[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3408-H3414]
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 majority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to 
address this great House of Representatives. I want to thank not only 
the Democratic leader but the Democratic leadership for allowing me to 
be here on their behalf.
  Our 30-something Working Group, which the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi) put together in the 108th Congress, our focus is to work 
on issues that are facing not only young Americans but Americans in 
general. I think it is very, very important for us to state not only 
here on the floor but to also say in our communities and the workplace 
that there is no greater service than making sure that your children 
and grandchildren have a better opportunity than what you have had. 
That is kind of the unwritten statement for the 30-something Working 
Group. We are benefactors of the generation that allowed us to have 
better opportunities than what they have had. I think that is what 
makes our country great. I commend those Members that live with that 
philosophy.
  But I think it is important in a time of judgment and a time that we 
all have to be leaders that we stand up, not only stand up, but inform 
the American people and future generations on what is going to happen 
good for them and in many cases what may not work out the way that is 
being portrayed here in the Congress or any issue that we are talking 
about here, that we are taking action on here in Washington, D.C.
  There are a lot of good things that families are doing for one 
another to make sure that future generations and their bloodline have a 
better opportunity than what they have had. There are families that are 
trying to save money with a college plan or savings plan for their 
children to receive education for their bloodline for the first time. 
Some families that only made it after a 4-year experience stopped at an 
associate's degree or a bachelor's of science degree, and want their 
children or a family member to be able to receive a master's degree or 
a doctor's degree.

                              {time}  1830

  It is that individual in the middle of America that wants his or her 
son or daughter to be able to carry the family business further than 
they were ever capable to carry it. I know that it is in the fiber of 
our American Dream that is in our hearts and in our minds.
  So when we start talking about the issue of Social Security, we have 
to say that that is a paramount issue when we talk about values and 
commitment to our future generations, we talk about value and 
commitment to those beneficiaries that are receiving Social Security 
benefits right now. We have to think about those individuals that are 
disabled that are counting on this Congress to stand up on their 
behalf, those individuals that elect us to speak on their behalf.
  One thing about this body within the U.S. Congress, we cannot be 
appointed to the House. We cannot be appointed to this position. We 
have to be elected. The other body can be appointed. We have to be 
elected. Through the election process, there is a lot of commitment and 
sacrifice. A lot of Americans, someone woke up early one morning, 7 
a.m., and showed up to their election polling place for some 
accountability. That is what we are here to do.
  When we start talking about Social Security, I think it is important 
that we come to this floor to let the American people know and the 
Members of this House of Representatives know that many of us within 
the Congress are very, very concerned about the privatization scheme 
that is being talked about and that is being portrayed as a plan for 
future generations, or the preservation of Social Security.
  We cannot believe everything we hear, especially when folks start 
saying, well, these are the facts and this is my plan and this is the 
way it is going to work. Right now, especially on the Democratic side, 
and I will say a few of my Republican colleagues understand that 48 
million Americans are receiving Social Security right now, that 33 
million of those Americans are already retired, 33 million that are 
counting on Social Security. Social Security is that security blanket, 
our end of the deal that we said we would hold, they paid into it, it 
is there for them and it will be there for them for the next 5, 10, 15, 
20, 25 years at the same level that it is right now.
  Of course we want to strengthen Social Security. Also, it is 
important to understand that right now, today, $955 per month on 
average goes out every month to support families and support their 
unmet needs. This is not a giveaway. This is what they paid for. This 
is what they invested in. It is important that we do not gamble with 
those dollars. I think it is also important to understand that 48 
percent of Social Security beneficiaries, if they did not have Social 
Security, they would be living in poverty today.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but have trouble with the 
administration's plan and some Members on the Republican side's plan to 
privatize Social Security and to say and admit up front that benefits 
will be cut and that they would not only receive a benefit cut but even 
those who do not want to go in a private account will suffer.
  I cannot understand for the life of me how we can serve that up on a 
platter and say that we are trying to help future generations or 
present enrollees in Social Security right now. I cannot help but 
question $5 trillion. Until I got to the Congress, I had no meaning of 
what $5 trillion actually meant, $5 trillion, not of money that we have 
in our wallets but money that we are willing to borrow, $5 trillion. 
But better yet, this is supposed to help maintain Social Security.
  I am going to talk a little further about what we are doing as 
Democrats, but I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Florida for yielding. I actually want to commend him because I see 
him week after week on the floor leading the group under-30 as they 
demonstrate that you do not have to be a senior citizen, that you do 
not have to be old and elderly, you do not have to have been here 25 
years to have impact on this body. And so I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding, but I also commend him for his leadership and for 
his position as he talks about Social Security, one of the great 
programs that has bolstered the quality of life for people in our 
country.
  I actually grew up in a rural community in Arkansas before moving to 
Chicago, and we had a saying there, that if it ain't broke, don't fix 
it. They would oftentimes be talking about farm machinery and other 
kinds of things.

