[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 4, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2968-H2973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this is again another edition of the 
30-something Hour where the gentleman from Florida and I will take an 
opportunity to talk to the 30-somethings, not only of Congress, but of 
the country, and try to articulate the best we can the issues that are 
facing the country today and how those issues will affect future 
generations. I think being in the 30-something Group and being young or 
being a student in this country, Leader Pelosi has asked us to do our 
best to reach out to young voters across the country and not only talk 
about issues like education, budget deficits, the importance of the 
Pell grant, the importance of No Child Left Behind, but a lot of other 
issues.
  Some previous speakers tonight have mentioned a couple of different 
things on economic policy in the United States of America and why 
corporations, multinational corporations find it easy to leave the 
United States, and it is because of the litigation, it is because of 
the environment, it is because of the overregulation, it is because of 
the high taxes. But if you look closely at why businesses are leaving 
the United States of America, you will see that they are going to 
countries that have no health care program, they do not have any 
environmental laws, they do not have any human rights laws; and the 
previous speaker suggested that maybe they go to Africa because they 
have cheaper natural gas costs, or go to Russia.
  Russia is a country that is moving away from democracy, moving back 
to its Communist roots of the past several decades, tightening control 
of the media. Russia is not exactly a great place to do business. And 
the wars that are going on in Africa, left and right, and the different 
countries on the continent, not exactly a good place to do business.
  What we ask corporations and multinational corporations to do in the

[[Page H2969]]

United States is to meet your obligation to the country. Corporate 
profits are the highest they have been in the history of the country, 
and corporate taxes are the lowest they have been in the history of the 
country. And if you want to talk about education, we have a No Child 
Left Behind program that is completely underfunded. It is underfunded 
in Ohio by over $1 billion a year. Fifty percent of the kids who live 
in Youngstown City School District, in my district, live in poverty; 
and 85 percent of the students that go to Youngstown city schools 
qualify for a free and reduced lunch.
  The corporations, the multinational corporations have gotten every 
single thing they have wanted from this Congress. Ninety-three percent 
of the tax credits and tax breaks out of the energy bill go to 
subsidize oil and gas companies. The pharmaceutical companies get 
buyouts, billions of dollars through the Medicare program with no price 
controls, with no ability to reimport the drugs, without giving the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate down 
drug prices, and you want us to feel sorry for the pharmaceutical 
industries, the credit card companies, one of the most profitable 
businesses in the country, push through a bankruptcy bill that screws 
consumers to the wall. Fifty percent of the people that file bankruptcy 
file because of medical reasons, either their own or someone in their 
family; and you tell me if you have a sick child and there is only one 
way to pay for it, you do not pull out the credit card and zip it 
through. You most certainly do.
  The days of defending the multinational corporations that have no 
loyalties to this country need to be over. But that is consistently 
what happens here, because they raise the money, it goes into the 
coffers, and the majority party runs elections and spends a lot of 
money and buys a lot of TV ads.
  Talk about the environment. These businesses are moving, like when 
they cross the border into Mexico, the maquilladoras that they go to, 
former American companies that move to Mexico, now leaving Mexico and 
going to China; the rivers in Mexico are some of the most polluted 
rivers in the world. Inhumane. You can tell where the people work in 
Mexico because the little shacks that they assemble have the name of 
the corporation that they work for. That is where they live. We need to 
start exporting our values in this country, not just our jobs.

