[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3298-3306]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

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

[[Page 3299]]




                             General Leave

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my 
Special Order today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege this 
evening to be able to address a vital subject to all of America, that 
of preserving and strengthening Social Security. Many of us have had 
the opportunity over the break to go back to our districts and hold 
public forums and hearings and town hall meetings, and the input that 
we received from our citizens has been extraordinary and insightful.
  This evening, we will be joined by distinguished members of our 
caucus, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey), and hopefully others who will be joining us as well as we 
seek to report back to America about what is going on.
  We are most fortunate to have the man who has followed in the 
footsteps of the dearly departed Bob Matsui who was a champion on 
Social Security. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is the leading 
expert in our caucus and on the Committee on Ways and Means in matters 
of Social Security and has held these forums and hearings not only in 
his State but has been on shows and appeared all across this great 
Nation. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we held three town hall meetings and so many of our 
colleagues held many, many. It is interesting that our Republican 
colleagues in Michigan as far as I know during the break held no town 
hall meetings on Social Security. I think the main reason is it has 
become increasingly clear that the diversion of Social Security moneys 
for privatization is a bad deal for everyone, for seniors, for younger 
workers, for men and for women.
  I am glad that the gentleman from Arizona preceded us, because I want 
to say just a few words. The facts really are allies here of those who 
are defending Social Security and the facts really are the antagonists 
of those who want to dismantle it. For example, the gentleman who 
preceded us from Arizona said that people who are coming to the 
Republican meetings are coming to heckle. First of all, I do not think 
there are that many meetings held by our Republican colleagues. 
Secondly, when the President goes out and holds Social Security forums, 
the people who can come have to have tickets. They have to be people 
who are proponents of the President's position. And I just would like 
to say to everybody, let everybody into the forums that are held by the 
President as is true of our forums.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. So these forums that the President is 
conducting are not open to the public, that you have to be invited by 
the President's people? Carl Rove?
  Mr. LEVIN. As far as I know, that has been true. There may have been 
an exception, but I do not think so. So the gentleman is right. These 
are staged meetings and people who come are screened. For those of us 
who speak tonight, yourself, myself and others who have held our town 
hall meetings, there is no screening. We notify the public at large and 
whoever comes, comes. We have people who have differences of opinion. 
That was one statement of his that is very, very inaccurate. It is 
really an insult to the people who want to come to the President's 
meetings, saying that they come to heckle. The answer is they cannot 
get in. And they would love to participate in the discussion.
  He also mentioned another allegation about the number of workers per 
retiree, and I think he mentioned 15 to 1 or 16 to 1. That is a figure 
that existed before Social Security began to make payments. The truth 
of the matter is that when Social Security began to make payments to 
retirees, the ratio was 6 to 1. Higher than today, it is true. There is 
a shortfall that would exist either in 2042 or 2052. After that, 
according to the CBO, the payments would be 78 percent of the scheduled 
benefits and according to the actuaries, 72 percent. So the notion that 
it is headed for bankruptcy, this is the path for bankruptcy, is 
inaccurate.
  Then another thing that the gentleman from Arizona said, it is just a 
bunch of IOUs. The President of the United States will not say it is 
just a bunch of paper and I am sure the Secretary of the Treasury will 
not, or better not. Why? Because the trillions of dollars held in bonds 
by our creditors, foreign governments and also individuals, have a bond 
and those are the same bonds held by the Treasury of the United States 
to cover Social Security payments. The full faith and credit is behind 
those bonds. There has never been a default. Actually the bonds have 
been redeemed for Social Security over the years 11 times. So this 
notion it is just a bunch of paper is really a serious 
mischaracterization, and I hope that our leaders will never repeat it.
  Let me say a word about this compound interest argument. The 
privatization proposal would do nothing to address the shortfall.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. When the gentleman says the privatization 
proposal, this is the so-called plan that perhaps the President may 
submit to us?
  Mr. LEVIN. There is no comprehensive plan, but what has happened is 
that the President or his spokespeople have come forth with some 
proposals. So we have proposals, for example, in the commission report 
which was called a good blueprint by the President. We have a proposal 
that would shift from wage indexing to price indexing, would lead to a 
cut in benefits over time of over 40 percent.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. So this privatization plan will lead to a 
cut of more than 40 percent in benefits. We heard the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) say earlier that it does not even solve the gap 
or the supposed problem that the gentleman from Arizona was alluding 
to. Is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. This proposal would not address the shortfall, and $1.5 
trillion would be diverted from Social Security the first 10 years and 
a total of $5 trillion over 20 years of privatization.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. This is confusing to some of our citizens. 
The gentleman from Michigan is an expert on this. He has served on the 
committee. Why does this transfer have to take place? Seniors are 
asking about this. Some have said, this is like taking a credit card of 
your own and trying to go out and purchase stock with your credit card 
in the hope that the stock's returns will exceed both the interest you 
are paying on that credit card. This is hard to understand for a 
generation that has relied on Social Security as a guarantee. What 
actually happens?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am glad the gentleman raised that point, because we are 
going to spend some time talking about the impact of this privatization 
proposal on women. In future times, you are going to be talking about 
its impact on other segments of our population. Let me say just a word 
about this notion, borrow $1.5 trillion the first 10 years, another 
$3.5 trillion the second 10 years, what this all means and how it would 
impact on people.
  What has Social Security meant? It has meant independence. There are 
just a couple of facts I want to mention, and they show what Social 
Security has meant in this case, specifically for women. Four out of 10 
widows in our country rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of 
their income. So those who want to play around with or really dismantle 
Social Security are really affecting the lives of people. Another 
thing, it is not the income alone, but the meaning of that income, 
because research has shown that Social Security income is key to so 
many people deciding they continue to live independently. When you 
compare the life of people before Social Security went into effect and 
when it did, the number of older women who are widows who are living 
independently increased the

