[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 81 (Friday, June 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4712-H4718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is a pleasure to 
address the House, and I would like to thank the Democratic leader for 
allowing the 30-something Working Group, once again, to come to the 
floor to not only address the Members, but also make sure that we 
continue our commitment of sharing information as we get it on various 
issues that are facing 30-somethings throughout the United States of 
America; also to be able to address the issues that are facing everyday 
Americans, whether they be young or old, school age, or those that are 
yet unborn.
  It is very, very important for us to come to the floor, especially in 
this democracy that we celebrate, and talk about some of these issues 
that are taking place, some that we are taking action on, others that 
we have had very little action on, and some that we are not acting upon 
at all.
  The focus of the 30-something Working Group is to make sure that on 
issues that are ongoing, such as Social Security, an ever-growing 
Federal debt, a deficit that is in the trillions of dollars that will 
keep future generations and even the present generation indebted to 
this Federal Government, and also issues that are facing our young 
people as it relates to education, making sure that they are able to 
not only go to college, but when they leave college, that they do not 
find themselves in debt.
  Just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out 
the issue of Social Security. I do, Mr.

[[Page H4713]]

Speaker, have some good news to report: one, that this issue of private 
accounts and taking benefits away from the American people is very 
unpopular with Americans; also, two, that it is unpopular with Members 
of the Congress.
  Now, in the other body, there is a chairman of a committee over there 
that basically cannot get the Social Security bill rolling as long as 
they are talking about private accounts. As a matter of fact, there is 
an article today in The Washington Post that talks about the fact that 
even at the White House, and some of the leaders of this House have 
said, either we are going to deal with Social Security soon or we are 
not going to deal with it at all, and why put Members of the House in 
jeopardy to vote for private accounts that will take benefits away from 
the American people, not only those who are retirees, but also those 
who are receiving survivor benefits and those who are receiving 
disability benefits. It will take away benefits from them by using the 
private account formula.
  The good thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that when we get 
off the agenda of trying to privatize Social Security, then we can do 
what we have been trying to do all along in a bipartisan way and coming 
up with great ideas and putting them into action to be able to 
strengthen Social Security. I hope, as a Member not only of this House, 
but as a member of the 30-something Working Group, that we can work in 
a way that, even though we are strengthening Social Security, the money 
that it will take to strengthen Social Security, that we will not only 
explain to the American people, but to make sure that ever Member of 
this House understands that we have to have a way to pay for it. Not 
just saying that we are going to throw a lot of money in there and not 
find a way to pay for it, because it is almost like, Mr. Speaker, 
taking a carton of milk out of the refrigerator and smelling it and 
saying, wow, it is sour, and putting it back in and maybe it will be 
fresh tomorrow. It will continue to be an issue for the American people 
in future generations, and that is something that we have to work on.
  I would ask the Members to take a look at The Washington Post article 
today speaking of the strategy on Social Security. It is nothing that I 
am going to sit here and say ``we told you so'' as it relates to 
private accounts, but it is something that is encouraging. Hopefully, 
Republican leaders will start to say, well, maybe we need to back off 
this strategy of $944 billion going to Wall Street, and maybe we need 
to work on strengthening Social Security, making sure that those that 
elected us to come here know that Social Security is here for future 
generations, and also for this generation and the baby boomers.
  I also believe that a great deal of credit should be given not only 
to the Members here in Congress, and I would like to commend the very 
few Members on the Republican side of the aisle that said, no way, Jose 
on privatizing Social Security. And I am so glad that they are standing 
against the Republican leadership, and I am so glad on this issue of 
Social Security, and I am so glad here on the Democratic side, from the 
beginning, the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
also the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Menendez), and also the 
vice chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Jim Clyburn), of our 
leadership on this side of the aisle, all along, without any problems, 
have said that they are standing shoulder to shoulder with the 
Democratic Caucus to make sure that we strengthen Social Security, just 
like we did in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and 
Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of this House with a bipartisan bill to 
make sure that we shored it up.
  Also, even when we start talking about the history of it, I am glad 
that President Clinton took the position he did when he took the 
position of balancing the budget and putting us into surpluses to make 
sure that we could shore up the Social Security Trust Fund and to know 
how we were paying for it. We were paying for it with an ever-growing 
surplus. But right now we do not have that surplus. The majority side 
and the leadership on the majority side have led us into an almost $7.8 
trillion deficit, and I think that we have to work on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is here, and I 
am so glad that the gentleman is here, and that the 30-something 
Working Group is here on the floor once again.

