[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 21 (Tuesday, March 1, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H836-H842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOCIAL SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the
opportunity, and also Democratic Leader Pelosi, for one more hour, one
more week for the Democratic 30-something Working Group.
As you know, over a period of time, from the 108th Congress now to
the 109th Congress, we have been coming to the floor sharing
information, not only with Members of the House and the other body, but
also with the present administration in the White House and with the
American people about what is happening for America and what is
happening to America.
I must say that it is discouraging to hear some of the things that
are coming from the majority side and also coming mainly from the White
House on Social Security. And we come to the floor week after week to
give voice to those Americans that are educating themselves through the
survivor benefits, through Social Security, and also those Americans
that are 20, 30, 40, and 50-something that are looking for Social
Security to be there for them when they retire; and to make sure that
they can get the maximum benefit, especially for those that are in
their 50s and 40s, as they start to think about retirement, making sure
that Social Security is there for them when they are eligible.
I must say that during the break, as you know, we were on the
Presidents' break for some time. And many House Democrats, and some
enlightened Republicans, I must add, went back home and started asking
their constituents how they felt about Social Security. And many of
them came back with positive responses. In fact, they want the maximum
benefits out of Social Security, and they want to make sure that it is
not privatized. And that was overwhelmingly the message during the
Presidents' break. It is not what I am saying; it is what the press
reports are saying, either via print or TV media.
And the House Democrats have been out in America and united about
opposing the privatization, in opposition to the privatization of
Social Security. And over the past 2 weeks, 160 House
[[Page H837]]
Democrats have held over 300 townhall meetings, Mr. Speaker. I just
want to make sure that that is definitely a note. Not only with the
Members, the Members note that that is the case, but to make sure that
the American people that we are here to serve understand that we are
trying to do all we can.
And in the minority, I must say, here in this House, I want to remind
the majority party that if we had the power to call a committee
meeting, if we had the power to look into things that may be
questionable as it relates to some of the decisions that are being made
and some of the abuse of power that is taking place on the executive
branch end, then we will have better accountability.
But as it relates to Social Security, we are fighting the good fight.
We are working with what we have to go out to the American people to
let them know what is going on here under the dome.
Once again, 160 Democratic House Members have gone out and had over
300 townhall meetings in their districts and around their States. And I
think that is so very, very important.
Mr. Speaker, we have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) here, who co-
chairs this 30-something Working Group with me, who I must say that it
is just a pleasure being here with the gentleman from Ohio just one
more week. I am looking forward as we continue to hit the road and
share the information about Social Security and why it is important to
many young people throughout the United States of America. But it is
just once again a pleasure to share this hour with him.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Pleasure. Same here, my good friend. I would also
like to just make a couple of opening comments before we get into the
nuts and bolts, into the meat of the issue here.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who every now and again I
join down here doing an Iraq Watch or something on the veterans, he and
I held a townhall meeting in Youngstown, Ohio, last week. And we had
chairs set up for about 125 people. And the room was packed with 200
people. We had to turn people away at the local library, Boardman
Public Library.
It was just amazing because of the amount of concern regarding this
issue and how many people want to try to understand what the
President's plan is. And as you put it a couple of weeks ago when we
were here, we really do not have any of these details. And we do not
know exactly what the President's plan is. And he is talking in these
very broad concepts, because once you get down to the nuts and bolts of
implementation of the privatization accounts, it gets very, very hairy
and very, very scary.
And one of the main concerns at the townhall meeting in Youngstown
was the concern of having to borrow money to try to implement this
system. And when you look at what we have here, and average people
understand this, we are running close to a $500 billion deficit just
this year. And so we have to go out and we have to borrow that money,
and we are borrowing it primarily from the Japanese and the Chinese,
which puts our country in a position of weakness.
The one thing the President has said that he wants to for sure do is
he wants to have these private accounts, the side accounts. So instead
of putting money into the Social Security trust fund, you would put it
in this private savings account.
Because the money is getting diverted into the accounts, and we want
the current beneficiaries of the program to get what they deserve, we
have got to go out over the next 10 years, the first 10 years out from
this plan, and we have to borrow $1.4 trillion just to cover the cost
of the transition in the first 10 years.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to please
repeat that.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes, certainly. I said that $1.4 trillion must be
borrowed in the first 10 years of implementation of a Social Security
reform package that includes the private accounts. And, again, I am 31,
the gentleman from Florida is 30----
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Something
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Something. And the money we do pay in, because
Members of Congress do pay into the Social Security system, the 6.2
percent that we are putting in now that goes into the trust funds, the
President is saying we will be able to take maybe all of that, maybe a
portion of that and put it in a side account. In order to make up the
difference, so that our grandparents and parents can get what they have
put into Social Security and they get the full benefits, we have to
borrow $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. But the massive figure is
$5 trillion over the next 20 years.
