[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 44 (Thursday, April 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2087-H2091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is once again a pleasure to
address the House of Representatives and also to talk about a very
important issue to all Americans, which is Social Security. I would
also like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing the 30-something
Working Group to come to the floor once again to talk about issues that
are facing not only young Americans but Americans in general.
Through her leadership and through others that are in the Democratic
Caucus, the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer);
the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez); and also
the vice chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), we
have been able to come to the floor to share facts, not fiction, to
bring accuracy to the Social Security debate as it stands now.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just share a few things as
relates to Social Security. We encourage the Members to continue to
keep an open mind. First of all, I want to commend Members on the
Democratic side of the aisle for having so many town hall meetings, a
number of town hall meetings, hundreds of town hall meetings in their
own districts and that have traveled outside of their districts to
share with Americans the truth about Social Security and how we protect
Social Security and how we continue to have the benefit structure that
so many, 48 million Americans, are celebrating now today.
I must also add that I would like to commend some of my Republican
colleagues that have the courage to stand up to the forces of
leadership, to say that they are willing to make sure that their
constituents are able to celebrate and to be able to survive in a
program that they have been promised that will be there for them in
their time of retirement.
I would also like to thank those Members on both sides of the aisle
who see the benefit of protecting Social Security, not coming up with a
privatization scheme, not because someone said it is a way that we can
be innovative, not subscribing to saying that there is some sort of
Federal emergency as it relates to the protection of Social Security,
not the fact that the President is flying around the country some 60
days burning Federal jet fuel at taxpayers' expense, higher than at any
other time in the history of this country since Presidents have been
flying, to persuade Americans that there is some Federal emergency. We
will try to address that a little later. We are going to celebrate not
only within the moment but within the future.
I want to just share a few things, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to how
many Americans that are not only beneficiaries of Social Security but
also Americans who look forward to benefiting from Social Security.
Social Security is the foundation of all retirement for the American
worker. Like I mentioned earlier, 48 million Americans celebrate and
take part in the benefits that Social Security has to provide. Retirees
receiving Social Security benefits are 33 million. That is a great
number of Americans that have served our country well. Seniors who live
within the poverty line, 48 percent of those individuals, of the 48
million, receive those benefits. The average monthly benefit is $955.
That is making ends meet for so many Americans, some 48 million
Americans.
The size of the average benefit, like I mentioned, is $955; but the
real issue is the fact that the benefits will be there for almost 50
years. Some may say 48, some may say 49, but for almost 50 years, the
present benefit structure as we see it now for Social Security
recipients, including those individuals that are receiving survivor
benefits that I must add, Mr. Speaker, those survivor benefits is the
legacy of the commitment that their parents made that have passed on,
that have gone on to glory. The only thing that they were able to leave
for their child are survivor benefits. And the benefits will be here
until 2052; 2052, Mr. Speaker. That is not tomorrow. That is not next
week. That is not even 2 years. 2052.
And so many of the individuals that are running around here saying
that we need to call the fire department because Social Security is on
fire are not really telling the truth. One may say that the
administration has a plan or the majority side leadership has a plan
for Social Security. That is also not true. One may say that the
President, like I said, the administration, has a plan. That is not
true. Is there posturing on the majority side about the fact that they
are going to come up with a plan? Yes, there is some conversation going
on, but Washington is known for conversation. There is nothing wrong
with conversation as long as it is bipartisan. And that is not
happening. Leadership is about a bipartisan dialogue to improve Social
Security. So if it is going to be addressed in this Congress, for us to
move in a productive way, we are going to have to work together. And
there is no leadership from the majority side for us to work together.
Some may say, well, where is the Democratic plan? Well, I think the
Democratic plan is celebrated by 48 million Americans today, not
fiction, not something that may happen in the future; and in the 1980s
it was a Democratic Congress that came together with Speaker Tip
O'Neill and Ronald Reagan and saved Social Security. A supermajority of
Democrats voted for it, and even the creation of it.
So when one starts to argue about, well, where is the Democratic
plan, the Democratic plan is in the wallets of 48 million Americans.
