[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 69 (Monday, May 23, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3756-H3762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honor to be
here before the House of Representatives and have an opportunity to
speak to the Members and to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we would also like to thank the Democratic leader, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), along with the Democratic
whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and our chairman, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the
Democratic Caucus, and also the vice chair, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for providing the kind of leadership that
Americans need and want here in this great country of ours.
This week, as every week, we come to the Floor, the 30-something
Working Group that was formed in the 108th Congress by Leader Pelosi to
talk about the issues that are not only facing the 30-somethings, but
also facing the American people in general.
We also come to the Floor, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan), my good friend, we come to the floor to be able to talk about a
number of issues, not only Social Security, but also student loans; to
talk about issues facing the environment, as well as the ever-growing
debt, which is always on our agenda.
Without any further ado, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan) how much I appreciate the fact that he commits, and our good
friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who will
not be here tonight, every night to come to the floor to share good and
accurate information not only with the Members of Congress, but with
the American people.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the
opportunity too.
In the past several months, really since the beginning of the year,
the President initiated a Social Security plan that he wanted to
promote to the country, to say that privatization, these private
accounts were going to be the answer to the Social Security solvency
problem. We have been, just about every week since the beginning of the
year that we are in session here in Washington, we have been talking
about why the President's privatization scheme really is not the answer
for the country.
The President, when he initiated this discussion after the election,
began to say that it was a crisis and it was a crisis for the country
that we all needed to address. What we want to do tonight is, we want
to begin by saying that Social Security is a solvent program. There is
no crisis within the Social Security program. Do we need to make some
minor adjustments? Of course, we do. Do we need to tinker with the
program? Yes, we do. But is there a crisis there? We really do not
think so.
So tonight we are going to begin to talk a little bit about why
Social Security is a solvent program and show a few numbers that we
have shared with the American public every week that we have been on,
but also to get into some of the areas where we believe a crisis does
exist in this country that needs immediate attention.
So we have this graph here that basically shows that Social Security
is secure for many, many decades to come. These are facts. These are
the Congressional Budget Office numbers that they have given us.
The CBO is a nonpartisan organization, a nonpartisan group, and if
they would lean one way or the other, the Republicans control the
House, the Senate, and the White House, so if they are going to lean
any one way, which I do not believe that they do, they would certainly
lean in favor of making it look like Social Security is less secure
than it actually is.
So this graph here, we can see it starts in 2005, and it goes to
2075, so it gives us a 70-year span. And from 2005 to about 2047, 2048,
2049, right in there, if we do absolutely nothing with Social Security,
Social Security recipients will still receive 100 percent of their
benefits. And all in the blue here. So from 2005 to the late 2040s, if
we do absolutely nothing with the program, if we do not touch it at
all, we are still going to get 100 percent of our benefits up to the
late 2040s, 2047, 2048. So at 32 years old, after 40 years, I will be
72 years old, just about 72, on Social Security. So I will be
guaranteed, if we do nothing, to at least get 100 percent of what I
would earn right in here, or someone else who is 32 years old. Then,
after that, from the late 2040s into 2075, one would still receive 80
percent of one's benefits if we did nothing.
So what we are saying on this side of the aisle is, is there a
problem? Yes, of course. From 2047 to 2075 and beyond a recipient would
only get 80 percent of what they should be getting now. So that is a
problem.
Is that a crisis? No, that is not a crisis. Something that happens 40
years from now is not a crisis. What we want to do is just show tonight
that this is not a crisis; 100 percent of the benefits will be paid
until the late 2040s and, beyond, still get 80 percent.
So if the President wants to sit down and work out a program, we are
going to be able to deal with this 80 percent issue here coming 40-some
years from now, and we will sit down and talk with the President.
{time} 2100
But, unfortunately, the plans that are floating around Congress cut
into the 100 percent benefits here and begin to reduce some of the 100
percent benefits there.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan), just one moment. I want to ask just a quick question.
What is a crisis? I mean, the President is saying, and some of the
Members of the majority side leadership are saying that Social Security
is in a crisis. And I cannot help but look in the dictionary when we
start talking about crisis, because a crisis, there are a number of
things that we can point out that are actually a crisis. And as the
gentleman from Ohio knows, we received some e-mails that I hoped the
gentleman would read early in our Special Order here. But we took a
look at Webster's and exactly what does crisis mean. And basically it
says, an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty.