Now, that is $5 trillion we have to go out and borrow and pay
interest on, which I think is probably the best argument for not doing
this. We should not implement a program that is going to strap our
generation with massive tax increases to pay for this, the $5 trillion,
the interest on the $5 trillion, and then end up with a benefit that is
not guaranteed. I think when you add all that together, it is a recipe
for disaster.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, I can tell my colleague that I am at a
loss for words when it comes down to all the Federal jet fuel that has
been burned on the U.S. taxpayers' dollars on the flying around the
country with no plan and talking about privatization of Social
Security.
There are millions of Americans that are benefactors of Social
Security. We cannot break our promise to them. For anyone to go and say
we will privatize and everything will be fine, the evidence, which we
will talk about later on in this hour, is leaning towards benefits
being cut as it relates to the privatization. We will be talking about
that a little later on.
I am glad to have my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz), who was here with us in the past. She had a
townhall meeting, a couple of them I think in her district, and so I
will now yield to her.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding to me. It is a pleasure to be here with my 30-
something colleagues once again.
I did have townhall meetings in south Florida last week. I had three
townhall meetings, and more than 500 people attended those meetings.
Other than two, two out of those 500 hundred, every single person left
with the feeling that they were completely opposed to the President's
privatization plan. They understood first and foremost that it is
incredibly disturbing that the privatization proposal he has put
forward does not even solve the problem.
We, I think, have tried to stress as Democrats that we are not saying
there is no problem, that there is a problem that needs to be
addressed. But, for example, and one of the examples I used in my
meetings, was that the earliest that we have a problem where we are
taking in less than we are paying out is in 2042, and many of the
studies show that it really could last until 2052. Our generation, when
I talk to my friends at home and ask them whether they think Social
Security is going to be there, they do not think it will.
Let me just throw out an example. I am 38 years old. In 2042, I will
be 75. I will be 85 in 2052. So that shows you that Social Security
will be there for our generation. What we need to do is we need to make
some changes to Social Security, shore it up, help preserve the safety
net; but we need to take the time to do it right. We do not need to
perform the radical surgery the President is proposing, and that was
the overwhelming message I got from my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I want to be able to share with my colleagues
here, and our other colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that this is important. As
I explained earlier in this hour, maybe 5 or 6 minutes ago, we do not
have the power within this institution, within the House to be able to
agenda committee meetings, or agenda meetings or inquiries, or whatever
the case may be, although we look forward to that day. Do not get me
wrong, I look forward to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi)
one day becoming Speaker Pelosi. Because some of the things we talk
about here on this floor we want to be able to use the power of this
House to be able to make things right on behalf of the American people.
Now, we are not just talking about Democratic American people. We are
[[Page H838]]
talking about Republican American people, Libertarian, what have you,
the Green Party, Democrats, on and on and on. We are talking about the
American people in general. But I wanted to take about 4 minutes
sharing about what happens when we move in haste.
The President wants us to move in haste. The majority party wants us
to move in haste. The majority of the other body wants us to move as
though there is some sort of Federal emergency. But there is not a
Federal emergency. Social Security will be here. It will not collapse
tomorrow or the next day or 10 years from now or even 20 years from
now, thanks to the Democratic Speaker and the Republican President
Ronald Reagan making sure that Social Security was sound.
I can see the gentleman from Ohio is right there. He is ready. But
let me just make my point. I am not giving a locker-room speech; I am
just letting our colleagues know that there is not a Federal emergency
as relates to Social Security.
Now, here on this floor, and I pointed this out a couple of weeks ago
and I want to point it out again, because maybe some of the Members
that are watching us now might have missed it. During the Medicare
debate here on this floor, when we were locked in this Chamber, well, I
would not say locked, I do not want to sensationalize it, we were held
here in this Chamber and the vote board was open for over an hour and
some change, maybe getting close to 2 hours while the majority side
went around twisting arms.
And here, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend some of my colleagues on the
majority side that stood on behalf of their constituents but had to
break because there were a lot of arms being twisted on the other side.
{time} 2215
During the Medicare debate as relates to prescription drugs, the
majority hid the true costs that it would cost to deal with
prescription drugs. First they said it will only cost $350 billion.
