Later, live sunday starting at noon eastern on American History tv on cspan 3. Social security chief actuary steven goss recently testified on the current status of Social Security trust funds. He also discussed potential solutions for making sure the funds stay solvent. This house ways and means subcommittee hearing just under an hour. Good morning. We have decided that were going to start the hearing early. Since you all are here or since youre here, is that all right with you . Sounds just great. We all know Social Security provides important retirement and disability benefits that millions of americans rely on. Yet, as we will hear again today, Congress Needs to act so we can be sure that those benefits will be there for our children and our grandchildren just like they are for seniors and individuals with disabilities today. Today well hear from Social Security chief actuary about the findings in this years report, and while a report adds some good news for the Disability Insurance program, make no mistake, Social Security faces serious challenges. The Trustees Report tells us the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2034. At that point, individuals face across the Board Benefit cuts if congress doesnt act. Once the trust funds are exhausted, Social Security will only be able to pay 77 of promised benefits. Thats wrong and simply unacceptable. The trustees also tell us today it would take 12. 5 trillion to make Social Security solvent over the next 75 years. Thats not a little number. And the number gets bigger every year. In 2011 when i first held a hearing on the Trustees Report, it was 6. 5 trillion. Fixing Social Security will require tough choices, choices that will affect the lives of millions of americans, and i can tell you they arent easy choices. We all may have differing views on how to solve it but not talking about the problem wont make it go away, and if we wait until the trust funds are exhausted, the choices become more difficult and more or some of the options wont be on the table any longer. Last december i introduced my plan to fix Social Security. My good friend from connecticut, mr. Larson, also has a plan, and i appreciate my friends recognition that Social Security is in trouble and we need to fix it. While our plans are very different, they both fix Social Security permanently. I believe any plan to fix Social Security should do so permanently. Social security is too important not to give workers and their families that certainty. Its not enough to just push out the trust fund exhaustion date by a few years. When congress acts, we need to be sure we finally got Social Security on the right track for good. In addition, to permanently fix the program, i believe Social Security solvency should meet the following principles. First, it should modernize Social Security to reflect todays workers and their families. Second, it should reward hard work. Third, it should protect the most vulnerable. And lastly, it should improve retirement security. Millions of americans rely on this Important Program now and millions more pay in with the expectation of future benefits. Congress has a responsibility to the American People to make sure that our children and grandchildren can count on Social Security just like seniors and individuals with disabilities do today. We need to take this responsibility seriously, and thats why this subcommittee will continue to talk about Social Security solvency and the cost of delay. Americans want, need and deserve nothing else. I recognize mr. Larson for his opening statements. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and we are in concurrence. We could give one anothers speeches i think at this particular excuse me, at this particular point. As we like to say often, congress should be about the vitality of ideas, and i commend the chairman because he has been a stalwart in making sure that we address this issue. In this, his last term in congress, were especially heartened by the fact of his determination to put forward legislation that will meet the test of the 75year requirement. While the news that we receive today is better than some might have expected, especially on the disability side, it does remain, as the chairman has pointed out, our desire and i believe that to be true of everybody on the committee to reach a conclusion where we make this solvent into the future for all generations. And to the chairmans point, we do have plans, competing but with the general concept in mind that we want to make Social Security solvent into the next century. We believe that we have to enhance Social Security along the way. We think its unacceptable that for many people, especially working women, that they retire into poverty. We think it unacceptable that our colas have been determined by a cpi that doesnt actually reflect what the real cost that the elderly incur are. We think it unacceptable that we havent really changed Social Security since 1983. Its an Insurance Program. Have any of your insurance premiums gone up since 1983 . Of course they have. And so we think that its vitally important to make sure, especially with the solvency, that we look at this and combine both the old age and retirement and disability together and then provide the actuarial say aial e to make sure the program is solvent. We believe to do that we have to increase the contribution to the fund. These are difficult choices, as mr. Johnson has indicated, but if you phase that in over 25 years, we would in essence be doing what should have been done in 83, index this in a way so that there was gradually as it kept pace with the actuarial concerns of the population of the modest increases that would be necessary. This takes us into well beyond the 75year period by following