[[Page H3409]]

While Social Security is not quite the same, the reality is if it is 
working for millions and millions of people, if it has been the only 
thing that has stood between our senior citizens in many instances and 
absolute poverty, then it sounds to me like it ain't really broke. And 
while it might can be adjusted just a little taste, we may have to put 
some money in, I do not think it is broken, and I do not think we need 
to fix it.


          Globalism Hits the Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind

  I want to take just a few minutes, if I could, and talk about 
something else for a minute, that is, about an industry in my 
congressional district that is being squeezed by our trade policy, by 
globalism, by outsourcing and all of the things that we seriously have 
to look at. That industry is the Chicago Lighthouse Industries. They 
have made clocks for the Federal Government for the last 28 years. They 
have been consistent and diligent in their performance. Since 1977, the 
Chicago Lighthouse made 3.3 million clocks. In fact, last year they 
made 104,000 clocks for all branches of the military, Energy 
Department, Postal Service, and the Justice Department.
  The unique thing about the Chicago Lighthouse is that they employ 
more than 40 people who are blind or visually impaired. They employ 
their workers at a salary of $8.50 an hour and provide health benefits. 
On a recent visit to the Chicago Lighthouse, I was amazed at the level 
of detail and speed at which the workers developed the clocks. They 
have an assembly line that produces and packages 1,000 wall clocks a 
day. And, of course, they are blind. They are visually impaired.
  In fact, Rita McCabe can assemble a 12-inch clock in less than a 
minute. Ms. McCabe, who is blind, found her job through the Chicago 
Lighthouse. When asked how she felt about her job, she stated the 
following: ``It gives me a chance to be with people, to make a living 
on my own, and to prove that I'm competent enough to do this kind of 
work.'' Ms. McCabe has worked for the Chicago Lighthouse for 25 years.
  Rita McCabe's job is in jeopardy due to competition from foreign 
sources. In the past 4 years, U.S. imports of wall clocks, most of them 
from China, have increased by 24 percent, totaling $123 million in 
2003. The Chicago Lighthouse does not mind competition. They have 
suggested that they can compete with anybody as long as the rules are 
the same. Unfortunately, the playing field is not level when it comes 
to competing with China and other countries that do not have a minimum 
wage requirement or pay health benefits to their workers.
  The Chicago Lighthouse, though, pays its workers an average of $8.50 
an hour plus health benefits. It is not uncommon in China for workers 
to make $2 an hour and have no benefits. China is able to undercut 
clock manufacturers like the Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind because 
they do not play by the same rules. They are able to send their 
products into the United States at a cheaper price. This adds to the 
trade deficit that currently exists. More importantly, to allow foreign 
governments who do not pay minimum wage or a livable wage, nor provide 
benefits, to continue to undercut U.S. companies like the Chicago 
Lighthouse erodes the faith that citizens have in government and puts 
too many jobs at risk.
  The Chicago Lighthouse is not asking for preferential treatment. They 
are just seeking fundamental fairness. The Chicago Lighthouse has been 
in existence now for 99 years. They have done something right to be 
able to survive.
  The Federal Government as a result of the Javitz-Wagner-O'Day Act is 
required to show favor towards the Chicago Lighthouse and other 
industries like it when purchasing clocks through the General Services 
Administration. However, this law has been eroded and many Federal 
purchasers are going for the lower-priced clocks. Obviously, these are 
the clocks that are being produced through cheaper labor costs. The 
Federal Government must set the example and ensure that taxpayer money 
is going to support those industries and businesses in our country and 
not going to other countries who take the benefit of our outsourcing 
policy.
  Everything comes at a price. The workers at the Chicago Lighthouse 
are able to be productive, tax-paying citizens because of their jobs. 
These jobs help support them. And so I simply want to have us 
understand and recognize that when we make a trade policy, when we are 
outsourcing, when we are always looking for the cheapest price, when we 
are always looking for the most cost-efficient way of doing business, 
we also better look at the needs of our people and we better look at 
the needs of the people in our communities to provide opportunities for 
blind people to work, to have dignity, to have pride, to have a sense 
of self-worth. We should not let anything erode that. We should not let 
anything take that away.
  I would urge us as we purchase, as we continue to purchase clocks, as 
we make trade policies, that we remember something the Bible says: 
``Where there is no vision, the people perish.'' And some people can 
see, but have no vision. Sometimes our policies reflect the ability to 
see, but not in a visionary way.
  So, please, America, let us not put the people at the Chicago 
Lighthouse for the Blind out of work. Let us keep them working and 
hopefully all of the rest of us will be able to see.
  I thank the gentleman again so very much. I really appreciate the 
gentleman giving me the opportunity to cut into this under-30 group's 
time. It has been a long time since I have been under 30, but it is 
just a pleasure to be here with the gentleman, and I thank him so very 
much.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say before I comment 
to what the gentleman from Illinois just said, I want to commend him 
for coming to the floor, not only representing his great district but 
representing some great Americans that are doing what they can under 
the circumstances. I have a similar program in my district, Good Will 
Industries, providing uniforms for our men and women that are in 
uniform, sewing together jackets. They are handicapped, some physically 
handicapped, mentally handicapped, many; but they are trying, and we 
have got to give them an opportunity to play a role in working America.
  Another thing I want to also point out, and I know that the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is here, is that the gentleman from Illinois is 
talking about working Americans, not folks sitting at home talking 
about where's my check. These are individuals that wake up every day 
and want to wake up every day and go and be productive. That is what 
this is all about. That is what our democracy is about.
  It was a pleasure yielding to the gentleman. He is one of the most 
outstanding orators that we have in the Congress.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. The next time you are in Chicago, I have just 
got to bring you by so that you can go and see the Chicago Lighthouse 
for yourself. And we will bring the gentleman from Ohio along with us.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I look forward to that. Just not in the winter 
time, that is all I have to say, because I am from Florida. I do not 
know about all Chicago, holding on to the ropes and the wind blowing 
and everything. I love Chicago. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
standing up for those great Americans.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is 
here. And we are, I tell the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the 
30-something Working Group; so he can be 30-something, not under 30 or 
I think I would not be with this group. I would be with them in spirit.
  Mr. Speaker, I was just talking here for a moment about the whole 
issue of a bad privatization scheme and throwing the dice on the 
retirement of so many not only Americans that are presently receiving 
Social Security benefits, and I am not just talking about retirees. We 
are talking about disabled Americans. We are also talking about those 
individuals who are going to school and surviving on survivor benefits 
of Americans that have passed on. They paid into Social Security. They 
knew there were survivor benefits for their kids. And one can ask even 
those Americans and those of us in the Congress that were pension funds 
outside of this Congress and we know what happened to our pension fund. 
It went straight down.