That is a lot of money. We were all taken aback by that because that is
borrowed money. That is money on a high-interest credit card. That is
money that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) talked about earlier,
about knocking on the bank of China, saying, Please buy more of our
debt.
Then as we move down the road a little bit, it moved up to $400
billion. This is not $4, not $400,000, this is not even $400 million,
it was $400 billion. After the debate, the cost jumped up to more than
$530 billion. But still that was not enough because when we move in
haste, we make mistakes. It is important that we move in a way that not
only Members can pay very close attention to what is going on, and that
Members will have an opportunity to analyze plans and legislation. And
I must add, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) knows, we do not have
a plan from the President or the majority, and I will talk about that
later. Now just before we left, just a week before the President's
District Work Period, the cost went to $724 billion. Where are we
headed? This is borrowed money.
We have that going on, let alone the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We
are about to have an $80 billion supplemental. The majority side here
in the House would like for the American people to believe that there
is a Federal emergency and Social Security will collapse if we do not
act now.
I will tell Members we have a lot on our plate right now. Members
heard the gentlewoman from Florida talk about the fact that she will be
84 and still look the same in the future. I am making fun of it, but
this is a very serious situation.
I had this on my chart the last time we were here on the floor but I
thought I would blow it up because some of the Members I saw said I
want a copy of that. I want to make sure Members can see it. There are
people running around saying where is the Democratic plan? Our plan is
already institutionalized in Social Security. The benefits that people
are receiving, the survivor benefits Americans are receiving, that
third rail when the Enrons of the world go south on America workers
that have been paying into a retirement plan, Social Security is the
safety net. And Democrats, our position, is making sure not that we
have a Democratic plan, shoring up and making sure even beyond those
years far out that Social Security is here for a long time, a
bipartisan plan between Democrats and Republicans, and that is what the
Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip, are
talking about constantly.
In 1998, President Bush was quoted as saying that he wanted to
privatize Social Security as a solution to the financial problems.
Chairman Greenspan on the House and on the Senate side said
privatization alone will not solve or will not resolve the issue of
Social Security. As a matter of fact, if they were to deal with that,
then they would have to have tax increases and also cutbacks in
traditional programs.
In 2000, during his campaign, Governor Bush basically said he wanted
to privatize Social Security. Then in 2001, now President Bush
appointed a commission to develop a privatization plan for him.
In December 2001, they followed their charge, and if you were on that
commission, you would have had to have made previous statements that
you were in favor of privatization, so of course you are going to get
recommendations from this commission.
In 2001, the commission gave the President three options for
privatization of Social Security.
From December of 2001 through 2004 when the President came here and
walked down and spoke in front of us, he was silent on the issue of
privatization. Absolutely nothing. No statements, nothing. Did not talk
about it. And now in 2004, while running for reelection, there was some
mention but no plan. No plan came about after the three options.
Members would assume the plan would come the year after, nothing.
Then days after the 2004 election he thought he had the political
clout to be able to privatize Social Security. That did not happen.
January of this year while at the White House, once again he talked
about it and said there is a plan. Now the budget was submitted at the
beginning of February, no privatization plan was included. When I say
the President said nothing, he is saying nothing because he is not
putting forth a plan. Now press accounts say it is not clear if the
President is going to offer a plan this year.
Now for all the American people that are sitting at home watching us
now and for all those individuals concerned about their benefits, I
want to let you know right now it is important that you call your
Member of Congress, it is important that your Member of Congress pay
very close attention to this.
In closing, I want to let the Members on the majority side, for those
that are not with the President, and I must add there are some, there
are some from my State, that I commend for their courage and for their
standing up to the majority and the President saying they will not sell
out their constituents on a hasty plan saying we have to move it
through.
Remember I talked about the Medicare issue and how that ended up
going all of the way to $724 billion from $350 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, that is a phenomenal outline of a
consistent approach on what the plan was, has been, continued to be and
now getting closer to try to implement. I think it is an ideological
bent that is pushing us because as the gentleman said, we are going to
have to go out and borrow the money. I think it is important that we
mention what happens when the public side is out in the market
borrowing money. The more money we are borrowing, there is less money
to be borrowed by private interests which will drive up interest rates
because there will be less money out there because we have to keep
going out there and borrowing it for our own purposes, whether it is
Social Security or running a deficit of $500 billion. That means
increased interest rates, for those at home, who want to go out and get
a car, get a house, want to go out and borrow some money for whatever
reason, interest rates are going to rise if we keep going down the path
we are on right now.
