[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1955-1962]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHAW. 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 my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has made it clear that the time 
has come for an honest, straightforward, realistic discussion about the 
future of our precious Social Security system. For today's generation 
of senior citizens, the system is strong and fiscally sound, but 
younger workers are concerned about whether Social Security will be 
around for them when they need it.
  The problem is simple. With an aging population and a steadily 
falling ratio of workers to retirees, the system is on a course to 
eventual bankruptcy. Here is the problem, and this is best demonstrated 
on the graph next to me.
  Social Security was designed in 1935 for a different world than the 
one we live in today. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the 
benefits go to current retirees and they come directly from the payroll 
taxes of current workers. When the program was still new in the 1940s, 
there were 41 workers paying in for every retiree drawing benefits. By 
1950, 16 workers paid in for every person drawing out. Today it is 
about three workers for every beneficiary. And by the time our youngest 
workers turn 65, the ratio will be down to two workers for each 
beneficiary.

[[Page 1956]]

  At present, Social Security operates with a substantial cash surplus. 
In just a few years, when the baby boomers retire and begin collecting 
benefits, the surplus will begin to decline. Then, in 2018, that is 
just 13 years away, Social Security will begin paying out more than it 
receives in payroll taxes. From then on the shortfalls will grow larger 
and larger every year until 2042 when the Social Security trustees 
estimate the system will reach fiscal collapse.
  If we look at this chart, we can see we are here in a surplus 
situation, but then we get to 2018 and we start to dip down. We still 
have Treasury bills, and Congress is going to have to find the money to 
pay benefits. That line continues to go down with ever-increasing 
deficits for the next 75 years and beyond.
  I want Members to notice the slope of this line. The further out, the 
more steep it gets, going down. And look at the figure, that is a $26 
trillion deficit in cash flow over the next 75 years. That is 
unacceptable. At that point, with a projected shortfall in trillions of 
dollars, the government will have no option other than to suddenly and 
dramatically reduce benefit payments by over 25 percent or to impose a 
massive economic, devastating tax increase on all Americans. And I am 
not talking about 2075, I am talking about right in here. Within 13 
years from now, that decision is going to have to be made by a future 
Congress.
  The longer we wait to address the coming crisis, the more difficult 
and expensive the job will be down the line. So together, in this 
Congress, under the President's leadership, we will save Social 
Security and we will put it on a path to permanent solvency and 
stability.
  To build a strong, workable, bipartisan reform, we must have 
principles that will guide the effort. First, there must be no changes 
in Social Security for those now receiving benefits or those who are 
close to retirement. Today's seniors can be certain nobody is going to 
touch their Social Security, nobody is going to take away the benefits 
of today's retirees and the program as they know it; it will stay the 
same for them.
  Second, we must not increase the payroll taxes on the backs of 
American workers. If we were to increase taxes this year to fix Social 
Security, a family of four with an income of $40,000 a year would see 
$1,400 disappear from their paycheck. We cannot tax our way out of this 
problem. This is no longer an alternative.
  Our third principle is to permit younger workers to have voluntary 
personal accounts. Regular investment would be made in bonds or stock, 
or a combination, throughout their careers, and then either use these 
investments to meet expenses in retirement or leave them as an 
inheritance to their children or grandchildren.
  Social Security's future is more than a problem to be solved. It is 
also a tremendous opportunity for all of our citizens to become owners 
and investors. Many low-income workers who have nothing to spare after 
taxes would have a chance to begin saving for their later years. 
Personal accounts give Americans a retirement fund they control 
themselves and can call their own. Everyone deserves a chance to live 
the American dream, to build up savings and wealth, and to have a nest 
egg for retirement that no one can ever take away from them, not even 
