Anne Northup

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, my vote on the Jones of Ohio amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Commerce and Justice Appropriations Act (H.R. 2862) was not recorded. I respectfully request the Record to show that I intended to vote ``aye'' on the Jones amendment, Rollcall vote number 256.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 2744. I intended to vote ``aye'' on the Blumenauer-Flake Amendment regarding payments to the Sugar Loan Program, rollcall vote number 234. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Chabot

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for joining me tonight. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is a leader in our conference and a leader on Social Security, and, of course, has long been appreciated for the ability to take very complicated issues and talk about them in ways that we all understand, and we can share and benefit from his insights. I want to end tonight by saying that we are all more concerned about the next generation than the next election, and how much we appreciate our President, who from the day the last election was over did not forget that through that campaign he talked about the importance of taking on this tough issue, and did it so well and has been out talking to the American people. It is very refreshing to see somebody take on such a tough challenge and talk to the American people about it.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if today Social Security was just being designed, if we knew that people who get to be 65 are probably going to live 17 more years, if we knew that you were going to work a certain number of years and then you were going to be able to have a life expectancy that would go on for a number of years, you might have dreams of traveling, of going to visit your grandchildren, of staying in your home and being able to maintain it, all of those dreams would depend on an entirely different savings and retirement system than the system that was designed in 1945. You certainly would not design Social Security today like they designed it back in 1945. So to just steadfastly refuse to concede that opportunities are better for Americans, there is a new paradigm in retirement that exists, there are new opportunities, and there is a new way of deriving benefits that grow the economy, that do not overencumber the workers that are still in the workforce, we would do that in a minute. It is disappointing that we have not been able to move further in this discussion than we have. But as we all know, it takes a lot of discussion. I am eager to hear from my seniors. I know the gentleman is. Even though things will not change for them, I think it is important that we continue to invite our seniors to the table because seniors have always not only protected Social Security for their current benefits, but been very eager to make sure that it was going to be there for their children and grandchildren. I thank them for their continued investment in time and interest for that.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree that it was a very interesting discussion. I will say, and I know that our younger generation would appreciate this, that in the course of conversations, there was one person that said, Let me just ask you this for curiosity's sake: If we had to say to our children and grandchildren that because of confluence of things, the economy, America's leadership in the world, whatever, that we were able to pay better benefits to current retirees and those about to retire, but you are just unlucky and you are not going to have the same benefits and that is just going to be where you fall in history, would that be acceptable? I think pretty much everybody in the room said that would not be acceptable, that that would not be something that any of us feel we could say to our children and grandchildren. Now, the opportunity is that we do not have to; that at the same time we shoulder the responsibilities of those that have retired and those about to retire, and at the same time we meet our responsibilities to domestic programs, that by investing in Social Security, and, yes, taking it off budget so we do not spend the surplus, yes, allowing personalized accounts, yes, guaranteeing those in the lower one-third of income full calculations, like they have always had, and for those in higher levels, maybe they would have a combination of personalized accounts and a different calculation, that all of that can make the system solvent, sustainable, and also maintain benefits. For those who think raising taxes is the answer, I think it is important to recognize that everything in this country, our domestic programs, Social Security's long-term solvency, depends on a growing and vibrant economy, and without that, this country will be in dire financial straits. When you look at a country like France that has maintained retirees' benefits, but at the same time has done it purely by taxing more and more in more and more ways and at higher and higher levels, basically what they have done is create a society that is stale, that is not growing and is not able to provide the revenues they hoped the tax increases would bring.

Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. NORTHUP. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for joining us. I know you have talked at great length about this. You have worked so hard on it and talked to so many of your constituents, and you bring their wisdom and insights to us today. It is important that we talk about it. It is a very complicated issue, talk about calculation of benefits; but it is very hopeful. It is hopeful that workers who are more likely going to depend on this even more, most of all because they are maybe in the lower third of wages, that they are going to have nothing but better opportunities. They are going to get the full benefit of calculation and the possibility of a personalized account also. For those at the highest end, they will have the calculation that starts maybe less, but they will have the personalized account that can give them every bit of what they would have gotten under the old system. So lower-income workers would have nothing but a better opportunity. Higher-income workers would be able to have about the same thing that they have under the current system. Yet there is a huge difference. The system would be sustainable and solvent for our children and grandchildren. There are people, as you know, that keep talking about why we should not change anything, but I think the point tonight is the hope and opportunity that exists in today's proposals. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) has joined us. He is one of our youngest, but brightest, Members. He is a leader on this issue. He has spoken on it with such great wisdom. I thank him for joining us tonight.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just point out that as recently as 1993, many of our colleagues across the aisle participated in raising taxes on Social Security benefits. So, previously, far more of the Social Security benefits were untaxed at any level. Today, far more of them are taxed, and they are taxed at a higher level because of the tax increase in 1993. Now, the way I think about it is, if we start taxing Social Security and we tax it at a higher level, that is a reduction in benefits. So I am shocked to hear some of our colleagues talk about criticizing anything about benefits when, in fact, there was an enormous chunk of Social Security benefits that were retaken back from seniors starting in 1993 because of the tax increase.

Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I share my colleagues' concern about doing something now. The importance of it is easier to do it now because we can phase things in. We have opportunity and some time that we will not have if we wait until we are truly in a crisis. But the crisis is coming on us very soon. The fact is baby boomers are going to retire starting in 2008, and then we will have a quick increase in the number of benefits, more people retiring and getting out of the workforce and basically fewer years in which to make any transitions. One of the things that people say all the time that are on the ``we do not have to do anything now'' side is that they say we need to let the trust fund pay the benefits, all the money in the trust fund can pay the benefits up until a certain number of years. And, of course, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) knows there are no dollars in the trust fund. In fact, the trust fund never was meant to hold those dollars. They were meant to take in those dollars and lend them to the government. Now, I suppose if we could bring back the Congress of 1945 and 1950 and 1955, we could ask them what their plans were for the year 2005, 2018, 2042. I suspect they would say that, as many times have happened, at that point, the need seemed to be to provide those additional revenues to the government. Again in 1967, when Congress changed the benefit scheme, they added increased taxes on an increased basis that they paid into Social Security. They needed it to fund the war in Vietnam and to fund the Great Society. And I guess if we could bring back those Congresses we could say, What do you mean by spending Social Security taxes on the Great Society and the war? But that has passed. And the fact is that those dollars were spent. I will say, though, that any company that took money into some sort of trust fund where there were going to be payouts expected would have had to accrue the liabilities, and if those liabilities had been accrued, along with the dollars in the trust fund, today, we would have $10 billion of accrued liabilities in the liability side across from the trust fund. So even if we had not spent the trust fund, not we but the Congresses of the past, before we got here, not spent the trust fund, the liabilities would swamp the dollars that are in the trust fund. So it is important to recognize that generations before us benefitted from the dollars that came into Social Security but then were paid out for other government programs. They funded the Great Society. They funded education benefits. They funded defense. Things that those generations believed were important. Our current seniors. And now the responsibility for our children, of course, is to continue to fund investments in education, Pell grants, medical research, our defense programs and, at the same time, assume the responsibility for Social Security. The exciting thing is, when we put our heads together, we can figure this out. The sooner we do it, the less difficult it will be so that benefits stay strong and are available to our seniors in succeeding generations, so that our children and grandchildren, as they meet the responsibility of retirees that go before them, can also grow within Social Security a solvent and sustainable system that will support their generation and the workers that are behind them in the system. So I know that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) shares my belief that this is a time of hope and opportunity. We need to seize the moment and to really get the best ideas together to tackle the problem and set this program on a long-term course of sustainability. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mrs. NORTHUP. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. NORTHUP. I am so impressed that the gentleman from Texas would tell us he has six grandchildren. My husband and I, after 36 years of marriage and six children, have one grandchild. I hope that I will catch you someday. They are the most blessed part of our lives and it is one of the things that makes us think long term as we consider public policy, what about our children, what about our grandchildren and hoping that their days are going to be as hopeful and filled with opportunity as our generations have been. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has joined us. Welcome. Tell us what you are hearing in Georgia about Social Security.