One other comment I wanted to make that the gentleman brought up, the
administration is trying to say crisis, crisis, crisis. The sky is
going to
[[Page H839]]
fall in if we do not do something immediately. They used the word
``bankrupt.'' I think the President used the word in the State of the
Union address. I am almost positive.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. He said bankrupt. To me bankrupt means there is
nothing in the bank. It is belly up, zero. That is how I interpret
bankruptcy. Nothing left.
The problem is Social Security will never, ever, ever, go bankrupt
because there will always be workers putting money into the system. Now
it may not be, if we stay like we are now, it may not always be at the
levels we want. Down the line, it may only pay 80 percent of the
benefits, but there will always be money in the Social Security system
so it will never be bankrupt.
So when the President says bankrupt, he is misleading the public
because the gentleman from Florida and I will be paying in for the next
30 some years into the program. So even if you and I are just paying
in, it is not bankrupt. It may not have enough funds, but it is not
bankrupt.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that came up in
my town meetings, talking about the debt and privatization would add to
in America, the gentleman from Florida and I served with a wise
Republican member of the Florida Senate, Senator Jim King, whom when we
were engaged in a debate with our House colleagues and it was the State
Senate versus the State House and our position in the State Senate was
we should not be adding to debt and we should not be continuing to
borrow to pay for our needs, he likened that concept to using our
MasterCard to pay off our Visa.
Mr. Speaker, that is really the policy that the President is
advocating. He appears to think it is okay to add to the debt, make our
deficit much more significant, to overrely on nations like China and
Japan. I feel an overwhelming sentiment coming from my constituents,
and just by applying a little logic, why would we want to leave our
constituents' future retirement security in the hands of the economic
whims or decisions of foreign governments. That is essentially what is
being done when we talk about privatizing Social Security.
The other really big issue that the President has tried to stress and
underscore and use to try to relieve the concern that senior citizens
may have over his plan, he is saying do not worry, people over 55 and
over, we are not going to touch your benefits, nothing is going to
happen.
Well, as neutrally as I possibly could, and some people might chuckle
about that, I presented that argument in my town meetings last week.
And overwhelmingly, my constituents, the constituents of the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Meek), understood when we have a massive program like
we have in Social Security in America, and we are talking about the
kinds of numbers and the impact that privatization would have on that
program, $1.4 trillion cost to privatize in the first 10 years, and
another $3.5 trillion in 10 years after that, when we apply a radical
surgical procedure to a program that size, they understand there is no
way you are going to avoid impacting them. It is not possible. They are
smarter than that.
The other reason for the answer to the question of why senior
citizens care about this, assuming they believe the President, say they
take the President at his word and believe it will not affect people 55
and older, the reason they care is they understand that our generation,
their children and their grandchildren, we are not the generation of
savers that they were. They were the generation of savers. We are the
generation of racking up our credit card bills and trying to have as
much as we possibly can. There is nothing wrong with that, but it needs
to be recognized that is a policy where Americans continue to add to
their debt and there are eventually consequences to that.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is not a good way to run the government.
Although a person may be able to get away with it longer and file
personal bankruptcy without the ramifications to society as opposed to
privatizing Social Security.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Exactly. And what the gentleman said about
debt in general and making sure that we continue to have sound public
policy when it comes to Social Security, these senior citizens
understand that because we do not have the savings in generations
following them, we have to make sure that we adopt an approach to
fixing Social Security that recognizes that the emphasis should be on
encouraging savings. There is a way to do that without moving to a
radical proposal like privatizing the program.
Chairman Greenspan testified before the Committee on Financial
Services and was pretty unequivocal in his testimony before our break
about what he believes the direction we should take is.
{time} 2230
His focus was absolutely on any policy change that moved away from
encouraging a national savings was not a sound one. Almost every one of
the comments that he made undermined the President's arguments. He
testified in front of our committee that the overriding long-term
retirement issue facing the Nation is increasing national savings.
Before I yield back, I want to tell my colleagues a really telling
story. The thing that I think is important to stress is that Social
Security was created in 1935. It was created by Democrats, it was
sustained by Democrats, it was improved by Democrats and that has
generally been virtually without any Republican support for Social
Security. It was not created with Republican votes. It has not been
fixed by Republican leadership. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), our ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services,
asked Chairman Greenspan this question:
Mr. Chairman, in 1935 if you were a Member of Congress, would you
have voted for Social Security?
The chairman's response was: I can't answer that question.