these adjustments, and also making clear that we need to enhance the program on behalf of so many beneficiaries. We also believe that many seniors who find themselves in the workforce deserve a tax break, and by indexing this appropriately from what was done in 1983 to, as mr. Johnson says, what needs to be done today to modernize it, we have a lot of talent on this committee and many individuals as we listen to some of the concerns of Social Security and my colleagues on the other side have been leaders in talking about the technological changes that will be needed that also could produce from antiquated systems that dont provide the best up to date information that we could have. So, i concur with the chairman. I thank him. Were looking forward to having a hearing on this where we are able to put the vitality of ideas to the test with both competing programs and what i hope will be a great solution for the American People. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Larson. I appreciate your comments. Some are swaggert, do you care to make a comment . I have a dozen questions. Why dont we wait until a dozen questions . Oh yeah. Well let you have two, hows that . As customary, any members are welcomed to submit a statement for the record before we move on to testimony today. I want to remind our witnesses to please limit your oral statement to five minutes. However, without objection, all the written testimony will be made part of the hearing. We have one witness today seated at the table, steven goss, chief actuary, Social Security administration. Mr. Goss, welcome to our hearing. Thank you for being here. Please proceed. Thanks very much, chairman johnson, members of the committee for the opportunity to come and talk to you again about the Social SecurityTrustees Report and the status of these trust funds. As you all know, the Social SecurityTrustees Reports have been coming out from the board of trustees every single year starting 1941 updating you on what the status of the program is and what our challenges are in the future to assure that the scheduled benefits will be able to be paid to all future generations on a timely basis and in full. This year we project the combined oesi and funds to deplete the reserves in 2034, at which point there would be continuing income coming in to pay about 75 of scheduled benefits. Not what is desired and were looking forward to fixing that. At that time in 2034, if no changes were made, we would be in a position where we would have 25 lower benefits, so the option really for changes in the future are either to enact changes that will lower benefits by a third, increase revenues to this program by about im sorry, lower benefits by 25 , increase revenues by about onethird or some combination of those two. The two most significant changes in this years report already alluded to by the chairman and Ranking Member are first of all on the di solvency follows from the bipartisan budget act of 2015, where we had the reallocation that moved us from 2016 out to 2022. Last years report gave us one more year and this years report taking us five more years out to 2028. The reason for this seemingly dramatic extension of five years, we have had continuing, ever since 2010, declining numbers of applications for disability not just for Social Security but also for s. S. I. In addition, weve had continuing to lower the incident rate, the percentage of people who could be applying for and receiving disability having fewer people actually declining numbers of beneficiaries under the g. I. Program since 2013. Numbers have actually been coming down. So, what were doing this year for our projections obviously accepting the reality of whats happened lately and projecting out from that on a somewhat more gradual basis, not the very next year but some applications will come right back up and take two, three, four years. What we have done, however, maintained the same incidence rate by the end of the tenyear period of the shortrange period. Thats up for review. Well have to monitor very closely what continues to happen. The overall problem of the g. I. Program, we have the completion date combined 2034. The program all by itself, survivors until 2035, the same as last year. We actually have higher reserve levels to about 2033. But, the actual deficit for the fiveyear period as a whole has risen from 2. 66 to 2. 83 of payroll. About a third of that [ inaudible ] some other things that have contributed to that are more recent data, lower birth rate, lower immigration rolls. Less death rate than even we have projected. Ever since 2009, the death rate has not [ inaudible ] a little change we might talk about more accepting a slightly lower level worker productivity for the future. I really do want to comment again because both the chairman and Ranking Member mentioned the real factor, the reason were having the increases in the Social Security is not disability anymore but in the retirement area, the baby boomers all moving up to the retirement age and replacing the work age by the lower birth rate [ inaudible ] finally i want to say once again it is really a pleasure working only with you but really your excellent staff. You all have amazing staff. I think how lucky you are on that but im sure you realize that and we look forward to working with you and them to assure benefits will continue for over the 6 million bin sh r beneficiaries we have now thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony and well now turn to questions as is customary for each round of questions i will limit my time to five minutes and ask my colleagues to also limit their questioning time to five minutes, as well. The Disability Insurance trust fund sol vens see date shifting five years later some folks may think we