[[Page 3300]]

first 25 years of Social Security almost three times. So as was true 
for my beloved mother has been true for millions and millions of women. 
Social Security has not been a source of dependence; it has been a 
source of independence.
  Let me just say a few other things about the impact potentially of 
privatization on women. As we know, women on the average earn less than 
men, on the average. Social Security has a progressive element to it. 
And so that means that for women in terms of the replacement of their 
wages, Social Security is even more important on the average than for 
men. And also because life expectancy is greater for women than men on 
the average, if there were private accounts, it would have an 
especially adverse impact on women.
  The gentleman says there is not a comprehensive plan, but there are 
proposals. In the State of the Union briefing that was done by the 
White House, they talked about annuitization. There would be a 
requirement for millions of people to annuitize their private accounts 
if they existed. So it is not a nest egg that is their own. There would 
be a requirement of annuitization. And because women on the average 
live longer, the annuities would cost more.
  These are just some of the reasons why when we go to meetings and 
people can come, they are not screened, men and women, younger and 
older; and we are going to be talking another day about the deleterious 
impact on younger workers, but so many of the people who come, women on 
Social Security, they just say, look, this has meant I can continue to 
live my own life. That is what is at stake here. And so what we say to 
everybody is, the gentleman from Arizona said fix it. Yes, they would 
fix it by dismantling it. The fix would be in for Social Security.
  What we say is, we have fought to keep Social Security strong, we did 
20 years ago here, and we will continue to fight to keep it strong. The 
President said, and I close with this, we need to keep Social Security 
strong, we need to keep it safe, we need to strengthen it. What they 
would do is to weaken it and dismantle it.

                              {time}  2100

  So I thank the gentleman for letting me participate, and I am glad 
that others can continue with this. We are determined to go everywhere 
in this country and tell the truth.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) again for his insight and his 
outstanding service to the Committee on Ways and Means in this United 
States Congress.
  I think Roosevelt said it best when referring to our distinguished 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. With regard to Social 
Security and its impact and the plight that so many citizens go 
through, he said, they are frozen in the ice of their own indifference, 
the indifference to what ordinary Americans face on a daily basis.
  No one understands that better than the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky), who works on their behalf every single day and fights 
for them and has done an outstanding job in her district and beyond and 
also held public hearings and is here this evening to add to this 
dialogue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
for yielding and giving me the opportunity to speak today.
  And I also wanted to particularly emphasize why Social Security has 
been so important and will continue to be to women. Like many of my 
colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, I had an open forum, a 
town meeting, on Social Security. Nearly 1,000 people showed up. We 
could not believe it. We had a room set for about 350. We hoped to fill 
it at 10 o'clock in the morning on a Monday. I did it along with my two 
Senators from Illinois, Senators Durbin and Obama, and then we had an 
overflow room and then an overflow for the overflow room and still had 
to turn people away, young people, older people, persons on 
disabilities.
  I want to tell my colleagues one story. It may not be obvious at 
first why this is a story about why Social Security is important to 
women. A friend of mine, someone I have known for a very long time, a 
gentleman, middle-aged, got up and talked about something I never knew 
before. And he was telling about how his first wife died at the age of 
35 and left him with their three children, three young children. And he 
said how Social Security and those benefits made it possible for them 
to hold the family together and for those children to go on to college. 
But the other thing that he added, which was so poignant, was that that 
Social Security benefit enabled his wife, his deceased wife, to keep 
the promise that she had made to their children to always take care of 
them. And even now it brings tears to my eyes when I think of that.
  So that they could feel it was their mother that was helping enable 
them to go on to college to be the second generation. They are African-
American, and for that family to go on to college. And I thought that 
was really moving.
  In Illinois, we have looked at some of the statistics about how women 
rely on Social Security more than men do. This is a little bit dryer 
but important nonetheless. In Illinois, 19 percent of adults receive 
Social Security benefits. Think of that. Nearly one in five adults, 
including 21 percent of women and 16 percent of men. About almost a 
million women and 718,000 men and 116,000 children rely on Social 
Security benefits. Women represent 5 percent of all the people 65 and 
older in Illinois who rely on Social Security benefits. And without 
those benefits, 55 percent of elderly women in Illinois would be poor.
  The typical recipient of a Social Security widow's benefit in 
Illinois, the widow that is left, receives $921 per month. But if we 
calculate out what we know of the President's proposal, the plan he 
prefers, and we look down the future at what would the typical widow in 
Illinois get, that amounts to, instead of the $921 per month, $506 per 
month or a 45 percent cut in benefits.
  So it is no wonder that so many people, young people and older 
people, came out to this hearing because they are worried. And it was 
significant to me when young women stood up and said, Do you know who 
could reap the worst of this privatization plan, it is me, it is us. It 
is the young women. It is the young people. Because it is we who will 
see our benefits cut, who will see the debt that is mounting have to be 
paid off by us.
  At the same time we are looking for the jobs that have the benefits, 
that have the pension plans right now, trying to figure out how we are 
going to pay off those college loans, and we do not know what our 
future is going to be if that guaranteed benefit of Social Security is 
changed into a gamble.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is 
an excellent point, and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) 
made it earlier as well when she stated quite succinctly and clearly, 
Social Security was never intended to be in and of itself the 
retirement vehicle. It was, as she pointed out, the third leg of a 
three-legged stool, having pensions, which we know are under stressed 
everywhere; personal savings, where it is so difficult for people to 
save; but the thing that people could count on.
  The reason that it came into existence was to provide, as the 
gentlewoman has pointed out, an absolute guarantee, the full faith and 
credit of the United States of America standing behind its commitment 
to its citizens. It is as simple and as fundamental as that and more 
eloquently stated by our citizens and the young women who have come to 
forums and hearings and town hall meetings like the gentlewoman's all 
across this country.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that it is no wonder, 
then, that the women's organizations, bipartisan women's organizations, 
are opposing this privatization plan. The