I think I will just leave it at that and allow that to underscore
where the support for Social Security is. It certainly has not been on
the administration's side of the issue.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think that is a telling point and I appreciate
her sharing that story because I will use it to further make a point on
this. What we have to realize is that this is a program that helps a
lot of people, too. It is not just the 70 percent of the program that
goes to the retirees. This also has survivorship benefits in it. It
also helps people who are disabled, blind, deaf, whatever the situation
may be. This is something that brings a lot more value to our society
than just the numbers that we put up on boards here in the House
Chamber. There is more to this whole deal here than just money. This is
about helping people and this was about bringing dignity to people so
that they would not have to work until they died. It lifts seniors out
of poverty. All our parents and grandparents recognize that. I think if
the President says, like he said, 55 and over, you are fine, you are
all right, which implies that if you are 55 and under, you better look
out because we are not sure what is going to happen. If we really
wanted to help kids, students right now, and that is sometimes how he
pitches this, hey, these young people would be able to go save in a
private account. If you really want to help these college students,
increase the Pell grant more than $100 a year for the next 5 years. Let
us help these kids reduce their college debt. They are graduating from
college on average with about a $20,000 debt already which takes away
from our national savings. Why do we not help them with that, as long
as they put the money into some kind of long-term pension fund for
themselves? There are ways we could get creative here and do this, but
to say to dismantle the greatest social program in the history of
mankind, I think is pretty foolish. The gentleman from Florida looks as
if he has something very important to say.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I literally could not wait to get here tonight,
even though we are here after supper and many of our Members are
probably cracking their toes now getting ready to go to bed. But I will
tell you this, that it is important. This is so important, not only do
I have this notebook, but I have two other notebooks on this issue.
This is not, as far as I am concerned, an attack on a Democratic
program. This is an attack on the American people. It is our
responsibility to
[[Page H840]]
make sure that we inform the American people what is going on. Once
again, I am not saying that the President is not telling the truth. I
am not saying that the majority side is not telling the truth. I am
just saying they are inaccurate as it relates to the facts. It is
important that we share these facts.
I just wanted to share with the gentlewoman from Florida when she
shared that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking
member who is a respected Member of this House and has been here for a
very long time on the Committee on Financial Services as the majority
side and the chairman of the committee and he could not answer the
question if he would have voted yes or no.
Forty-eight million Americans receive Social Security. Forty-eight
million. Not 4, not 48, not 4,800, not 48,000; 48 million Americans.
These retirees and 33 million retired Americans that are already
retired receive this information. It is not the Kendrick Meek report.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. How many people in poverty? Did the gentleman say
that?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, I have not. I was on my way. Seniors who are
living in poverty, that are receiving the benefits, 48 percent of those
individuals, of the 43 million, receive Social Security.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So they would be in poverty if it was not for
Social Security?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Forty-eight percent of the 43 million.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So what is your philosophy on life when you say
that you are okay with those people going back into poverty?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, I am not okay.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I did not say you were okay. I know the gentleman
is not okay with that.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. But that is the reason why we are here. People
are asking for the Democratic plan. I am asking where is the
President's plan? Where is the majority plan? I do not want to go back
to 1978 again. We are still talking about philosophy, but if I can just
for a second, I have said this and I will say it again verbatim, for
the last 3 weeks we have talked about Social Security. Democrats want
to strengthen Social Security without slashing benefits that Americans
have earned. Private accounts makes Social Security's challenge worse,
makes the challenge worse, the private accounts do, we will talk about
that in a minute and we have been talking about that, as far as massive
benefit cuts and it will increase the national debt. Already in the
projection, $427 billion. Who is counting? I am.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I do not even think that counts the war.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is not even the war. So we are saying, not
the Democratic plan, that we know all and we know best. We are not even
advocating that. It is the majority side in this House that is saying,
oh, we can figure it out because we have the majority and we have
stacked all the committees and we can get it through the committee and
we can get it to the floor, and if we have to do a Medicare move again,
keeping the voting board open for over an hour while we walk around
here and put pressure on individuals that have already made a sound
decision on how they are going to vote, then we are going to do
everything we can as Democrats.
I commend our leadership, need it be in the Committee on Ways and
Means, need it be in the Committee on Financial Services, need it be
our Democratic leader the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), all the way to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and our Democratic Caucus, and also the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) who is our Vice Chair, to
let the American people know that this will not happen and that with
the President and with the majority side, they are talking about
theory, not a plan. And so our plan is to make sure that we do not make
life worse for people under 55. Even the President said, if you are
over 55, you don't have anything to worry about. This is the same
President, with all due respect to my Commander in Chief, that said it
would only be $350 billion for Medicare prescription drugs and now we
are way up to $724 billion. I am not saying he is not telling the
American people the truth, I am just saying that it is inaccurate
information. And inaccurate information, when people feel that they
have the power to do whatever they want to do, is wrong.