dont need to talk about Social Security right now and can just wait. I want to make sure were all on the same page. Isnt it true that the longer we wait, the harder it gets . Chairman johnson, you are entirely correct. The one thing we i think you alluded to at least some of it, a perfect example was the 1983 amendment, the last major change we had, one of the big factors was increasing the normal retirement age. That was implemented with a 17year delay. So, if we enact something relatively soon, even if not implemented into the future, that gives the people who will be affected lots of advance warning, which is a really good thing. It also has many more options to be considered if we wait until the last minute and allows phasein of changes more quickly. It is all good, enacting sooner, even if there is [ inaudible ] thank you, mr. Goss. One of the big headlines from yesterdays report is the Disability Insurance trust Fund Solvency date doubling the programs years of solvency seems like a big change. How confident are you that we arent just going to lose this additional solvency a few years from now . Well, theres no question theres a risk of that but our estimate at this point, we would say were about equally likely to have the solvency base extend further as come back. The tricky part of the Disability Insurance trust fund at this point we have a relatively low trust fund reserve and also our revenue income even after past the tax rate reallocation compared to our costs are pretty close together so any significant fluctuation in either one of those could cause this sooner or later. But at this point based on the data we have, the extension looks pretty solid and if anything the applications stay anywhere near as where theyve been lately we might well have a greater extension and might have to change our rate going into the future. But, time will tell. We just wish we had the [ inaudible ] well, thank you. We often hear that if we just raise Social Security tax, itll solve all Social Securitys problems. But, its important for folks to understand the facts. Social security earning up to a certain amount called the taxable maximum are subject to payroll taxes. Whats the taxable maximum this year . For this year, 127, 200. If the taxable maximum were raised to govern 90 of earnings what the taxable maximum be this year. About double that, right around 250,000, just a little bit less. Suggested we should get rid of the taxable maximum and, instead, subject all earnings to payroll tax. Mr. Goss, if all earnings were subject to payroll tax, would Social Security be solvent . It would be solvent longer. It would not be solvent okay. The answer is no. At what point would costs once again exceed income . Uh, if we were to enact a change with no if we were to enact a change with no, uh, benefit credit for the extra, we would actually solve about 80 of the longterm and we would be good to well into the 2060s for the solvency. 20 what . Into the 2060s. Really . Im sorry. If we did no benefit credit at all and taxed all income, our solvency date would move from 2034 to [ inaudible ]. If we give benefit credits and taxed all earnings and include in our computation benefits earnings that were going to be taxed we would extend the solvency date out to 2067. 20 what. 2067. Yeah. I was told 2026. Pardon . I was told 2026. Oh. 2026 was the would be the date at which the annual income would then start to fall beyond the outgo but we would still have significant reserves at that point that would carry us for solvency purposes. On a cash flow basis, the point at which income would again fall below our cost of paying all the benefits the income would reduce to where it wouldnt cover what were doing. Right. Current income would not be we would have to be drawing on reserves. So, even if we get completely rid of the taxable maximum, the program will be running cash flow deficits within the next decade. Is that true . Uh, thats correct. That sure doesnt get us much and as ive said before, we clearly cant tax our way to solvency. Mr. Larson, do you care to comment . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Goss. Usually when i go out to do town halls i carry with me two things, the actuary report on the bill we submitted and a starbucks and i do so to make a point. The first point i make to people and i think you can confirm this, Social Security is an Insurance Plan. Its not an entitlement. Its an Insurance Plan. Its an Insurance Plan that you are assessed through fica. Fica is the federal insurance contribution act. Whose contribution . Yours. The last time insurance premiums went up in Social Security was in 1983. Is that correct . Uh, thats correct. So, has anyone in this audience or anywhere in the countrys insurance not gone up an actuarial assumption since 1983 . And the answer, of course, is theyve gone up keeping pace with the assumptions and changes ongoing, except for Social Security. So, had i believe our predecessors indexed the system appropriately, we wouldnt be having this discussion. It would have been taking care of itself incrementally. So, i as i go out to these town halls and youve done the analysis on our bills, can you confirm our bill doesnt have any cuts in terms of peoples benefits . Thats correct. In fact, we increase peoples benefits because they, also, have not kept pace. We find more people retiring into poverty, unfortunately. Most of them women, because of their time in the workforce and they or because for every dollar their male counterparts received, they got 77 cents. Is that accurate . No question [ inaudible ]. And, also, we wanted to make sure with our program that we would offer middle income tax relief for seniors. And i know this will interest my colleagues who have tax relief for seniors