Now, 40 years from now, as the gentleman from Ohio had the other
chart here, I could say that it would be a crisis if Social Security,
like the administration and the majority side use words like, is going
bankrupt. What does bankrupt mean? Bankrupt means that there is no
money coming in or no money going out, and it is tomorrow, and it is
eminent danger.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There is no money.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. There is no money. And I can tell the gentleman
from Ohio right now, from what the gentleman has just said, and it is
not just the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Ryan) report. That is from the
Congressional Budget Office of this House of Representatives that put
forth the kind of information that we need here in Congress, that we
need to share with the American people and the Members of this
Congress.
I think it is also important to understand that, yes, we do want to
work on Social Security and strengthen Social Security on this side of
the aisle, but
[[Page H3757]]
we will not buy into the rhetoric of a crisis.
I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a crisis, in my
opinion, is what we are in on the deficit. We are at a crisis level
when it comes down to the deficit. Highest deficit in the history of
the Republic.
You want to know what a crisis is? And I hope that we continue to
share this with our colleagues. A crisis is that family right now that
is a part of the 46 million American families that are working that do
not have health insurance. That is a crisis. A crisis is the fact that
small businesses cannot provide health care insurance for their
employees. Many businesses are telling their employees you can get a
better plan if you apply for Medicaid. That is a crisis.
Furthermore, if you want to talk about a crisis, a crisis is families
trying to put gas in their tank. That is a crisis, because some
families have had to put their car down to try to figure out some sort
of way that they can be able to take their kids to school or football
or soccer or Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, to be able to conduct
themselves in the way that they want to. That is a crisis, these gas
prices that have doubled and tripled in some cases.
And then we talk about issues that are facing our veterans. Providing
health care for our veterans, that is a crisis. And so there are a
number of issues that are out there. And I say to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan) this whole issue of abuse of power, I am sorry, I just
want to point out a few things.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Nothing to be sorry about.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Because we are, I think those of us that are in
30-something, and Members of the Congress, are sick and tired of
individuals in Washington using Social Security as though there is some
sort of imminent danger or, going back to the definition, an unstable
situation.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And I thank the gentleman. And let us take the
definition and apply it to this chart. A crisis is an unstable
situation of extreme danger, or difficulty. Unstable situation.
Now, how could you call this, 100 percent of the benefits for the
next 40 some years, how is that an unstable situation? It is a very
stable situation. And I would even argue that 80 percent, without doing
anything, 45 years from now is not unstable. That is a stable
situation. It needs to be dealt with. But extreme danger or difficulty?
How could you call from 2005 to the late 2040s extreme danger or
difficulty? It does not apply here. And using the word ``crisis'' is
extreme, and it is trying to scare the American public. And you see it
in the poll results. The American people are beginning not to buy it.
Now, we could even try to go to the second definition of what a
crisis is, a crucial stage or turning point in the course of something.
There is no crucial stage or turning point that needs to happen here.
We are not on a brink here that we have got to change something
immediately. There is no crisis here. And as the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Meek) stated very eloquently, there are many more issues that I
think we need to deal with.
And there was one other thing, and we are kind of moving things
around a little bit here, that I want to share just briefly.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan) just briefly, but before the gentleman moves from that chart, I
think I know the reason why some in Washington want to try to fool the
American public that there is a crisis, because we have individuals
that are on Wall Street that have been guaranteed, if the President has
his way, if the majority side leadership have their way, that they will
receive over the next 20 years $944 billion worth of the taxpayers'
money in risky investment, Social Security. So I think that is the
crisis of trying to close the deal before the term runs out on the
present President and the term may run out on the present leadership.
But I can tell the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), I want to talk,
when the gentleman is finished, when the gentleman makes the point that
the gentleman is about to make, I want to make sure that we share with
the Members, if we had the opportunity to lead, not necessarily you and
me, but the Democratic side, working with some of our Republican
friends that understand the importance of making sure that we work for
all Americans and making sure that Social Security is strengthened.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, I thank the gentleman. And after this we are
going to move on to what we believe that the real issues are that need
to be dealt with immediately, issues that we think are causing unstable
situations, issues that we think are providing extreme danger or
extreme difficulty for families here and issues, quite frankly, that we
think the country is at a crucial stage or at a turning point on. We
want to talk about what we believe those issues really are.
Now, last week we asked Americans who were watching to write in and
to e-mail us with what they thought were the immediate issues that
needed to be dealt with, what was the crisis that they believed the
country needed to address. And I am just going to share a couple of
these because we want to get into some other issues. Mrs. Richard from
Kansas said she had been watching and listening to our program on C-
SPAN. Our country now has so many needs. And we asked her to give them
to us and she said, I will write them to you.