the government.
  Young workers who elect personal accounts can expect to receive a far 
higher rate of return on their money than the current system can ever 
afford to pay them. For example, if a 25-year-old invested $1,000 per 
year for 40 years in Social Security's 2 percent rate of return, in 40 
years she would have over $61,000. But if she invested the money in the 
stock market earning even at its lowest historic rate of return, she 
would earn more than double that amount, $160,000. If the individual 
earned the average historical stock market rate of return, she would 
have more than $225,000 or nearly 4 times the amount to be extracted 
from Social Security.
  Over time, the securities markets are the best, safest way to build 
substantial personal savings, and this is with widespread investments, 
not putting your money in one stock. These are wide investments and it 
is done professionally through investment houses.
  Having your own account for Social Security is purely a voluntary 
option. We are confident, however, that millions of Americans will find 
this option attractive. I cannot imagine any young person not taking 
this option.
  Another argument against Social Security reform with a voluntary 
personal account is that the so-called transition costs will be too 
high. There will be costs no matter what we decide. Social Security's 
trustees report that each year we wait will add roughly $600 billion to 
the cost of fixing Social Security for good. That cost is far in excess 
of any of the so-called transition costs that have been projected for 
any of the plans put forward by Members of Congress.
  I would say here that we should also look at the cost of inaction, 
the cost of doing nothing: A $26 trillion deficit over the next 75 
years. What kind of a legacy is that to leave to our children and 
grandchildren?
  We will need bipartisan commitment in the months ahead, yet we should 
not expect the work to be easy. Some have used this issue for political 
gains, but we should all understand that it is disgraceful to play 
politics with our children's future.
  Let us look back a few years to the previous administration where we 
see that President Clinton said at the State of the Union address on 
January 21, 1998, ``We will hold a White House conference on Social 
Security in December, and 1 year from now I will convene the leaders of 
Congress to craft historic bipartisan legislation to achieve a landmark 
for our generation, a Social Security system that is strong in the 21st 
century.''
  I went to that conference and we started to gather bipartisan 
support, but let us see what the Democrats said after that conference. 
Hillary Clinton, ``One of the most critical challenges of our time is 
preserving and strengthening Social Security for future generations.'' 
First Lady Clinton said this at a White House event on Social Security 
on February 17, 1999.
  And then Senator Kennedy said on ABC This Week on July 11, 1999, 
``The President has it right, and it is a position that I think 
virtually all of the Democrats support in the Senate, protect Social 
Security.'' I might say also this was partly made up of individual 
accounts, personal accounts that President Clinton championed.
  But the one I like perhaps the best, the Senate minority leader when 
he said on Fox News Sunday on February 14, 1999, ``Most of us have no 
problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and 
putting it into the private sector.''
  This is what the leaders said then. What has happened now? Now we 
find that we have leadership that has dug in and is prohibiting their 
Members to even cooperate across the aisle, cooperate with Republicans, 
in saving this most important part of our government.
  Social Security is a sacred trust, something that we all can rely on 
as we grow older. It is one that we know our parents enjoyed and our 
kids will enjoy, and we want it for our grandchildren also. There is no 
excuse for our not getting together and working together. It is more 
important to save Social Security for future generations than worry 
about who is going to be the next Speaker of the House of 
Representatives in 2006. It is disgraceful to do otherwise.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman for his 
remarks. We can save the Social Security system and also we can get a 
better deal for our young workers in retirement.
  Let me make one quick point and see if I have it right. There are 
actually three aspects to the Social Security system. One is Social 
Security disability, another is the survivorship program, and the other 
is the old age retirement program.
  I think what most of us are saying is, we can save the retirement 
program