And those Americans that are walking around working now with a Social
Security card can say, wow, I am glad we have Social Security in the
way we have it. And for those retirees that take their card out with
those digits on them, they can thank the leadership of the Democratic
Congress when it was created and also the Democratic Congress that
saved Social Security to make sure that every American can have the
maximum amount of benefits possible to them to help that 48 percent of
the 48 million Americans that without Social Security would be living
in poverty, to help 33 million of those retirees that are now, this is
fact, not fiction, able to receive Social Security because, let us say,
for instance, in that 33 million Americans, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, a
number of their companies have gone back on their commitment on
retirement. But Social Security is there for them. For those
individuals that have passed on and gone on to glory, they were able to
leave legacy benefits for their children.
Let us talk a little bit about the private accounts, because I think
it is important that we talk about the privatization scheme that some
people in this
[[Page H2088]]
town have in store or would like to put forth to the American people.
Before I get into that, I would also like to add, since we are talking
about the positive points of Social Security, that Social Security is
important to stabilize the American way of life. If we start having
benefits cut back, especially in this era of no health care, I must
add, one may want to talk about health care accounts or special savings
accounts and all of those things that are talked about from time to
time.
Forty-seven million Americans are working without health care. These
are not individuals that are sitting at home cracking their toes,
saying the job situation looks sad. These are individuals that go to
work every day. So if we start getting along with our friends in Wall
Street and saying we are going to have private accounts and we are
going to shore up some more money for Wall Street, then that is a
gamble that I am not willing to take.
On the majority side, they are talking about, we need to privatize
these accounts. Let me tell you, it is going to make it harder for
everyone to achieve financial security, and I do mean everyone. Not
just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just independents, not just
people of color, not just Asian Americans. Every American will suffer
under it. The size of the benefit cuts proposed in the philosophy that
the majority side has is 46 percent. The average reduction of benefits
a retiree would see over their lifetime would be $152,000. The amount
that Wall Street would profit from the private accounts would be $940
billion. That is the only real bright spot here for some. The issue as
it relates to our risk as it relates to this risky plan for private
accounts, $2 trillion. The amount of government tax on private accounts
would be 80 percent.
If the Republican proposal to cut Social Security benefits were in
place today, the average senior monthly benefit would be $516. This is
very real, ladies and gentlemen. Remember, I said right now, as in the
present, today. If we look at the clock right now, if we look at
today's date right now, the average benefit is $955.
{time} 1715
Under the proposed philosophy that the majority side has, it would be
$516. That is not something to be proud of.
There are a lot of other things that were mentioned recently in the
media, and we will talk a little bit about that. But as we start, as we
continue to talk about the issue as it relates to the price tag of
privatization, it is staggering. It is a lose-lose proposition, as
presently presented, the philosophy that the President has. More than a
40 percent cut in benefits, adds nearly $5 trillion in additional debt
over a 20-year period; 70 percent privatization tax, which on average
takes back 70 cents on every dollar in private accounts. Some argue 80
percent. I mentioned this a minute a ago: $152,000 in benefit cuts for
young people is based on the price index.
So I think it is important that we look at this, especially as
Americans are forced to start thinking about this, something that is 50
years away of being a problem. And I must say, after 50 years, Mr.
Speaker, 80 percent of the benefits that are now offered in Social
Security will still be intact. In 2052, 2053, people will still be able
to receive 80 percent of the benefits. So I am wondering, where is the
fire?
I can tell the Members what is the fire right now, if we can use that
as a metaphor, or the emergency. The emergency now is the fact that we
have Americans working without health care. Emergency is the fact that
we are not able to provide benefits to our veterans that are now paying
more for health care that they were promised that would be free.
Emergency is the fact that we have a Department of Homeland Security,
that we are rated as an F as it relates to protecting our information
technology. Those are true emergencies.
Emergency is the fact that we cannot protect our borders. Those are
true emergencies. Emergency is the fact that we have local districts,
local cities, counties and State governments that are suffering through
the acts of this Congress in what we call devolution of taxation. We
will cut taxes, but we are going to make them raise them on the local
level. Those are emergencies. Those are right now pocketbook, wallet
issues that are facing Americans right now.