[[Page 3301]]

American Association of University Women, the League of Women Voters, 
who go through a very rigorous process in order to come to a position. 
They are raising all kinds of concerns and say that diverting money 
from the Social Security trust fund into private accounts could hasten 
the insolvency of the fund. The result could include a substantial 
increase in the deficit and significant cuts in some or all of the 
Social Security's retirement and disability and survivor benefits. The 
National Women's Law Center, the National Council of Women's 
Organizations, the Older Women's League, all these organizations are 
opposed to these risky privatization plans.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentlewoman from Illinois for her insightful comments and for her 
continued diligent work in this area on behalf of all of our citizens, 
but especially for all women across this great country of ours.
  Mr. Speaker, speaking of a leader on those issues, we are also most 
fortunate to have the gentlewoman from California with us here this 
evening who also has done an outstanding job in the caucus and on 
committee in terms of focusing on the needs of women and children and 
families all across this great country of ours.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) for having this late night Special Order on something as 
absolutely important as Social Security for our seniors, but not just 
for our seniors. It is actually an insurance for every single American 
that they could not afford if it were not under the Social Security 
program, and that is survivor benefits and disability benefits.
  Young people just need to step back and think what it would cost them 
to pay for that insurance on a month-by-month basis. First of all, they 
would not buy it. It would be too expensive. Then when they needed it, 
it would not be there, and it is there now.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, did most 
of the individuals who attended the gentlewoman's forums and public 
hearings understand that Social Security benefits were not just 
retirement benefits, that they also provided survivor benefits?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I scheduled two town halls. We 
scheduled two town halls. We ended up having three because the second 
one was out to the street and we just could not pack another person in. 
So we committed to a third right after the second. And 80 people stayed 
and they waited to come in and be there for an entire third of the 
hearing or town hall. Who I had on my panel, I had the representative 
of AARP, who has not been a friend to seniors since Medicare 
reauthorization and the prescription drug plan. And he really redeemed 
himself in my community, actually.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 
gentlewoman may have heard what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
said earlier.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. They are mad at him now, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that they 
were friends during the Medicare debate but now that they have spoken 
out against Social Security, they are now a special interest group.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Right, Mr. Speaker. And they are being discounted 
entirely.
  If the gentleman will continue to yield, then we had a representative 
from the Commission to Save Social Security and Medicare. And then, 
finally, I had a representative from Rock the Vote, and this young man 
was so wonderful. All three of them were. It was a perfect panel. And 
they were in both of my communities with me.
  And what I do, because I cannot have one person stand up and talk for 
15 minutes, is I give everybody 1 minute. They can give a 1-minute 
speech. They can ask a very short question and get a 1-minute response, 
or they can ask a long question and get a short response. But they get 
a minute. That is all they get. And at first they are all so 
uncomfortable with it. Then they are so glad that that is how I set it 
up because they all want to speak. And we would have gone into the wee 
hours of the night if it had been up to everybody to have their 15-
minute speech.
  But what they are saying to me is: I am a senior citizen, the 
majority of people who were there. This is not about me. This is about 
my kids and their kids. They deserve to have the safety net that we 
have. And, yes, they need to save on top of it and we all do and that 
is what is missing in this country. We do not have a savings plan in 
this country that incentivizes particularly low-income workers to save. 
But that does not mean they do not need the safety net of Social 
Security.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the 
gentlewoman raises a very excellent point, and, again, it is the same 
point that was raised earlier by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Kilpatrick) and also the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). 
What we need, and the guarantee that we have provided every American 
through Social Security, is, as the gentlewoman pointed out, a safety 
net, a floor from which they cannot fall through. And, as the 
gentlewoman pointed out, our pension systems are already overstressed. 
We have gone from defined benefit to defined contribution to companies 
pulling out, wholesale, from providing benefits, to people's personal 
savings where, again, the gentlewoman points out the difficulty that 
people have, the lack of incentives that are there for them to save.
  So the question that a lot of the people at my forums ask is why 
would we introduce an element of risk in the only guarantee that we 
have on that three-legged stool that prevents us from falling through 
the floor and into the depths of poverty, which for a woman in this 
country is so vitally important.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, women comprise the majority of Social 
Security beneficiaries. They are much less likely than a man to receive 
pensions or have a retirement savings. And there are more than 24 
million women receiving Social Security benefits. And if these were 
taken away, most of these women would be left in poverty. I mean what 
they are talking about on the other side, what the President is talking 
about, first of all, he does not have a plan. He just has privatization 
that he is talking about that does nothing to reform and save Social 
Security, but what he is talking about is insecurity, social 
insecurity. It is a gamble instead of a sure thing. And the people in 
the United States of America get it, and they do not like it. And I 
predict that they are going to pull back from it and they will not 
reach beyond what the people in their district are telling them.