[[Page 1957]]

through these individual accounts, but we do not have to do one single 
change to disability. People do not have to worry about losing their 
disability and they do not have to worry about the survivorship. So if 
people raise that red herring, that is exactly what it is: It is a 
false charge. Nothing will be done to disability and nothing will be 
done to survivorship; is that correct?
  Mr. SHAW. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) is absolutely 
correct and understands it perfectly.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I just want our constituents to understand 
that, and I want the Members of this body to understand that. I thank 
the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.
  We are not going to do anything to Social Security disability and 
survivorship, but we do need to give our younger workers an opportunity 
not only to save the system for their future, but to get a better deal 
than the one-half percent return or 1 percent return that they are 
getting now.

                              {time}  1900

  We can do better; and if we can, we certainly ought to for retirees 
now and also for future generations. And I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that he is absolutely 
right on target. It is not a question of can; it is a question of must. 
We must do this. And I would say from a very bipartisan way that if any 
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the minority party, 
if they have an idea that they want to discuss, bring it over. I will 
be glad to talk. I have chaired this Subcommittee on Social Security 
for 6 years. I am no longer the Chair. The gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. McCrery) is now the Chair; the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) the Chair of the full committee. They are looking for ideas, 
and they are leaving the doors open for new ideas. So the Democrats 
cannot complain about being left out in the cold on this because we are 
soliciting their support. We are reaching out to them, and we want them 
to come down and come down with some good ideas. Not just come down and 
start throwing rocks at us. Come down with something positive.
  One cannot possibly debate these fiscal facts. This is what we are 
heading for. And these are not Republican figures that we are looking 
at. This has been done by the Social Security Administration, and we 
had the same graph when President Clinton was President. So this is not 
a Republican-created bankruptcy or crisis. This is an actual crisis 
that is out there just because we are not having as many kids as we 
used to have and we are living longer.
  There are a lot of good things to say about that, but when one starts 
talking about somebody to care for them in their old age, that is not a 
good deal. So we need to start forward-funding the system. We need to 
go to areas where we can actually make more than we would under the 
existing system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a very 
valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to 
me. First, let me join others in thanking him for his leadership on the 
Committee on Ways and Means as chairman for 6 years on the Subcommittee 
on Social Security, a resident and leader in Florida, which has a 
number of America's seniors who care so much about this issue.
  Back in Texas I know that every senior I visited with in the Eighth 
Congressional District is worried about two things: their health care 
costs and their Social Security. Prescription drugs, the new 
technologies are doing just a wonderful job of creating a great quality 
of life, but it is so expensive. They are worried about getting generic 
drugs to the market faster so they do not have to pay so much for these 
pills. They want more preventative services under Medicare so they can 
detect that illness early and get treatment, prevent it rather than 
having it occur to them. And they want to make sure they can see 
doctors they know. All important issues on health care.
  And they also want to make sure Social Security is there for them, 
for their children and for their grandchildren, with greater cost-of-
living increases, that it is something that they can count on.
  And for our seniors the great news is they are golden under Social 
Security. Virtually nothing that can even be contemplated will change 
for Social Security seniors, and that is the great news.
  But our goal has to be to preserve Social Security once and for all 
for every generation. Once and for all, meaning not another Band-Aid, 
because we have gone through this exercise before. We have raised 
payroll taxes. We have raised the age, and then in another 20 or 30 
years we are right back where we started. Let us solve it once and for 
all. Secondly, let us solve it for every generation. We know that 
seniors above 55 are in very great shape with this. But the baby 
boomers, we know there is not enough funding for them. And the young 
people today, I just do not see how we take money from their paycheck, 
a promise to have it ready for them when they retire and we know for 
certain we cannot deliver on that promise.
  And one thing we will hear in this debate is we will hear lots of 
people talking about we are dismantling Social Security, we are making 
huge benefit cuts, there is a guaranteed risk to personal accounts 
within Social Security. But what those same Members of Congress will 
not tell people is that they have their own retirement invested in 
personal accounts just like the one the President has proposed. In 
fact, Members of Congress, our staffs and our fellow co-workers invest 
$15 billion every year, new dollars, into personal accounts. They are 
invested and grow over time just like the accounts we offer and propose 
for Social Security. And people back home always ask me, How come these 
personal accounts are safe and secure for members of Congress's 
families but all of a sudden they are a guaranteed gamble for us? How 
come it is good enough for your families, but not good enough for 
people who pay your salary?
  It is a great question, and my thought is those who claim that 
personal accounts are such a guaranteed gamble perhaps ought to lead by 
example and withdraw from the Thrift Savings Plan and see what happens. 
My guess is they will tell us wait a minute, that is how I am going to 
build my nest egg. My question is why do we not allow other Americans, 
the ones who pay our salaries each day, to build their own nest egg as 
well?
  What we are offering for seniors is to preserve it, but for young 
people we are offering them a choice. For the first time in their 
lives, they are going to get a choice in Social Security, real dollars 
in a real account or an IOU in some imaginary government ledger. Real 
dollars in a real account that build up over time that is theirs, for 
their retirement, and when they get to 65 they are not begging 
government for help in Social Security, they are not calling on their 
Congressman. They are calling on their financial adviser because they 
built up a nest egg that belongs to them and they have got that power.
  And the fact of the matter is that back home in Texas, I always ask 
two simple questions of the people I work with because they really have 
great questions on Social Security. And I ask them, personally, they 
are 50, or 60 years old, they are a baby boomer like me. If they could 
go back, way back when and put all of that money that has gone from 
their paycheck in a traditional retirement account and let it grow over 
the years, would they be better off today than they were under Social 
Security? And invariably they would say, I would give anything to have 
that money back. Then I ask, if Social Security could have put that 
money into real accounts, real dollars into real accounts, and let it 
grow over the years, would Social Security be better off today than the 
financial mess it is in? And invariably they answer the same way, yes.
  Why not start now to build the same type of security? We know the 
right thing to do is to move from this pay-

[[Page 1958]]