[[Page H3410]]

  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) our ranking member 
on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, said just today that 
airline pilots who were receiving $12,000 a month in pension benefits, 
now it is down to $2,000 a month. That is a $10,000 difference in their 
retirement. So now we are going to do that with Social Security? Even 
for those individuals who do not enroll in the program, they are still 
going to get benefit cuts. They still receive benefits cuts. And, also, 
the dollars that are needed to support them in their time of need.
  So it is a great pleasure once again being with my good friend from 
Ohio and the fact that we come to this floor along with the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Davis), and others to share with Americans about what we are working on 
here in the Congress.
  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 thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  I think it is appropriate for us tonight to kind of take another 
tack, a little more specific. We know that the President's 
privatization plan for the Social Security system is a bad one. It 
means benefit cuts across the board to the tune of 40 percent for most. 
Under the President's plan, middle-class workers earning $58,000 a year 
would be hit with a 42 percent benefit cut. And the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis), who was here last week, said very eloquently that 
this Social Security system is a system that is put together and was 
put together to solidify the country and to talk about our common 
interests, our common goals, and our common humanity, and how we have 
an obligation in this Congress to maintain that system and not to say 
and begin to promote the kind of attitude that says, hey, everybody is 
on their own. They go here and they make the kind of money that they 
want. They invest in the stock market, and if they go belly up in the 
stock market, they are on their own. And that is basically what the 
President's plan says.
  We have a system that works, a system that is a safety net for many 
American people who have struggled. But the point I think we need to 
make tonight, which we have touched upon over and over and over again, 
is the issue of jobs in the United States of America. If we are not 
participating in an economy that is growing, there are not going to be 
the kind of resources put into the program.
  I was at a town hall meeting on Social Security a couple of weeks 
ago, and I had a lady stand up, my age, and say ``I do not want to put 
4 percent of my Social Security taxes into a private account'' because 
she figured out the math. She makes $19,000 a year. Four percent of 
$19,000 a year is not enough to retire on even if the stock market is 
going gangbusters.
  So this may sound nice to have private accounts. If one is making 
$150,000 a year, they know how to invest their money. They know how to 
pull it out and put it back in. The President's plan does not allow 
that. So if we say the same exact thing to someone who is making 
$19,000 and they are allowed to invest their 4 percent of $19,000 a 
year, there is not going to be enough there for them to retire, and 
they are going to lose their Social Security benefit.
  This is a risky proposition, and it is why only 30 percent of the 
American people are saying this is a good idea. It makes me become more 
and more aware and concerned that this is a whole ploy. While we are 
cutting food stamps and we are cutting Medicaid, we have the whole 
country having this debate about Social Security over here. And we do 
not want to talk about what is going on in Iraq, and we do not want to 
talk about the kind of cuts that are being made in the veterans' health 
care program. We have to keep the discussion on an issue that is highly 
volatile and has been known to be a third rail of politics.
  Now, I want to share with the American people and our friends who are 
here tonight a chart. We are talking about jobs and job creation in the 
country. This chart shows the U.S. trade balance in goods, durable 
goods. This goes from 1979 to 2004. In 1979 we had a trade deficit of 
$24 billion, in 1979. And we do not really need to see the numbers. We 
just need to see the bars. And it slowly got worse, got better in the 
early 1990s and then the dipsy-do all throughout the 1990s. But in 1998 
our trade deficit in goods got to $230 billion. That was in 1998. And 
then from 1998 to 2004, a $651 billion trade deficit in the United 
States of America. We are buying $651 billion more worth of goods than 
we are selling.
  If we want to fix Social Security and we want to have enough money in 
our local communities to fund our schools and our libraries and 
Medicaid at the State and Federal level, we need to fix this problem, 
or we are never going to have enough money to do anything. Four percent 
of whatever one wants to put in their side account is never going to be 
enough because we are going to have more people for 19 and 20 and 
$30,000 a year than we are for 70 or 80 or 90. And this is the main 
culprit.
  And today Secretary Snow came out with the weakest report on the 
Chinese currency manipulation that we have ever seen and basically gave 