To me, the number one need is to get out of Iraq. Stop losing lives
and spending money. That may be a crisis. Probably is. After that,
health care, fixing our national deficit, which we are definitely going
to get into tonight, and many more things that need to be fixed. She
appreciates the concern.
Christie Fox, from the gentleman's great State of Florida, she is a
second generation American. And on C-SPAN you asked for our comments or
suggestions on what we think is important to America. Safety, the
environment, the oceans heating and rising, need for solar power,
recycling, windmills, fuel efficient vehicles, terrorism, which is a
major issue that we are not really dealing with here, and to keep God
in America. Great issues that we think may be or will have more of a
profound effect if we address them immediately.
So, again, we ask the citizens who are out there tonight to give us
an e-mail, what you believe to be your crisis of choice, that is,
something that we need to deal with immediately in the United States of
America. Send us something, [email protected]. That is the
number 30, the word ``something,'' and then dems, D-E-M-S @
mail.house.gov. Send us what you think, because, quite frankly, we do
not believe that Social Security that is solvent for the next 45 years
and will pay 100 percent of the benefits and then for the next 20-some
years and into the future will still provide 80 percent is not a
crisis.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we
bring about great clarification of our message to make sure that
individuals do not get confused of what the real issue here is. The
real issue, I think, the reason why individuals want to, leadership on
the majority side and the White House, want to talk about a crisis
situation in Social Security is because they do not want to talk about
health care. They do not want to talk about the issues that many
Americans have to deal with on a day-in-and-day-out basis. I call it
drugstore health care; when your child is sick, because you do not have
health insurance, 46 million Americans without health insurance that
are working families without health insurance, they have to go to a CVS
or a Walgreens or a Rite-Aid or whatever the case may be, or Wal-Mart
pharmacy, to make their kids better or try to hope that they just have
a cold because they do not have the proper health care.
And I am so glad that House Democrats are committed to taking the
bold necessary steps to move us in the right direction of making sure
that we do what we are supposed to do for Americans.
In the 108th Congress, we worked very hard with Partnership for
America's Future that reaffirms our commitment in six core areas. And
those six areas are, making sure that we have American values,
prosperity, national security, fairness, opportunity, community, and
also accountability. And I think it is important that we think about
that, and that is something that is not happening right now.
[[Page H3758]]
Now, one may argue, well, what is stopping you from doing that? I can
tell you what is stopping us from doing that, not being in the majority
here in the House of Representatives.
And I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) that I think what is
important is that we have to share with our colleagues and also with
the American people, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we hold the
individuals that are sent here to Washington accountable not only for
their actions but also for their inactions. And so when we start
talking about crisis, look right, but we are really going left. And I
think it is important that we point these issues out.
It is important that we take bold steps in expanding affordable
health care and the health care coverage, including mental health
coverage, making sure that we cut health care costs, increasing
biomedical research, and also reducing racial and ethnic disparities,
expanding affordable health care as it relates to coverage for small
businesses by creating a new purchasing pool that will allow 50 percent
tax credit to help small businesses and self-employed individuals in
their health care costs.
That is Democratic legislation that is already filed in this Congress
that should move, would move, if we had the Democratic leadership that
we talked about early on in this hour. If they were in control, it
would not be an issue of saying that is what we would like to do. And I
think it is important, it is very important that not only Members of
Congress understand our responsibility in standing up to the real needs
of Americans that are out there now, but to make sure that we are able
to stand up and say that health care is a crisis, the issue of our
environment is a crisis, the deficit is a crisis, and not just say it
as buzz words or in a speech or a punch line.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I had a Social Security town hall
meeting last night at Warren G. Harding High School in Warren, Ohio;
and we were having a discussion about these kinds of issues. And one of
the gentlemen, as we were talking about him as a small business owner,
self-employed, he had to pay his own Social Security tax. He had to pay
the whole amount, the employer's share and the employee's share for
himself. And he was struggling because he had health care issues that
he had to deal with. The health care costs were going through the roof.
He had two kids in college. And tuition costs in Ohio have doubled over
the past few years. And when we get back after the break we are going
to get into a little more about the cost of college tuition.
But the point is, the Social Security privatization scheme sounds
like a good idea to some employers, because the way that the blueprint
has it set up is that the employee will be able to take 4 percent and
divert it to an account, and the employer will not have to match that 4
percent; and so it is basically a tax break for the business person,
which may be okay for small business folks and help them a great deal.
