[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2535-H2541]
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, once again, it is a pleasure to be 
before the House along with my colleagues of the 30-something Working 
Group. We would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us, 
once again, to address the Members of the House and the American people 
on issues that are facing the 30-somethings and the entire population 
of the United States.
  I think it is important as Members of Congress that we understand our 
obligation to the American people, making sure that they fully 
understand what happens in their house of democracy.
  Many times in Washington, D.C., we are here, we are making decisions 
that are going to affect all of our constituents and even ourselves and 
our families. So I think it is important we take it very seriously.
  We come back again tonight. Of course, we have the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and also the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz), my good friend from south Florida; and we are here to talk 
about Social Security. So I think we will just start off just kind of 
talking about some of the things and some of the events that took place 
today.
  This was a very eventful day for Social Security and making sure that 
Americans are able to get what they deserve as it relates to their full 
benefits on Social Security and making sure that we do not gamble with 
their retirement.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely, this was a unique day.
  Apparently, we reached the 60th day that the President has been out 
in America trying to sell the American people on his vague outlines of 
his proposal to privatize Social Security; and quite honestly, at the 
conclusion of the

[[Page H2536]]

60 days, apparently he has said that he wants to go out for another 120 
days.
  We had a rally today with more than 1,000 people in the crowd and 
over a hundred Members of Congress from both the House and the Senate 
Democratic caucuses, standing completely united in opposition to 
pulling the safety net out from under our retirees' retirement 
security, and we stood strong. We stood together. We stood together 
when people did not think that that was possible, that there was 
definitely, over the last few months, a lack of confidence that the 
Democrats would stand together united opposing privatization. We have 
all the way up until today and we will continue to be standing in 
opposition to privatizing Social Security.
  Actually, at the conclusion of today's rally, we stood together and 
said, Mr. President, please do go out for another 120 days and tell the 
American people that you want to pull the safety net out from under 
their retirement security because apparently the more he talks about 
it, the less the American people like it. So we encourage the President 
to continue to go out and talk about it, continue to restrict the 
crowds and limit the access to his town hall meetings where he checks 
tickets at the door, checks people's philosophies at the door, as 
opposed to our effort where we are being as inclusive as possible.
  We do not screen our crowds. We had more than 400 town hall meetings 
across the country in our districts as House and Senate Democrats, and 
we take all comers. Some of us have had maybe a couple of people here 
and there who have come to our meetings and said why do you not give 
the President's proposal a try, but almost universally our Members have 
experienced the communication from our constituents that, above all 
else, they expect us to be up here in Washington and protect their 
retirement security.
  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. No doubt about it, of all the Social Security 
meetings that I have had, not one citizen in my district has stood up 
and said anything to the effect of let us take a close look at these 
private accounts. Young people included have been coming. I have three 
universities in my district, and even the young students still 
recognize it.
  We get kind of cynical maybe every now and again up here and think 
that somehow that spin and manipulation somehow will always work; and 
the facts maybe do not always get out, but I find it very heartening 
that the President can go out and try to sell a proposal and poll after 
poll after poll continues to show him losing support on this. I think 
it is very heartening to know that the American people pay very close 
attention to these issues especially when they affect their pocketbook 
like Social Security does, and they look closely at what the President 
is talking about, and yet they still disagree with what the President 
is saying.
  It is very good, and I think that the key factor is that the 
President's proposal weakens Social Security. It does not strengthen 
it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I 
think it is important to highlight, again, this is the 60th day of the 
President's nationwide, cross-country tour; and one would have expected 