as-you-go system that will just run out of workers eventually and 
actually much sooner than we all wish, to move it to traditional 
retirement accounts within Social Security so that young people have 
real dollars in real accounts so that they can rely upon their Social 
Security. It is, I think, irresponsible by some to scare our seniors. 
It is irresponsible to ignore this huge crisis.
  I call it a crisis because it gets so big so fast. We have got to 
move now. It costs us $600 billion a year every year we delay, $600 
billion. The more we talk, it costs taxpayers. Why not, after decades 
of gabbing about this, let us come together and solve it? And I think 
too we have to be responsible for our seniors as well, focusing on 
their health care, making sure that they have their Social Security 
guaranteed with real cost-of-living increases. That is what the 
President's proposal does. And, Mr. Speaker, there are so many great 
ideas out there that have been proposed by Republican Members. I would 
give anything if any of our Democratic friends who care about Social 
Security would just come up with a plan. Just an idea. Just anything.
  I read this week that they said Democrats will offer no Social 
Security reform, which is one of the most important issues facing our 
Nation and our future generations. They have got good ideas, bring them 
forward. Let us talk about it. Let us work out a solution in a 
bipartisan way. Let us think beyond the next election. Think about the 
next generation. I am convinced and optimistic and hopeful we can fix 
that.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is really sad to say 
that we only have one Democrat in the House today that had the courage 
to come forward and defy his leadership. And I might say that that 
particular Member, who is from the State of Florida, now has had a 
campaign run against him in his position in his district by a Democrat 
pack. To me that is absolutely unconscionable.
  And I am glad the gentleman held those dollars up. I heard a town 
hall meeting on C-SPAN just recently by one of the Members, and he kept 
referring to cash in the trust fund. That is a myth. There is no cash 
in the trust fund. The trust fund is made up of Treasury bills, and we 
are going to be in a position where we are going to have to start 
cashing those in in 2018. And he talks about the cash, the Congress is 
going to have to find the cash in order to pay the benefits.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, could I go back to what he said. Did he say there is a Democrat 
Member of Congress being attacked for being open to working with the 
President?
  Mr. SHAW. Yes, as sad as that is. There are some bright people on the 
other side of the aisle that could really help us get this thing done. 
When I did welfare reform back in 1996, we finally got some help from 
the other side and President Clinton signed the bill. And that was one 
of the greatest pieces of social legislation that has come out of the 
Congress, I think, in the last couple of decades. It was late coming, 
but it came and we were able to do that. But in order to have the 
confidence of the American people, this has to be done in a bipartisan 
way.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I will tell the Members one thing the chairman has always said 
is that this is not Republican Social Security, this is not Democrat 
Social Security, this is not white or black or any other ethnicity 
Social Security. This is Social Security for Americans, period. We 
ought to come together as Americans in Congress on this issue and solve 
that.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. 
It is a great honor to be here with so many distinguished members of 
the Committee on Ways and Means. And I wanted to follow up on the 
gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Brady) comments because I think it is 
important for us to know that President Clinton actually did say many 
times over that Social Security was in a crisis stage and we needed to 
do something about it. Similarly, the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. 
Brady) former colleague, Mr. Stenholm, co-sponsored a bill with the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and, as I understand it now, will be 
working now that he is not in Congress, but he is a Democrat taking a 
leadership position, which we certainly appreciate, and then of course 
we had former Senator Breaux from Louisiana, Democrat, and former 
Senator, now deceased, Moynihan, who have all championed Social 
Security reform and really have basically supported many of the ideas 
that the President and the gentleman has promoted.
  So I think it is very important for us to tell our friends on the 
other side we want their ideas. We may not agree with absolutely 
everything. We might not agree with some of these things from the 
start, but we want all the ideas on the table because this is not about 
Republican or Democrat; it is not about re-election. It is about the 
next generation, and we need to protect and preserve Social Security 
for everybody.
  So I certainly appreciate what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) 
does, and I appreciate his yielding to me so I could make a point. And 
I know the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who has a great 
financial mind, has some things to say; so I do not want to take up any 
more time.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments. And I know his family well and his kids, and we 
are going to be working to help them together with mine. And, by the 
way, I now have 14 grandkids and another one on the way. So the 
gentleman can see I am going to be working overtime.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a 
new member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
And I thank him as well for bringing this issue to the floor tonight. 
My suspicion is that there will be many evenings and many days that we 
spend in this 109th Congress talking about this extremely important 
issue, and I think he framed the issue very well.
  This is in many ways, I think, a classic case of good news. We have 
got this chart up here again representing a little bit of the challenge 
in front of us. My parents were young workers at about this point in 
time, 1945. I was born in 1948. They are a part of these 42 that were 
working back in 1945 to provide the benefits for one retiree. One might 
call that one of their parents at the time. So this population of 
workers, my parents, were out there doing their thing day after day to 
provide the benefits for one retiree. Now today, which is where we are 
at now, it is kind of my generation, except we can see the group gets a 
little smaller. There is but three of us working for the benefits of 
one. My mother is one of those, and she depends on that paycheck every 
single month coming from Social Security, her benefits, and they are 
guaranteed.
  And that is a point that I think we cannot make often enough. The 
full faith and credit of the United States of America, both parties, 
Presidents from each party over the years have pledged that those 
benefits are there, and they are there.

                              {time}  1915

  There has been this rhetoric going around that somehow somebody has 
got a devious plot to cut benefits. That is simply not true. The United 
States has made a promise to our retirees, to our senior citizens, 
those that worked hard for the benefits of others, and those benefits 
will be there.
  So we start out again with my parents' generation. It took a whole 
lot of people to get the work done back then. My dad and mother both 
were members of farm families. They had eight children in each family, 
and somehow it took all eight of them just to keep the family going 
back then.
  Today, we get a whole lot more done with fewer people, but again the 
facts are today we have got about three people paying for one 
beneficiary.
  Now we move on to when I and my wife are going to be retired, and my

[[Page 1959]]