That is why it is important that we take this time out and that is
the reason I commend my Democratic colleagues that are here saying, no,
having over 300 town hall meetings, and I commend my Republican
colleagues, in the minority in the majority, that are saying, no, Mr.
President, who I campaigned for, I am not with you on this one. So we
want to make sure. That is the reason why we do not have a plan yet,
because there is no real plan. I would much rather the President say
``thank you'' and just move on to another issue because we have a war
that is going on right now. Until we are ready to work in a bipartisan
way, we should not approach Social Security, until we sit down at the
table and to be able to hear both sides and that we can move together.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) would be at the White House
right now as ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means if we
were hammering out a real bipartisan plan.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) would be at the White
House right now as we speak hammering out a real bipartisan plan.
Leader Pelosi, when she goes to meet and you know the American people
at least once a week, they come together, majority and minority and the
leaders come together at the White House, if she were included in that
process of hammering out a Social Security plan, maybe, just maybe the
American people will benefit. But that is not the case.
I am going to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, and I hope she
will explain at least some of the charts that she has there to be able
to share what we are getting ourselves into if we allow the majority
side to carry us down, not a yellow brick road but some other color
brick road in making Social Security solvent for years and years and
years to come.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just want to expound on a couple of the
things that the gentleman said. Given from the three of us, me being
from the opposite gender from the two gentlemen I am here on the floor
with, I think it is important to note the effect that privatization
would have on women. We have talked about this before but just to give
you an idea of what women face when it comes to the comparison to men.
In 2003, the average monthly Social Security benefit for a woman was
only $798. That is $241 less than the average man's monthly retirement.
Women's earnings are still 77 percent relative to men in 2002 dollars.
Women who reach retirement age live on average at least 3 years longer
than men. So this is a female problem, to say the least. Social
Security is the only source of retirement income for one in three
unmarried retired women. That is a really significant number.
Without Social Security, 52 percent of white women, 65 percent of
African American women and 61 percent of Hispanic women would live in
poverty upon retirement. It provides more than half of the total income
for female widows and single women. The other thing I wanted to expand
upon that the gentleman from Florida talked about is the issue does
arise, where is the Democrats' plan? Do my colleagues remember, I think
it was a Wendy's commercial, the really famous Wendy's commercial,
``Where's the beef?'' That is what I would like to know, and my
constituents want to know about the President's plan, where is the
beef? It is very nice to talk about vague outlines of what you would
like to see happen, pie in the sky concepts, but generally in my
legislative experience, when a President or a governor in my experience
makes a proposal, they usually send the legislative body a bill. They
usually get a Member to sponsor it. And then we have an opportunity to
dissect it and debate it and then the minority party offers their
alternative. It is time. It really is time. It is the President that
has laid out that this is a crisis. We call it a long-term challenge.
We would be happy to sit down and discuss our approach to that long-
term challenge but we are in an apples-to-oranges situation here.
[[Page H841]]
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We want to be a part of this. I do not want anyone
at home sitting there listening to us to think that we do not want to
be a part of solving this problem. Not crisis. Problem. Long-term
problem. We all have long-term problems. My family has heart disease. I
have a long-term heart disease problem, long-term.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have some credit card debt.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We all have problems. I think this shows really
where we are at philosophically, too. I have a school district,
Youngstown city school district, over 50 percent of the kids in that
school district live in poverty. Seventy percent qualify for free and
reduced lunch. That to me is a crisis, immediate, needs to be
addressed. Cuts in Medicaid and food stamps, that is a crisis. We need
to fix that now. This is long-term.
There are a couple of points I want to make. Let me get to this chart
here. This is the U.S. trade deficit with China. This is the country we
are borrowing all this money from. It is about $163 billion, maybe a
$165 billion trade deficit. We are buying more than we are selling. I
just want to show this because I think as we look at the big picture
with the $420 billion or $430 billion annual trade deficit, this is all
U.S. investment going over to China.
{time} 2245
A lot of these job that were in the United States are now in China.
Fewer people paying that 6.2 percent into the system, which would
certainly help, as opposed to making 8 bucks an hour. The good high-
wage jobs that were 18, 20, 25 bucks an hour, 6.2 percent of 25 bucks
an hour is a lot more than 6.2 percent of 8 bucks an hour, which is the
rate we pay in. So I just wanted to put this up to give everybody some
perspective.