with the bully pulpit that he has the momentum that he believed that he 
was going to be able to build behind his vague proposal that by the 
60th day, by today, that he would have Americans swinging from the 
chandeliers in the Capitol, insisting that we take up his proposal and 
that somebody file a bill.
  We have yet to see a bill offered in this Chamber or in the Chamber 
across the rotunda, and I think it is interesting to note that these 
are some of the comments and analyses that have been made at the 
conclusion of his 60-day tour:
  ``The President's campaign has frightened people, raising concerns 
that guaranteed benefits could be cut,'' said William Schneider, who is 
a public opinion scholar and CNN analyst. ``There's very little 
evidence in polls that Bush's campaign has been effective.''
  ``As he nears the end of a 60-day cross-country campaign, President 
Bush appears to be further from achieving his signature goal of 
transforming Social Security than when he began.'' That was from USA 
Today just yesterday, and that was the tip of the iceberg in terms of 
the commentary and analysis.
  I just wonder when the President and the leadership of this body are 
going to get it. When are they going to tell us, when are they going to 
come to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and say, okay, we are taking 
privatization off the table; clearly we do not have any support for 
that; Americans do not want us to compromise their retirement security, 
and we are ready to come to the table and compromise, like they did in 
1983 when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan came together and preserved 
Social Security for generations to come. It is just mind-boggling. It 
really is.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it makes 
you wonder. You go 60 days. You do not sell your program. In fact, it 
gets progressively worse every trip that you make, and then you decide 
that, well, we are going to go out for another 60 days.
  It makes you wonder if this thing is not a distraction from some of 
the real issues that we are facing today, and I hate to be cynical in 
the 30-something group. We are supposed to be the optimists of this 
body, but it is very difficult for me to believe that this maybe is not 
a little ploy to distract and say, look over here while we cut 
Medicaid, we cut food stamps, we cut community development block 
grants, we cut veterans benefits. Look at the real issues today. The 
President is trying to say this is a great crisis; 2042 is when we have 
before there is any structural change at all in the program.
  Gas prices, I am sure my colleague is hearing about that in her 
district because of the oil costs, health care, immigration, issues, 
the Chinese and manipulation of their currency and dumping into our 
markets. Instead of saying we need to focus on an alternative energy 
program so that we could somehow reduce the cost of gas at the pumps, 
we are talking about a manufactured crisis that starts in 2042, not 
dealing with the day-to-day pocketbook issues that the people in my 
community and Florida have to deal with every day.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my 
colleague was able to get that thought out, because it is so very, very 
important, what he was saying.
  I tell you this: I was encouraged. I was not only encouraged by the 
polling numbers released recently but also about the number of people 
that showed up at the rally today here at the Capitol; and many of them 
looking forward to getting to that Social Security age were not silver 
and blue-haired individuals saying it is about me right now. These were 
hardworking Americans that came to this Capitol, to this great 
democracy we speak of, so their voice can be heard. I can tell you that 
I was encouraged.
  Mr. Speaker, I may digress a little as it relates to talking about 
what Social Security is all about, but I think it is worth saying that 
Democrats, not only here but in the other body across the hall, and in 
general here in Washington, D.C, we believe in bipartisanship. We talk 
about the 1983 vote an awful lot, but I want to let you know that in 
1983, when Ronald Reagan, then President, and Tip O'Neill, then Speaker 
in a Democratic House, passed a bipartisan Social Security plan that 
would keep Social Security solvent for another 47 to 50 years, as it 
relates from this point on, from right now, today, as I speak, 100 
percent of benefits going to the individuals that would be receiving 
it, be it in survivor benefits or retirement benefits, and it was a 
bill of bipartisan nature. In 1983, we passed a bill saving Social 
Security, with 243 Members voting for it and 102 voted against it. 
Eighty Republicans voted for it, 163 Democrats voted for it. That is 
bipartisanship. That is a bipartisan bill.
  And we are not going to get there if the individuals that are in 
charge, the majority seems to be the Republicans in this House, do not 
come to grips in