I am glad the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) joined me. I am starting
to think that some people in this town may want us to say that
something is an emergency, and it is actually not, while we are not
looking at the ever-growing federal debt, the highest in the history of
the republic; the fact that we are not looking at the fact that
Americans do not have health care; the fact that we really do not have
anything going on as it relates to making the dollar stronger; the fact
that we do not want to address gas prices. Maybe this is the reason why
we are spending all of this Federal jet fuel that the President is
using flying around the country to try to persuade people to believe in
a philosophy of privatization of Social Security when he himself has
said privatization of Social Security alone will not save Social
Security.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, my good
friend.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
I think he makes a great point, and I think the phrase that he has
used in the past that is applicable to the Social Security debate is
the ``Potomac two-step.'' They want us looking at Social Security over
here and having this debate and flying around the country and talking
about what needs fixing and a crisis that really does not exist, and we
have numbers that say it does not exist, but we still want to have this
debate over here.
Meanwhile, on this end, we are cutting Medicaid. Health care costs
have gone up 50 percent over the last 5 years; education costs of
college tuition up 36 percent. No one wants to talk about these issues.
No one wants to talk about the fact that Youngstown city schools, the
district that I represent, 85 percent of the kids who go to that school
qualify for free and reduced lunch.
We do not want to have that debate. We want to have a manufactured
debate. And I think the gentleman is exactly right. That is exactly
what is happening here, and I think it becomes more and more important
on us to fight this on a couple of different fronts. One is to make the
argument that Social Security is solid up until 2041 and that we need
to make some corrections maybe on a bipartisan way but make sure that
the benefits are guaranteed, make sure that no American is going to get
a reduction in their benefits, especially the 50 percent of the people
who qualify for Social Security, in which Social Security lifts them
out of poverty. So I think it is very important for us to broaden this
debate over here and not just talk about Social Security but to talk
about all these other issues.
One of the issues that I have been working on with Members of the
other side, trying to somehow get the attention of the administration,
is the issue of China, manipulating their currency up to 40 percent. We
had a hearing today in the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. A joint hearing, I must add, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. A joint hearing with the Committee on International
Relations and the Committee on Armed Services. I appreciate the
gentleman's correcting me.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to make sure that we are factual,
sir.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Constructive criticism. I appreciate that.
We had a discussion about the Europeans wanting to lift the arms
embargo on China, which has been the Europeans cannot sell all these
different types of military arms to the Chinese. The ban has been on
since Tiananmen Square in 1989. Now the Europeans are saying we want to
sell to the Chinese. So here we have this huge country that is growing
at a rapid rate, and now we have even some of our allies wanting to
sell arms to a rapidly growing Chinese government.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is
important that we realize the urgency of so many issues that are before
us. And the issue as it relates to Social Security, as the majority
side or as the administration would like for us Americans to see it, is
that it is not rocket science. It is not a Federal emergency.
[[Page H2089]]
Forty-eight million Americans celebrate Social Security right now.
Thirty-three million of those Americans would be living in poverty if
it was not for it. We have a number of young people that are going to
school solely on survivor benefits because their family members have
moved on.
And I can tell the Members what is even further appalling is the
President saying to the African American that I am pushing private
accounts because African American males do not live as long as Anglos.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Unbelievable.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is very wrong.
But it goes to show us the desperation that some majority leaders on
the majority side have to try to do this because they can.
But I can tell the gentleman the reason why we do not have a bill on
this floor yet is not because we have staff or Members here that are
lazy and do not want to write a bill. The reason why it is not here is
that Americans are not with the administration and some Members of the
majority side on messing with Social Security, especially as it comes
down to private accounts on a risky scheme, because if not the number
one, it is one of the main reasons why so many Americans appreciate
this Federal Government, that we will keep our word, that we will stand
by what we said we will do.
So when we start looking at these issues, the American people are not
necessarily with the administration and some Members on the majority
side as it relates to trying to change Social Security on a scheme of
private accounts. That is why there is not a bill here. That is the
reason why we hear some posturing here and there and an article saying
we are going to start marking some up pretty soon.
I am going to tell the gentleman right now that discussion has been
going on since 1978, and the reason why that discussion has been going
on as it relates to private accounts since 1978 is the fact that the
American people are not marching up and down the street saying, ``We
want a reduction in our benefits; we want to gamble on our
retirement.'' They are not saying that. What they are saying is that
``I have a Social Security card and guess what. When I reach the age I
should be able to receive Social Security, I look forward to it. I want
you to stand next to your word.''