But what we are saying as Democrats is, why are we not dealing with
the real issue, the health care costs that are going through the roof?
And if we want to help small business people, then we need to use the
Democratic proposal that we have that is going to help small business
people contain health care costs and contain tuition costs and give
them aid and assistance and grants and lower tuition costs with block
grants to different universities. We have a plan to do that. And what
we are saying is, let us stick together on the greatest social program
in the history of mankind, and let us fix these other programs that
have been causing a great deal of economic pain to the small
businessperson. We want to be there, and we have a plan to do it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. When you have employees that are healthy, you
have what? A more productive company. And then what do you have then?
You have more productive American workers that will be able to compete
against other countries that are competing against us now.
Before the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) goes to the chart, I think
it is important we talk about the fact that health care costs, when we
start talking about cutting health care costs, we have to look at the
issue as it relates to prescription drugs.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Absolutely.
{time} 2115
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think it was a blown opportunity here on this
floor by the majority side saying they were carrying out true
prescription drug reform and failed to do so by not allowing us to
negotiate with drug companies to have lower prices, not only for
seniors but for people with disabilities. Also, guaranteed American
consumers the right to deal with the whole issue of importation.
I have some reservations about that, but the real issue is the fact
that we have Americans that are now making a choice between groceries
and prescription drugs. We still have Americans, and I am not just
talking about older Americans, I am talking about middle-aged Americans
and even children, because a number of children are on prescription
drugs, be it for allergies, or middle-aged Americans taking heart
medication or medication for diabetes or other ailments that we found
that through prescription drugs that can prevent death or prolong life
they are making decisions.
They have to make decisions. So they are excited about the fact that
we are looking at prescription drug reform, but it was not a true
bipartisan effort because if it was we would have negotiating power.
And I will tell Members right now, because I want to make sure that my
Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I want to make
sure, Mr. Speaker, that the American people understand that the
Democrats have a bill filed right now to allow that to happen.
Prescription drug costs would go down if we were in charge of this
House right now.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have a discharge petition too that will allow
Members of Congress to sign it and discharge it out of the committee
process and bring it right to the floor. We have had this debate. We
can bring it to the floor and let us vote on it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. But still, if we were in control of this House,
if the American people said they were going to allow Democrats to be
the majority in this House, we would have the following:
We would have a Social Security debate about strengthening Social
Security, not privatizing it. We will have not only a debate but we
will have a bipartisan bill to make sure we can combine buying power to
take prescription drug costs down for everyday Americans. We would not
only have legislation that will be true environmental legislation, but
it would be bipartisan legislation because we believe in working
together with, at that time if we have a perfect situation where we are
in a majority, working with the minority party in doing that.
We would also have a health care plan, a health care plan that is a
6-point plan that would bring about health insurance for everyday
working Americans, and also allow those Americans between the ages of
55 and 65 to be able to buy into Medicare early so they would have an
opportunity to take advantage of good health care at a low cost as they
reach their years of the 60s and 70s. So that is so very important.
I am not laying ``what if,'' but I am saying what could be. And so I
am saying this more of a challenge to the Members on the majority side
because they do have the power. They have the power to be able to set
the agenda and say what will be able to come to the floor. They have
the power to be able to say that this is what we are going to work on
and this is what we are not going to work on. I think it is important
that the American people and I think the Members of this Congress also
understand, Mr. Speaker, that the power of the majority sets the agenda
and what happens in this House, nothing comes to this floor without the
authority of the Republican leadership in this House.
Now, I am going to tell you, because I always, I do not use it as a
disclaimer, I am seeing it as a Member of this House and someone that
communicates with Members of the majority party, there are a number of
Republicans that will go unnamed because of repercussions that want to
see that kind of environment return back to this House, a true
bipartisan environment that we had in 1983 when Ronald Reagan and Tip
O'Neill brought about the kind of bipartisan partnership we
[[Page H3759]]
needed to save Social Security at that time, a true bipartisan vote,
not bickering, not we are going to run Social Security into the ground
in some sort of schemey privatization plan, but a true approach to
making sure that we do the right thing.