                              {time}  2100

  And I think that the multinational corporations and the big boys who 
are here are able to fly their corporate jets into Reagan National 
Airport and walk around the halls of Congress and spread around a lot 
of money have gotten everything they want.
  And it is the small business people in my district who own the mold 
shops, the machine shops, the small little shops that are in the supply 
chain who do not have the wherewithal to move to China. Who is sticking 
up for them?
  The number one problem in this country is health care. Health care 
costs are going up 10, 15 percent a year. 45 million people are 
uninsured, a health care system that is disastrous, and we haven't even 
touched it in this Congress. Haven't even touched it.
  And I think it is a shame that we are able to get up here, and some 
Members of this body are able to get up here and talk about how the 
poor corporations are not getting a fair break. 85 percent of the kids 
that get free and reduced lunch in Youngstown, they are not getting a 
fair break, and in Cleveland and in Akron, and in all other areas of 
the country, in the urban cores people are not getting a fair break.
  And until this Congress starts paying attention, you want to compete 
with the Chinese, you want to compete with the Indians, you better make 
sure our citizens are healthy and educated, and make sure that we 
protect a lot of the social safety net that we have in place today, 
including Social Security.
  And until we recognize that it is programs like Social Security that 
have helped lift people out of poverty, or that 5.2 million children 
live in families that receive Social Security, and that the Social 
Security benefits in 2002 lifted 1 million children under the age of 18 
out of poverty. And now we are talking about getting rid of this 
system.
  Now, we are here to talk about Social Security, and the long-term 
implications of what the President has proposed. Before we get into it, 
I wanted to make a point that I think is extremely relevant to the 
debate on Social Security, and something that I hear. And I have had 
three or four Social Security town hall meetings in my district, and 
have a couple more coming up. I hear from average people who just come 
and sit, and afterwards we open it up to question and answers.
  And inevitably at every meeting, we will have a couple of people who 
either, from the microphone, or come up to me after, say the way to 
stop, or the way to fix Social Security is to create more jobs in the 
United States and have more people working at a higher wage to pay into 
the Social Security system.
  Now, I do not know if long term that fixes the whole problem. But I 
think it makes a tremendous point. And I have spoken here many times at 
this podium about what is going on with the Chinese. And the Chinese at 
this point are cleaning our clocks. And I have small business people in 
my district who are literally months away from folding up the tent 
because they are not able to compete anymore with the Chinese.
  And so the first point is, we need to grow the economy. We need to 
create jobs. We need to increase tax revenues so we can balance our 
budget. And what is happening? 2004 we had over a $10 billion trade 
deficit with China, just with China alone. The actual trade deficit is 
much higher. But, China is flooding our markets with their exports, and 
we are having very much trouble trying to get our products into their 
markets.
  And what becomes scary, as we begin to run these high deficits, not 
only trade deficits, but budget deficits is that the money we are 
borrowing, last year close to $450 billion, that was offset by a Social 
Security surplus, around $450 billion deficit last year, 41 percent of 
the debt is coming from foreign-owned countries, or is owned by foreign 
countries, 41 percent.
  So as we continue to run these deficits, we are borrowing money from 
the Japanese, from the Chinese, from all kinds of different countries 
who are getting more and more leverage over the United States, whether 
it is on domestic policy or foreign policy, and so it becomes very, 
very important, as we talk about Social Security, to make sure that we 
do not put ourselves in a position to owe other countries a lot of 
money.
  Now, we are going to go over here briefly exactly what President 
Bush's privatization plan is and what it does and why it is dangerous 
to the American people, and then talk a little bit about what the 
President has said over the past week as he began to put some meat on 
the bones of his proposal.
  If we privatize the Social Security system, we are going to have to 
borrow a lot of money, $1.4 trillion in borrowing the first 10 years of 
the President's plan. So, in addition to the $7.7 trillion, $7.976 
trillion debt that we have today, we are going to have go out and 
borrow another $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years to meet the demands 
of a privatized Social Security system.
  This massive borrowing will endanger our economy, and, as I already 
stated, increase our indebtedness to foreign countries. Why in a time 
when we are competing against the Chinese in a way we have never had to 
face this kind of stiff competition, why would we want to go out and 
put ourselves in a position of economic weakness and go out and have to 
borrow more money from the Chinese in order to fund our annual 
deficits?
  That is bad economic policy. It is bad politics. It is bad geopolicy 
for the United States of America, because it weakens us when we are 
trying to deal in the international arena, and it raises taxes on our 
kids and on our grandkids.
  Now, we just found out last week in my family that my brother and his 
lovely wife are going to have a little baby boy. Now, this little baby 
boy, when it is born in October, will owe $27,000 the minute he is 
born. Owe $27,000 to the government because of the debt that we have, 
the $7.97 trillion debt. And then if we tell my brother's little son 
that we are also going to go out, and we are going to borrow another 
$1.4 trillion, with a T, over the next 10 years, then all we are 
telling