So earlier I commended not only all of my Democratic colleagues but
even some of the Members on the majority side that have the courage to
stand up and say, I am here on behalf of my constituents, I am not here
on behalf of myself, on being accepted by those who are trying to
persuade them to do otherwise.
So when we start looking at it in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, I am
starting to believe more and more it is one of these things, look over
here and think Social Security is Social Security. Meanwhile, we have
the highest deficit in the history of the Republic. In Florida, that is
a real issue; and I guarantee the reason why there are a number of
Members of the Florida delegation that are not necessarily with the
administration and the majority side and even some of those Members on
the majority side are not with the majority side on the issue of
privatization of Social Security, because eventually many of the
gentleman from Ohio's constituents will be my constituents in the end
in Florida.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman would further yield, Mr. Speaker,
the gentleman is absolutely right. Maybe one day I will even be his
constituent, that one day I will move to Florida.
But I think the point that the gentleman from Florida brought up is
the issue of the perennial budget deficits that we are having it seems
every year in this Chamber, $400 to $500 billion a year, and I think
when we talk in the 30-something group that we have established here,
the reason we like to talk about and highlight the deficit is because
long term that is going to have the most detrimental effect on members
of the 30-something generation, 20-something, teenagers, born today.
We have huge numbers. Our debt is rising. Our deficit is going up and
up and up every single year. And now to implement the Social Security
plan, $5 trillion to implement the President's version of his
privatization, $5 trillion over the next 20 years. We already have
almost an $8 trillion national debt. Let me move this over.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. And those are as-of-today numbers.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. These are today's numbers. And this clock is
ticking by the second. But $7.7 trillion is the national debt today and
ticking. Maybe we will be able to get the technology here where this
will keep moving, $7.79 trillion national debt today.
And I think this is the most staggering number. Someone sitting at
home watching this or sitting up in the gallery, their individual share
of the national debt is $26,300. So if one is born today, welcome to
being born in the United States of America, they have a $26,000 tag on
their head.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is
important for the Members to understand and also for many Americans to
understand that we did not just draw that number up in the back, that
we were back there drinking a bottle of water, saying can we come up
with a number that is a big number?
I know some of the Members are in their offices, and I think it is
important that they know that national debt number as of today, and
Americans and Members can go to the official Website of the U.S.
Treasury. They have to go a couple of clicks, but I am going to share
with the Members how they can get directly to that number and that
ticker. Because if I am in the Treasury Department, I am going to have
people go into two or three different clicks once they go to my home
page and maybe, just maybe, they will get to the ticker because it is
nothing that we can be proud of.
{time} 1730
Also, as it relates, we need to talk a little bit about those
countries that have bought our debt and we are beholding to foreign
countries. The gentleman does that better than me. But the Web site is
www.ustreas.gov. That is the Department of Treasury Web site.
Www.ustreas.gov. Or you can go directly to when you go on the page,
because we are trying to share with the Members and educate the Members
and make sure the American people understand exactly what is happening
here, because it is not a badge of honor to be a Member of the 109th
Congress and for history to reflect that we made the decisions to have
the highest deficit in the history of the Republic. That is just not
something that one can be proud of. But you can go if you want directly
to www.house.gov/budget_democrats. That is www.house.gov/
budget_democrats.
It is important, because our Democratic budget committee has really
worked hard in making sure that we can pull this information out, that
not only it should be useful to the Members on both sides of the aisle,
but also to the American people.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate the
gentleman sharing that information.
The real question is, we have to agree on this, and it is not a
Democrat or Republican thing. This baby that is born with a $26,000
debt on their head, we do not know if that baby is a Democrat or a
Republican. We have an obligation here for the next generation. And for
many, many, many years our colleagues were standing in the well on that
side talking about a balanced budget amendment, talking about fiscal
discipline, talking about tax and spend. Now we are borrowing and
spending.