                              {time}  2115

  Their people are booing them. I did not get any boos in my town hall. 
Did the gentleman?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no, I did 
not. But I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our 
distinguished leader on the Committee on Ways and Means, said earlier 
that clearly the President has asked us to wait until he brings forward 
a plan. He has withdrawn the fact that this is a crisis, but points out 
there are problems.
  Everyone recognizes that there are problems with Social Security and 
Social Security needs to be strengthened. But the President further 
goes on to now admit, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) points out, when the actuaries and the financial people have a 
chance to look at the proposed plan, that it does nothing to solve the 
problems that the President has spelled out in Social Security.
  So one has to come away with thinking as to why would they possibly 
then want to privatize or introduce risk in

[[Page 3302]]

the most successful governmental program in the history of this 
country.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, who 
will benefit from a private plan that invests through Wall Street? The 
President's buddies. It would be great if his buddies could make 
everybody in this country wealthy, but that will not happen. And when 
there is a bubble in the economy, like we had the bubble burst 2 years 
ago, who is going to be holding the problem? It is going to be right 
here, the Federal Government. Who is going to pay for it? It is going 
to be the taxpayers. They are not going to let all these seniors who 
lose their life savings in the stock market go on the streets with no 
food and no health care and no way to pay their rent. Absolutely we 
would never do that in this country, or I hope we would not, anyway. So 
we will do the bailouts.
  But in the meantime, there are going to be a lot of people making a 
lot of money, and those are stockbrokers and securities bankers, and 
that is not what Social Security is supposed to be about. It is 
supposed to be a safety net.
  In my town halls I was asked, Well, what would you do, Congresswoman? 
Why do the Democrats not have a plan? Well, actually our plan is 
knowing that we have got 30 or 40 years, but we can start right now. We 
can take a look at raising the caps, or removing the caps.
  We stop paying on our Social Security as Members of Congress when we 
reach the $90,000 earnings level. I see no reason why we should not pay 
throughout the entire year. I see no reason why Bill Gates should not 
be paying on his billions of dollars the same percentage of those 
dollars that a middle-income worker pays on what they earn.
  I do not see any reason why we should not have a savings plan on top 
of that, like we have. People say, We want the same kind of plan you 
have. First of all, a lot of people think that we do not buy into 
Social Security. That needs to be cleared up right away. Members of 
Congress have Social Security and we pay into the system, and we then 
have a savings plan on top of it that would be a plan that I would 
think every person in this country could have, every working person. 
And I think the Federal Government should match low-income savings to a 
point where then the savings will not be matched after you earn enough 
money. But, by then, do you know what? You would be used to saving. But 
we do not know how to save in this country. We are spenders. We do not 
save.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it might 
surprise a number of our viewers, because I believe the gentleman from 
Arizona was talking before about the need to get the facts straight. I 
believe that the gentleman is correct about that, and there should be 
an open and honest and frank debate about this issue, and all the 
various proposals should be laid on the table. The gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) has asked for that, where we still have not seen any 
plan. We are told by Secretary Bolton and others that it is a ``work in 
progress,'' that we may see it in the future.
  In the meantime, I think a number of our listeners would be 
interested to know that in 2000, Social Security lifted 7 million 
senior women out of poverty. This means that without that safety net, 
without that floor which they cannot fall through because it has the 
full faith and credit of the American Government, it is the social 
contract we have with our people who have paid in to this system, that 
it is there for them. It is a guarantee.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, it is 
also a benefit. The formula actually ensures that people at the lower 
wage earnings get a larger percentage of their wages back than people 
at the higher end. It is very progressive. It is intended to keep 
people out of poverty. It is not intended to make rich people richer.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it might 
also surprise people too, when we are talking about Social Security, I 
know for many people, from Hoover to Landon to Friedman to Stockman, 
that Social Security is anathema. It is something that they would just 
as soon do away with. Mr. Stockman said it is ``a beast that needs to 
be starved.''
  When we look at the policies emanating from this administration, you 
wonder if this is not still the plan that they are marching forward 
with, to privatize and to further starve the moneys that are needed.
  How much money do people receive on average? What does someone get 
who has worked hard and played by the rules and sacrificed all their 
life, whether they be people that are currently serving in Afghanistan 
or Iraq, or whether they are firefighters or our police, or whether 
they are in the hospitals as nurses or other people?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. They do not make a lot.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The monthly retirement benefit for a woman 
is $798. In America, could you live on $798 a month? This is what the 
guarantee is. But it does prevent these people from falling into the 
depths of poverty. It is what Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised to the 
American people.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
reason it is a majority of women at that low wage is that women earn 77 
cents to the dollar that a man earns. Women are out of the workforce 
for a great part of their earning career because they are having the 
children and raising the children and taking care of their parents and 
their husband's parents. They are the caregivers. They are not in the 
workforce as long and they earn less, so they are at the very bottom. 
But it keeps them out of poverty; and to risk that that would not be 
there at all, it would throw the whole burden on their children.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, many have 
said to me in my forums as well, and I am sure the gentlewoman heard 
the same thing, and I am pleased to announce we have been joined by two 
distinguished Members from the Great State of California as well to 
contribute to this dialogue, but many have said at the hearings that I 
have conducted how Social Security for so many of them is their only 
source of income, and they look out and they see their pensions 
disappearing, they see cuts that are being made on a regular basis, and 
so they ask aloud for the government to please honor, honor, what it 
has promised and guaranteed them and what they have worked so hard for 
throughout all of their life.
  I think it is important, as the gentleman from Arizona said, that we 
get the facts out there and expose the myths that have been put 
forward.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, this 
will be my final thought because I think the gentlewomen from 
California that are here need to take up some of this time, but these 
are Social Security benefits that cannot be outlived. They are 
inflation-proof and they can be relied upon, and that is what would 
change if the system was privatized, and it is women that it would 
affect to the greatest degree.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
articulating that point.
  I am pleased now to turn to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps), who also has spoken and held hearings in her district and is 
here this evening to contribute to this very important dialogue about 
the strengthening of Social Security and pointing out the direct impact 
that it has on women who rely so heavily on Social Security.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for 
this time that we can share together. Now the gentleman has been joined 
by two colleagues who have been engaged with some of our leaders in the 
community.
  Women's Policy, Incorporated, is a nonprofit organization that 
provides resources in the way of information and policy awareness and 
opportunities for us as women to pool our resources intellectually and 
our moral courage, if you will, to join with Members of the House.
  We were recognized this evening, along with one of our pioneer women, 
Shirley Chisholm, in memory of her, and also today the knowledge that 
our