[[Page H2970]]

that newborn baby is, we are going to increase the burden and put it on 
you.
  See, we are going to borrow it today, and we are going to leave it 
for you to fix one day. And that means increased taxes for the next 
generation. And we are playing today and borrowing all of this money 
like the bill, like the bills never come due. And that is what is 
irresponsible. And that is what we want to point out.
  And I think that is one of the main reasons why the country in some 
polls even show the President's approval rating at 32 percent. That is 
why the country is not gravitating towards this program no matter how 
many cities and how many States the President wants to go to. And I 
think it becomes evident.
  Now, here is the chart which is really hard to believe. And I think 
these numbers have changed slightly. But, this is a ticking clock. This 
is always moving, and it is moving rather quickly. The national debt 
today is 7 trillion, $796 billion. $7.97 trillion is what the United 
States owes other countries.
  So if you are born today, you owe $26,349 the minute you are born. If 
you are sitting at home on the couch watching C-SPAN or Everyone Loves 
Raymond or some other show, you owe $26,349 to the Government.
  And so add this up to a baby who is born today, factor it out 18 
years from now. If we continue running at the clip we are running at 
$500 billion deficits every year, what is this little baby going to owe 
when he or she is 18 or 22? And then you add on top of that a family 
who has to not only pay this back, but also borrow money to go to 
college, and tuition rates in Ohio, and I know in Florida, have doubled 
over the past several years, over the past 5 years for sure.
  If we continue going at that clip, what is that little child going to 
owe when they are 22 and they graduate college? They are going to owe 
this, multiple that out 18 years. They are going to owe the money they 
borrow for college, multiply that out with what the cost of living is 
going to be 18 years from now. What are we doing to our kids? And that 
is what this whole debate is about.
  This debate is about a program that has been successful, and it is 
about a program that we need to maintain, and we need to project out 
into the future and make sure that we guarantee the benefits of the 
recipients of the program.
  Now, the President last week did a press conference and did several 
events, my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek). Also I 
see my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is here as 
well, and the President put a little meat on the bones last week. He 
took this plan that was a skeleton, and last week he put some meat on 
the bones. And we had based most of our comments up to this point, not 
only in the Democratic and Republican caucus, but in the 30-something 
Working Group, we have made sure that we talked about what the 
President's blueprint was.
  But, last week, the President confirmed for us exactly what we had 
talked about, that a privatized Social Security plan would mean benefit 
cuts for middle class Americans. And so the President, by outlining his 
plan last week gave us some figures. And we did some math.
  He gave us his projections, and we did the math. If the President 
gets his way, someone earning $37,000 would have a 28 percent benefit 
cut. That means they would lose one-quarter of their Social Security. 
One-quarter. And you are not making a lot, you are only making $37,000.
  Someone earning $45,000 would have a 42 percent benefit cut. 58,000, 
you would get a 42 percent benefit cut. And, finally, someone earning 
$90,000 would have a 49 percent benefit cut. So you made $90,000, you 
would lose half.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Thank you for 
joining us. I would like to make perfectly clear here that you are not 
in the 30-something group age range.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. What this discussion needs is some maturity. I was 
just sitting here listening to you, and what you say is absolutely 
true. But I just will point out that under the President's plan, if you 
make more than $20,000 a year, you can expect a significant reduction 
in your benefits. Think of that.
  Now, they can call these people higher income if they want to, but 
today $20,000 is not a huge salary. So the statistics you gave for the 
$37,000 income and the $58,000 income and the $90,000 income brackets 
were accurate, but you can make as little as $21,000 and you are going 
to experience a significant reduction in benefits under the President's 
plan.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to my young friend from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Strickland) gracing us with his presence and his maturity and his 
distinguished nature.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) who is 
also mature, distinguished, and of very good nature.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The gentleman used that distinguished thing 
quite loosely.
  ``Everyone Loves Ryan,'' is that your favorite show? I just want to 
ask. The gentleman used it as an example. Does the gentleman watch it?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I do. Does the gentleman watch it?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I watch it every now and then. I am too busy 
reading legislation and trying to do the things that I need to do.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. What is the gentleman's favorite show?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. ESPN.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. SportsCenter.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I like to watch the ``Home Shopping Network.'' I 
like watching things my kids watch. I like Sponge Bob, and I like quite 
a few other funny movies.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Does the gentleman watch any of the old shows, the 
``Archie Bunker'' reruns and ``Cheers''?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I watch ``Archie Bunker.''
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. ``Three's Company.''
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am a night owl so I stay up late so I see a 
lot of shows in syndication. It is good stuff. I like ``VH-1 Soul.''
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Does the gentleman ever watch ``Married With 
Children''? It has some very funny reruns.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is a very funny show.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Ed O'Neill who plays Al Bundy is from Youngstown, 
Ohio.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Get out of here. He is from Youngstown? Is there 
a road named in Youngstown after him?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. No, we should do that.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That would be nice.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will work on that right after we get this Social 
Security thing going. We will have Ed O'Neill Boulevard in Youngstown. 
We will do it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Why not. He is probably in the fight to protect 
Social Security.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. He is definitely in the fight to protect Social 
Security.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. A lot of hard-working Al Bundy-like guys that 
are out there.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If Al Bundy is not against privatization, who would 
be?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. What a great American.
  As the gentleman knows, we like to put a little humor into this.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We think it is funny anyway.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We think it is funny, maybe some others may 
think it is funny. They say if you do not like what you are doing and 
you cannot talk with a little humor now and then, you will worry about 
things you do not need to worry about 24 hours a day.
  I can say it was great hearing the gentleman talk about the deficit, 
hearing the gentleman talk about the Social Security privatization plan 
or blueprint or philosophy that the President says he has. But I can 
tell you this, that I am very concerned. We know in the past whenever 
we have approached a national program that is a part of the fiber of 
our country, that the administration and the majority side, there is 
always a smokescreen there.
  The numbers are not exactly what they say they are. So since the 
President last Thursday night talked a little bit about his blueprint 
and his philosophy, I do not know if I can take that