kids are going to have a little bit of role reversal here. My kids are 
going to be paying the benefits of us. And by the actuaries' own 
calculations, there will be but two to provide what at one point in 
time, not too many years ago, 42 were doing. That is the challenge in 
front of us.
  We get a whole lot more done with a whole lot fewer people it seems 
in the United States of America now, but the simple arithmetic is not 
our words; we did not invent it. It is an unsustainable. It is an 
unsustainable system as it currently exists.
  We Republicans were not the first ones to stumble over the problem. 
As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has already pointed out, we 
have had a whole lot of support. President Clinton certainly said it. 
In fact, we have heard that FDR himself, the father of the Social 
Security system, cited back then, This is but supplemental; this is but 
a beginning, and you are actually going to have to come up with another 
method. And he said, We are going to need something like an annuity to 
provide the additional benefits that are there some day. Well, that 
some day has finally arrived.
  Senator Harry Reid, he understood it. As the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) already pointed out there is another gentleman, a notable 
gentleman in this Chamber, a notable Democrat, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), ranking Democrat, most senior Democrat on our 
Committee on Ways and Means, the committee charged with dealing with 
this issue first and foremost.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on January 21, 1999, said, I 
am one Democrat that truly believes that the Democrats will not benefit 
by doing nothing on Social Security.
  Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, doing nothing is exactly what the 
Democrats are today telling us they want to do. They have said no to 
everything, no to every idea that is out there. No, no, no. No even to 
the fact of life that there is a problem. They seem to deny the fact 
that there is a challenge in front of us. So their answer is no.
  What has changed between the comment of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) in January of 1999, and Senator Harry Reid's comment, 
February of 1999? I will tell you what has changed. Back then a 
Democrat President, Bill Clinton was President of the United States, 
and he was talking about the need to reform Social Security. Today, 
George W. Bush, a Republican, is President, and it seems that anything 
that George W. Bush is for, they are suddenly against, even if it 
happens to be the blatantly obvious, what their own party has been 
saying needs to be done for years and years and years.
  Let me shift gears just slightly in the time that I have got 
remaining. You know what this really ought to be about? It ought to be 
about facts, yes. It ought to be about the truth, yes. But it should 
also be about generational fairness.
  Let me go back to this chart one last time. This generation made a 
promise and they delivered. Social Security was there and the benefits 
existed and were paid. That same situation exists today, but as the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) very clearly pointed out, we have got 
a big challenge in front of us because the dynamics represented by the 
reduction in the number of workers to provide the revenue to pay for 
the benefits, that challenge is getting ever greater. I do not know if 
it is 2042 or 2043, but somewhere in and around there, we have a huge 
problem.
  I do not want to look at my kids, my four children back home, nor my 
grandson, and say, The moment was in front of us in the 109th Congress; 
we had the support, the strength, the encouragement, the power of the 
President of the United States, and this Congress failed to act.
  It is in front of us. And this Congress, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, should deal with this issue in a forthright, straightforward 
fashion.
  There is another truth that my four children certainly understand. 
They understand that all four of them are paying with every one of 
their pay checks into Social Security to provide benefits for retirees 
today. They know that in Social Security there is no line item that has 
their name next to it. I think they deserve the right to have their 
money. Whose money is it?
  They understand it. It is their money. And it is their retirement 
that we are sitting here, charged with dealing with. I think we ought 
to deal with it in a straightforward, truthful fashion. Fix the 
problem, fix it for today's generation, but for all generations as 
well. With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Florida and thank 
him once again for bringing this critical issue to the floor of the 
House.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for a very enlightened 
presentation. It certainly contributed very much to sharing with our 
colleagues the full extent of the problem and making it personal in the 
way he did, because that is the way it should be for every Member of 
this body.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a freshman 
member.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure and privilege it is to 
share this time with Chairman Shaw, and the enlightening presentation 
he made previously.
  I came across some information that had been talked about in a local 
newspaper, The Examiner, a new paper, and did some digging. And it is 
indeed my pleasure in a bipartisan spirit to call attention to 
statements made or endorsed by certain Senators, including some 
prominent Democratic Senators who, in 2001, found that Social Security 
simply was not as efficient as a system that allowed workers to invest 
their own retirement funds in a personalized retirement account.
  Privatization is not a good idea; we are not for that. However, 
allowing young workers to personalize their retirement by taking a part 
of their retirement funds and placing them in a personal Social 
Security savings account that the individual actually owns is a good 
idea. And we are open to discussion on that. I am proud to be a part of 
looking at that. Such accounts currently are in place for State and 
local retirees, and they are performing at least 200 to 300 percent 
higher than Social Security.
  What a great thing, to provide individuals with a decent retirement 
while preserving Social Security for those that are on it and for those 
that are over 55 years of age. Such an account could actually be owned 
by the worker and not by the government. The State and local 
governments manage the accounts and see that they are safely invested, 
all a vast benefit for their employees. I was under such a system in 
Texas as a judge and chief justice. Our retirement account was through 
the Texas Employee Retirement System.
  There are those who say, Mr. Speaker, There is no crisis. You have 
heard it; we have all heard it. But that is akin to somebody falling 
off a very tall building and all the way down at each window he is 
heard to say, ``I am doing all right so far.'' Eventually there is 
going to be a time of reckoning, and that is exactly what we are 
looking at with Social Security. We want to avoid that now, while it 
can still be avoided.
  Most agree that in 2018 there will be more money going out of Social 
Security than there is coming in. Some say that is still no big deal, 
because Social Security has so much money in the lockbox.
  Well, since 1935, when Social Security was created and FDR's Congress 
immediately began spending that Social Security money, what they put in 
the lockbox was Federal bonds, which is basically a government IOU.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) 
talking about that a moment ago. When the outgo gets higher than the 
income, then what they are going to rely on is not cash in the lockbox, 
it is IOUs that have been getting stuck in there ever since 1935. That 
is serious. It creates a major problem looking at us right now, here in 
the face, and we need to deal with it.
  Some say that even though the proposal will not affect seniors, will 
not affect those the way it is proposed, it would not even affect those 
over 55 at all, but it would just allow some young people to put some 
of their own money

