pay their light bills. It might 
sound like a small amount to some, but Social Security benefits brought 
almost $5 billion of revenue to small towns in Arkansas. If we cut back 
those benefits, remember what it is going to do to Arkansas and other 
rural States where there is a disproportionate share of elderly low 
income who are spending every nickel of that Social Security check to 
make sure they can keep body, soul and mind together. It is a 
tremendous amount of revenue to our States, and they are heavily 
indebted to those citizens who participate.
  Addressing only a couple of issues here is going to be our downfall. 
We have to focus on everything. We need to make sure we solve Social 
Security and shore it up for future generations and current 
beneficiaries, but we cannot fail to see this is a dual path and we 
have to provide the incentives for personal savings. We must continue 
to work to make sure that beneficiaries continue to receive 100 percent 
of the benefits they are due and that future generations are assured 
that the program will be able to provide the economic security and 
insurance for them and for their grandchildren. The promise of Social 
Security should be as good as the promise of a better life that a 
mother gives to her child.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes and 50 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We note that Senators Clinton and Feinstein are on 
their way. We now note that we have two wonderful women representing 
Washington State.
  We now turn to the junior Senator, Ms. Cantwell, and I yield her 7 
minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her recognition 
and hard work on this issue. I thank her for the recognition of the 
fact that we have two women Senators from Washington State. We achieved 
a milestone this past November when we elected a woman Governor, making 
us the first State in the Union to have two women Senators and a woman 
Governor. We are going to speak loudly about the issues impacting 
women.
  I come to the Senate floor to join my women colleagues. I could, I am 
sure, expound on a lot of comments that have been made in the last 
several weeks that have gotten some notoriety: the fact that somehow 
women may be genetically different than men and not be able to excel in 
math and science or the comment that a colleague made about the fact 
that now we may be getting closer to pay equity in the future.

[[Page 1468]]

  The bottom line of this debate on Social Security reform has to be 
that women are impacted with greater significance because of their 
longevity in life and because of the shortfall in pay equity that still 
exists in this country. Where does that leave American women when it 
comes to Social Security reform?
  I could talk a lot about whether the private accounts are great 
foundations for this country. I have some grave concerns about them. I 
also believe at this point in time taking money from the deficit, 
basically adding to our deficit and paying into what are to be these 
private accounts may not be in the best interests of the American 
people.
  The point I make this morning is that we are at a time in which women 
are still getting the short end of the stick in this country. If we 
want to think about anything in the Social Security reform debate, why 
don't we think about the way Social Security and cost-of-living 
adjustments are calculated. Social Security and cost-of-living 
adjustments do not take into consideration that seniors, older women, 
are living longer and actually have a greater percentage of their 
incomes go toward particular goods and services to a larger degree than 
young people's incomes do. Try buying prescription drugs, try balancing 
things in retirement and living off of the benefits.
  Women are particularly challenged, but older women, being the most 
impacted by Social Security, will continue to have this challenge for 
decades to come. So the benefit structure of Social Security is very 
important. The current pace of change that is happening in the way our 
economy is transitioning has not necessarily impacted that. In 1963, 
women earned 59 cents to every $1 men earned. It is true women now earn 
considerably more than they did in the 1960s and 1970s, but in spite of 
the steady growth of earnings, the pay gap between men and women has 
basically been stalled for the past two decades, averaging slightly 
under 20 percent less than men.
  The Senate may be a very unique institution in that it is the only 
place where you actually have a guarantee of pay equity between men and 
women. Yet in 2003 women actually saw their earnings decline for the 
first time since 1995. That means real median earnings of men who 
worked full time year round remained unchanged in 2002 at roughly over 
$40,000, and real median earnings of women with similar work experience 
actually decreased 0.6-percent to about $30,000. As a result, women 
still only make 76 cents for every $1 that is now earned by men. That 
is down from what it was in 2000 at 77 cents. We are going in the wrong 
direction. And now someone wants to suggest that we tinker with Social 
Security benefits. Think of my mother and the support she had as a 
woman getting Social Security also from her husband and his Social 
Security, not having worked, or women who have not worked all their 
lives in the work place and, instead, being full-time mothers. Now we 
will say we will calculate Social Security on your earnings. Great. 
Well, let's have pay equity for women so it is calculated on an equal 
footing. We are living longer, we are earning less, and the President's 
proposal will impact us the most. Related to the pay equity statistics 
I just mentioned, for women's families, this means $24 less a month 
than men to spend on groceries, child care, and other expenses. In 
fact, the Institution of Women's Research did an estimate that families 
in America lose over $200 billion of income per year in this wage gap 
because of unequal pay that women's families lose, an average of $4,000 
annually.
  I am asking my colleagues, at a time when we are talking about how to 
secure the future, how are we going to secure that future for women who 
are living longer, in retirement, who have this inequity in the system? 
That is why I am going to introduce a bill later today basically 
suggesting that we change the cost-of-living index to specifically 
reflect the current costs that women are experiencing--women and men, 
alike--in retirement age.
  But I think what we need to do now is look at this legislation that 
is before the Senate and say to ourselves, How is it fair to have the 
inequity with women when we are not doing anything to close the wage 
gap? It is actually going in the wrong direction. That includes making 
sure women in retirement, in the retirement structure of Social 
Security that we talk about and consider before this body, actually 
reflect the reality that is happening in America today.
  I have talked to many of my constituents about this issue. I am sure 
we are going to talk to many more over the next several months. One of 
my constituents, a woman I happened to meet in a local convenience 
store, said to me: The thing I want is my Social Security money. They 
have paid into the system. They want something for it.
  Frankly, they think when we take Social Security and use it off-
budget, to basically say this is how we are covering our huge deficit, 
that is basically taking from Social Security and not protecting it. 
What they want to know is, Why don't we get a better return on our 
investment? Why don't we take, just like a retirement account that she 
or her husband gets, or a State pension program that gets a higher 
return, and, basically, take the money that is paid into Social 
Security and get a higher return on it as well? Yes, and I would say 
some of my constituents probably think they themselves could do a good 
job at making private investments. But they do not necessarily think 
everybody in America will be able to make those decisions at a time in 
which our economy continues to sag, and there are some people who are 
unemployed and not fully benefitting and paying into the system, or, as 
I said earlier about the income-earning disparity between men and 
women.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator has used 7 
minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, if I could ask for 30 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I yield 30 seconds.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator.
  As we go into this debate, the women are going to be loud and clear. 
This plan for Social Security impacts us to a greater degree than our 
male counterparts because of our longevity and because of the disparity 
in wages.
  Let's talk about how we make Social Security better for women and for 
all Americans.

                          ____________________