And we talked about Alan Greenspan and his testimony. I just want to
read a paragraph from Bloomberg News. It is pretty interesting:
``Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's testimony yesterday before
the Senate Banking Committee,'' a couple weeks ago, ``undermined
virtually all of the Bush administration's arguments for diverting some
Social Security tax payments to fund private retirement accounts. If
the hole left in Social Security finances by the diversion were filled
by added government borrowing, as proposed by President Bush, creating
the private accounts would not add to national savings, and for
Greenspan national savings is the overriding long-term retirement issue
facing the Nation.'' Greenspan says we need more national savings. The
administration's plan is borrow $5 trillion. Two complete opposite ends
of the spectrum.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say
the list is endless for those who are opposed to the President's
philosophy and the majority side's philosophy on this. I mean, it is
not just House Democrats. It is not just the Democrats of the other
body. It is not just Democrats that are out there hopefully wanting to
be President one day. I mean, we have a number of individuals.
I just want to name a few while we are here to let them know that we
are paying attention to what they are doing. Along with the 300
townhall meetings that House Democrats had, we had a number of other
groups that were out there and still out there doing good things and
sharing with the American people. I just want to start off with an
organization that is out there of retirees, the AARP. They are opposed
to the President's plan. And to be a member of the AARP, one has to be
kind of middle-aged, I must add. I have been elected a long time. I am
not going to call anyone old. But let me tell my colleagues this: one
has to be at least middle-aged.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Fifty.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one has to be at least middle-aged,
and one would have to have experienced life. So they are opposed to
this plan, this philosophy of a plan. Nothing is concrete, but what
they have heard thus far as it relates to privatization of Social
Security they have a problem with. So does the A. Phillip Randolph
Institute. So does the African American Ministers' Project. So does the
Alliance for Retired Americans. So does the American Association of
University Women; American Baptist Churches, USA; the AFL-CIO; the
Association of Community Organizations for Reform. Also we have the
Campaign for America's Future, the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, the Center for Economic Policy and Research, Children's
Defense Fund, Coalition on Human Needs.
I mean, I can go on and on and on of these groups, and I have pages
and pages and pages. Older Women's League. The ``wiser women's
league,'' let us put it that way.
But all of these groups, the League of Rural Voters, I have pages
upon pages, and they would fall on the floor if they were not in this
binder, of groups that have said it is not a plan; but from what we
hear and from the individuals that are saying that they are trying to
serve up something to young people, trying to get them to believe that
it is cool, that it is okay to gamble on their retirement, they do not
agree with it.
A. Phillip Randolph Institute.
African American Episcopal Church.
African American Ministers' Project.
Alliance for Retired Americans.
American Association of University Women.
American Baptist Churches, USA.
AFL-CIO.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN).
Call to Renewal [Faith].
Campaign for America's Future.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
Center on Economic Policy and Research (CEPR).
Children's Defense Fund.
Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU).
Coalition on Human Needs (CHN).
College Democrats of America (CDA).
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF).
Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities (CCD).
Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA).
League of Rural Voters.
League of United Latin American Citizens.
The Links, Inc.
MoveOn.org.
NAACP.
National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL).
National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. (NCBA).
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
(NCPSSM).
National Congress of American Indians.
National Council of Churches.
National Council of La Raza.
National Farmers Union.
National Organization for Women (NOW).
National Puerto Rican Coalition.
Older Women's League (OWL).
People for the American Way.
Progressive National Baptist.
Rock the Vote.
USAction.
Women Investing in a Secure Retirement (WISER).
Young Democrats of America (YDA).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to expand on
something since we are going to try to focus on young people in our
caucus. A really good example of what impact this proposal would have
on younger people, a 20-year-old who enters the workforce today, over
the course of their career would experience a $152,000 loss in their
Social Security benefits that they would have otherwise received. It
provides disability insurance that young families need. There is no
private insurance plan today that can match the disability benefits
that Social Security provides. For a worker in her mid-20s with a
spouse and two children, Social Security provides the equivalent of a
$350,000 disability insurance policy. Most young people cannot afford
or obtain that kind of coverage outside of Social Security.
And let us say, God forbid, a young parent dies suddenly. I heard the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) today talk about a person
who came to one of his townhall meetings whose spouse died when she was
35 years old and Social Security provides the survivor benefits that
are left behind for those kids.
To such an extent, most people do not realize Social Security's
survivor benefits will replace as much as 80 percent of the earnings
for a 25-year-old average-wage worker who dies, leaving two young
children and a spouse. That is the equivalent of a $403,000 life
insurance policy. And the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn)
talked very poignantly this morning about the gentleman that he has
known for years, and had never heard this story, that his 35-year-old
wife, when she
[[Page H842]]
passed away, could at least rest in peace knowing that her life and her
work had provided for her children's future benefit even in death.