[[Page H2537]]

having a true bipartisan dialogue in saving Social Security, and not 
the rhetoric of someone else wanting Social Security to be privatized. 
I am not talking about Wall Street, which is going to benefit by some 
$940 billion if Social Security is privatized. That is a guarantee to 
them. But what is a guarantee to the people, our constituents, 
Democrats, Republicans, independents alike? The only thing they have 
guaranteed is their $26,000-and-change in a Federal debt they are going 
to have to pay because the President wants to continue to talk about 
this privatization piece.
  One other thing I just want to add. I think it is important people 
understand the numbers on Social Security. Forty-eight million 
Americans are enjoying those benefits right now. Some people want to 
talk about where is the Democratic plan? Well, where is the Republican 
plan? Right now, we are talking about philosophy. There was a hearing 
over in the Senate. Well, there are hundreds of hearings on this Hill 
every day. Still, we are not at the point to where we can come to grips 
on a bipartisan approach. On this side of the aisle we are saying we 
want to be bipartisan.
  Now, hats off to Americans. The reason why no one is marching with a 
plan and we do not have a binded copy of some plan is the fact that the 
Republicans know full well, the Republican leadership, and there are 
some colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are saying no way, 
Jose, if I can say that.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You can say that.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No way we are going to hand up our constituents 
because someone else wants to privatize Social Security. I did not sign 
up for that. That is what I am hearing some of these Republicans 
saying. It is a very small number, hopefully a growing number, because 
I believe for those that are speaking boldly about privatization of 
Social Security, I think they are making a career decision, a career 
decision in a democracy where people believe in having the retirement 
that they were promised.
  The other point I want to make here is to mention today's newspapers, 
and I took some sections out. Account after account of Americans not 
being with the President on this. I am sorry, this is not the Meek-
Wasserman-Schultz-Ryan Report. This is reality. Now, if the President 
wants to burn Federal jet fuel, taxpayers' dollars, at $55,000 an hour 
to fly on Air Force One to go tell people, and I might add these are 
canned crowds of individuals who have love and respect for the 
President, and I also have respect for the President, for the office 
that he holds, because he is my President too. He is President to us 
all. We support him as our Commander in Chief. But when we are wrong, 
we are wrong.
  So I do not care how many times you say, oh, well, privatization is 
good and we will save Social Security. Matter of fact, he said to the 
contrary; that it would not alone save Social Security. So I am proud 
of the people that are out there saying what they are saying. But I 
think it is important that we remember if this is about future 
generations, then the President is doing just the opposite. We are 
talking about $26,349.67, the average 30-something; the average college 
student that is graduating with a postgraduate degree or what have you, 
on average, $20,000 in debt. Add to that the $26,000 of the Federal 
debt they are going to have to pay, and you might as well make that 
$46,000 and some change.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And growing.
  Mr. MEEK. And growing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if I may interrupt the gentleman, I 
would add that tuition costs are doubling, and this number keeps 
growing every week. Every single day this clock is actually ticking 
here, $7.79 trillion. We lifted the debt ceiling a few months back, and 
this number is also ticking. So we are talking in a few months you are 
going to be up to owing the government or student loans or banks 
$50,000.
  Imagine a kid being born today owes $26,000. Is that opportunity? Is 
that ownership? Is that freedom? All the big themes that we like to 
talk about in Washington, D.C. This is trapping a generation of kids.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And that is a perfect point, Mr. Speaker. 
Sometimes in our spare time, as we fly back and forth from our 
districts that we represent, I do a little something with that number, 
that $26,349.67 and counting. You could buy a new car for that, every 
American, not just Americans living in certain parts of the country.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A pretty decent car.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, a pretty decent car. You could pay for 4 
years of education at a public university. I got that from the College 
Board. For some of our young people, freedom in America, that buys 
about 2,250 CDs. I mean, we are talking to America here. You could also 
go on a luxury cruise around the world for four. You could buy 
groceries for five families for a year. That is from the Congressional 
Budget Office. You can put a down payment on a home. Well, that sounds 
like a great idea. We want more Americans to be in homes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Bingo.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You could start a small business. You could fly 
from New York to Hawaii and back 12 times.
  The President is marching around here, and the majority side is 
marching around here saying we are trying to preserve Social Security 
for future generations; meanwhile it is not tax and spend, it is borrow 
and spend, and continuing to borrow. They are on borrowfest. They 
cannot stop themselves. So when folks start talking about, well, the 
President is flying around and burning taxpayers' dollars at $55,000 an 
hour, that is more than two or three people make in a year in America.
  Now, I am not shocked, because the evidence speaks to the highest 
deficit in the history of the Republic. He cannot help himself. Neither 
can the members of the majority side help themselves. And I cannot 
understand how the leadership, and I say the leadership because I do 
have friends on the other side that get it, and it is up to us here in 
Congress to make sure. Here on the Democratic side we have our act 
together, and a number of Members have that number outside their office 
to remind people when they come walking the halls to see their Member 
of Congress, this debt is continuing to click. So we have to make sure 
as Americans that we vote principle over politics. Principle over 
politics.
  So if you are working right now, and if Americans pull their check 
stubs out right now and look at what they pay in Social Security, and 
they have the majority side here saying, the leadership once again and 
the President saying we are looking out for you, meanwhile we are going 
to add $5 trillion onto that number, meanwhile we are going to cut your 
benefits.
  What they put out as it relates to their plan, they are going to lose 
20 percent of their benefits right now, or more, on a gamble of 
privatization. I cannot understand it. But I can tell you one thing: 
The American people are not buying it because the polling numbers are 
reflecting that.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I from Florida 
are parents, and I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryun) probably 
plans one day to be a parent. This is the 30-something Working Group.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If my wife says it is okay.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Exactly. Once you get permission. And, believe 
me, I know that is definitely something that moms need to grant, or 
potential moms need to grant permission on. But we have little kids, 
and anyone out there that is a parent can understand what I am going to 
talk about now in this way.
  It is mind-boggling that the President has not gotten off, after 60 
days, the concept of privatization. I liken it to when my children do 
not like that I have told them no and they stamp their feet and they 
throw a tantrum. Now, I generally try not to give in, like we are not.
  I feel like the Democratic Caucus in the House and Senate are the 
parents of a child in the White House throwing a temper tantrum, who is 
insisting that he get his way. And regardless of how many times he is 
told that he cannot have his way, that sometimes we have to compromise, 
sometimes we cannot have it exactly the way we want it; just like I 
explain to my children and I try to sit down and rationally explain to 
them that we are going to try to give you some of what you want but you 
are not going to have it