the Chinese a free pass when they are manipulating their currency by 40 
percent. That is why this number looks like it does.
  I am going to get the other chart out here that is dealing with 
annual trade with China. There are three different graphs here. The 
gold graph, the gold line, with the blue dots is what we are importing 
from China. This starts off in 1985; it ends up in 2004. The blue line 
is what we are exporting to China, and then the trade balance. What we 
are importing from China is going through the roof, $200 billion of 
goods coming into this country. We are exporting to China virtually 
nothing. The trade gap just with the Chinese is $162 billion; $162 
billion we are buying from the Chinese without the ability to sell.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. 
Ryan) point as it relates to pointing out the trade deficit is the fact 
that Americans, if we allow hypothetically, and I do mean 
hypothetically, in this Congress a privatization plan to go through 
this Congress the way the President and majority side would like to see 
it happen, then they are going to get a double whammy. They are getting 
a double whammy of not having high-paying jobs. And this is not just me 
talking. Folks can go to a number of third-party validators and even 
the White House itself said there will be drastic benefits cuts, 
benefits cuts to the tune of if someone is earning $37,000, they are 
going to get a 28 percent benefit cut than what they are experiencing 
right now. At $58,000, they are going to get a 42 percent benefit cut, 
and on and on and on. So there will be benefit cuts, and we have put 
that up front, and there will be a great gamble on the future of Social 
Security.
  So I am really pleased that the gentleman brought those charts 
because folks really need to understand, and this is from the U.S. 
Census Bureau. That is where he received that information.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are not making this up, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. This is not the ``Tim Ryan Report.''
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is not the ``Kendrick Meek Report.''
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just want to 
make sure because we point out when there is inaccurate information out 
there. And some of our friends here in the Beltway, which is 
Washington, D.C. they have an imagination about what the truth is 
about. We talk a lot about what the truth really is. We talk a lot 
about the $350 billion so-called prescription drug plan that is 
supposed to help Americans, and now it is $724 billion, but we were 
told $350 billion when it first started. So the President is saying $5 
trillion on a privatization plan. What is it going to be next year? Is 
it going to be $10 trillion?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, he brings up a great point because over the next 10 years, and I 
do not know if he said this before I arrived, in the next 10 years we 
are going to have to borrow $2 trillion to fund this privatization 
scheme. Over the next 20 years we are going to have to borrow $5 
trillion. This is billion. We have to borrow $5 trillion to fund this 
privatization

[[Page H3411]]

scheme. So it is just brilliant that he brought that up in such a 
timely fashion because it ties into this.
  As we are running a $162 billion trade deficit with the Chinese at 
the same time that they are stealing our manufacturing, stealing our 
jobs, we are borrowing the money right now for our annual deficit that 
we have, from the Chinese, $500 billion.
  So what do we have to do to fix this problem? One, we have to balance 
the budget. But if we are already borrowing $500 billion from the 
Japanese and the Chinese, why would we then go out and say let us go 
borrow another $5 trillion to roll the dice on and play roulette?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is the 
problem. This Social Security, it is not some small little program that 
a Member of Congress put in the budget and said this is our pet 
project. This is Social Security. This goes towards our generation for 
our children and grandchildren, and I hope to have them some day, 
grandchildren. I want them to have a better opportunity.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) came to the floor to talk 
about those individuals putting together clocks in his district, the 
Lighthouse Project. I yield to him, from the 30-something Working Group 
hour, to give him an opportunity, and he did not come here saying we 
need to create a program for people who do not want to work. We need to 
make sure that Americans, and he is talking about blind Americans, are 
able to continue to support themselves.
  Remember, Mr. Speaker, 33 million Americans are retired, receiving 
Social Security benefits now. Forty-eight percent of the 33 million 
would be living in poverty if it was not for Social Security. And they 
have a plan that comes up here to the Hill. And I would not call it a 
plan. I would say it is some sort of philosophy or theory that the 
White House and majority side have.
  And I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, we know that we have 
friends over there, few in number, on the Republican side that are 
willing to stand up and say, I am not with you on this.