[[Page 3303]]

former colleague, Tillie Fowler, is no longer with us on Earth, people 
who have paved the way for us as women Members of Congress to join with 
our colleagues who are of the other gender, but who together recognize 
that we are speaking on a social program, Social Security, which has 
now a 70-year history with us.
  I am going to ask the gentleman to yield first to my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who is the newly elected 
cochair of the Women's Caucus from our side of the aisle, to join with 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) on the Republican 
side, to lead our women Members in voicing our concern about women's 
issues, one of which has got to be Social Security, which impacts women 
to a greater degree than it does men for the reasons we will state.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me 
echo the sentiments of the gentlewoman and commend the outstanding 
leadership that has been provided by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Solis).
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much. I would be 
remiss if I did not first off thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) for being so outstanding and helping us provide this special 
hour here tonight.
  As you know, we were at another engagement honoring women, new 
Members of Congress as well, and also to be joined with other 
distinguished Members of our California delegation and our cochair for 
the Women's Bipartisan Caucus, as well as the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) left here and spoke earlier, 
eloquently as always, left here so he could be with you and share 
remarks with you over there as well.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) did a wonderful job.
  I want to thank the gentleman. I cannot think of a more important 
issue that needs to be discussed at this time in our history than 
Social Security, and the fact that this administration would lead you 
to believe that there is a crisis occurring in our country with respect 
to Social Security.
  As the gentleman and I know, some of us held some forums in our 
district this last week and a half, and we happened to have 15 of those 
in my districts, and we found resoundingly that people are saying wait 
a minute, stop the clock; who says there is a crisis here, when we know 
that this system has been working for so many people.
  In my district, I represent 59,000 people who right now receive 
Social Security, the majority of them being elderly women. It is 
unfortunately in the district I represent in Southern California, the 
majority there are minority women, women of color, Hispanic-Latino 
women.
  This is something that I want to talk about, because people do not 
understand that women work very hard, those that have the ability and 
chance and sometimes have to for no other reason. If they take time out 
of that career to raise their children or to care for someone in the 
family household who is ill, those quarters are missed; they do not pay 
into the Social Security system. So on the whole, women tend not to be 
able to obtain the same kind of financial privileges that most males 
do, and in fact women only get 70 cents on the dollar. So that also 
adds to the frustration of women not being able to have the full 
benefits as others in our society, and it hurts.
  I want to point this chart out here, if we might, to just go over 
what some of the myths and maybe realities that need to be pointed out.
  Women, as you know, rely more heavily on income from Social Security. 
That is probably true across the board. Social Security provides well 
over half, 50.8 percent, of the income of women 65 and older, and just 
over one-third, 35 percent, for older men's income. So that is a 
substantial difference there.