[[Page H2538]]

all your way, he continues to stamp his foot just like my kids 
sometimes do.
  It was not lost on me that that was an appropriate analogy. I am 
certainly hopeful, like I am hopeful with my own kids, that one day 
they will grow out of it. We keep waiting for the President to grow out 
of the temper tantrums. It should not be surprising, because we come 
from a State where his sibling engages in similar activities. It seems 
to be a family trait. They do not seem to get the message when they are 
told by their constituents that they are not in agreement with what 
they are suggesting. They do not appear to be willing to let go and 
come to the table and compromise.
  Now, another analogy I want to draw would be if we were, as 
Democrats, sticking our heads in the sand because we support Social 
Security so strongly. If we were here saying there is no problem, 
Social Security is fine, we should not do anything, then we would be 
just as guilty as the President and the leadership of this Congress 
are. But we are not saying that. What we have said from day one is that 
there is no crisis; that the crisis is manufactured, as my colleague 
from Ohio said; that we acknowledge that there is a problem, but there 
is not a problem that reaches anything that we should be significantly 
concerned about until we in this 30-something Working Group are well 
into our seventies.
  Literally, 36 years from now, in 2041, I will be 74 years old, long 
past retirement age. When we ask most of our peers, if you ask your 
friends and our neighbors and friends who are our age, do you think 
Social Security is going to be there for you, most of our peers do not 
think it will. But the reality is that it will be there even if we do 
nothing. And we are not suggesting that we not do anything. We are 
suggesting that, just like in 1983, that reasonable people on both 
sides of this debate should come to the table, should try to find some 
common ground, and should not continue to kick and scream and insist 
that it is their way or the highway.
  Another thing that I wanted to point out, and this is difficult to 
say, but it is hard to feel that the President is sincere on this 
issue. When I have a town hall meeting, and I am sure it is this way 
for my colleagues, I know it is for my colleague from Florida because I 
have done town hall meetings with him, I really want to know what 
people think. That is why I do not screen or ask for tickets or check 
people's opinion at the door.
  Literally, the Secret Service this week sent agents to Denver to 
probe allegations by three area Democrats that they were ousted from 
President Bush's March 21 event. The three did not stage any protest at 
the rally and were later told by the Secret Service they were removed 
because their vehicle displayed an anti-Bush bumper sticker. White 
House spokesman Scott McClellan said the man who removed them was a GOP 
volunteer, but apparently Mr. McClellan refused to divulge his name or 
whether he works in Colorado or Washington.
  What Mr. McClellan said to this reporter is if someone is coming to 
an event to disrupt it, they are going to be asked to leave. 
Apparently, if you have an opinion that differs from the President's 
and from the message that is designed for that particular town hall 
meeting, you are not welcome, even if you plan on sitting there and 
saying nothing.
  Now, I heard the President's State of the Union, I heard his 
Inaugural address, and I heard him talk about democracy. I heard him 
talk about promoting democracy around the world and how important it 
was that the greatest democracy in the world set an example, that we be 
the shining beacon of democracy around the world and that we export 
democracy.

                              {time}  2115

  Well, you know what, how do we do that if we are not setting the best 
example of what democracy is all about. Would we like it if other 
nations, other fledgling democracies, started mirroring the conduct 
that the President is engaged in? I do not think so. I think if we 
heard an independent news report about some of the activities that the 
President has engaged in in this debate, we would be outraged.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And we see where the Russians and Mr. Putin are 
beginning to crack down on a lot of the democratic movements, taking 
over a lot of the media, and when a guy like Mr. Yushchenko comes here 
from the Ukraine, with the scars to prove his fight for democracy, and 
he stands in front of this Chamber to address our constitutional body 
that we have, what kind of example is this to send? Yet in the same 
breath talk about freedom, talk about opportunity. Members would think 
that as either a legislator or executive, you would want to hear what 
the dissent is so if you were right, then you would be able to address 
the issue and explain why you are right.
  I think why we see the President's numbers going down, he is 
speechifying. It is not a give and take at town hall meetings. He is 
kicking people out if they have an anti-Bush bumper sticker on their 
car, and pretending like they are the Secret Service. And that is 
reported. It happened out in Denver, and they are investigating it now.
  Answer the concerns of the country, and we will see progress as you 
begin to advocate and argue for your side.
  Funny, the gentlewoman would say that on her flight in from Florida 
she crunched some numbers, and my flight from Ohio is only an hour, 
from Cleveland; but I was able to work some numbers, too. We have 
mentioned here before that if we implement the President's proposal of 
diverting money into the private accounts, there will be a $5 trillion 
hole in our budget. Somehow we have to plug the hole. We are going to 
have to borrow the money and pay interest in order to fund the private 
accounts.
  I did some math trying to figure out what $5 trillion could do for 
other programs. And since this is the 30-something Hour, I wanted to 
focus on Pell grants and we were able to get it printed off the 
cocktail napkin that comes with the Diet Coke and the peanuts on the 
plane. For Pell Grants, $5 trillion over 20 years could raise the 
maximum Pell Grant from $4,050 to $59,500. Right now 5.3 million 
students get the $4,000 maximum, but with the $5 trillion we could have 
23.7 million students receive $59,500 worth of college grants to go to 
schools.
  Mr. Speaker, $60,000 would take care of undergrad, masters, and Ph.D. 
It would get students educated. Many people do not need $60,000 for 
just a bachelor's degree, so we could cut it in half and give $30,000 
to 47 million students.
  This is just to illustrate a point. Just think if we plug a hole in a 
risky ponzi scheme that we are going to have. But imagine if we made 
this significant investment in education. Imagine the value that would 
be created from that.
  We did a study in Ohio, and for every dollar the State of Ohio spent 
on higher ed, the State of Ohio would get $2 back in tax money. Imagine 
what the return on this investment would be. It would be significant. 
We would have educated, well-rounded citizens participating in 
democracy, more tolerant, more creative, creating wealth in our 
society.
  What kinds of investments are we making otherwise? We are going to 
borrow and plug a hole with $5 trillion. What value do we get from 
that? We are losing jobs left and right, and the biggest crisis is a 
problem that is in 2041 when we are 70 years old.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is saying is 
absolutely true, and to just continue on the same theme the gentleman 
is referring to, if we are going to talk about crisis and things that 
are looming that we need to deal with, why are we not talking about 
Medicare? The President should be stumping around the country to get 
the Congress to address the looming crisis in Medicare because it could 
be more easily argued that Medicare's insolvency, which is much sooner 
than Social Security, is really going to cause us some tremendous 
problems.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and I are from a State that if 
Members want to talk about a crisis, if we have a crisis in Medicare, 
our constituents are really going to have a dire, serious problem. If 
that problem is not addressed, then there are senior citizens across 
this country who will die. There is no question if we do not preserve 
the ability to provide health care to senior citizens who under this 
proposal are already going to be in jeopardy because their retirement 
security is going to be pulled out from