[[Page H2971]]

for being the accurate plan that the Social Security, that the 
President has for his Social Security plan. And I know there are some 
people on the Hill that are running around sharing some of those 
numbers and saying how we are going to save Social Security. And I can 
tell you there is more to saving Social Security than privatization. 
And private accounts and privatization of Social Security is the 
backbone of the President's philosophy or plan.
  I just want to remind the Members and I also want to remind Americans 
that if they can just remember, and I said this last week and I said it 
a week before last and I will say it again this week because I think it 
is just that important, we have started talking about the deficit, the 
highest deficit in the history of the Republic.
  Never before in the history of this country have we had a deficit as 
high as it is now. Never before have we been indebted to foreign 
nations, because they are buying our debt more than at any other time 
in the history of our country.
  Being a Member of the 109th Congress, I always tell my constituents 
it is an honor serving them here in Washington, D.C. And the reason why 
it is an honor is because I have the ability to come to this floor 
because the Democratic leader designated this hour for the 30-something 
Working Group and other Members that wish to come to the floor to share 
with Members of this Congress and the American people the importance of 
focus and paying attention and making sure that they hold us 
accountable for what we do.
  Now, this whole privatization issue, I can state that I am very 
concerned. And what I have read in the paper and what I am seeing of 
polling numbers, Americans are concerned. There is no place in this 
Social Security, some may call it reform, some may call it saving, some 
may say that it is a crisis. And I am glad that American people, they 
know and also Members of this House know the truth that Social Security 
is not in a crisis.
  A crisis is if Social Security were going to dissolve or not be able 
to provide 100 percent benefits in the next 5 years. A crisis would be 
even if it was 10 years from now. A crisis would be even if it is 15 
years from now. When we are talking about 50 or 47 years from now that 
the President's Social Security plan will not be able to provide the 
benefits that Americans deserve and they paid into Social Security, 
that is not a crisis.
  Now, there will be some discussion, I believe in the 109th Congress, 
on Social Security. I think it is important that we talk about fact, 
not fiction. If folks want to see fiction, there are a number of cable 
stations that they can go to or Members can go to.
  We just finished talking about what we do in our leisure time when we 
are ready to be entertained, but not here in the U.S. Congress. We are 
not here for entertainment purposes. We are here to handle the business 
of the country to make sure that the Republic is strong and to make 
sure that the American people get their taxpayer dollars' worth of 
representation.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. When the gentleman is talking about a program like 
Social Security, when we are talking about the most productive program, 
the most efficient program that the government runs and a proposal 
comes along in which the President has the wherewithal to defend it, 
the Congress has the ability because of the party structure to pass it, 
then you can be sure there is going to be a big fight. And you know 
what, the Founding Fathers would want a big fight about this.

