Today we focus on the lessons we can learn from other countries who have worked to strengthen their public retirement systems. The challenges presented by an aging society are not unique to the United States. Throughout the world, many nations are confronted with seniors collecting benefits for longer periods of time as life expectancy increases, while there are fewer workers supporting each retiree as birth rates fall.

But before we get to how Social Security might be strengthened, given the statements of my Democrat colleagues in response to the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security's interim report, I want to revisit the question of whether Social Security needs to be strengthened at all. Let me begin by drawing your attention to the placards at the front of the room, and I quote-

"After the next 15 years, (not 37 years), increasingly larger amounts of annual interest income must be used to meet the benefit payments and other expenditures and the general fund of the Treasury will be drawn upon to provide the necessary cash. The accumulation and subsequent redemption of substantial trust fund assets has important economic and public policy implications that go well beyond the operation of the OASDI program itself."

Moving on to the second placard...

"The redemption of a Treasury security held by a trust fund requires that the Treasury transfer cash - obtained from another revenue source, such as income taxes or borrowing from the public - to the trust fund."

These quotes are from the 2000 Annual report of the Board of Trustees, made up of top economic and pension officials from President Clinton's administration, namely Lawrence Summers - Secretary of the Treasury and Managing Trustee, Alexis Herman - Secretary of Labor, Kenneth Apfel - Commissioner of Social Security, among others.

These Trustees concluded precisely the same thing as the President's Commission--that in approximately fifteen years the system would face cash imbalances that will grow rapidly.

Not only were the conclusions the same, but so were the explanations. Like other social insurance programs of industrialized nations, the aging of the population in the United States will result in fewer workers supporting each retiree. Many nations examined all the available alternatives, as we are doing now, and chose to use personal accounts to help sustain and supplement the benefits that have lifted seniors out of poverty in the modern era.

For Social Security and the people who depend on it, inaction is the greatest enemy. Each time the debate on Social Security delays progress, the cost and the risk to the system increases. Some Democrats consider any type of personal account 'radical.' However, ignoring the system's problems until it reaches a crisis and faces the prospect of a 38% payroll tax increase on all workers, including working mothers or low income families, is what is truly radical and reckless.

Other countries are struggling with how to make ends meet, and their pension systems are in more immediate danger, since their populations are aging more quickly. Several countries, including Japan, and the United Kingdom have raised retirement ages. In addition to increasing taxes or reducing benefits, more and more nations, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia, and Chile are using personal accounts as an important part of their retirement programs.

Today, we will hear from experts, some of whom have traveled great distances, regarding the similar challenges other countries have faced and their diverse approaches to modernizing retirement income security programs and establishing individual accounts as a part of those programs.

Given our shared challenges and the fact that more and more countries are using personal accounts as part of their strategy to reform their public retirement systems, it makes good sense to learn from one another. Knowing more about their experiences will help us forge our own plan for strengthening Social Security.