[[Page H2539]]

under them, on top of that if we do not fix Medicare, we will not 
provide them with health care.
  I would love to see the President stumping to try to address that 
problem. I can assure the President he would have a lot more willing 
participants, at least on our side, at least from me and from Members 
who represent States with significant senior populations.
  Social Security is often thought of as just a program that benefits 
senior citizens; and people think if you did a man or woman interview 
on the street, and asked people who benefits from Social Security, 
virtually everyone on the street would say that Social Security 
benefits senior citizens.
  In Florida, for example, children who are under 17, there are 174,500 
current Social Security beneficiaries, kids who are receiving Social 
Security either because they are dependents of people receiving SSI 
because they are disabled or they are survivors of a deceased Social 
Security recipient. Again, that number is 174,530 kids under 17. And 
between the ages of 18 and 39, 71,870 Floridians receive Social 
Security benefits.
  That is one of the things that has been lost that each week we have 
been trying to drive home, lost in this privatization debate. The 
President has basically wiped the table, or essentially wiped the 
floor, to be a little more direct about it, when it comes to the people 
who collect Social Security because they are disabled, which is a 
third, who are disabled, who are survivors and are receiving survivor 
benefits. They do not earn an income, so what happens to them when we 
privatize Social Security? Or when there are annuities and we yank 
Social Security benefits out from under people who are earning an 
income, and we are doing nothing for people who are survivors or who 
are disabled? It is like they do not exist. It is like if we ignore 
them, maybe they will go away.

  I have yet to hear a response from the President or the leadership of 
this Congress about what we are going to do to help people who are 
disabled and who are survivors of Social Security recipients when 
Social Security is privatized and then shrivels up and blows away.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, from where I come from, that is a 
moral issue. That is a moral issue. What do we do with those people who 
need the help, who access or utilize this program as an insurance 
program when they lose a spouse at a young age and they have kids, they 
have survivors, which is a third of the program. That is a moral issue, 
and we talk a lot about morality, and it has been so narrow and focused 
on just a couple of issues.
  Are we going to say as a country you are on your own again and roll 
it back to before we implemented the Social Security program? It has 
been successful. It works, and there are a lot of people out there who 
have benefited. This was an issue at one of my town hall meetings. 
There were three or four who came, and it was strictly based on 
survivorship, disability, and people who have just had a lot of bad 
luck.
  We try to pin labels and say this certain segment is lazy, they do 
not want to work, they want the easy way out. There is a lot of people 
trying to make their way out working very, very hard. And for one 
reason or another, they are sick and make a couple of bad decisions. It 
is amazing. The more I get out and hear these stories, how many people, 
one car accident, one sick family member, one death in the family, and 
the whole thing collapses. This program has been there to say to those 
folks we are here for you and the government is going to be here, 
society is going to be here to help you.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is important that everyone 
understands we come to this floor once a week to share with Americans 
the truth about what is going on here in Washington, D.C. We are the 
30-something Working Group, but this affects the entire family. When 
there is a family member who has a problem, Social Security is there 
for them. That alleviates the financial burden on the rest of the 
family. To be able to say we are a big family and we are going to take 
care of one another, guess what, times are not good for everybody. You 
are going to run into those real-life issues. Someone is working now 
and they pass on, for those individuals that are 17 and under, the only 
thing they have are survivor benefits. That is something that you leave 
for your child.
  Spiritually, emotionally, the best contribution and the highest 
contribution you can make to society is to make sure that your children 
and grandchildren have a better opportunity than you have had. The 
gentlewoman talked about the President coming to this Chamber during 
the State of the Union and talking about Social Security. The first 
thing the President said, if you are over 55, do not worry about it. So 
I guess folks over 55 are supposed to say, son, daughter, brother, 
sister, good luck. I am okay, I am over 55, but you better start 
saving.
  Let me say I cannot believe the information that this administration 
and the majority-side leadership give us. Now, I said this last week, I 
said it the week before, I said it the week before that, and I will 
continue to say it because we have to remind Americans you cannot 
believe everything that your leaders say. This is not about the 
President and do we like him or not. The election is over. He cannot 
run again constitutionally. They may try to change that, but as it 
stands right now, the President cannot run again. So this is not about 
somebody standing in judgment of his political future.
  During the Medicaid-Medicare prescription drug debate it came to the 
floor, and the President and his office said it would be $350 billion 
for a prescription drug plan, or lack thereof. Later it moved up to 
$400 billion. This is from news accounts and also from official 
documents here in the Congress.
  After the debate, after we passed the bill, and I voted against it 
because we could not negotiate for lower prices. I am from Florida. 
This is real-life experience. There are seniors, and in that $26,000 
number, you can pay for prescription drugs for 11 Americans for the 
entire year. We are talking real money here on the whole borrow-and-
spend issue.
  Then we found out recently that the true cost is $724 billion, which 
is all borrowed. This is not money that we have stacked up on the shelf 
somewhere, and this is real money, and this is what we are spending.
  Folks say, where is the Democratic plan? Guess what, the Democratic 
plan is in your wallet right now. The bipartisan Democratic plan, the 
bipartisan continuation of that plan is in your wallet right now. It is 
those Social Security numbers that you write down every day or every 
time you fill out an application or you are applying for some sort of 
credit card. That is the original Democratic plan.