So it is important that individuals understand that bills like the
bill that we have here on the floor to drive down prescription drug
costs that we would like to pull out of on this discharge petition that
is right here behind the gentleman for Members to sign to be able to
have a true debate as it relates to bringing down prescription drugs
costs, the buying power which AARP is on board with us on. But I think
it is also important for issues as it relates to the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the gentleman does not leave out what is
happening to the American worker and our negative trade balance. If I
can say the word China, I would like to say that, because I think it is
important that not only Members of Congress understand our
responsibility but the American people also understand what is
happening right now. It is not on the 6 o'clock news, but if someone is
at home right now without a job wondering where their job went,
wondering why the factory, especially in the gentleman's State of Ohio,
the whistle in that factory is no longer blowing when they knock off,
like a blue collar worker would say, for the evening, while no lunch
box is there, be it a man or woman.
The reason why we are continuing to put forth trade agreements in my
State that are putting agriculture industries out of business or having
them to give away jobs like the citrus industry, like the sugar
industry and the nursery plant industry that is in my county of Miami
Dade County that are concerned about these free trade agreements that
are taking place.
Now, I voted for some free trade agreements, but I will state that
some of those agreements that are coming down the pike are going to
hurt the American worker and continue to give away the kind of apple
pie that we have been talking about for so many years.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the issue for me, that
this is the crisis. This is just the issue that how can we say that a
problem 40 years out from now is the crisis when you look at the
numbers here. This is the crisis here. This is the manufacturing jobs
loss, and I will go through some quick charts here.
Manufacturing jobs lost. In Ohio we lost 216,000. In Florida, the
gentleman's home State, they lost almost 73,000. All the red States
here have lost more than 20 percent of jobs in their States: Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Illinois, all of these. And all
throughout the country, the only two States with any kind of net gain
are North Dakota and Nevada. That is the crisis and that is the issue
that we need to be dealing with here in the United States.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Before the gentleman leaves that chart, would he
please let the Members know and, Mr. Speaker, we definitely want the
American people to know where this information comes from, because I
want to make sure we are clear.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, so it
is nonpartisan. It is from June 1998 to February 2005. This is the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics controlled by a Republican, so
it is not any lies that we are just trying to stoke up propaganda here.
These States that are purple have lost between 15 and 20 percent. The
green States have lost between 10 and 15 percent. The yellow States
between 5 and 10 percent. We are getting decimated in our manufacturing
base, and these are the jobs that pay well. These jobs are going to
China. The high-tech jobs are going to India.
Now, another crisis, our overall U.S. trade deficit which led to the
enormous job loss right here, overall trade deficit over $600 billion
last year. We are buying $600 billion more worth of products than we
are selling. And look at the growth. This is the startling thing. This
is not just a kind of a temporary blip in the screen.
In 1991 we were a little over $50 billion, or not quite $50 billion;
and look at this, the steady growth. And these have been the trade
agreements that we have been signing, and especially when we cranked up
trade with China, bang, right down at the bottom, bingo, in 2004 over
$600 billion in trade deficit. Of that the main culprit in this whole
deal has been with China, another crisis that we need to deal with.
I mean, how we can say Social Security is the main issue is beyond
me. Again, trade deficits from 1991 to 2004. Again, a slow gradual,
this is what we call in economic terms, and I am not an economist, this
is what you call a trend. This is a trend that is going on in the
country and has been for a good many years now, U.S. trade deficit with
China over 160-some billion dollars a year. And we can see it just
continue to decline. It will probably be worse next year. And when we
see the job loss in Ohio, in the Midwest, all over the country except
for Nevada and North Dakota, this is what is causing it.
Companies are moving from the United States, not making the
investment here in the country, making it in China; and we are getting
walloped.
Now, the most important issue as we are running these huge trade
deficits and we are also running a national deficit, and let me just
show one, before we show that one and then I will let the gentleman
talk about the other, not only are we running huge trade deficits; we
are also running a record national, domestic deficit on our own budget
here.
This red line starts with President Johnson where we pretty much were
balancing our budgets all the way along, and we pretty much stayed
steady up and down throughout the 70s. And into the 80s we got into the
pretty high deficit through the Reagan and Bush era. That is the red
line coming down close to $300 billion in our national deficit. That
means the budget money that we spend out of here, we were spending $300
billion more than we were taking in. And then the Clinton era, the
balanced budget passed in 1993. Not one Republican vote, Democrat
House, Senate, White House; Al Gore broke the tie in the Senate as Vice
President. That led to booming surpluses in the United States. And then
when the next administration came in here, we are again with record
deficits.