                              {time}  1900

  And if you bring it to the floor, I am going to vote against it, 
rightfully so. Do we know why? Do we know why it is not on the floor 
tonight? Because I believe, just like the American people know and just 
like many Members of this House know, it is not because we are 
Democrats and we are right; we are Democrats and we are willing to 
stand up to say what is right for Social Security. This is not a 
political issue; this is an American issue.
  So when we start talking about what people are saying here on the 
floor as it relates to the majority side, we do know we were given that 
prescription drug number, $350 billion, it ended up being $724 billion 
and climbing, and still did not put forth a plan where we can combine 
buying power and take the price down for seniors.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right. We are going on 
the record of what this administration has consistently told us and 
told the American people, and the gentleman is exactly right. With the 
prescription drug benefit we were told it was $350 billion, then it 
became $400 billion, we passed it at 3 in the morning here. Then a 
month or two later, after the election, it turned out to be $700 
billion, and then it went to $1.1 trillion. When we passed it, it was 
$400 billion. And someone in this administration told the actuary who 
had the real numbers, do not tell Congress.
  Wait a minute. That is not telling the American people. I represent 
700,000 people; the gentleman represents 700,000 people.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And change.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. They withheld the administration from your 
constituents and my constituents, and we made a faulty decision here on 
the House floor where many Members would not have voted for it. When we 
go back and look at the war, what we were told about the war: we are 
greeted as liberators, we will use the oil for reconstruction and it 
will only cost us $50 billion when we have already over $300 billion 
invested in the war; all of these things that turned out not to be 
true.
  Here we are today being promised a scheme that we have to borrow $5 
trillion to implement. It is bad enough we have to borrow it and pay it 
back; we have to pay the interest on it too. Talk about sticking it to 
the next generation.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. We are both 
going to be in the Committee on Armed Services tomorrow late into the 
night marking up or creating the Committee on Armed Services for the 
United States of America authorization bill to protect the American 
public, to make sure our men and women that are in harm's way get what 
they need, to make sure that we do all of the things that we need to do 
to defend this country, adding $5 trillion to the debt and making 
decisions that should not be made.
  And I just want to say, at the end of the legislative business of 
every week, we have our whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
come to the floor with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and they 
talk about the business of next week and what is going to happen. I 
hope when it comes down to Social Security that there is a bipartisan 
effort to not only make sure that we pay for what we do or have a plan 
to pay for what we do as it relates to borrowing the money that we are 
going to have to use to make sure that we make Social Security stronger 
and better, but there is no discussion about, well, next week we are 
going to talk about private accounts, because that is going to be a sad 
day in this Congress.
  I will also say this, that it is important for people to understand 
that on the Democratic side, and I mentioned the gentlewoman from 
California (Leader Pelosi) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is our chair, and 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is our vice-chair, 
and other Members who are here with leadership roles and who have been 
here before the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and I, before we even 
thought of a 30-something Working Group; that a bipartisan plan like 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) speaks of all the time, 
consists of Democrats and Republicans sitting down, sharing values on 
behalf of the American people, and putting forth a plan that will 
preserve Social Security for years to come.
  Social Security news flash, I say to the gentleman, because if we 
listen to what the White House is saying and all of the Federal jet 
fuel they are burning flying all around the country sharing with people 
what their side of what they believe the crystal ball may actually 
provide Social Security benefits to future generations, 47 years from 
now, 100 percent benefits as we see them now will still be in place. 
Forty-seven years from now, Social Security will be still be here. Do 
my colleagues know why? Because in 1983 this House, in a bipartisan 
way, Tip O'Neill, President of the United States Ronald Reagan, God 
bless his memory, voted off of this floor 243 to 102 to make sure that 
Social Security is there for future generations and that it provides 
benefits to the 48 million, those who are disabled, those who are 
living under survivor benefits, and those who are retired right now. It 
took leadership to do that.

  So it all comes down to, if some Members of power, and this would not 
even be a discussion if we were in the majority. It would not even be a 
discussion, because there will be a panel put together to come up to 
the Committee on Ways and Means and other committees of substance as it 
relates to this issue to come together with a bipartisan plan.
  And I guarantee my colleagues that private accounts would not even be 
an issue on the preservation of Social Security. We have always talked 
about making sure that the Social Security trust fund that has been a 
Democratic issue from two or three Presidential campaigns, about making 
sure that Social Security is here for future generations.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Lockbox.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Whatever we want to call it. I will just say 
that this bipartisan number here, 163 Democrats for it in 1983, 80 
Republicans for it in 1983, and Tip O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of 
this House was sitting in the Speaker rostrum, Mr. Speaker. It took 
leadership, and that is what we need now.