                              {time}  2130

  Women have to rely on that source. Social Security provides 90 
percent or more of the total income for 44 percent of all nonmarried, 
44 percent. In these categories, widowed, divorced and never married. 
So we are talking about single women. Women 56 and older, 74 percent of 
the older non married African American women rely on this source. 66 
percent of older nonmarried Hispanic women rely on this source. Without 
Social Security over half of all women 65 and older and 40 percent of 
older men would be poor. Social Security was invented 70 years ago to 
be that, Social Security, that protection so people could live their 
lives out of poverty and it is something that we have to keep talking 
about to educate the public.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct. And 
I thank her for pointing that out. I would like to yield to both the 
gentlewomen from California to finish off the remainder of our time and 
focus on the specific needs and concerns that you both articulate so 
well Mrs. Capps.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. And thank you to my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Solis), both of us serving on the Health 
Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, where this issue has particular 
relevance for women and thinking about the health priorities that women 
always hold dear. We thank our colleague from Ways and Means Committee, 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for organizing this with us 
to focus on the effect that Social Security has on womens' lives.
  I speak from a public health perspective as someone who is engaged 
with families in our communities on public health and the devastating 
effect that privatizing Social Security would have on the majority of 
its women, recipients who are women.
  As has been mentioned already, but I do not think we can say it often 
enough, women on average earn 77 cents to the dollar, to every dollar 
that a man makes. Yet, they live longer and rely more heavily. This is 
a demonstrated fact that women rely more heavily on Social Security to 
support them in their later years.
  Women are more likely to interrupt their careers to stay at home to 
care for children, therefore are significantly less likely than men to 
receive a pension. And for those women who do receive a pension, their 
benefits are about one-half of the benefit that men receive.
  Fortunately, Social Security is more than just a retirement program. 
It is a social insurance program structured to help women such as those 
Ms. Solis and I know very well, to overcome the hurdles that they face 
after raising families, caring for their parents, working, but not as 
much as men do, most likely because they have interrupted their 
careers, then to face widowhood. And I am a widow. I know very well 
some of the challenges that widows face, to overcome the hurdles of 
older years.
  For example, lower earning workers earn higher benefits relative to 
what they have paid into Social Security taxes. Social Security also 
has spousal benefits. For example, a wife gets half of her husband's 
benefit at age 65 and the full benefit should he die before her as is 
often the case. But oftentimes this is the sole life support for such a 
woman in her older years.
  Social Security also has survivor benefits that help families when 
the primary owner has died prematurely. Sometimes and often that 
primary worker is a man, is the husband, and the provider for the 
family. So that young widow who is raising now by herself her children 
and is engaged in all of the other responsibilities that she has, now 
she is left to live on the Social Security benefit provided her as a 
survivor. In these cases, benefits are paid to the surviving spouse and 
dependent children. These are all critically important benefits, 
important to millions of women and these are all benefits which are at 
risk of being lost in a privatized system. And I will yield back now 
for further comment from my colleague from California (Ms. Solis).

[[Page 3304]]