Now, will a real fiscal conservative please stand up, because we do
not have anymore here. And this is the kind of deficit that you are
passing on to your kids and your grandkids and the scary thing that the
gentleman will talk about right now.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman moves that
chart, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office where the gentleman
got this information from, am I right?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Absolutely. The source is CBO, the Congressional
Budget Office, nonpartisan. The most scary aspect of all of this is if
we are spending 400-some billion dollars more than we are taking in, we
are borrowing that from somewhere because we do not have it. Tax
revenues bring us to this line here, and we are spending that much
more, up to $400 billion more than we have in the kitty that we are
taking in every year. So we have to go out and borrow it. This is the
scary part. Who are we borrowing the money from?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is the question.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is the ultimate question, and I know the
gentleman wants to talk about it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, I want the gentleman to talk about it
because he is doing such a great job.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will explain the chart, but I want the gentleman
to lend his voice to it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to explain it
because this issue is so very, very important. We both are on the
Committee on Armed Services, and we know what it means as it relates to
not only national security but financial security.
What is happening right now, and that is why it is important not only
to the 30-somethings but to the 20-somethings and the teenagers and
those that are yet unborn and also those seniors that understand what
is going on, even the 50-somethings and the 60-somethings because this
goes towards, I believe, our national security when we start looking at
this issue.
Please explain.
{time} 2130
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right
because
[[Page H3760]]
you can have, and Mitt Romney was in front of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce last week, the Republican governor from
Massachusetts, and he said you cannot have a tier two economy and a
tier one military. And, unfortunately, we are moving into a tier two
economy.
We were talking about the trade deficits and then our national
deficit and the debt. The deficit is what we accrue every year. We are
$400 billion last year. The debt is the overall debt of the whole
country, which is almost $8 trillion, but last year was over $400
billion.
Here is the portion of foreign-owned debt in our country that rose to
41 percent under this administration. So this is the bottom line here
in the blue. Of all of our debt, that portion is held by domestic
interests, from this here, the turquoise, a nice shade of turquoise, I
must say.
The next level is the percentage of our marketable U.S. Treasury debt
held by foreign interests, and this goes back to 2000. So over in
California, 2000. Over here on the East Coast, it is 2004. Here we have
domestic-held debt up to $2.5 trillion. The rest here in purple was
foreign owned.
As we move in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, you can see that the purple
gets bigger. It gets up into Maine from the Carolinas. This purple is
foreign-held debt. Basically what this chart says, and it is continuing
to increase as the years go on, as we run these deficits that we had in
the last chart, that we have been running as we are borrowing that
money; more and more of that money is coming from foreign interests.
This is a dangerous situation that we are putting the country in.
As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) stated, we are on the
Committee on Armed Services. We see this in the committee hearings and
with the poppy in Afghanistan. We see this dealing with the Chinese in
their increase in military spending and the issue of Taiwan, and North
Korea is beginning to test nuclear weapons.
The more power we cede to foreign interests dealing with our own
personal monetary situation, the more dangerous a situation we are
going to be in. It is a bad political move, it is a bad economic move,
and it threatens our country as well.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I look at the printed material
that I have before me, I cannot help but say this maybe is at the
crisis level. Maybe what the gentleman just pointed out, maybe the fact
that we have the highest deficit in the history of the Republic, maybe
because we have a number of Americans that are still cutting pills in
half after we, the Congress, or the majority side, has said we have
done all that we can do. Maybe that is the crisis.
Maybe it is important to let not only the majority side know, but
also the American people know that it is about who is running this
House and who is not raising an objection to what has happened already,
let alone what is going to continue to happen. If left up to the
mechanics of the majority right now, 41 percent will be the early years
of foreign countries buying our debt.
Mr. Speaker, it may very well go to 55 percent if the American people
do not hold us accountable for the decisions we are making, or the
decisions we are not making. I think it is important, and we have to
talk a little bit about extreme measures in the Congress.
We know there are a number of issues that have come before us, and
the American people are saying, When are you going to do something
about the problems that we talk about every day? However, we spend more
time in this Congress, especially in this House, getting involved in
personal matters of families, taking the rules like the other side has
attempted to do, which I understand some sort of deal has been worked
out now on the other side of this Capitol as it relates to the
filibuster, the other body. It is unfortunate we have to go to these
extreme measures to threaten our way of democracy before we start to
try to bring the best out of many Members of Congress.
I am concerned when the majority side in the 108th Congress made it
illegal, prohibited the Medicare powers-that-be within the Federal
Government to negotiate with drug companies for lower costs. They could
have not addressed it and left it as a gray area for the administrators
to say, maybe we can do something. But so indebted to big
pharmaceutical companies, they prohibited it from happening.