Mrs. NORTHUP. I thank the gentleman for his comments, Mr. Speaker. And, you know, the gentleman from Minnesota brought up the changes in demographics and not only the fact that there are fewer workers for every retiree but also the fact that we are living longer, and I think we all have to really celebrate that. It used to be that the average age of death was when you were 61; you could not retire until you were 65. So forward looking, you did not have the hope of so many years of retirement and opportunity to live and travel and live a life full of opportunities to see your grandchildren grow and graduate from high school. So the changes in demographics are really something to celebrate, to appreciate and to recognize that it is to the benefit of all of us. But we have to make sure that the Social Security System supports those changes. I see that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) is here to join us in the discussion, and I want to welcome him and thank him for joining us. I will bet he is hearing many of the same discussions in Texas these days, and I yield to him now, Mr. Speaker, to comment about that.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are eager to talk about Social Security and to talk about what it means to this country, to our seniors, to those that are about to be seniors and to our younger generations, our children, our grandchildren who will support the system throughout their work years and to talk about new opportunities that exist in Social Security to make sure that Social Security is sustainable and solvent for their lives, just like it is for those who are seniors today. I think we should start the discussion by inviting seniors today who currently receive benefits to stay tuned. There are many people that talk about Social Security, that remind seniors that whatever changes occur they are changes for those who are in the current workforce and that it will not change for today's seniors. Sometimes that sounds a little bit like saying to today's seniors that they are not needed when, in fact, they are badly needed in this discussion. It has always been our seniors that have appreciated Social Security specifically, but also had a broad interest to reflect on what it means to them and how important it is for their children and grandchildren. Over the years, they have been the caretakers of a system to make sure that Social Security lasted beyond their generation and into the future, both for their children and grandchildren, but also for the good of this country. We need our seniors today just like we have always needed our seniors. We need them to pay attention to this debate, to participate in it, to bring us their good ideas, and to remind us that it is just as important to them that their children and grandchildren have a secure and solvent system of Social Security available to them. So I thank our seniors for their concern. I thank them for the fact that they raise the issue at public meetings, in letters to the editor, in the mall. All of the places that we visit, they remind us that Social Security is important and that they are listening and that they care about the issue. I invite them to listen to the ideas about the changes, changes in this country, changes in the demographics, changes in the challenges, and to bring to us their ideas of how we can better improve Social Security, make it stronger and more secure for their children and grandchildren. It would be hard to start such a discussion without starting with the difference in the demographics in this country and why they present to us new and different challenges than when Social Security began back in 1935 or when it was last changed back in the early 1980s. So let us start there. When Social Security began, there were 40 workers supporting every retiree. Forty workers are a lot of workers, and for a little bit, all of those workers could pool and support the retirees that were currently in the system. Not so long ago when we last changed Social Security, there were 12 workers in the system that supported every retiree; and so, again, it was a program where current workers could fairly easily support the retiring community. Today, there are only three workers in the system for every retiree, and that means that every worker has to give considerably more to the system in order to make sure that we meet the needs of our retirees; and for our children when they start to retire, there will only be two workers in the system for every retiree. And so we are looking to improve the system, to strengthen the system, to make sure it is for our children, as they bear that responsibility, also an opportunity to strengthen the system itself and that it will be a system that they can then pass on to the generations behind them as a strong, solvent and sustainable program. Mr. Speaker, my friend here, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), is eager to talk about this issue and to share with me his perspective. I know he hears from his seniors. I know he hears from the young people in his district, and he understands the challenge that we face as the demographics change, and so I yield now to him.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the philanthropic work of forty high-school students at Kentucky Country Day School in Louisville, Kentucky whose original fund-raising work on behalf of local organizations won them nationwide recognition for curriculum innovation in February 2005 by the Washington, D.C.