  Ms. SOLIS. Thank you so much. Again, I want to also reiterate as we 
said earlier, women earn 70 cents on every dollar earned by a man. On 
the average, that is about $11,000 less income earned each year 
compared to men. So that is something that we have to put in 
perspective. And as a result, women have less money to invest in 
private accounts, so there goes that theory about, gee, we have 
disposable income to put away to put in a private account. That is not 
necessarily the case for many people that I represent in my home 
district. And I know we are hearing a lot from our constituents right 
now. In fact, in my office alone, we have received well over 300 
correspondence saying no privatization. Privatization, what does that 
mean?
  In my opinion, it means that there is going to be money that is 
actually going to be taken out of their benefits, and in the long run, 
our young people that are paying, say, would pay into something like 
that are not going to receive the same return once they are eligible 
for that. And, in fact, those people that choose not to set up a 
private account are also going to be penalized. So over the long haul, 
I do not think that privatizing Social Security is actually going to 
end what the President is saying is a crisis because it is bankrupt. In 
fact, it will not do anything to make it solvent. Privatization will 
not do that. So I think we need to keep this discussion going.
  And I would like to point out in this graph here we are talking about 
women's issues tonight because it is appropriate. This is Women's 
History Month, the month of March. And why not? Is it fitting to talk 
about the reality of how women fit into this figure of Social Security 
and how that piece of pie is divvied up.
  And retired workers, for women basically represent 33 percent. Very 
different from a pie chart that you would see for males. Widows and 
mothers, 20 percent. Disabled adult children, 1 percent. Wives, 11 
percent. Dually eligible, 24 percent. Disabled workers, 10 percent. 
This is how money is divvied up for these different categories of women 
who are affected and how the funds are distributed.
  I can tell you now this would change dramatically if this whole new 
privatization effort came in and we changed the criterion formula. I do 
not want to tinker with it. I have parents right now who are on Social 
Security and I also have a family member who benefits right now from 
survivor relief because she also lost her spouse and had three children 
to raise. They were teenagers and one was a younger child. Two have now 
gone on to get married. One is still with her. And if it was not for 
that small check that still helps her out, she probably would have had 
to sell her home, change her lifestyle, would not be living the comfort 
life that she does, and I do not mean comfort by being extreme and 
wealthy or anything. I just mean by being able to hold a family 
together. And most people do not see that face. They think that it is 
somebody else
  Mrs. CAPPS. If my colleague would yield, thank you. Your numbers and 
your graph, the pie chart are graphic and significant, and I would like 
to put a face on that so that I can give you an example from one of the 
non retirees that I met this past week in my district who are one of 
the one-third of the Social Security benefits who are not seniors.
  Last week, I held discussions with my constituents to hear their 
thoughts on the President's plan to privatize Social Security. I heard 
from many women, several in very different circumstances, yet each of 
them depending on Social Security in order to make ends meet in their 
lives.
  I heard for example from a 54-year old woman from San Luis Obispo 
County in California who receives Social Security disability payments 
due to a work-related injury which occurred 8 years ago. At that time, 
she earned a considerable salary and she and her husband had invested 
15 percent of their income to save for retirement. One could point to 
them as a model for the kind of American family that we like to hold up 
as an example of people who work hard, earn a good salary, and then are 
also saving for retirement.
  However, an injury prevented her from returning to work so that she 
and her husband subsequently divorced and her investments that she had 
carefully set aside plummeted during the market turndown a few years 
ago. And here she was, ready, she said, to be turned out on to the 
street after living what she called an exemplary life. As a divorcee 
with a chronic injury, she is now forced to rely on disability 
payments. She said to the group, she said, I never thought I would be 
in the position where that Wednesday of every month that that check 
comes is like a birthday, it is a big celebration in my life to know 
that that Social Security check is there for me. She said I never even 
dreamed about how I would be dependent on this.
  And these are the disability payments she and her young daughter now 
are receiving that are the essential platform for how she is able to 
live. Though she does gets some income from disability insurance, these 
payments, these disability payments will end when she turns 65. And 
when she turns 65, that is just 10 years in the future for her, she is 
going to have to further rely on Social Security because the majority 
of her retirement investments were lost in the unstable markets, and 
that is why she knows very well how important keeping Social Security, 
that covenant, that trust between generations, because of what the 
difference is that it has meant in her life. It is designed to be the 
one thing that is not a risk in the inevitable ups and downs of the 
market of the stock market.
  We cannot afford to jeopardize this critical safety net. Too many of 
our fellow citizens rely upon it. So we must get the word out that our 
constituents are telling us and not be fooled by the rhetoric of an 
administration which is really seeking to gut Social Security.
  Social Security, as we know it, has been the cornerstone of American 
life for the past 70 years. And I believe that my children, daughters 
and sons, and my grandchildren should be able to enjoy that which we 
believe in so much. And I know that my colleague has some concluding 
remarks as well.
  Ms. SOLIS. I just want to say how grateful I am to our colleagues in 
the House for allowing us the opportunity this special hour to have 
this special presentation on how Social Security, the proposed Social 
Security changes that the administration is proposing, the Bush 
administration, would affect our constituents. And, in fact, women are 
going to be disproportionately affected, and especially if you come 
from communities of color or you have not had a long history because of 
maybe illness or because you were raising your children and took time 
out of the workforce to do that. You are going to be penalized.
  And I just want to make it clear for the very young people or those 
that are looking to put money away and that this privatization is going 
to help them, they need to understand it is not the same thing as a 
401(k). What they put in is not what they are going to bring out. And 
they need to understand that if we go forward, if the President moves 
forward with this plan, we are going to have to give up $2 trillion 
over 10 years that will be paid out. Somebody is going to have to pay 
that back and it is going to come back in the form of lower benefits 
for people who go into these private accounts and those that do not.
  So I am not for it and I am telling my constituents to call us, to 
let Members of Congress as well as the administration know where they 
stand. And I am hearing that there are not quite a few members on the 
other side of the aisle that are convinced that the plan that the 
President has is one that truly will address the shortages, the so-
called shortages or bankruptcy that might be occurring.
  So I am very pleased that we have an opportunity and we will be back 
as much as we can in the next few weeks to talk more about this very 
important issue that we know thousands and thousands, if not millions 
of people rely on a source of income and livelihood.
  Just as you said, I have several constituents whose only sole source 
of income is that one check that comes in.

[[Page 3305]]