That means if the administration said, Yes, we can bring diabetes or
heart medication down $15 if we were to use our buying power with the
drug companies. If you do it, you are not only making a career
decision; it has been prohibited in Federal law.
I am so glad that so many of us on this side of the aisle, I mean
record numbers, voted against that prescription drug scheme, because it
is not providing what the American people were told it would provide.
AARP, along with others, understand that now and that is why they are
fighting to bring those prices down.
Let me tell Members something. Being from Florida, prescription drug
costs are a very important issue. Being a middle-aged American, 30-
something, or heading to middle age, this is an important issue to my
constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I have said this before: We were not elected to have
better health care than our constituents. I did not run into anyone at
the polling place at 7 a.m. who walked up to me and said, ``I am voting
to make sure you and your family have better health care than I have. I
cannot wait to go in there and vote for you so you can be better off
than I am.''
Mr. Speaker, they elected us to come to this House and fight on their
behalf to make sure that that individual voter and their families and
future generations have better opportunities than what they have. We
are not doing that now.
If we were in control, because I want to make sure that we really
emphasize, if Democrats were in the majority, again I will say it, and
I said it earlier in this hour, we would not be having a debate on
privatization because privatization is bad. Individuals lose benefits
under the privatization scheme that the President has put forth, if you
are in the plan or not. That is the reason why the President has lower
approval ratings as it relates to his Social Security privatization
scheme. I would be worried out of my mind if it was the other way
around, but people are getting it.
I can tell you another thing, we would not be having a discussion
about why 46 million American families that are working do not have
health care because this House would be moving in that direction to
provide the health care that I talked about in our six-point plan, and
also our partnership with America, which is a real plan that has
accountability and has follow-through. It would not be a discussion, to
point out the issue of the deficit and the fact that every American at
birth, when we started this hour, at birth already owed the Federal
Government $26,349.67 and it has gone up since we have been here on
this floor. It would not be a debate because we would be doing
something about it.
We understand if we are going to do something in this Congress, we
are going to start a new program, we are going to point out how we are
going to pay for it, and that is not what the majority side is doing
now.
The last point, because I can go on about the issue of responsibility
and accountability, there would not be a what-if discussion as it
relates to how we conduct business in this House and the real issues
that are facing American families, programs that are working. Cut out
the devolution of taxation to local governments and also to our State
governments. There would not be a crisis as it relates to Medicaid and
States ever running deficits in the States due to the fact that they
have to balance their budget. Unlike our Congress, they have to balance
their budgets on the backs of cutting programs that are helping so many
young people stay out of trouble.
It would not be a what-if discussion; it would actually be reality.
And the good thing that I am excited about, because of the leadership
we have, the Democratic Caucus, it would be bipartisan. That is
something that every American wants. They want to take the politics out
of doing business here in Washington, D.C.
That is the reason why our work is so important, making sure we come
to this floor week after week, and letting it be known that we are
doing all we can in the capacity that we are serving in to not only let
the Members of Congress know about responsibilities and
[[Page H3761]]
what we can do versus what we cannot do, but also letting the American
people know what is happening here as it relates to individuals taking
leadership positions, wanting to take action, and those that do not
want to take leadership positions and do not take action. That is the
real issue here.
That is the reason why if there is a Republican, Independent,
Democrat, Green Party, what have you, these issues get those
individuals together because it is talking about real-life issues. The
information that we are providing here, this is not something we were
in the back of the room saying, Let us use that number, it looks good.
It is bipartisan Congressional Budget Office information. This is
information from outside sources that have a credible way of receiving
their information, have credibility in the United States of America.
So I think it is important for us to not only challenge the majority
side because competition is good. I believe in that. Challenge the
majority side, but also let the American people know if we had the
opportunity to lead this House what this Congress could be and what it
needs to be.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. We know what could fix
the problem. The American people understand what is going on right now.
If we review poll results, this Chamber is not one of the most popular
institutions in the country. I think there is a 33, 34 percent approval
rating for the Congress. I think some of the issues that the gentleman
touched on are why that kind of sense around America is what it is.
I want to share one final chart here that we have. The gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek) mentioned the $7.7 trillion debt and the $26,000
that everybody owes, and the general theme tonight is, what are the
real crises in the country. We explained that Social Security is
solvent for another 45 years, and then we got into our over $160
billion trade deficit with China, a $400 billion deficit here at home.
We are spending more money, we are borrowing it from the Chinese. We
are not participating in a sound fiscal policy.