because again, we havent made a change since 1983. In 1983, we said if youre single and making more than 25,000, your Social Security is taxed. A married couple, it is 32,000. So, we changed that to 50,000 and 100,000. Thereby, giving 11 million seniors a tax break. So, we think that these are all important things and the difference is i dont think they are big differences, actually. I understand clearly the desire on both sides to make sure that the nations Insurance Program is solvent beyond 75 years, which, again, by your report, the bill that weve submitted does. Johnson bill does, too. It makes it solvent beyond the 75year period. Thats the position we need. The differences are that we believe that, with a modest tax and we believe that you should increase the fund by one percent, you said it very well at the outset and you said, well, look, heres your alternative. You can make cuts by about a third, i believe you said by about a quarter. By about a quarter. You could then [ inaudible ] by a third. Revenue by a third. Or. Or some of each. So, we believe that especially with so many people finding themselves in the position where Social Security is their only retirement, their only retirement, that they have we could lecture them and say you should have been wiser but tell that to people who saw in 2008 their 401ks become 101ks, through not fault of their own. Yet, the one program that isnt going to fail them that is there and never missed a payment is Social Security. So, i believe that between the the intelligence that we have on this committee that we have an opportunity to i thank the chairman because it was pointed out to me the other day and mr. Johnson says this all the time, really taken this on as a committee in more than 25 years. Weve postponed any kind of difficult decisions as it relates to. This and now, as you pointed out, the baby boomers are upon us. I think we have a moral obligation to take action. Whatever that outcome is, whatever this committee thinks the best alternative is, we ought to have that competition and we ought to have a vote and i thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Dont make fun of me through this hearing one of my primary hearings i wanted to be on ways means and i have a dozen things in my head and you get the things from your staff that say, dont ask that. But you actually have a demografer who basically does calculations. We do, indeed. We have six or seven economists, a wares a actuaries and four or five demographers part of this has been trying to understand with the crashing birth rate and you understand what the results of this First Quarter of the year we hit an alltime low and a cascade effect for those birth rates in future generations and i am curious because sometimes reading over your documents im not sure im seeing the stressing of todays birth rate if that were to hold in sort of the longterm numbers and i just want to make [ inaudible ] we would love to we have been called geeks i dont think that was wrong. And we have the section in the Trustees Report that actually supports the fertility rates would you ever allow someone to have your analysis on i dont know what program you write it, make it available to one of us, we would just like to unwind, tell you move some numbers up and down . Because weve had discussions here as we do tax reform and other things, would any of those have any influence in population growth or even Immigration Reform, population growth and the ability to offer cascade benefits or [ inaudible ]. We would be really happy to sit down with you, your staff, anybody and work through the implications. We have scored comprehensive Immigration Reform plans. Ten years ago when you did that, wasnt it . A while. 2011, i think maybe. Okay. But, we have all these cascading effects until then. Can i ask something thats a little uncomfortable . The g. I. Numbers, forgive me because i was doing this partially with your information and partially on my own, the mortality statistics on some of the male population who were enrolled in [ inaudible ], how much the extension of the longevity because we have so many of our brothers, particularly, killing themselve themselves . Uh, thats a really good question. We do have built into our disability projections mortality is one of the ways in which people get benefits, of course. But isnt that the point of the real noise between last year and this year. Relatively modest. Since 2009, small increments of death rates, higher than we have projected and weve modified for that. Very small. But the program as a whole, i think on the order of. 03 or. 04 so, about half that. Much less than that. Good. It was one of those you see some of the statistics of the population of the current mortality rate and sometimes come across other numbers that says how many were actually enrolled in the program and weve struggled saying is it adds to the noise. Okay. Trying to watch my time. On Social Security, 176 million of workers in our society, 6 million receive benefits today. The ratio now is 2. 9 workers [ inaudible ]. So, 2. 