Social Security

SOCIAL SECURITY -- (Senate - February 03, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her recognition and hard work on this issue. I thank her for the recognition of the fact that we have two women Senators from Washington State. We achieved a milestone this past November when we elected a woman Governor, making us the first State in the Union to have two women Senators and a woman Governor. We are going to speak loudly about the issues impacting women.

I come to the Senate floor to join my women colleagues. I could, I am sure, expound on a lot of comments that have been made in the last several weeks that have gotten some notoriety: the fact that somehow women may be genetically different than men and not be able to excel in math and science or the comment that a colleague made about the fact that now we may be getting closer to pay equity in the future.

The bottom line of this debate on Social Security reform has to be that women are impacted with greater significance because of their longevity in life and because of the shortfall in pay equity that still exists in this country. Where does that leave American women when it comes to Social Security reform?

I could talk a lot about whether the private accounts are great foundations for this country. I have some grave concerns about them. I also believe at this point in time taking money from the deficit, basically adding to our deficit and paying into what are to be these private accounts may not be in the best interests of the American people.

The point I make this morning is that we are at a time in which women are still getting the short end of the stick in this country. If we want to think about anything in the Social Security reform debate, why don't we think about the way Social Security and cost-of-living adjustments are calculated. Social Security and cost-of-living adjustments do not take into consideration that seniors, older women, are living longer and actually have a greater percentage of their incomes go toward particular goods and services to a larger degree than young people's incomes do. Try buying prescription drugs, try balancing things in retirement and living off of the benefits.

Women are particularly challenged, but older women, being the most impacted by Social Security, will continue to have this challenge for decades to come. So the benefit structure of Social Security is very important. The current pace of change that is happening in the way our economy is transitioning has not necessarily impacted that. In 1963, women earned 59 cents to every $1 men earned. It is true women now earn considerably more than they did in the 1960s and 1970s, but in spite of the steady growth of earnings, the pay gap between men and women has basically been stalled for the past two decades, averaging slightly under 20 percent less than men.

The Senate may be a very unique institution in that it is the only place where you actually have a guarantee of pay equity between men and women. Yet in 2003 women actually saw their earnings decline for the first time since 1995. That means real median earnings of men who worked full time year round remained unchanged in 2002 at roughly over $40,000, and real median earnings of women with similar work experience actually decreased 0.6-percent to about $30,000. As a result, women still only make 76 cents for every $1 that is now earned by men. That is down from what it was in 2000 at 77 cents. We are going in the wrong direction. And now someone wants to suggest that we tinker with Social Security benefits. Think of my mother and the support she had as a woman getting Social Security also from her husband and his Social Security, not having worked, or women who have not worked all their lives in the work place and, instead, being full-time mothers. Now we will say we will calculate Social Security on your earnings. Great. Well, let's have pay equity for women so it is calculated on an equal footing. We are living longer, we are earning less, and the President's proposal will impact us the most. Related to the pay equity statistics I just mentioned, for women's families, this means $24 less a month than men to spend on groceries, child care, and other expenses. In fact, the Institution of Women's Research did an estimate that families in America lose over $200 billion of income per year in this wage gap because of unequal pay that women's families lose, an average of $4,000 annually.

I am asking my colleagues, at a time when we are talking about how to secure the future, how are we going to secure that future for women who are living longer, in retirement, who have this inequity in the system? That is why I am going to introduce a bill later today basically suggesting that we change the cost-of-living index to specifically reflect the current costs that women are experiencing--women and men, alike--in retirement age.

But I think what we need to do now is look at this legislation that is before the Senate and say to ourselves, How is it fair to have the inequity with women when we are not doing anything to close the wage gap? It is actually going in the wrong direction. That includes making sure women in retirement, in the retirement structure of Social Security that we talk about and consider before this body, actually reflect the reality that is happening in America today.

I have talked to many of my constituents about this issue. I am sure we are going to talk to many more over the next several months. One of my constituents, a woman I happened to meet in a local convenience store, said to me: The thing I want is my Social Security money. They have paid into the system. They want something for it.

Frankly, they think when we take Social Security and use it off-budget, to basically say this is how we are covering our huge deficit, that is basically taking from Social Security and not protecting it. What they want to know is, Why don't we get a better return on our investment? Why don't we take, just like a retirement account that she or her husband gets, or a State pension program that gets a higher return, and, basically, take the money that is paid into Social Security and get a higher return on it as well? Yes, and I would say some of my constituents probably think they themselves could do a good job at making private investments. But they do not necessarily think everybody in America will be able to make those decisions at a time in which our economy continues to sag, and there are some people who are unemployed and not fully benefitting and paying into the system, or, as I said earlier about the income-earning disparity between men and women.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MURKOWSKI). The Senator has used 7 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, if I could ask for 30 seconds.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I yield 30 seconds.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator.

As we go into this debate, the women are going to be loud and clear. This plan for Social Security impacts us to a greater degree than our male counterparts because of our longevity and because of the disparity in wages.

Let's talk about how we make Social Security better for women and for all Americans.

http://thomas.loc.gov