  You fight about big things. You fight about big ideas. And I do not 
think there is anything wrong, and I think we have a constitutional 
responsibility to have a big fight.
  Article 1, section 1, the people govern, the Congress has a say. And 
the rules of this House and especially the rules of the Senate protect 
the views of the minority. So we have an obligation to stand up here at 
9:23 at night and try to do our part in communicating our message. And 
we respect the President, respect the office, respect the other side of 
the aisle. I have many friends over there. Good friends. But we are 
allowed to disagree on major issues. And I hope we can get back to what 
happened in 1983.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let us talk about what we disagree on. We 
disagree on the privatization of Social Security. There is nothing 
wrong with that.
  We disagree, Democrats, in our leadership, all the way down to the 
freshmen Member that just got here a couple of months ago. We disagree 
on increasing the deficit. We disagree on that. We disagree with the 
majority side. Democrats, we disagree with the majority side in this 
House on foreign nations acquiring more of our debt. We disagree on 
that.
  We disagree on Americans losing benefits under the flag of reforming 
Social Security. We disagree on that.
  People ask constantly, what is the difference between Democrats and 
Republicans? I am not one to generalize. And we said last week and I 
will say again this week, I commend my brave Members on the other side 
of the aisle, some Republicans, that are saying that I am not with you, 
Mr. President. I am not with you, majority side, on this whole 
philosophy of privatization of Social Security, and I commend them for 
that. I am glad that some Members went to go see the Wizard and picked 
up some courage and said that I am not going to do it.
  That is leadership. Leadership is saying not just because we can do 
it, we should. You do not do things just because you can. There are 
things that I can do, but I use restraint because it is the right thing 
to do on behalf of the greater good.
  So I think it is important that people understand there are 48 
million Americans that are receiving Social Security; 33 million of 
them are retirees. And there are a number of people in this debate, 
that is the reason why last week and the week before that and the week 
before that and the week before that that we continue to come to the 
floor to talk about Social Security.
  Someone that is 17 right now, this is their issue. Someone that is 12 
that is receiving survivor benefits because their parents have passed 
on or father or mother has passed on, this is their issue. 
Unfortunately, they cannot vote because if they could it would be 
another person in the fight that would be able to let this Congress 
know what they agree with and what they disagree with.
  For the individual that is down in my State of Florida that is 
retired, this is their issue because I go back to the Medicare 
prescription drug debate. There was a lot of discussion, there was a 
lot of politics going on, I must say, a lot of discussion about 
prescription drugs. And from Florida let me say that that is a big 
issue.
  I can say this also, that we came to this floor given information 
from the majority side and from the administration on the true costs of 
what they may call prescription drugs and not allowing us to have 
negotiating power with the pharmaceutical companies to be able to bring 
prices down for prescription drugs.
  Could the gentleman do that again?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That was off camera.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The gentleman was listening. I like that.
  I think it is important that people understand that what is being 
said loosely at this particular time you cannot take to the bank as 
truth. Case in point: during the prescription drug debate we were told, 
all of us, every Member of Congress was told that it would be a $350 
billion program. And then we moved down the line, and slowly it moved 
up to $400 billion. And then after the debate, after we passed the 
plan, we find out someone made the wrong calculation. The gentleman 
talked about math earlier. They goofed up. It is $530 billion.
  This is real money. And then 3 months ago we find out that it is 
going to be $724 billion. What is the true number? Is $5 trillion the 
true number of the President's privatization plan, the majority side's 
privatization plan? Or is it $9 trillion, $10 trillion, $12 trillion?
  You want to talk about saying that we are going to do things on a 
credit card, we are doing it in the worst way. I want to make sure 
Americans and Members of this House understand that we are not surplus 
spending here. This is deficit spending in the worst way.
  I am on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on 
Armed Services. We share in that committee; we will have a committee 
markup. We start working on bringing a bill to the floor for the 
defense of this

[[Page H2972]]

country to support our men and women in uniform that are abroad 
fighting for those that this Congress has given them the ability to do. 
We are saying that we are fighting on behalf of defense and making our 
country strong, economically strong. Meanwhile, we are spending on a 
credit card in the worst way and then finding new ways to be able to 
put more on that credit card.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think that is a great point. We are putting 
everything on the credit card right now. And in the President's 
proposal, how does taking money out of Social Security and putting it 
into the market fix the Social Security system and make it more solvent 
than it is? As we said many times here, the magic number is $5 trillion 
over the next 20 years.