[[Page H3412]]

  Folks ask, I say to the gentleman, what is the Democratic plan. Well, 
the Democratic plan is in the wallets of every American, the guarantee 
when they go through their wallet looking for lunch money for their 
children or looking for bus fare to catch the bus or, as we know, 
grabbing, unfortunately, for a credit card now versus cash to put gas 
in your tank, when they pass that Social Security card, what they know 
now is the fact that they will receive benefits for the next 47 years.
  That is the Democratic plan, and the Democratic plan is also making 
sure in a bipartisan way that we move forward, make sure that we 
preserve Social Security for future generations, and make sure that we 
do not hand debt to our future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, $5 trillion is an awful lot of money. Once again, on the 
armed services end, 44 percent of our debt is owned by foreign 
interests. If we want to talk about the future of this country, if we 
want to talk about security, if we want to talk about homeland 
security, if we want to talk about financial security, stability for 
this country and for the Republic, never before in the history of the 
Republic has the deficit been as high as it is right now.
  Now, I can tell my colleagues, our friends on the other side, and I 
say the leadership, because I know, some of my good friends do not want 
this.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Not personal. It is not personal.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is not a personal issue. And they know it is 
not a personal issue. They know that bad decisions have been made. They 
know that the deficit is as high as it has ever been, and climbing. We 
are so high up in debt right now, I mean, it is just bad. We cannot 
call these 1-800 numbers we see on the TV saying call us, we will help 
you with your debt. We cannot even take care of those issues right now, 
because it is so much and we are so high in debt.
  So I think it is important, as we remember 30-somethings and those 
young Americans who are graduating from college now, Mr. Speaker, they 
are leaving, on average, $20,000 in debt, $20,000 in debt, the average 
American that is graduating. Now we are going to put more on them? I 
think that is something that we should not do, and that is the reason 
why we come to the floor. That is the reason why we have third, fourth, 
fifth, and six-party validators for the reason that this privatization 
plan is nothing but a pure gamble for Democrats, Republicans, 
Independents, and others that are depending and looking for Social 
Security when they are in need.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman brought up a great 
point, and we will share some more information from the Department of 
the Treasury of the United States of America. This is the national 
debt, and I believe this is moving. You can go to a Web site, next week 
we will have to bring the Web site up so you can see, but this is 
actually always moving: $7.79 trillion in debt that the United States 
owes other interests. Your share of the debt, I say to the gentleman 
from Florida, $26,349.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Not just mine.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Not just yourself. Your wife, your kids, my wife, 
constituents, people watching at home, if you are watching this 
program.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Members of Congress.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Everybody, $26,300 you owe.
  The point I would like to bring up and highlight again is what the 
gentleman brought up, talking about what college students owe. The 
average college student owes 20,000 bucks.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would just yield 
for one second, not just the college students, but their parents. I 
want to tell my colleague, when I graduated from college, I went 
straight into the Highway Patrol Academy. Thank God I had a full 
scholarship to Florida A&M. But a number of students that go into 
college, they do not have a scholarship, okay? And they come out owing 
student loans. And do we know who pays those student loans when they 
come out? Mom and Dad or Grandmom, to make sure that they do not end up 
falling into bad debt and also falling into an area where they are 
going to start off on the wrong foot.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes, even further behind. So someone out there 
watching, a parent that has a kid in college, the average college debt, 
$20,000; average share of the national debt that you owe, $26,000.
  And, think about it, if you are having a baby this year and project 
this number out, if we keep going down the road we are going down, 
because we already had to lift the debt ceiling in Congress several 
months ago that raised this even further so the United States could go 
back out and borrow even more money, so here we have a situation where 
we owe this, each individual owes this.
  Now, if a baby is born today, guess what? They owe this right out of 
the gate. So project this out, this number, $26,349, project it out 18, 
20, 22 years and imagine what that number is going to be if we keep 
going down the road we are going down now, and then add to that what 
college tuition costs are going to be 20 years from now. They have 
doubled over the past 4 or 5 years, I know for sure in Ohio, and I know 
in Florida, so let that rate continue and let this rate continue and 
let us keep borrowing money and have to pay interest on that. Let that 
continue.
  So we are saying that a young baby that is born today has a 
tremendous tax burden on their head, from the national debt that they 
owe, their share, plus what they are going to owe for going to college; 
and if they go on to get a master's degree or advanced degree, it would 
be even more, and then the President's proposal to borrow $5 trillion 
more. What are we doing to the next generation? At the same time, we 
are not making the proper investments in health and education and the 
kinds of things that will eventually move the country forward.
  Mr. Speaker, the Web site is www.house.gov/budget.democrats 
underscored, to get the deficit ticker to see what the real number is 
as this continues to move.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think this is very, very 
important since we are talking about the future and we are talking 
about future generations, and we must talk about these numbers so 
future generations understand what their debt is.
  For someone that is looking for additional help on Pell grants, that 
is not going to happen in any significant number. It is going to make a 
difference to your overall debt situation or credit situation. When you 
also look at the issue of Social Security from the beginning, remember, 
remember, $5 trillion to help save you money over the next 20 years. 
That is a lot of money, okay? It is going to stop us from doing the 
things we need to do in taking the debt down. It was the Democratic 
Congress here that made the hard decision to take down the debt and put 
us into surpluses as far as the eye could see, and then the Republican 
Congress took over and took us down into debt.
  I think it is also important, and we always like to give the Members 
third-party validators, and I want you to write this Web site down: 
www.cbpp.org. That is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the 
Center For Budget and Policy Priorities. There is a lot of good 
information on that Web site. It gives not only Members but the 
American people good information on what someone may earn and how much 
of a benefit cut they are going to receive; not a benefit increase, but 
a benefit cut. And in this whole debate, there is no, there is no 
discussion about an increase. There is no discussion about some of the 
positive things that can happen outside of saying, this will be good 
for the trust fund in the future.