                              {time}  2130

  We have 48 million Americans that are celebrating benefits right now 
from Social Security because we held our word on the deal that it will 
be there for them when they need it. Thirty-three million of those 
Americans are receiving retirement benefits of the 48 million. So we 
have 33 million.
  The President says do not worry about it. I say be very worried from 
what we know right now and what history speaks to as it relates to 
accurate information. Forty-eight percent of the 48 million that are 
receiving benefits right now, 48 percent of them would be under the 
poverty line if it was not for Social Security.
  This is serious business. This is not if one likes the President or 
not. This is not a popularity contest. This is for real. And I must 
say, Mr. Speaker, under his plan, or under his philosophy, they will 
only receive 80 percent of what they have right now and they will only 
receive $516 a month. Under the plan right now, original Democratic 
plan, continuation in 1983, the bipartisan plan that was handed to the 
American people, as we stand right now, will be in force for the next 
47 to 50 years, and then after that 80 percent of the benefits will be 
there for them. On average they get $955 a month. Imagine going from 
$955 a month down to $516 based on a privatization gamble.
  Some Members say there are some Members that are emotional about 
this. They are right. I am emotional about it because I have 
constituents who woke up early one day on a Tuesday and went down and 
voted not only for me but for democracy and to make sure that their 
voice is heard in this Chamber. And I guarantee my colleagues, as long 
as I am a Member, as

[[Page H2540]]

