[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 1941]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            CONSIDERING ALL PLANS FOR SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak tonight about Social 
Security and some of the debate that is going on. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Oregon for putting forth a proposal, because I think it 
is important for Democrats to put forth proposals, because it seems 
like a number of Members of Congress are still in denial that there is 
a problem, and they kind of argue a little bit about nomenclature. They 
might say, well, it is a problem, but it is not a crisis. It is kind of 
like this: if my house is on fire, it is a crisis, but if I have 
termites eating away at the foundation, that is a problem. Either way, 
you have to address it.
  I appreciate President Bush for somewhat following in President 
Clinton's footsteps and saying we have to address this. President 
Clinton actually did say that the Social Security situation was a 
crisis. I do not want to get bogged down in that.
  Here is what we know. In the year 2018, because of so many baby 
boomers retiring, more money will be going out of the system than is 
coming in. Real simple. In the year 2042, everybody seems to be 
agreeing that by then we will have exhausted whatever money is in there 
and, if we want to continue the Social Security program, we have to 
reduce the benefits by 27 percent.
  Now, what the President has said is that if you take that 12.4 
percent and you take 2 percent of it and put it into a personal 
investment account similar to the Thrift Savings Account that most 
Members of Congress have, and I know there are a lot of Democrats, 
probably all the Democrats have it, I know probably all the Republicans 
have it, but if you let people have plans like that, that it would out-
perform their Social Security.
  The President is saying, we do not want to increase taxes, we do not 
want to cut benefits, we certainly do not want to endanger survivor 
benefits or benefits for children. There has been a suggestion by the 
previous speaker that those would be in jeopardy. That is not the case 
at all.
  But here is what my staff was able to get me today on what that 
government, the Thrift Savings Account which so many Members of 
Congress and most members of the Federal employment have. You go in 
there and you select a certain amount of investments. You can choose 
between A, B, C, or D. But in the G fund, for example, the last 10 
years, it has earned on average 6 percent. The C fund, it has earned on 
average over the last 10 years, 11 percent. The F fund, which is a 
fixed income investment, 6.9 percent over the last 10 years. And the S 
fund, which is a relatively newer fund, it has earned about 5.3 percent 
since 2001. There is also a newer ``I'' fund, but it has only been up 
for 2 years.
  Now, how can we as a society say to a 25-year-old just entering the 
workplace that for the next 40 years, you have to work and receive on 
your Social Security benefits about 2 percent, when you could have what 
your Member of Congress has: a fund where you choose anywhere from a 
return of 5 percent to 11 percent, or more. And these are 10-year 
averages, and if you look at the lifetime of the stock market versus 
the lifetime of Social Security return, certainly you would be making 
more money.
  But why is the President doing this? He is doing this because the 
Social Security program was started in 1935. At that time there were 60 
workers to every one retiree. In the 1950s, there were 16 workers to 
every retiree. And today, there are three workers per retiree, and soon 
it will be down to two workers per retiree. And that is why we have to 
take advantage of some of the new products that are out there in the 
financial investment world. A lot of people say, well, why do we change 
this program? Again, we change it because that worker-to-retiree ratio 
has changed so much.
  Now, I have a dad who is 87 years old, a mom who is 80 years old, my 
wife, her parents are both alive. They all get Social Security, and 
they depend on Social Security. What I am reassured by is that for 
them, retirees and near retirees, people aged 55 and up, there is going 
to be no change. For the people who are younger than them, it is a 
voluntary program.
  But when I go on college campuses, as I did last week in St. Mary's, 
Georgia, to Coastal Georgia Community University, I say to them, how 
many of you think Social Security will be there for you, and zero hands 
go up. I say, wait a minute, there are survivor benefits, spouse 
benefits, other options that are out there, other ways to get Social 
Security money and still, they all say, it is not going to be there for 
us.
  We owe it to the next generation to protect and preserve Social 
Security and do something today. Every year that we postpone it, it is 
another $600 billion deeper in the hole. We have to address this.
  I want to close with this, Mr. Speaker. I know I am out of time. I 
know again my friend from Oregon says he has a proposal; we need to 
look at it. We need to look at all of the proposals, Democrats, 
Republicans and Independents, and together we need to come together for 
what is in the best interests of all generations of America.

                          ____________________