                              {time}  2130

  Five trillion dollars will have to be borrowed by the United States 
over the next 20 years. How does that make our country stronger, if we 
are out borrowing?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are saying $5 trillion, but do 
we know if that is the real number?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That may not be the real number. The gentleman is 
exactly right. That may not be the real number, and why is the 
President more worried about a deficit in 2041 of maybe $300 billion, 
which the Social Security trust fund will be running at a deficit, 
instead of a $600 billion deficit today? I do not understand why he and 
this administration is so overly concerned with kind of the long-range 
deficit that can be fixed with tinkering with this program instead of 
worrying about what is happening every single day, as the heart and 
soul gets stolen out of the United States economy, with the loss of 
manufacturing, the loss of business, the jobs placement, the jobs that 
are leaving, are $10- to $12,000 less without health care benefits.
  Counties and cities are going bankrupt all over the country. They 
cannot afford to put on police and fire levies. I think two-thirds of 
the school property tax levies for schools in Ohio the last election 
cycle failed. I mean, this is eroding the heart and soul of the country 
day by day by day. This slow drip keeps happening, and it seems like 
instead of worrying about 2041 when we are to plug a little leak, we 
need to address the geyser that is happening right before us.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would be concerned if we were by ourselves in 
the objection to privatization to the President's philosophy and some 
Members of the majority side. I would be very concerned, but I am not 
as concerned as I would be if we were wrong.
  There is times, folks say, well, you know, you have got to take it on 
the chin for the team. Let me tell you something. Social Security is no 
time to take it on the chin for the team because we have real people 
who are being affected by this, and I am glad the American Baptist 
Churches U.S.A. is on our side saying no to privatization, on the side 
of the Members that are willing to watch out for the American people 
that are counting on Social Security.
  When I started to talk about the fact that there is a 17-year old and 
12-year old and someone that is 65 or 70 or 50 or 45 or 42 or 38, this 
is their issue, and the reason why it is their issue is that we as 
Americans believe in making sure that when we give our word that we 
keep it. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with 
keeping your word. There is nothing wrong with saying that this is 
wrong and we want to continue to head in the right direction.
  I am glad that we are not by ourselves, and I am glad that the 
Alliance for Retired Americans are out there doing the things that they 
are doing and having town hall meetings. I am glad that we have Members 
on the Committee on Ways and Means that are willing to go to the end on 
behalf of Social Security and making sure that Americans get what they 
paid into.
  This is not something that someone just kind of walked around and 
said, well, you know, I am not going to work, I am not going to do 
anything, but I look forward to collecting Social Security. These are 
people that work every day. These are individuals that are looking 
forward to Social Security being there for security when they need it. 
It is not a pension plan. This is not something that someone works for 
123 Construction Company for 30 years and at the end hopefully the 
pension fund will be there for them and they will be able to retire on 
that, because even now, more than ever, we are seeing companies that 
are not holding up their end of the deal for their workers and their 
retirees. That is what Social Security is there for; you will not be 
left alone.
  Social Security has the back of so many Americans, Democrat, 
Republican, Independent, Green Party, you name it, no party. It is 
there for you, and we want to make sure that individuals who are 
looking to prosper on the back of American workers are not able to do 
that.
  Let me tell you what's a guaranteed deal, $955 billion in Wall 
Street, that is guaranteed. The folks that are running around here 
talking about privatization, that are not Members of the Congress, are 
individuals that are looking to prosper when we get those public 
dollars on Wall Street.
  I want to mention something else because I hear some folks running 
around here talking about, well, there are Members of Congress who do 
not want you to have what they have. Well, this is interesting.
  We have health care. I want my constituents to have health care. I 
want Americans to have health care. We have 25 million Americans 
working without health care, 46 million families without health care 
because those workers do not have health care. We have a health care 
crisis. This is a crisis. Someone wants to talk about crisis, that is a 
crisis. Social Security not being what we want it to be in 50 years is 
not necessarily a crisis, and I think it is important that Members and 
the American people understand that we have to deal with these issues 
in the order that they come in.
  We have Americans right now that do not have health care. I was just 
at a meeting. This is the Uninsured Americans Awareness Week throughout 
the Nation. This is a nonprofit group that is trying to come up with a 
bipartisan way to deal with the uninsured. It is a crisis, and I am 
glad that they are out there in the fight. I am glad that they are 
making sure that people understand.
  Going back to what I was saying, the issue about what Members of 
Congress have that Americans do not have, you hear Members of the 
majority side, you hear the President say, well, the Members of 
Congress and Federal employees have a thrift savings plan. Yes, we do. 
We have a thrift savings plan. A number of corporations that are out 
there and a number of businesses that are out there offer their 
employees some level of a pension plan or a thrift savings plan, but 
guess what? We also have Social Security. We have Social Security. Even 
Members of Congress have Social Security, but what is being offered now 
is is we want to privatize your accounts. It is not Social Security 
under privatization. It is Social Security under the way we see it now. 
So when folks start talking about, well, we want to give you what 
Members of Congress have, guess what? We have the backdrop of Social 
Security, and we want to make sure that every American has Social 
Security and they can count on it.

