[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.
____________________