And maybe 2 or $3 out of that check that can give them a chance to get 
out of the house to go and have a meal with another friend or to go 
visit the senior center and pay $1.50 to get a reduced meal to share 
with others, knowing that they are all in the same kind of situation 
and they are horrified to hear that someone wants to take it away. So 
with that, I believe our hour might be up. If not, any concluding 
remarks?
  Mrs. CAPPS. I think the gentlewoman is right, that this is a message 
that we are echoing here on the floor of the House, that we have been 
hearing from our constituents. Their voices need to be heard as we 
debate one of most, if not the most important program that we have as a 
country determined is important within our values framework, what we 
believe in, that it is to be an American, that we are going to look out 
for those who are elders and those who are frail and have disabilities, 
widows and orphans living among us. There are lots of scripture texts 
that reinforce the importance of doing this. So we will use the 
opportunity that we have for Special Orders to do this. And I believe 
we now will yield back any remainder of the time that we might have.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my Democratic colleagues 
on the Ways and Means Committee and the Democratic Women's Caucus for 
organizing this Special Order on this critical topic.
  As I have said before the Administration's proposal to cut Social 
Security in half is bad for every American and is particularly bad for 
women.
  Today, 24 million women get Social Security. Because women tend to 
live longer and earn less than men, they tend to rely more on Social 
Security for financial security in their old age.
  Women are 60 percent of all recipients at retirement and 75 percent--
three quarters of recipients over age 85.
  There remains a real wage gap between women and men in this country 
and that translates into a real pension gap.
  According to the Social Security Administration the median earnings 
of women working full time are only 75 percent of those of men.
  The wage gap is much bigger when one looks at it over a working 
lifetime. Over a 15 year span, women only earn 38 percent of what men 
earn.
  Social Security reduces the poverty rate among women by about 80 
percent and is the only source of income for almost 30 percent of 
retired unmarried women.
  For all unmarried women and widows, Social Security makes up over 
half of their income whereas for unmarried men and couples Social 
Security only makes up a bit more than a third of their retirement 
income.
  In addition, women rely more than men on spousal benefits, survivor 
benefits, and disability benefits. Over 80 percent of those receiving 
disability or survivor benefits are women and children.
  Private accounts would hurt women more because of the huge benefit 
cuts that they entail and because women have less earnings to put in 
private accounts than men do.
  Effectively, private accounts erase the benefits of Social Security 
in providing financial dignity to older women and would take us back to 
a time when the majority of widows and orphans lived below the poverty 
line.
  The Administration refuses to show us the numbers on how its proposal 
would cut benefits to retirees. But we know these cuts are built in.
  The Administration's privatization plan cuts benefits more than 40 
percent to future generations.
  The cuts to spouses, survivors, and recipients of disabled worker 
benfits would be even deeper. And workers who become disabled or die 
young would not have worked long enough to build up a private account 
to help support them or their surviving spouse and children.
  In the Town Hall meetings that I held during the recess women were 
particularly concerned over the loss of benefits that the 
Administration's proposal would entail. They were right to be 
concerned. Women have more to lose here.
  But we can fight back. We are making progress. Just today, the 
distinguished Majority Leader of the other body suggested that the 
Administration might not be able to get a vote on this this year and 
might have to drop private accounts from any proposal.
  This is no time to rest. We must speak out in Special Orders Town 
Hall meetings and otherwise to make sure Social Security is protected 
or our mothers for our daughters--and for every American.
  Thank you again for organizing this Special Order.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
address the devastating impact that privatizing Social Security will 
have on women, especially African American Women.
  Social Security is particularly important to women, especially in my 
home state of Texas. Without these vital retirement benefits, 564,000 
women in the Lone Star State would be classified as poor, according to 
a report released by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
  Currently, Social Security benefits are progressive; that is, those 
with low wages receive a larger percentage of benefits relative to 
their earnings than higher income individuals do. This system of 
progressivism, combined with a cost-of-living adjustment that increases 
benefits every year, strengthens the safety net for those who are the 
most economically disadvantaged.
  Privatization flows from concerns that many people have about the 
future of Social Security. Some of those concerns are founded and some 
are not. We are all well aware that as the post-war baby boom 
generation ages; the number of retirees relative to the number of 
workers will increase. These are facts that cannot be changed. However, 
modest changes, implemented immediately, can give people time to plan 
for the future and would take us a long way toward resolving the issue.
  Privatizing social security is the most radial change, and it assumes 
that there is magic in diverting some portion of the current social 
security payroll tax into the private markets. Most privatization plans 
propose to strip a few percentage points off the Social Security 
payroll tax and divert them to private individual investment accounts. 
Most people happily focus on the vision of a few dollars a month 
growing into millions of dollars over time. Unfortunately, this is a 
dream and not reality, as we have witnessed in the current stock 
market.
  There are three very important things that should be considered when 
privatizing Social Security benefits. First, the huge cuts in benefits 
which would be required under the privatization plans--most as large as 
a 60% cut in Social Security benefits. For people with large savings 
from other sources, which may not seem like much, but for most 
Americans, it would be a drastic reduction in the protections they have 
to come to rely on.
  Next, privatization would be a major change in who bears the risk of 
saving for retirement. Privatization would shift nearly all the risk to 
the individual. People who are unwise or unlucky in their investments 
would suffer. We saw many examples of this in recent stock market 
falls.
  Finally, privatization would increase the Federal deficit by more 
than a trillion dollars over the next ten years. Taking a mere two 
percent of payroll away from the Trust Fund could double or triple the 
size of the deficit. This effect is what some people trivialize as 
``transition costs.'' I do not believe it is trivial, and given the 
other concerns which privatization raises, I think we should look long 
and hard before we leap in this direction.
  How do African-American women fare in privatization proposals 
currently floating around in Congress? Not good at all.
  Although Black women typically live longer lives, their lifetime 
earnings are usually much lower than their white counter-parts. Under 
privatization, this lower level would mean black women would be forced 
to live longer on a smaller amount of money.
  Hugh Price, President of the National Urban League and Julian Bond, 
Chair of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People, wrote an editorial in the New York Times, on July 26, 2001 
addressing African American women and social security. They found that 
guaranteed government assistance is essential to the African American 
community. While African Americans make up only 12 percent of the 
general population, they make up 17 percent of all Americans receiving 
Social Security benefits and 22 percent of all children's survivors 
benefits. However, the Administration has been unclear on how 
disability and survivor benefits would continue to be funded.
  A study by the National Urban League counters assertions made by the 
Administration that African Americans will benefit from private 
accounts bequeathed to their relatives. According to the study, the 
typical African American man dying in his thirties would only have 
enough in his private account to cover less than two percent of the 
survivor's benefits under current law. This also has a devastating 
impact on African American women as survivors.
  Members of Congress must be fiscally responsible when it comes to 
making decisions regarding Social Security. Fiscal responsibility 
entails looking at the whole picture and seeing

[[Page 3306]]

the effect it may have on ALL individuals in society. I urge my 
colleagues to make this the inclusive America we continue to represent 
to the world and ensure that Social Security proposals give everyone 
some comfort in life.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________