9 workers for every beneficiary. But, also, even if i take your current numbers on numbers of years left in the trust fund so if im 56, i should expect if i take my retirement at, what, 72, um, im getting a 25 discount [ inaudible ] we have total confidence that we never hit that point ever in the past. But the hard math as of your report today is a 56yearold or younger, when they go to retire and pull their max benefits, they would be receiving a 25 reduction in that benefit. Just to put it in perspective of we got a long onramp that we need to start getting on that freeway now. And the beauty of this is whether you be on the right or the left the math with a number of levers we can all do together one of the idiosyncrasies could you tell me the formula of how to pay for the special Treasury Bill ah, yes. Every [ inaudible ] that comes into the system is required to be invested immediately into interestingbearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the u. S. Government. There are a couple of options, you could buy Social Security lately weve gotten special issues to the trust fund. Any provided in a given month the coupon rate on that is precisely what treasury measures its market as of the prior month with the remaining duration of four years or more. Four years or more. So medium to longterm yield rate. The actual effective market yield is because a year ago im sorry you know what the number is right now . I believe its in well, for the new issues, i believe its [ inaudible ]. Thank you. Sorry for going over. Youre recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate you coming back. We always like your updates. Im from sarasota, bradenton, florida, representing the top two or three most seniors of any in the country. Im concerned about all the seniors but im also concerned about our children and grandchildren. We have four under 3. Were looking out 75 years but let me, and i do want to, my colleague had mentioned there is a lot of truth and i see it every day at a town hall the other day a third of americans at 65, you know, dont have anything but Social Security and m medicare. Another third got lucky or whatever. These why these programs and i agree are so critical that we do the right thing. I want to ask because this is maybe, you know, more sensitive issue for some people but the reality and these are things i do a lot of town halls and i get the trust fund in the 60s they took all the money out of it so there is an i. O. U. From the federal government. Is that correct . Well, i believe for the entirety of the existence of the program it has been required let me ask you this . How much money is there ideally in theory in the trust fund . Well, it depends on the way in which it formulates the law well, my understanding, theres nothing in the trust fund other than an i. O. U. From the federal government because they used those funds. My general understanding of the 60s, thats kinda what i hear. So, my concern is and im sure you will take a look at that when you take a look at the viability of Social Security in 3032 or 3034, you are taking into the account the ability of the government to do its part and pay back the trust fund. Is that correct . Absolutely. Yeah. So, when youre running the last ten years, 10 trillion with a deficit, ive been pushing since ive been here a constitutional balanced budget amendment, like 49 of 50 governors have that simply says you dont spend more than you take in. Today were 20 trillion in debt. So, when you look at the viability of Social Security, you are counting on the ability of the federal government to meet its obligations. Is that correct . Thats correct. I just want to make sure thats on the record. It is something we have to deal with there is plenty of blame to go around, not republican or democrat issue but it should be looked at, the business person the ability to pay the guy on a bank board we look at that seriously. Let me get down to one a couple of basic issues. Cola, i get asked by a lot of the seniors, i guess we got a bit of an increase. 3 of one percent, the year before, nothing then there some increases over the years. I hear, look, our costs in the last couple of years have gone up. Were not seeing anything extra in cola. How are you guys figuring this cola . Maybe you can comment. Last year was little or nothing. The year before was nothing in terms of cola. Where are we at today or how can you explain what has taken place the last couple of years . The latest projection this year is 2. 2 . We will see. We determined it on the basis of material [ inaudible ] survey of wage earners and Clerical Workers how much the price of things they buy change over time. When the price of things that they buy goes down, as it did two colas ago, they did not have an adjustment. Last year we had a small one because the prices came what are you projecting this year . Were projecting this year 2. 2 . Is that fair when seniors ask me the projection is 2. 2 . Is it a fairly good chance of somewhat of a reality . Probably somewhere between 1. 5 and 2. 5 would be a good guess. A lot the thing that has really driven the volatility of prices in this Market Basket in recent years, the price of energy, petroleum products. We continue to fluctuate at the gas pump. Thats really been kind of the issue. We are expecting a couple of percent in the upcoming cola. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thanks, mr. Chairman, for putting this together and being one of the pioneers of the future. Thank you. Ive traveled with brother larson through many communities to talk about the legislation that my friend from connecticut has talked about. But, im alarmed, mr. Chairman, im alarmed at the fact that the budget that was presented this year, uh, the new foundation for american greatness, the title of the book containing the budget, had a 64 million cut in disability, Social Security disability. Now, i know that means dont directly deal with that. But, that was alarming to me in view of us trying to package something. I mean, we have 16, 17 years to do this but, i dont know if thats accurate or not. But, about the c. O. L. A. [ inaudible ] what we need to understand in dealing with Social Security issues, that c. O. L. A. Is very important for seniors who live on fixed income. That c. O. L. A. Should represent, to me, the actual expenses that seniors have to put up with day in and day out. You know, there are so many exceptions to the rule and its so