                              {time}  1915

  I also want to say that, you know, that I have no real problem with 
what is going on in New York and the whole Wall Street experience. 
Okay? Do not think that I have a problem with it. But I do have a 
problem, which the only entity or institution, or even if Wall Street 
was a perfect person, to be the only group that would benefit from a 
privatization plan, some $940 billion guaranteed to Wall Street, not 
necessarily to the individuals that are enrolled in Social Security.
  And I thought while the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) was talking, 
as you know I have my papers, we get our briefings, and we call and we 
ask institutions that are studying this Social

[[Page H3413]]

Security privatization scheme to give us information as we work on ways 
to push this Congress towards a bipartisan approach to Social Security 
without private accounts. That is something that we are doing here as 
Democrats.
  But I look, and I want to tell you, in your State there are a number 
of individuals, 315,000 survivor beneficiaries, 278,000 individuals 
that are receiving disability benefits. I think it is also important to 
understand, even in my State, in Florida, you have 450,679 that are 
receiving disability benefits and 408,543 that are receiving survivor 
benefits.
  Even in the State of Pennsylvania just north of us, survivor 
benefits, these are individuals that their children are now 
beneficiaries from the work that their parents did. They didn't have 
anything to leave them, but they had Social Security to leave them, to 
help be there for them, because they wanted to be there for them 
financially, but that was a part of our deal with Americans that we 
will make sure that not only will they be taken care of, that we will 
have security for them, but for their children.
  And in the State of Pennsylvania 353,000 survivor beneficiaries, and 
also you have 336,000 individuals that are on disability.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The same in Ohio. 315,000 folks that receive 
survivor benefits. 16 percent of people who receive a Social Security 
check in Ohio, 16 percent of them are survivor benefits. So this is a 
program that helps people who lose a parent at a very young age, they 
are under the age of 18 and they need a little assistance.
  And that is what the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) talked about 
last week is a sense of community where we are going to have a system 
that protects and looks out for each other, gets each other's back. I 
think it is very important that we recognize that Social Security is 
really the best system, because it inherently embodies what is best 
about the country, and I think it is great.
  I want to just raise a question here. We are kind of running out of 
time here. We only have a few more minutes left. We have a little bit 
of time.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We have about 10 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. But we have less than we had when we started, and 
we are closer to the end than we are to the beginning, so I am going to 
try to make a final point or two towards the end here.
  The question really, and I want to ask the people at home, is this: 
What do you think, someone watching at home or if you are having a 
discussion with your friends over dinner, or your family over dinner 
tonight, what do you think the greatest crisis is in the United States 
of America?
  What do you think this Chamber and our friends across the hall and 
the White House, what do you think we should be focusing on? Do you 
think that this problem that is 47 years away or 40 years away or 35 
years away? We have all kinds of different numbers, we will give you 
the benefit, say 35 years away. Do you think that is the greatest 
problem facing the country, or do you think that the 40-some million 
Americans without health insurance, maybe that is the greatest crisis 
facing the country, or do you think the rising costs of health 
insurance, if you are a small business owner, or you are in a union and 
you are trying to negotiate a contract or you are trying to run a 
school system, and you are the superintendent or you are the teacher, 
maybe that is the greatest crisis facing the country.
  How about, and I am sure in your district just like mine, Youngstown 
City Schools, Akron City Schools, Cleveland City Schools, 80, 85 
percent of the kids qualify for free and reduced lunch. Maybe that is a 
more imminent crisis than a Social Security issue that is, you know, 40 
years out.
  And I just ask the American people to ask themselves, what do you 
think the great crisis is in the country today? The fact that the trade 
deficits, the debt, the annual deficits that we are running? To me, I 
share my opinion, those are the issues. That 85 percent of the kids in 
a school district in Ohio qualify for free and reduced lunch, that 50 
or 60 or 70 percent of those kids live below the poverty line. That to 
me is a crisis.
  How are we going to compete with the Chinese workers? How are we 
going to compete with the Indians if we are not able to educate our 
kids and our kids are living in poverty? To me that is the crisis. That 
people do not get the kind of health care that they deserve, that if 
you have a lot of money and you are able to get yourself into the 
Cleveland Clinic or some of the great hospitals around the country, you 
are going to be fine, but if not you are on your own.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important not only 
that the Members, but the American people understand, Mr. Speaker, that 
when it comes down to health care we are going to be okay. The reason 
why we are going to be okay is because we are Members of Congress.
  Not because of our health plan, but because of our last name. And 
that is a crisis for real Americans, because my constituents they sit 
in the emergency room for hours. I walk into the emergency room, 
believe me, I can barely sit down before someone grabs my arm and says, 
Congressman, please let us check you out.
  All right. When I need to get prescription drugs, I can get 
prescription drugs. When I want to get a doctor's appointment, I can 
get a doctor's appointment. I do not have to wait 6 months to see an 
ophthalmologist or on optometrist, whoever it may be, to see them.