[[Page 1960]]

in their own retirement account, that that would dry up capital and 
hurt the economy.
  But, Mr. Speaker, that argument flies in the face of the facts. If 
young people start investing some of their money in a personalized 
Social Security savings account, and that is not happening right now, 
then what it does is it creates capital to help the economy. There will 
be savings that are there as capital that will help the economy and 
drive it, as the President's tax cut has been doing the last couple of 
years.
  Young people overall are not saving right now. But if they begin now, 
by their very act of saving, they will create capital and help the 
economy.
  There are some very important principles. First of all, Social 
Security is in trouble. Second, every day we delay, the naysayers are 
denying young people the compound interest on a conservative investment 
that they could be making if the opposing Democrats would get out of 
the way, would come together with us, let us reason together, come up 
with a good plan, save Social Security and yet plan for future 
generations.
  Do you think that conservative investment could do much better? Well, 
there are a bunch of folks that did. In 2001, they signed a letter to 
that effect, sent out a press release to that effect.
  Some real live examples we checked on, got input from these systems. 
Galveston, Texas, has its own retirement system. If you work until age 
65 with an average income of approximately $35,000, then you will 
receive over $2,600 per month. If you did the same thing under the 
Texas Employee's Retirement System that I was under as a judge, you 
would be getting nearly $2,700 a month. Using that same scenario, but 
under Social Security, you receive less than $1,300 per month. Mr. 
Speaker, it is not hard for folks to figure out what would be a good 
system to plan for the future.
  There is apparently a letter, a press release regarding that letter 
that was signed by a host of Senators regarding Social Security back in 
2001. At that time, there were some people that wanted to make those 
workers that had State and local retirement systems pay into Social 
Security. These Senators signed this letter in December of 2001, and 
they were adamant that such personalized accounts outside of Social 
Security were a far better deal for those workers.
  Senators, and you may recognize some of the names, Mr. Speaker, like 
John Kerry, Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman, they 
indicated, according to the copy of the release we obtained, ``Millions 
of our constituents will receive higher retirement benefits from their 
current public pensions than they would under Social Security.'' Those 
Senators call those retirement funds outside Social Security ``well-
managed'' and ``well-funded.''
  Additional evidence that such personalized accounts are a good idea 
is that AARP has its own mutual fund and encourages its members to join 
the fund, even though its investments are outside Social Security. 
Apparently they do not consider such a fund to be too risky. It would 
certainly seem that either such a fund is a good thing to invest in, as 
AARP is telling some of its members, or AARP is misleading its members 
and encouraging them to invest in something outside Social Security. If 
it is a good thing for AARP members, how much better would such a 
personalized retirement fund be for young people with plenty of time to 
build a future?
  For years I have gotten e-mails saying Congress must be forced to 
live on Social Security, and we needed to do that. Well, I got elected 
and guess what I found out when I got here? We are on Social Security. 
We pay into Social Security. We are going to be part of the Social 
Security system when we retire.
  So we are in it. The only addition is, we are allowed to invest some 
of our income in retirement accounts, and some of us believe that 
others besides Congressmen and certain State and local employees ought 
to have that same right. That is what we are talking about.
  I campaigned that we should fix Social Security, but do so without 
reducing benefits or adding taxes. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how 
pleased I was to come to Washington and find that the President and so 
many others, Republicans here, all agree.

                              {time}  1930

  I also personally believe we really ought to eliminate that terribly 
abusive tax that was added on to Social Security benefits that 
President Clinton and the Democrat-controlled Congress piled on to the 
poor Social Security receivers back in 1993. In fact, the Republicans, 
and even some Democrats back then, were so opposed to taxing that 
income on Social Security that the Vice President of the United States 
at that time, Al Gore, had to come to Capitol Hill, cast the tie-
breaking vote, just to hammer our good seniors with that brutal tax.
  There have been so many inequities in Social Security. One woman 
reported that though she and her husband both worked their entire 
lives, that when her husband died, she was getting exactly the same 
thing that another woman was getting who had never worked or put into 
Social Security in her whole life. It is easy to understand her 
frustration at paying into Social Security her whole life, for no 
benefit whatsoever to her. If she and her husband had been allowed to 
own their own personalized Social Security savings account, she would 
have received the benefit of both her and her husband's hard work and 
investment.
  We can do this. We can save Social Security for those that are on it 
and for those that are paying into it, those over 55, as the President 
is talking about, and for future generations and, at the same time, 
create these great personalized Social Security savings accounts for 
young people so they cannot only survive during their senior years; 
they can thrive. It would be good for everyone except those wanting the 
government to keep people enslaved to the Big Brother in Washington.
  I applaud those Senators, including Senator Kerry, Senator Kennedy, 
and Senator Reid, among others, that signed it for their courage and 
their vision as it was back in December of 2001, when they knew and 
believed in a retirement system like the President is proposing, that 
that would be the best thing for folks to invest in.
  Now, if their view has apparently flip-flopped since 2001, then, 
hopefully, we will not have to wait until the year 2020 before their 
vision returns to being 20/20.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much the efforts of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) on behalf of all of us, for senior citizens, to save 
Social Security, not just for everybody on it now, but for future 
generations.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for a most insightful 
commentary and also the research that the gentleman did, which I think 
is terribly important, when we try to show that we do need and we can 
get and we have got thinking on the other side of the aisle that we 
need to bring aboard.
  I am now proud to yield to a new Member, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to join my 
colleagues who have spoken this evening about this incredibly important 
topic. The gentleman mentioned that I am a physician. Mr. Speaker, we 
are all prisoners of our education and our training; and as a medical 
doctor, I know that you cannot treat the right disease unless you make 
the right diagnosis, and public policy should not be any different. We 
should not be making policy here in Washington without a specific aim, 
and this is especially true for the big challenges that we have before 
us, and Social Security is indeed one of those.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about principles, and I think it is 
extremely important to outline what those principles are. I would just 
like to kind of review those, because this is not about Social 
Security; it really is about retirement security, retirement security 
for every one of us. We all want to be sure that our golden years are 
golden, that a secure retirement is available to all Americans.