  We are where we are right now because there are good people that are 
out there not only in the organized labor community, but there are 
people out there in the pulpits that have members of their congregation 
or synagogue or what have you that are under the poverty line if it was 
not for Social Security. So when we start talking about privatization, 
I want to make sure that the Members understand, privatization means 
that we are going to gamble on your security, your security in your 
retirement.
  It has been already stated by the administration that benefits will 
be cut in the light of saving Social Security because they say, on the 
majority side, that it is in a crisis, which it is not. This is not 
fiction; it is fact. I know that the American people are aware of it.
  I want to thank my friends over at the Campaign for American's 
Future. I want to thank the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for 
the work that they do and sharing this work with Americans, young and 
old. I want to thank Rock the Vote that has been out there, and their 
representatives come

[[Page H2973]]

to the Hill to speak before committees, to share their concern for the 
privatization of Social Security. They are flatly against the 
privatization of Social Security.
  People ask, well, why is the Children Defense Fund involved in this 
battle of no privatization of Social Security? They are involved 
because they know that young people that are already having a hard way 
to go right now in this country as we speak, and I mean throughout this 
country, not just in my district but in districts throughout this 
country, congressional districts in the States and in neighborhoods and 
in communities, they are having a hard enough time. The last thing we 
need to do since we are watching out for the future Americans when they 
grow up and become the leaders in this country, and the workers in this 
country, is to hand them a $26,000 share of the deficit because we are 
watching out for them, to take $5 trillion and say that we are working 
on your behalf to make sure that you are secured in the future or we 
are going to increase the deficit by $5 trillion.
  That is the number we are using today because, as I mentioned, the 
prescription drug plan that passed this House in the 108th Congress and 
the other body and was signed by the President, we were told it would 
be $350 billion to later find out it will be $727 billion. This is real 
money. This is something that we are passing on to future generations, 
and if we are going to watch out for future generations, we have to 
make sure that we are doing the right thing when we are in control.
  I just want to say that I feel good about the fact that the 30 
Something Working Group, as we come together when we are not on the 
floor, that this is the number one issue. Yes, there are other issues, 
but Social Security is the number one issue facing Americans right now. 
The privatization of Social Security is something that we have to 
continue to fight on their behalf, those individuals, those 4 million 
Americans that are now in the Social Security program, those Americans 
that receive $955 a month on average, those 33 million Americans that 
are retired and those young people that are on survivor benefits, their 
parents have passed on or a parent has passed on who was taking care of 
them, brought them up. They are now receiving their survivor benefits. 
It is up to us and it is up to brave Members in this House to fight for 
them to make sure that we cannot say, oh, we had a bad week on Wall 
Street so, guess what, we have to cut some of their benefits. We have 
to fight for them.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, that is a great segue into a couple of 
the e-mails that we received last week that I think put a human face on 
what you were just speaking about.
  We got one from Denise Harmon who was from Evanston, Wyoming. She 
says: ``Hello, I'm 40, so I'm one year over the age group you are 
looking at.'' But, again, we are here talking about a lot of other 
issues and not just the people who are in their 30s.
  ``I have some IRA's, a mutual fund, a retirement plan with stocks, 
bonds, and annuities started through my previous employment, a 401(k) 
type plan with my employer, and a pension as a State employee in 
Wyoming.''
  Denise goes on to say, ``I am very uncomfortable with the idea of 
using private accounts for Social Security. My mutual fund lost half of 
its value and at the rate it is earning, will take another 5 to 8 years 
to get to the rate of my deposit.''
  So, just as you said, she lost sounds like thousands of dollars here 
and it is going to take another 5 to 8 years to get to the rate of her 
deposit. So, if she was planning on retiring in say 2002 and her 401(k) 
or mutual fund was cut in half, then she would not be able to retire if 
that was Social Security.
  It sounds like she has some other things going on here, but what we 
are saying with the privatization is that your Social Security would be 
your mutual fund and it would be subject to the whims of the market. It 
would no longer be a guaranteed benefit, and when the gentleman from 
New York was here, he explained it great. Here is the stock market up 
and down, up and down, up and down, but here is the Social Security 
program, slowly growing, slowly paying out benefits to meet with the 
wage index so you maintain your buying power, and this is exactly what 
Denise is talking about.
  She goes on to say: ``Everyone else I know, from my retired father to 
my peers to my kids who have mutual funds in their names for college 
funds have been burned by the private financial sector.''
  And this is something that really hits home: ``My grandfather lost 
his railroad pension in the 1970s (he worked for Rock Island Lines) 
when Rock Island went out of business. He relied on Social Security and 
Medicare. He required nursing home care due to dementia and died with 
nothing, in fact, he probably cost the government because the company 
he gave his life to defaulted on him.
  ``Social Security is meant to be the no-risk retirement backup 
system. You shouldn't allow people to gamble with that money.''