well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I am 
pretty sure all of us, they are going to be represented. I do not care 
if they are Republican or Democrat or Independent or Green Party or 
what have you. Even if they do not have a voter registration card, it 
is important that we stand on their behalf.
  So wrong is wrong and right and right. And I will tell my colleagues 
right now some Members on the majority side, especially the leadership, 
are dead wrong on this issue. And let us just talk a little bit about 
1101 grass roots, what happens here within the rules of this House. If 
we were in the majority, and when I say ``we,'' mean Democrats, with 
our present leadership right now, if the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) was the Speaker of this House, the conversation would be a 
lot different. It would be about saving Social Security, continuing to 
save Social Security, a bipartisan plan, if that was the issue of the 
day, because the real crisis, going back to what the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) said, is we do not have health care. We 
have 46 million Americans working, not sitting at home cracking their 
toes saying the job situation looks sad. These are individuals that 
wake up every day and go to work that do not have health care 
insurance. And local communities are falling to their knees because 
public hospitals are going under, because the Federal Government is 
just not there.
  For another 3, 3\1/2\ years, if left up to the mechanics of this 
House, if something does not change in the next election as it relates 
to leadership, look forward to having to pay through the nose for 
health care insurance. That is a crisis. And I have companies in my 
district now that are telling people that are coming for jobs, to apply 
for Medicaid, they get more benefits. Hello. Apply for Medicaid, they 
get more benefits? Because they cannot afford the premiums on the 
insurance. And meanwhile we are running around here talking about a 
pie-in-the-sky privatization plan that is risky at best, and we are 
asking Americans to gamble, and we are spending their money, telling 
them something that the polling has indicated and a number of Members 
in this Congress, especially on the Democratic side, have said it is 
just not going to work.
  So this is something that we have to continue to work very hard on. 
Some people say why are we all talking about Social Security? It is our 
issue. It is an American issue. It is an issue that is facing every 
American. It is a $26,340.67 issue.
  The baby who was just born when we started this Special Order here 
tonight already owes the Federal Government $26,000 and change, and 
climbing. So we have to put a stop to this, and we have to make sure 
that Americans fully understand that what they have right now in their 
wallet, the Social Security they have been writing down as their ID 
number when they went to school to better themselves, go to college, 
those that went into vocational trade school or what have you, 
vocational education school, Social Security is there and it is an 
American-produced program that the rest of the world envies. They envy 
this.
  So in closing, before I yield to my colleagues, I am just going to 
say that this is extreme. I am going to use the word. It is extreme. It 
is extreme for people to say or for the leadership to say that private 
accounts are good, ``It is good for you and it is good for me.'' That 
is not true. It is extreme.
  When folks are running around here saying we want to change the rules 
because we are not getting 110 percent of the judges to get confirmed 
through the other body there, that is extreme. And extremism is not 
going to help us come together as Americans. It is going to divide us. 
And I guarantee my colleagues this: I said it on this night, if I have 
got to stand by myself on it, the American people will make those 
individuals pay for being extreme. And I think the 109th Congress, 
unfortunately, will be remembered for taking extreme measures in a time 
when we should have been focusing on other issues such as health care, 
such as prescription drug care, such as making sure that our children 
are not in overcrowded classrooms and making sure that our teachers 
have what they need to be able to teach our future generations and 
small businesses are able to get loans to be able to keep our economy 
going. There are a number of issues, and I could go on and on and on, 
as my colleagues know.
  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 would just like to make a point. He 
mentioned dissent and debate, and we talked a little bit about it here 
tonight. This body has a constitutional obligation to voice our 
concerns and our opinions. And that is why the rules of the House are 
set up so that we can get an hour here to talk about it and voice our 
concerns and talk about what we believe and what our approach would be. 
And I think it is important that we do get out here, and I think the 
Democrats have done a great job, leaders in both Chambers have done a 
great job, of fulfilling our obligation to our constituents to go out 
there and at least recognize that the President's plan is not 
resonating, and that we have an obligation to go out there and be 
critical if we need to be and say that the plan is extreme and say the 
plan is radical.
  I do not think there is anything wrong with that, because in 1994 and 
the years leading up, the other side was very critical of the President 
for a long while. They have gone back on what they said they were going 
to do in 1994, balanced budget amendments and balancing the budget, and 
this thing just keeps going up and up and up. So they obviously have 
not fulfilled some of their goals that they set, but they were critical 
of the President, and they had a right to do that, and they won the 
House back. And now they are overstepping. Now we are being critical. 
And I think the American people are going to see that the Democratic 
Party has something to offer.

  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 thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  I think it is really safe to say that both of their remarks are 
cogent, and I think it is safe to say that we are really disturbed 
about the direction that this country is going in and the direction 
that the leadership is taking us. It is time to restore some balance.
  We have got a Congress that sees nothing wrong with inserting itself 
in the midst of a private family tragedy a few weeks ago. Now they want 
to take Social Security, the most successful program that supports 
Americans throughout their retirement years, 70 years of success, they 
want to take it off the tracks. They want to yank the safety net out 
from under our retirees and under our generation. Because if the 
President is ensuring that people 55 and over are going to be okay, 
what is he saying to the rest of us? ``You may not be okay but I do not 
care.'' I mean that is a really foreboding message that he is sending 
to our generation.
  And I tell the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) I do not think he 
has to worry about standing alone, because there were more than 3,000 
people at that rally with us today, more than 100 Members of Congress, 
and it appears in the feedback we have gotten from across this country 
that we are standing together, not alone; that we have lots of people 
behind us and they are trying to send a very strong message to the 
leadership of this Congress and to the President that privatization 
needs to be dropped, that we need to stop talking about it, that we 
need to come to the table together and compromise, that we need to 
right the train.
  And I am going to just take the privilege of my gender here for a 
couple of minutes, since I am the woman of the three of us, and just 
talk about the possibility of privatization's impact on women, because 
it is disproportionate. It really is. More than 40 years after the 
Equal Pay Act, women still only earn 76 cents on the dollar for what a 
man earns, 76 cents. One cannot save what they do not earn. This 
proposal will disproportionately impact women.
  In fact, because of childbearing years and care for sick or elderly 
parents, on average, women are generally out of the work force for 
about 12 years. Older women are less likely than older men to receive 
pension income. Only about 28 percent of women compared to 43