And that is the type of rug that we are pulling out from under people
if we go in this direction.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment on the
AARP. These attack ads, the same consultant groups that attacked
Presidential candidate Kerry, the same groups that did the Swift Boat
ads are now attacking AARP, and they are saying that AARP is for gay
marriage and against the troops. And the reason I want to comment on
that is because their reference is to the Ohio AARP chapter, which was
against an issue that was on the ballot in Ohio, and I believe it was
Issue 1. The issue was to ban gay marriage, but it was written so
broadly that it eliminated civil unions between men and women who were
older, who were senior citizens. And I have people in my district,
friends of mine, who were married and their spouses passed away and
they were senior citizens and they were 70-something-years-old and they
had families on both sides and kids and grandkids. They did not want to
get married, but they wanted a legal binding contract. So the AARP,
obviously, was against that because it took away the civil unions for
senior citizens. Now all of a sudden here come the attack ads against
AARP just to try to slam them because they are not for the President's
proposal.
So I just wanted to clarify that to the folks in Ohio. That is why
AARP was against Issue 1 because it is eliminating the ability for two
human beings, American citizens, to write a contract between each
other, man and woman, a contract not allowed in Ohio.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I guess as we
really start to look at this and as we wrap up in the next 3 or 4
minutes, I just want to say tomorrow one of those groups that I did not
mention, Rock the Vote, will be having a townhall meeting with some
Democratic Senators and will also have a college campus tour as they
start to go around and talk about this issue, and Republican Senators
that have spoken out against this.
And I must add that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz) and I join, in the single digits, I must add, members of the
Florida delegation in this House that are opposing the President's
philosophy at this time, rightfully so, because their constituents are
not with them on this. And that is the way democracy is supposed to
work.
We are not up here to fly up here every week and walk around with
congressional pins on and showing our card, walking in and out of this
Capitol, and saying that we are here to represent ourselves. We are
here to represent the people that have sent us here. And believe me, if
I were walking around here saying I support the President's philosophy
and the majority's philosophy, my constituents, and the gentlewoman
from Florida knows them well, would be up in arms. So I am a
representation of what they voted for. So that is the reason why we are
here.
I want to just add a few more things, and then I will yield to my
colleagues to make closing comments. I must say I want to share with
the American people again that 48 million Americans are receiving
benefits of Social Security; 33 million are retirees already. That is
the AARP group, and the AARP is against this. We also have seniors that
would be in poverty if it were not for the 48 percent of those are
within the 48 million. The average monthly benefit is $955. And Social
Security will be solvent, will be there at what we see at present
levels for the next 47 years-and-some-change.
So I just want to make sure that people understand there is an issue,
but there is not a crisis. There is a concern, but it is not an
emergency. So it is important that we realize we have a war going on in
Iraq, as a matter of fact, two of them, in Afghanistan. We have this
other little thing that we are calling, which is a big issue, $724
billion in the prescription drug plan, and then we also have, and I
must add, this supplemental. We have an $80 billion supplemental that
is coming before us, and the Department of Homeland Security to protect
the homeland is only $40 billion. So when we look at it in the big
scheme of things, sheriffs, mayors, elected officials on the local
level, they are looking for the dollars to come down, and they can see
where they fall as it relates to receiving their fair share of
protecting the home front.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, actually what I want to close
with is I want to quote the President because the President has said
that leadership means not passing problems on to future generations and
future Presidents. And I take him at his word, and I am hopeful that we
do not go forward with this proposal because this plan to privatize
Social Security flies in the face of his stated belief that we need to
exercise some leadership and make sure that Social Security is
preserved into the future for our generation and for our children's
generation. And I look forward to working with both gentlemen.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I hope we continue this discussion. It
is nice because it is not a 30-second ad. We can actually talk about
the facts and get into a little more discussion.
I want to do this before we go. If there are any 30-somethings or 40-
somethings or 20-somethings or anyone out there who wants to e-mail us,
it is [email protected], or they can get us on our Web
site democraticleader.house.gov/30something, but they can send us an e-
mail if they have any comments or stories that they want us to share,
and we will pick a few next week and maybe read them on the House floor
here.
But I think it is important that we recognize that this is long term
and bad for our generation for all the reasons that we stated and I
think most significantly $5 trillion that we have to borrow primarily
from the Chinese.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure coming to
the floor. We want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), and we appreciate the opportunity to address the House.
____________________