-based National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS). Kentucky Country Day School was one of three schools nationally to receive this prestigious honor through the Leading Edge Program run by NAIS. The Leading Edge Program was created to explore, encourage, support and reward exceptional and innovative achievement in the areas of community relations, curriculum innovation, equity and justice initiatives and technology. This award is a testament to Kentucky Country Day School's commitment to developing and enhancing the leadership skills of the youngest and brightest among us through its unique Philanthropy course. Philanthropy is no easy endeavor. Andrew Carnegie once said, ``I resolved to stop accumulating and begin the infinitely more serious and difficult task of wise distribution.'' With a $10,000 grant, these high school students began this ``serious and difficult task'' by creating a mission statement to help define their purpose and goals for The Artemis Fund, the charitable trust which they themselves operated. As trustees, these students were faced with the challenge of raising funds through telephone solicitations and establishing rules and procedures for giving and selecting worthy causes to fund. Since the course's inception in 2001, The Artemis Fund has dispensed just over $19,000 to local organizations. This year, among the recipients chosen by The Artemis Fund were The Deaf Oral School and Youth Alive, a western Louisville after-school reading program. Mr. Speaker, one of the most exciting things for me to see is the building up of our youth through positive and enriching programs that last far longer than the prescribed semester. Life-impacting education serves as a bedrock for creative ideas that one day will be used to transform the way we, as a society, interact and live. I am proud to know that these students have learned more than how to accumulate and dispense funds. Indeed, they have learned to lead by example and commitment, following through on their stated goals. This opportunity to learn about ``hands-on philanthropy'' will serve them well into adulthood. We can all take an important lesson from their great achievement and service to their community. I am delighted to recognize the Kentucky Country Day School for this momentous accomplishment.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just reiterate what the gentleman said. How important it is and how thrilled we would be to have more of the Democrats there. First of all, I want to thank the Democrats who are still committed to come to it. I am eager to meet with them. I remember when I was in the Kentucky legislature in 1990, that we had education reform and I was in the minority and I was one of the Republicans that reached across the aisle and joined the majority party in passing educational reform. It just had a profound impact on education. It was one of the first systems that had an accountability system where we tested and held schools accountable. It is thrilling when something happens, where people put party aside and step forward and pass something that will make generations of differences. And I am so excited that AARP is going to be part of a meeting, a bipartisan meeting. I am thrilled that two of our Democrat colleagues are eager to come. I know my colleagues here share my eagerness to hear what they have to say and start to look for common ground. I hope they will prevail upon some of their other members that this is bigger than a party thing. It is really something that is important for the future of our country, and I believe that it could still be quite a successful meeting.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I see that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) has joined us, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I will give all of my colleagues a chance to respond to the presentation of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), and I thank the gentleman for his hard work. It is very difficult with all of the numbers and all of the actuarial work, and we are all very excited about this plan. When the gentleman talks about the $7 trillion that would accumulate in workers' accounts, it reminds me of how important in an economy it is to have a thriving middle class. Economies with a few rich and many poor do not thrive because there is not a majority of people with purchasing power. In my district we make refrigerators and dishwashers and Ford has a Ford Explorer plant. We need a huge middle class that can create demand and gain the benefits of that production. Years ago when there was only a fraction of Americans that owned stocks, all they got was what they made when they went to work. They got paid by the hour, week, or the month. As the economy grew, only that 20 percent that owned stocks shared in the wealth that came from the growth of the economy. When you start to have every worker start to own stocks and bonds, they get to share in the economic growth of this country so you increase the purchasing power of the middle class. So you not only allow every single worker to increase the fruits of their labor; you also create an economy that is vibrant and exciting. Also as we have more seniors that retire, it is important that they maintain their purchasing power. If our seniors wind up with the lowest amount of dollars that they can spend, they will not be able to participate in growing our economy. So the benefits of every single person growing a nest egg, a nest egg that they can count on and pass on to their children, that they can watch and understand what it means to the relationship between their job and their future when they retire is hugely important. We thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to address the trust fund issue. I often use as an example an analogy that most people in every home can understand. I would say if you came home from work every week and you put some of your paycheck in a cookie jar for your child's college education, and then you borrowed it and you took a vacation, you bought some clothes, you did whatever with it, and you left an IOU in the cookie jar, at the