This is worse. It is bad to tax and spend, and I do not think any of
us advocate that. But to borrow and spend, because you are borrowing,
you are spending and then you are paying interest on the money that you
borrow, primarily from the Japanese and the Chinese banks. That is
reckless. It is bad foreign policy, it is bad domestic policy, it is
not conducive to providing opportunity for the next generation, your
kids and the young kids that are coming up.
When you talk about funding health care, Medicare, Medicaid,
education, tuition costs, Pell grants, No Child Left Behind, how are we
going to compete with 1.3 billion Chinese, how are we going to compete
with over 1 billion Indians in the next couple of decades, when we have
kids, students, that are unhealthy and not getting the proper education
that they need, and at the same time we are leaving this kind of burden
on their backs?
[[Page H2090]]
Now, I have to excuse myself. I have a meeting I have to be at 3
minutes ago. But I want the gentleman to carry on here because this is
important. I think the best thing we can do in our 30-something Caucus
and our 30-something Working Group that our leader, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), has helped us establish, is talk about
this, because if there is one thing I hope that I can say in my tenure
in Congress and the gentleman's is that somehow we were able to fix
this and make the kind of investments that the young students need and
that they deserve and that will lead to the kind of opportunity that
the gentleman and I have had.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, before the
gentleman leaves for his meeting, that I am pretty sure is very, very
important, the gentleman is going to have to not only give the
information on the Web site, because we want to hear from Members, we
want to hear from Americans, to make sure that we get the information
from them on how they feel, especially as it relates to Social
Security, the Federal deficit and other issues, because it is important
that we share this, not only with young people.
We have the 30-something Working Group. But in our age range, I say
to the gentleman, there are a number of young parents that are out
there, and so many times here in Washington, people say, well, we are
doing this for the future generation.
Well, the future generation has $26,000 in debt right now and
climbing. So I do not know. I do not feel good about my daughter and my
son having to worry about college and all these other things, and then
worry about the Federal debt at the same time.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield further, exactly. When
you add on it the $26,000 that you are born with that is going to keep
accumulating every day, especially when we are running $500 billion
annual deficits, and you add on to that, just picture the baby born
today, and this clock ticking, 18 to 22 years out, say 22 years out,
that number keeps going up and up and up, and maybe next week we will
have the math and figure out what it will be based on inflation. And
then add on to that college costs rising at the rate they have been
over the past 4 years.
I know in Ohio alone they have doubled, and I think average college
students graduates with a $20,000-some debt, and that is not even if
they go after a masters or Ph.D. or law degree. It is about $22,000 for
the average college student's debt.
So you take the 26, you add on the 22, now you are talking close to
$50,000; and then project that out 22 years. So your baby born today,
if you want them to go to college or get a masters degree or law degree
or Ph.D., you are talking at least $100,000, if not hundreds of
thousands of dollars in debt. That is not providing opportunity. At the
same time, they are competing with billions, over 1 billion Chinese
workers and over 1 billion Indians. So this is becoming very dangerous
for the long-term prospects of our country.
If you want to e-mail us, 30something democrats @mail.house.gov.
30something [email protected].
I have enjoyed this. I look forward to us coming back next week. I
hope this in some way has broadened the discussion and deepened the
discussion on the issues facing the country.
I yield back to my very good friend from Florida.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I want to
thank the gentleman for co-chairing this 30-something Working Group
that consists of 16 or 18 Members on the Democratic side of Members of
the House. We, like I said earlier, try to come together and share this
information, not only with Members of the Congress on what is important
to the American people, but also what is important to young people that
are trying to raise their families and have a good future for their
children.
I think that it is important once again to know that on the
Democratic side when we start talking about Social Security or we start
talking about Social Security reform, I think it is important that the
American people understand that we want to strengthen Social Security
without slashing the benefits that Americans have earned. I think that
is important.
I think that when you start talking about what Americans have earned,
I believe that is paramount in this debate. And I think when they earn
something, I think we need to make sure that we stand by our promise.
Now, when we have a forecast for the present benefit structure that
will for almost 50 years be in place, and then beyond those 50 years 80
percent of those benefits will be provided, I think that is standing
next to our promise.
I think there are some things that we need to do to make sure that
the Social Security trust fund is solvent for years to come. One is to
stop deficit spending in such a large amount of money every Congress;
every budget that is passed, deficit spending. The whole philosophy of
pay-as-you-go is no longer a philosophy as it relates to the majority.