One final thing that kind of sums everything up, if Members look at
it, and this is in trillions of dollars here, how much tax cuts for
primarily millionaires are taking away from funding priorities that we
have in this country. If we make the tax cuts permanent over the next
10 years, it will cost $1.8 trillion. The tax cuts for the top 1
percent, people making 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, over a million dollars a year,
well above half a million dollars a year, will be $800 billion we are
going to spend or not take in because of tax cuts primarily for the top
1 percent.
{time} 2145
Look at what we are spending on veterans. This is $800 billion, this
is $3 billion, over the next 10 years. So we are basically saying in
this country that our priority is the top 1 percent, not the veterans
of the United States of America. The other side would say, well, we
have increased spending for veterans over the past few years. The
answer to that is, yes, but thousands and thousands of more veterans
are beginning to enter the VA system now. They are losing their
pensions; they are losing their health care in places like Ohio. When I
was on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs last session, Secretary
Principi was in front of us and I asked him, is the reason more people
are going into the health care system in places like Ohio, West
Virginia, Pennsylvania because of the massive job loss and companies
are going bankrupt? And he said, yes.
We have people in Ohio that were veterans, that never accessed the VA
system, who lost their jobs, lost their pensions, lost their health
care, they had nothing, and they entered into the VA system because
they were veterans. So, yes, you may be increasing the number of what
we are spending on veterans; but when you have thousands of more
veterans going in and nursing homes being closed down and nursing home
beds being closed down, it is time to reevaluate what the policy is. We
could go on and on and on with this on what we are going to spend on
education, health care, which you so eloquently mentioned, all these
great issues that we need to invest in.
I want to make a point. We are not saying that some of these programs
do not need reform. We are not saying that at all. These programs do
need reform. We need to move into more preventative health care than we
are doing now. You talked about CVS and Rite Aid and the emergency
room. Why would we want people to go if they were sick into an
emergency room? Because we are paying for that, anyway. The hospitals
get charity aid that comes out of Federal money. Why would we wait
until someone got pneumonia and went to the emergency room when we
could have a clinic that provided them with basic antibiotics that
would allow them to address their issue when they had a cold? But we
wait. So the system does need reform.
We need to put more emphasis on early childhood education. There is
no question about it. We did a study in Ohio, and I mentioned it
several times here before. The University of Akron did this study. For
every dollar that the State of Ohio spent on higher education, the
State received $2 back in tax money because you are educating someone
and they are going to be worth more, they are going to create more
value, and they are going to pay more in taxes over the long run.
These systems need reform to where we are making good investments and
saving the taxpayer money in the long run. These tax cuts are not
having the economic impact they thought they would have. We have given
trillions of dollars in tax cuts and the whole reason was to stimulate
the economy. We are still in a recession or just modest, very modest,
economic growth, if that. Some signs are saying we are going to go back
into a recession. This is not having the impact, because these people
who make this money are not investing it in the United States. I will
pull out the China graphs again if you want me to, but these people are
taking their tax cuts and investing it in Asia. The economic impact
again is not being felt in the United States. It is being felt abroad.
The old theory that tax cuts will stimulate your national economy no
longer work. It is an outdated method; it is voodoo economics as
President Bush, I, said; and it is not working here today.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio did make
the point of what is actually happening here, and I think it is
important that we highlight that. We are going to close out. I see my
Republican colleagues that are here. We got a little excited in talking
about some of these issues, but I want to make sure that when you
mentioned the veterans, like I said before and I have said like three
times during this Special Order, we do have some friends on the
Republican side of the aisle that see it and get it. Okay? But this is
what happens to them when they do the right thing and this is from Fox
News.
Representative Chris Smith, former chairman of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, passed a Veterans Administration budget that put him
on the opposite side of his leadership on the Republican side. Actually
doing what he should do as a chairman for the veterans. What happened?
Did he get a parade? Did he get a commendation from the Republican
leadership in their caucus? No. He got fired. He was ripped of his
chairmanship. And so when we start talking about what we want and what
we actually get, that is a perfect example.
We had nothing to do with him being removed. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic
leader, had nothing to do with him being removed. The Republican
leadership removed him. It is very unfortunate that that took place. I
would say this, it is important that we come to the floor with
solutions and not just problems. I am glad that we shared with the
American people and also Members of this House what we have in store
for them. Before we close, does the gentleman want to give this e-mail
out quickly?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Again, send us an e-mail, tell us what you believe
the real crises are in the country, [email protected], and
possibly we will read your e-mail next week.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the time here on
floor. We would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us to
have this time on the Democratic side.
[[Page H3762]]
____________________