end of 18 years you would have a cookie jar full of IOUs with no assets to back those up. In a sense, you would have nothing more than if you had never had the trust fund to start with. It is nothing but an accounting tool that shows us how much has gone in. Now, this is how it was from the beginning. It is possible if we could bring back the Congresses of 1945 and 1948 and 1950 and 1960 and 1967, we could ask them if they would like to rethink that, and if they would have wanted to put it in a trust fund and put it someplace where it would grow and get interest and so forth. But in the meantime, those Congresses, believing that it was important to build an educational system and so forth, they spent the money. In fact, in 1967, when Social Security was fixed at one point, increased revenues, it supported the war in Vietnam and at the same time the Great Society. Unfortunately, those programs that were started at that time still are the responsibility of the generations that followed behind. So our children are not only going to have the responsibility of Social Security, they also are going to bear the responsibility of continuing these programs that our educational system is dependent on, that our health system is dependent on, and that our rural communities have depended on. It is part of the American foundation. So that is an enormous responsibility, filling the necessary programs and at the same time paying Social Security benefits that should have been part of a trust but that are not. So the trust fund is not something that is going to be there for our children to depend on or for those that are about to be retiring. In fact, already Social Security is reaching across to the education programs, the health programs, and pulling those dollars back across into Social Security to pay out the old-age benefits that have been promised, and that of course we are going to pay. So already we are feeling the pressure on all of the other programs that got used to depending on the Social Security surplus dollars. Each year that is difficult for us, but starting in 2017 not only will every Social Security dollar be absorbed in benefits that will be paid out, but also dollars that have come in in general revenues, that had been used to sustain our defense, to keeping our rivers going and our airports flying and all the other responsibilities that government has, they will have to be foregoing those dollars to pay Social Security benefits. And as more of the baby boomers retire, that gets into a deficit that is so steep it challenges this country for all the rest of the years without a fix in Social Security. Mr. Speaker, I do see that my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), has come in. I know that he has put forth or introduced a plan that has all of us very interested in that plan and how it would work. Maybe I could ask the gentleman to spend a little while telling us about his program.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am over 55 and many of my friends are over 55. I hear it more often from people that are 49, that say, now, wait a minute, if you are going to cut off the people who can benefit from these at 50, I only have a year to go; so how long is it going to take you to pass this bill so that I can get in the gate and be one of those that can also grow a personal account within Social Security to help pay some of the benefits that I will be entitled to when I retire. So I have heard that and I agree with my colleague. It is very heartening to talk to the seniors. They obviously know that they depend on Social Security. They deserve to be reassured that their benefits are not going to change. But many of them remember that the Democrat Congress in 1993 passed a tax on Social Security. They raised the taxes on Social Security significantly. They had thought that their Social Security would be untaxed. Now it is taxed, and they realize that if we can secure Social Security for the long run, that their current Social Security is even less likely to incur higher tax rates or a greater percentage of their Social Security tax. That is reassuring to them and also gives them a sense that they have helped steer or shepherd Social Security through sort of this transition so that it will be there for their children.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know our time is about up. So let me start by yielding to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to see if he has any final thoughts or anything he wants to say in conclusion.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, that is true and certainly in an accounting system, no one would approve an accounting system where the assets that are coming in are going to have to meet future liabilities without also accounting for those future liabilities. If you can reduce a 10 or 11 or $12 trillion liability to a $2 trillion transition, that you incur as a transition, what you have done is overall reduced liability to our children and grandchildren. That is an excellent point. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and I want to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) to also discuss the trust find and why we cannot wait and depend on the trust fund.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I agree. We are all looking for the best possible solution. I think when you ask the question, can we afford to wait, the follow- up question is, or what we often hear from the other side of the aisle, we do not have a crisis now because the trust fund will take care of us until 2017 or 2018. Let us talk a little bit about why that is not the solution. I do not know whether the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) would like to maybe lead that off, why we cannot wait and why the trust fund is not going to take care of this.