It is putting it on the credit cards. It is saying it is okay for
foreign countries to buy our debt. It is saying that we will forestall
it off to future generations.
I do not believe that that is something that we should subscribe to.
I think we should work hard in bringing the debt down and paying back
into the Social Security trust fund. That will have us continue to
provide the kind of benefits that we look forward to, that many
Americans look forward to.
When the President starts off in saying it is going to be $5 trillion
to put forth his philosophy, I think that is problematic at the
beginning, saying we are going to save you money, but we are going to
borrow money to help you save money. It sounds like the Potomac Two-
Step once again. And so it is important that we realize the gravity of
this situation, knowing that there are issues that are greater than an
emerging problem in 50-some-odd years.
So it is important that we do as we always do as Americans, come
together to save great programs and to be able to help our elderly and
frail, to be able to help those individuals that have worked all their
lives, the 48 million Americans I speak of that are already receiving
Social Security benefits and that are counting on them.
So, Mr. Speaker, I look on the bright end of things as I start
heading towards a close here. The 48 million Americans that are
celebrating Social Security right now, that are receiving on average
$550 a month right now, which we know as of today if the majority side
and the President's philosophy was in force, because there is no plan,
that those benefits would be $516. That is easy math. That makes a
world of difference to someone that is on a fixed income.
We know that 33 million of those 48 million are retirees. So when the
30-something Working Group starts to look at priorities, we want to
watch out for our parents, we want to watch out for our future and for
our children's future.
So when we were here in the state of the union and the President
started talking about, well, people over 55 do not worry about it, my
proposal will not affect your benefits, are we promoting two Americas,
or are we promoting unity? I am glad my mom did not call me up and say,
Kendrick, guess what? I am okay. You are not. Good luck. That is not
what Social Security is about. It is not the ``Kendrick Meek Report.''
This is what took place here in this Chamber, in the state of the
union, with both Houses coming together at that time.
So it is important that we realize what is being said and what is
being done. Forty-eight percent of those individuals, of the 48
million, would be living in poverty if it was not for Social Security.
That is important to the 30-something Working Group, especially for
those young professionals that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan)
talked about when they leave their higher educational experience on
average $20,000 in debt.
For those individuals, I mean, I thank God for the ability to have
had the opportunity to go to school on a football scholarship and I
left college without being in debt. But, guess what? Everyone is not an
athlete. Every student going to college did not go on a scholarship.
Some people had to get a student loan. And even for those that went on
scholarships that had parents that could not afford it, Mr. Speaker,
the money that it takes to buy books and other things that scholarships
do not provide, they leave college or a post-graduate degree $20,000 in
debt.
[[Page H2091]]
So if we start messing around with the benefit structure under the
privatization scheme, guess what? We are going to have to take care of
our parents and our grandparents. We are going to have to subsidize
their income. We do now, but it will be greater. So that is the reason
why this is important, that the facts are put forth. Forty-seven years
of solvency, the way Social Security is right now will continue.
So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward, as long as there are those that are
in this Chamber and outside of this Chamber that are sharing with the
Americans inaccurate information and saying that privatization is good
and it is going to be a really nice thing for all Americans and we all
should do it, the 30-something Working Group will continue to work not
only with the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is our whip,
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is our chairman
of the Democratic Caucus, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Clyburn), who is our vice chair of the Democratic Caucus, and sharing
accurate information with the American people and staying in the fight
of informing them on the truth about what is happening right now; not
what might happen, what is happening right now and what is going to
happen for years to come.
{time} 1745
Because, remember, I say to my colleagues, Social Security in the
1980s was saved by a Democratic House, working along with Ronald Reagan
in the White House, doing what we had to do on behalf of individuals
that were carrying Social Security cards to keep our promise to them.
We did the right thing, and we will continue to do the right thing. But
the right thing is not increasing the Federal debt, and it is not
taking a gamble on private accounts.
So we will continue to share this information. I want to thank the
Democratic leader for allowing the 30-something Working Group to have
this hour. We look forward to being back next week, sharing good and
accurate information, and the topic will be Social Security, with the
Members of the House.
____________________