  I think what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) said in the last 5 or 
6 minutes meant so much in this entire hour of really talking about the 
issues, where the rubber meets the road. And the reality of this 
argument is that originally the administration was saying that it is a 
crisis. They kind of have backed off of that now, because the American 
people said you want to know what a crisis is? The crisis is that my 
son is sick and I cannot afford to take him, I am taking care of him 
through the drug store. I am buying off the shelf, which I think is a 
greater problem. I hope it is a cold. That is a crisis.
  A crisis is not saying, hey, listen you know something, I got to move 
this private account thing while we are in power so we can help make 
our buddies even more buddies to us. Because that is what I think the 
underlying issue here is. And so I just want to step in there, because 
you made an excellent point.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just think that is it. Thanks for reiterating it. 
It is just what is the crisis? What do you at home want us to deal 
with, because we work for you. What do you want us to deal with here? 
And we are trying to bring up issues like China and how we are going to 
deal with that tremendous threat, and the administration brushes it 
off.
  You know, we want to deal with health care and the amount of poverty, 
not necessarily for compassionate reasons, although some may feel that 
way. But because we need everyone playing. We are going on the field 
now with only half a team, and that is getting very dangerous.
  So as we wrap it up, I want to share again, send us an e-mail, 
30somethingdems @mail.house.gov. Do I have time to read?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Go ahead and read the e-mail you have.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to read the e-mail.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Give the e-mail address.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just gave it. 30somethingdemocrats@mail.
house.gov. Send us an e-mail. I want to read one, we only have time to 
read one here, from Mark Sanchez from Las Cruces, New Mexico. We are 
making it out West, somewhat of a political junkie, 25 year old active 
duty service member stationed out there.
  And last week he saw us talking about Social Security, very hot 
topic. He considers himself very informed, and it bothers him to a 
great degree that those in my age group do not care about what the 
President and Congress are doing.
  I personally feel that the President's plan for Social Security is 
not one with the people in mind, but rather one with his friends on 
Wall Street in mind. I may be young, but I am not blind to record 
deficits that are causing this country to go deeper and deeper into 
debt.
  I believe the President's plan is wrong for America. I believe this 
is an

[[Page H3414]]

issue that can be addressed and thought over as time goes on while more 
important matters that are hurting this country are addressed. He said 
very similar things to what we were saying, issues such as health care, 
immigration and energy are problems that face Americans now, not 30 
years down the road.
  I am happy to see that you are willing to stand up for the people 
rather than special interest groups that have too much control in 
Congress these days. Please keep up your hard work because it is 
needed.
  People like you keep his personal hopes alive for one day standing on 
the floor of the House of Representatives and debating issues and 
problems that face our country. So we have an aspiring Member of 
Congress here, Mark Sanchez. So thank you, Mark, for sending that in.
  Again, 30somethingdems @mail.house.gov. You also go to the site I 
gave you earlier to check out the deficit clock too.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio. And to 
our e-mailer, we just want to say that all Democrats throughout this 
Congress will be calling into radio stations, be it country, rap, rock 
and roll, what have you, during drive time in the morning to talk about 
the importance of Social Security and young people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to come to the floor and we thank 
not only the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic 
leader, but the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) the Democratic 
whip, for allowing us to have this hour week after week. This is a 
strong part of our democracy, and we really appreciate representing the 
30-somethings and above and under, that age, to give them a voice here 
on the floor.

                          ____________________