[[Page 1961]]

  Now, what should those principles be? What kind of principles should 
we keep in mind? Well, first and foremost, I think it is important that 
we say that it is a promise and we recognize that it is a promise. I 
believe that Social Security is not just a government-run program, or a 
government program; that it is more of a safety net. And it is more 
than a safety net; it is a solemn promise. It is a solemn promise by 
the United States, by all of us, to generations of hard-working 
Americans. Washington took money from your paycheck your entire life, 
and they made a promise to return that money to you upon your 
retirement. It is a promise.
  The second principle is peace of mind. Current retirees and those 
nearing retirement deserve peace of mind, knowing that they will 
receive full benefits for their entire retirement. There should be no 
change for those currently retired. They need that peace of mind.
  Third, we have heard mention tonight about generational fairness. It 
is imperative that we save and secure Social Security so that our 
children and our grandchildren receive the same benefits we have 
enjoyed. Generational fairness is imperative.
  Another principle: it should not be partisan. When it comes to the 
retirement of tens of millions of Americans, there are not any 
Democrats and there are not any Republicans; there are only Americans. 
And those Americans, they are counting on us to work together and do 
what is right for the current generation now receiving benefits, for 
the next generation who are paying those benefits, and for future 
generations who are now just entering the workforce.
  Finally, all Americans, we have to remember here that it is your 
money, that it is your future, and that it is your life.
  So it is a promise. We all deserve peace of mind; there ought to be 
generational fairness. It should not be partisan, and it is your money. 
We all ought to agree on those principles.
  Now, with these principles in place, what are the facts? What is that 
correct diagnosis that I talked about earlier? There are those who 
believe that Social Security is not broken and that we can continue 
down this path with only a few minor adjustments. Now, most of us who 
are interested in honest solutions to the challenges before us do not 
believe that. In fact, as we have heard tonight, even President Bill 
Clinton in an address in February of 1998 talked about ``the looming 
fiscal crisis in Social Security.'' So it is very real, and we cannot 
ignore it.
  Now, that correct diagnosis, the correct diagnosis is that Social 
Security is broken and must be fixed. Social Security is broken and 
must be fixed.
  Now, our current situation is the product, I believe, of two things, 
two things: inertia and our changing demographics. There is an inherent 
inertia in government at any level. Once a program begins, it is tough 
to change it. We know that. It occurs at all levels of government, from 
local all the way up. Social Security is no different. It is now 70 
years old, and there has been a little tinkering, but no fundamental 
update or modernization. And boy, the world has changed in the past 70 
years, has it not? Remarkably, too.
  Seventy years ago, we were in the midst of the Great Depression. FDR 
was President; Babe Ruth hit his last three home runs in one game to 
set his career record; Elvis Presley was born 70 years ago. Seventy 
years ago Parker Brothers released the board game Monopoly, nylon was 
discovered, and the construction of the Hoover Dam was just completed. 
Seventy years was a long time ago.
  Now, what about our demographics? What about our population? How have 
they changed? I think it is clear that when Social Security began, when 
it was first designed, it was for a different generation and a 
different America. There are at least four specific facts that have me 
convinced that that old system is no longer workable for our society. 
It is no longer secure.
  First, our Nation has matured from a time when men were the majority 
of the workforce and the life expectancy was about 60 years old. I have 
always found that it is curious that when the Social Security program 
began, the benefits would begin for individuals at a point in time when 
the average individual would not even live to that date. Only 
Washington can institute a program like that and have folks continue to 
praise it.
  Now, today, in the majority of households, both men and women are 
working, and our life expectancy is significantly over 70 years, so we 
are living longer, healthier lives, and that trend is only going to 
increase. Now, this is very good for all of us, but it is not good for 
our outdated Social Security system.
  Second, when the system began 70 years ago, and we have heard this 
this evening as well, there were 41 workers for every retiree. I would 
like to have my colleagues think about these numbers: 41, 16, 3, and 2. 
When Social Security began, there were 41 workers for every retiree. In 
1950, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Now, there are about 
three workers for every person who has retired and in the not-too-
distant future that number will be down to two. Now, those numbers just 
do not work. This is clearly unsustainable, and we cannot have our 
children and grandchildren punished, and that is what will happen if we 
do not act now.
  Third, the baby boom generation is about to begin retiring; and when 
that happens, the program starts to have real problems. Now, when will 
they retire? Well, the average age of retirement is 62 years old, and 
the baby boomers began in 1946, so you do the math. Mr. Speaker, 1946 
plus 62 adds up to 2008. That is 3 years away. 2008 is when the baby 
boomers begin to retire. Mr. Speaker, 2008. A child born today will not 
even be in kindergarten yet. So the problem is right around the corner.
  Fourth, the return on your Social Security dollars that we have had 
today is frankly an embarrassment. A mere 2 percent and for many, even 
less than that, less than 2 percent. That is not enough to retire with 
a nest egg; that is not enough to retire with security. To me, the 
current system looks like a greater risk than trying an alternative 
approach. More retirees, fewer workers, less money.
  Now, all of these are facts, and facts are the same regardless of 
whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. So the picture that we 
paint is not a very pretty picture. We must put the ``security'' back 
in Social Security.
  I think it has been mentioned this evening but, Mr. Speaker, we know 
that with each passing year, each year that goes by where we do not fix 
Social Security, the bill to our children and our grandchildren 
increases by $600 billion. That is right; $600 billion for each year we 
do not do anything. Fixing Social Security is a matter of fairness, 
fairness for the current generation of retirees and fairness for 
generations to come.
  So we ought to act now. The Social Security trustees, the Comptroller 
General of the United States, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve 
Board all agree that the sooner we address the problem, the smaller and 
less abrupt the changes will be for all individuals and their families.
  So I talked about those principles: promise, peace of mind, 
nonpartisan, generational fairness, and your money. These ought to be 
our principles. We should focus on the facts, study the issues and 
alternatives, vigorously debate it, and then act. Social Security has 
worked for decades and for generations, but this current system is 
outdated, and it does not meet the needs of you or of our society. It 
is not secure.
  So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take the time 
now; let us get to work. I look forward to this discussion; and I urge 
all of us, all of us to make a commitment to themselves, to our 
children, and to our grandchildren to solve the current situation. Not 
acting now would be irresponsible, as would saying that there is no 
problem or that little needs to be done.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge this House, I urge the Senate, and I urge the 
President to work together to find a responsible and a secure solution. 
I thank the gentleman so much for allowing me to