                              {time}  2145

  And do not forget to remind Americans that Social Security also pays 
for the disabled and for children whose parents die early.
  I want to thank Denise for writing in. That was great.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I wanted to mention a few other things I did not 
mention earlier. This whole $26,300 and change of the deficit that we 
are talking about.
  Mr. Ryan, if you can put that board back up, because I think that is 
very, very important. Thank you, Mr. Ryan, I appreciate that. This 
$26,349 and change is something that we need to pay very close 
attention to.
  We did some math, and this is good math. The average American that 
graduates, be it with a postgraduate degree or a 4-year degree or what 
have you, has on average a $20,000 debt of either student loans, 
because of the lack of Pell grant dollars or what have you. You can buy 
a new car with $26,000. You can put a downpayment on a home with 
$26,000 and still have some left over. You could buy groceries for five 
families for a year with $26,000. That is a lot of money. You could 
start a small business with your new education with $26,000.
  Was this deficit delivered by the minority side? No. This deficit was 
delivered by the majority side. And I think it is important that 
Americans understand that. So if folks want to know what we stand for 
on this side of the aisle, I think we have made the point clear. I 
think Americans understand and the Members of this House understand 
that if we are going to approach the Social Security issue, that it has 
to be bipartisan, like in 1983 with Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan. That 
bipartisan bill passed this House and that is the reason why Social 
Security is solvent for the next 50 years.
  Mr. Ryan, it was a pleasure being here with you once again. I look 
forward to the future and getting back to talking about this issue and, 
hopefully, taking some action.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It has been a beautiful experience; I enjoyed it 
thoroughly. I want to give everyone at home some e-mails.
  We also received another e-mail from a Karan Szatko from Overland 
Park, Kansas, and she wanted to thank us for talking about and to our 
generation and the issues that really matter. She is hoping to get more 
involved in government and getting her voice heard and doing what she 
can to help this great Nation we all love.
  So, hopefully, these 30-somethings, it sounds like they are having 
some effect on some, and I just want to give everyone the e-mail. You 
can e-mail us through Leader Pelosi's office: 
[email protected] or you can get on our Web site at 
Democraticleader.house.gov/30something.
  So send us an e-mail, drop us a line if you have any stories that you 
can relate to us that we may be able to share here on how this may 
affect your family.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, I have another Web site real quickly, 
because we like to verify, verify, verify where people can go on and 
Members can go on. If you want to learn more about what the President's 
plan does to the middle class, you can go on www.cbpp.org. That is the 
Center For Budget and Policy Priorities. That is cbpp.org.




                          ____________________