antiindicated the formula we use. We are faced to deal with the reality of, well, how do we address that in terms of cutting checks for people every month . They have paid into it. I paid into it. Youve paid into it. And we want a fair return at the end. The legislation that the gentleman from connecticut has talked about reflects it. The legislation is right on concerning how we will adjust that c. O. L. A. To be more realistic about what seniors get in that check that was cut. Forever it was cut. Would you agree with me . I believe mr. Larson [ inaudible ] based on 62 and over population market cap let me ask you this, mr. Goss. First of all, is Social Security bankrupt . Uh, by any normal meaning of the word, i think we would have to say no as the chairman and others have said even if we reached the point of depletion, we still will be able to pay more or less on the order of it appears by the same numbers were not on the verge of bankruptcy. Were not bankrupt today but were going to be bankrupt tomorrow, we cant say that right now. Has Congress Needed to shore up Social Security trust fund in the past . Numerous times and its always been done. Hatch the active the Actions Congress took in the past to shore up the trust fund we here a lot about that resulted in any substantial benefit cuts . Uh, it has at times the principle of reduction was back in the 1977 amendment, there was actually a major change in the benefit formula but there were in the 1983, there was a mix between traditional revenue and [ inaudible ]. Has Social Security ever failed to pay everyones benefits . Uh, Social Security has never reached a point of reserve depletion and failed to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis. What i think your answers are and ill be very quick, mr. Chairman, it says to me that congress will need to take action to extend the trust Fund Solvency but we do not need to cut benefits for restructure the program to do this. Would you agree with that . It is certainly possible to extend the solvency without benefit reduction. Mr. Chairman, thank you and good luck on your endeavor. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rice, youre recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im going to be quick. There are a whole lot of major issues that are facing the country has have been over our heads for a long time and i believe are holding our country back, health care, infrastructure but then, more important to more people, Social Security. It affects such a large swath of our population, so critical to their everyday life. One question that we referred to earlier that i get all the time, i want you to say this in more simple terms for the folks back home. I frequently hear if Social Security would be all right if the federal government hadnt robbed Social Security. In fact, the money comes in, in a trust fund and [ inaudible ] federal trust funds, if theyre not funded you cant trust them but that being said you have to invest that money, you dont just leave it in a closet. You have to invest it. Dealing with Social Security you want to invest in something that is rock solid. So, you loan the money to the government. Now, is the government cheating Social Security in any way in that franchise. The government there is no way we could say the government is cheating. Every penny every gone to the trust fund when it is needed have come back with interest. And i have looked at the rate that the government pays Social Security on that trust fund and in the last decade, that rate has averaged higher than the government pays on the tenyear Treasury Bill. Can you confirm that . The rate the holdings we have in the trust fund, many of them were issued years ago when the rates were actually higher. So, we retained those and the higher rate. The average yield is higher than the so, the government, in borrowing money from Social Security, could borrow it from other places cheaper. The government could go and borrow that money on the market for a tenyear Treasury Bill cheaper than the way it is paying Social Security. Actually, we prefer new money to be borrowed today from the trust fund or from the market, they pay exactly the same rate for new money that is being borrowed. For older existing, they are paying a higher rate but if somebody in the populace is Holding Treasuries ten years old they will get a higher rate, also. Just to be crystal clear, i dont want to complicate this for my folks back home. The rate the government has paid to the Social Security trust fund to borrow that money from the Social Security trust fund is higher the last two decades than what the government pays on the tenyear Treasury Bill. I would suggest that the rate any coupon issued is issued coupon rates exactly what the current effective market yield is. Thats new. But on the whole pile. The average on existing bonds were holding is higher than the current effective market yield for bonds. Thank you, sir. As weve heard today even with the improvements in the solvency of Disability Insurance, Social Security faces serious challenges. Americans deserve a factbased conversation about choices necessary. Social security is a program our children and grandchildren can count on just as seniors and individuals with disabilities do today. I look forward to continuing this conversation and working with all my colleagues to strengthen Social Security. Thank you to our witness for his testimony. Thank you, also, to our members for being here. With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Cspans washington journal live with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up tuesday morning, a look at efforts to pass the 2018 federal budget. Beginning with a member of the house budget committee. Later, author be sure to watch