[[Page H2541]]

percent of men have a pension. So when they do receive pensions, the 
benefit to women is only about half what a man will receive.
  So what that boils down to is that when a woman received her Social 
Security retirement benefits in 2003, the average monthly benefit for a 
woman was only $798, which is about $241 less than the average man's 
monthly retirement.
  What will happen to women, because we have got 20 percent of single 
women who are widowed, who are Social Security beneficiaries who are 
collecting Social Security today, about 20 percent of those women, the 
only source of their retirement income is Social Security?
  We are just yanking out the security and the safety that we have 
guaranteed where we are going from a guaranteed benefit to a guaranteed 
gamble. And that is what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
has been saying and leading us at the rally today and all the way 
leading up to today. We cannot shift the whole nature of Social 
Security from a guaranteed benefit to a guaranteed gamble. We have to 
keep the security in Social Security. That is the bottom line.
  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, no doubt about it. The gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), in fact, today was at Columbia 
University, New York City, 300 young people at 8:30 in the morning. 
College students, when that alarm goes off at 7 o'clock, 7:30 when they 
are in college, they hit that snooze button and they hope they make 
their 10 o'clock class. But there is so much concern here for this, and 
we know it is resonating.
  And I think this group especially, since the gentlewoman from Florida 
joined us specifically, we have had more of an impact here, but I think 
we have seen the polls and the decline in support by young people for 
this kind of risky scheme, this risky proposal. And I think we will 
continue to see it because they recognize the fact that long term this 
is bad for them.
  And one thing I would mention to the people that are watching at 
home, ask themselves is this legislative body, is this President 
addressing issues that face them day to day, affect their day-to-day 
life? Are we dealing with issues that will help them? And I think the 
answer is no. We are not dealing with oil, gas prices. We are not doing 
anything to try to find alternative energy sources. We are not doing 
anything to increase funding for Pell grants or No Child Left Behind. 
We are actually cutting benefits for veterans. If a veteran is sitting 
at home right now, their co-pay is going to go from $7 to $15, and 
there are going to be user fees assessed to them. All these things are 
happening. So if people are sitting at home and they are not involved 
or engaged in the political process at all, they have to ask 
themselves, ``What are they doing in Washington, D.C. that is going to 
help my life?'' And really nothing. We are talking about a manufactured 
crisis that is going to happen in 2042.
  I want to read one quick e-mail. I know we have gotten hundreds of 
these, but I want to read one. This is from last week. ``My name is 
Susan Parker.'' Susan lives in Severna Park, Maryland. She is 33, 
becoming ever more involved in politics. A few weeks ago she watched 
the dynamic trio up here on C-SPAN discussing why the Bush 
administration's plan was not good for the citizens of the country.
  ``I was glued to the TV. I started taking notes, and from those notes 
I e-mailed letters to my Representative, Senators, and several letters 
to the editor. Thank you, thank you, thank you for the inspiration and 
for speaking out so consistently.''

                              {time}  2145

  So these young people are starting to get involved, engaged, writing.
  Before I part ways, I am going to have this hanging in my office. 
This is ``Rock the Boat,'' the little coffee stand on it. ``I Love 
Social Security.'' You can go to rocktheboat.com and get some 
information, or e-mail us at 30-something Democrats at mail.house.gov, 
or go to the Web site, democraticleader.house.gov/30something. So this 
is it right here.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am sure glad the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan) shared his closing there, and also showed us his sign.
  This is something I picked up today: ``Stop Privatization. Americans 
for Social Security.'' They have a Web site, dot com. It is actually 
good water.
  Also, this sign here: ``Keep Your Hands Off of My Social Security.'' 
I think it is important. We know whose hands they are talking about, 
those who want to privatize, not our hands.
  I also want to say thank you, because it is important. The reason why 
the polling numbers are what they are and Americans feel the way they 
are now, we want to thank the American Baptist Churches, USA, AFL-CIO, 
ACORN, Campaign For America's Future, Center For Budget Policy and 
Priorities, the Center For Economic Policy and Research, Children's 
Defense Fund, the Coalition of Human Needs, the Congressional Black 
Caucus Foundation, the Economic Policy Institute, the Labor Council of 
Latin American Advancement, the Consortium of Citizens With 
Disabilities, the League of Rural Voters, the League of United Latin 
American Citizens, Links, Inc., the NAACP, the National Committee To 
Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Congress of 
American Indians, the National Council of Churches, and I can go on and 
on and on.
  They are the individuals out there, individual Americans, that have 
taken upon themselves to carry the fight on.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of these gentlemen. 
I am losing the prop board here, but I wanted to close by quoting the 
President. He said, ``Leadership means not passing problems on to 
future generations and future Presidents.''
  This plan passes trillions of dollars of debt on to our children and 
our grandchildren, and it is time that we all exercise some leadership, 
come together and think about the direction that this country is going 
in, bring it back to the center, restore some balance, come to the 
table and compromise, and take privatizing Social Security off the 
table and not yank the safety net from under our constituents.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
that is what this is about. When the country goes in the wrong 
direction, the population, the population can shift it and move it in 
the right direction. That is what is happening here.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be with 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz) again. It is wonderful being with you all once 
again. We would like to thank the Democratic leadership, mainly the 
Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for 
allowing us to be here.

                          ____________________