[[Page 1962]]

take part in this discussion this evening.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for a very well-prepared 
and well-documented statement.
  I would like to close with a couple of quotes. The first is I would 
like to quote President Clinton at Georgetown University on February 9 
of 1998. This is an exact quote. He said, ``So that all of these 
achievements, the economic achievements, our increasing social 
coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among 
our youngest children, all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal 
crisis in Social Security.'' The looming fiscal crisis in Social 
Security. I could not express it better.
  President Bush, in this hall on February 2, just a couple of weeks 
ago said, ``One of America's most important institutions, a symbol of 
the trust between generations, is also in need of wise and effective 
reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, 
and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. The system, 
however, on its current path is headed towards bankruptcy. And so we 
must join together to strengthen and save Social Security.'' We must 
join together to strengthen and save Social Security.
  We have been made a steward of this great country, the greatest 
country that has ever been on the face of this Earth, in keeping the 
promise of Social Security far into the future and giving millions of 
seniors the dignity, the peace that they so richly deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this time in which we can present this 
most important message, this message that crosses generations, the 
Greatest Generation to the youngest generation. It is time for this 
Congress to come together. I am disappointed that we have not seen 
participation in this effort from the other side of the aisle. Perhaps 
it will be coming, because Americans deserve nothing less from their 
elected representatives, Democrats and Republicans, than to save this 
most important program to keep our kids and our grandkids in their 
senior years, and make it so that they can live in dignity and not in 
poverty.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Shaw for leading this 
important effort to highlight the problems facing the current Social 
Security system.
  Since the creation of the Social Security program, older Americans 
continue to count on guaranteed benefits to support them in their 
retirement. Social Security benefits must be there for every American 
who pays into the system. The President and the Republican Congress are 
committed to making sure Social Security is there for the worker who 
retires, is there for the widow who needs that extra source of income, 
and is there for the disabled who need that helping hand each month. I 
want to make sure these benefits continue for future generations of 
Americans.
  To ensure the continued solvency of the Social Security program 
Congress and the President must fact the facts that by 2018--less than 
15 years from now the program will begin to pay out more in benefits 
than it currently collects. The outlays will be more than the revenues 
coming in. How can my Democratic friends ignore this reality? Fifty-
five years ago, there were 16 workers for every one Social Security 
beneficiary. Today, there are three workers for every one beneficiary. 
The numbers don't improve from here on out. If we postpone the 
inevitable and do nothing to reform the current system, today's worker 
will be left with a Social Security program that has nothing to pay 
out. While some policymakers may hope that a magic wand miraculously 
rescues the current system from future bankruptcy, the reality is that 
Congress and the President must work together now, make necessary 
reforms, and save Social Security. That is what we were elected to do--
make decisions and implement policies that help Americans now and in 
the future. To not do so is frankly irresponsible.
  My Democratic colleagues argue that we don't need to do anything to 
reform Social Security. Many suggest that the magic elixir for Social 
Security is repealing the sensible tax cuts Congress and the President 
signed into law over the past four years and stashing the money in the 
Social Security Trust Fund. Tax increases will not rescue Social 
Security. This approach, which they have used to fund every one of 
their policy proposals, will restrain the economic growth we have 
experienced over the past several years. Since the Republican Congress 
passed the 2001 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act, the U.S. economy has 
rebounded, millions of new jobs have been created, and business 
investment is the best its been in seven years. Repealing these tax 
cuts will hurt the U.S. economy and in turn, do nothing to save Social 
Security.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put every idea and 
all the options on the table so we can begin to examine how to preserve 
and protect Social Security for today's seniors and future 
beneficiaries.

                          ____________________