                              {time}  1600

  But if I can read into some of the groups that have been out there 
sharing with the American people about the fact that why do we want to 
privatize Social Security when it is going to take away benefits; from 
right from the beginning we were saying you are going to lose somewhere 
up to 70 percent of the benefits. In some cases individuals will lose 
benefits, and even if they were not in the private account side of the 
privatization of Social Security, they would lose 30 percent of their 
benefits. So that is even saying, well, listen, I want to stay in a 
system that I have now. You still will lose.
  I want to thank those groups for going out there because I say to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) if it was not for them, and, Mr. 
Speaker, I believe that if it was left up to the mechanics of the 
Beltway here in Washington, DC, I think once again the American people 
would be a recipient of the Potomac two-step.
  I would like to thank the Americans United to Protect Social 
Security; also thank Rock the Vote, College Democrats, Young Democrats, 
Progressive Democrats of America; also AFSCME, AFSCME Retiree Program, 
the National Council of Individuals With Disabilities, the Americans 
for Democratic Action, the American Nurses Association, the American 
Public Health Association, the American Association of Community 
Organizations for Reform, the Alliance for Retired Americans, which is 
AARP, the largest senior organization here in the United States, 
America Votes, California Health Advocates, Campaign for America's 
Future, Center for American Progress, Center for Medicare Advocacy, 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center on Economic Policy and 
Research, Child Welfare League of America, Coalition of Human Needs, 
Code Blue Now, Consumers Union, Economic Policy Institute, Families 
USA, American Baptist Convention, Fair Taxes for All, Independent 
Living Services, Leadership Council on Civil Rights, Medicare Rights 
Center; also the National Academy of Social Insurance, the National 
Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the National Association of 
Police Organizations, the National Association of Social Workers, the 
National Coalition on Nursing Home Reform, the National Conference of 
State Legislators, which is bipartisan, I must add, the National 
Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National 
Education Association, the National Health Law Program, the National 
Organization of Social Security, the National Senior Citizens Law 
Center, the New Democratic Network.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I have just got a couple more.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is saying 
there is a lot of support against the President's Social Security plan.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure. Against 
privatization of Social Security. The Subcommittee on Social Security, 
also you have the Century Foundation, the U.S. Action, Visiting Nurses 
Association of America, American Corn Growers Association. That is good 
to have them on board. The Center For Rural Affairs, the Federation of 
Southern Cooperatives, the League of Rural Voters, the National 
Catholic Rural Life Conference, the National Family Farm Coalition, 
Progressive Student Initiative and the 21st Century Democrats.
  I am going to put this list in for the record. But I just want to say 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), it is always good, and all of 
the people were not mentioned because we would take a good part of this 
Special Order talking about those individuals that are out there. But I 
want to make a case in point.
  Young people in America have risen up beyond the expectations of many 
individuals in the past as it relates to advocacy on this issue of 
Social Security.

[[Page H4714]]

So I am so glad that they are a part of it because that is the reason 
why the American people are being educated.

       Americans United to Protect Social Security; Rock the Vote; 
     College Democrats; Young Democrats; Progressive Democrats of 
     America; AFSCME; AFSCME Retiree Program; The US PIRGS; 
     National Council on Individuals With Disabilities; Americans 
     for Democratic Action; American Nurses Association; American 
     Public Health Association; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of 
     America; Association of Community Organization for Reform Now 
     (ACORN); Alliance for Retired Americans (AARP); America 
     Votes; California Health Advocates; CALPERS; Campaign for 
     America's Future; Center for American Progress; Center for 
     Medicare Advocacy; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 
     (CBPP); Center on Economic Policy and Research; CHC; Child 
     Welfare League of America; Coalition on Human Needs; Code 
     Blue Now; Consumers Union; Economic Policy Institute (EPI); 
     Families USA; Fair Taxes for All; Half The Planet; and HBC 
     Dems.
       Independent Living Services; Leadership Conference for 
     Civil Rights; Medicare Rights Center; MoveOn; National 
     Academy of Social Insurance; National Association of Area 
     Agencies on Aging; National Association of Police 
     Organizations; National Association of Social Workers; 
     National Coalition for Nursing Home Reform; National 
     Conference of State Legislators; National Committee to 
     Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Education 
     Association; National Health Law Program; National 
     Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives 
     (NOSSCR); National Senior Citizens Law Center; New Democratic 
     Network; Public Citizen; Subcommittee on Social Security, 
     Committee on Ways and Means; The Century Foundation; United 
     Cerebral Palsy; USAction; Visiting Nurse Association of 
     America; American Corn Growers Association; Center for Rural 
     Affairs; Federation of Southern Cooperatives; League of Rural 
     Voters; National Catholic Rural Life Conference; National 
     Family Farm Coalition; Progressive Student Initiative; and 
     21st Century Democrats.

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, what has been great, really, is to 
watch that debate kind of evolve since early January since the 
President came to this Chamber and talked to the American people and 
basically said he had an idea for how to fix Social Security; stated 
that the Social Security program is in crisis, which we have refuted 
many times here in this Chamber through the 30-something Working Group. 
And it has been interesting to watch the evolution of the debate and 
the support for the President's proposal in January not only among many 
Americans, but among young people, and as the young citizens of the 
country became more and more educated on exactly what the President's 
plan would do through some of the groups that you mentioned, through 
Rock the Vote and a variety of other groups, became educated on, you 
know, basically what the President's proposal would be.
  And the issue that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and I and 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Davis), other members of the 30-something Working 
Group here have focused on that we think is the most poignant argument 
to make is this issue right here, the national debt. The President's 
proposal would add $5 trillion to the national debt over the next 20 
years.
  Now, as you can see here, and this is actually not updated, and we 
will have the new numbers next week. It is actually now $7.8 trillion 
this country is in debt that we owe; 7.8 trillion. The President's 
proposal over the next 20 years would add an additional $5 trillion to 
this number here and almost doubling the national debt. And if we keep 
going at the rate we are spending money here, we will double it in the 
next 20 years if we do not get our house in order.
  But this is the main issue, and I think young people, when they saw 
the President's proposal, when they saw that his proposal would add $5 
trillion, increase their taxes, push the responsibility of paying the 
bills off on the next generation, I think that is when you began to see 
the rug come out from underneath the President's proposal. And so we 
have got to keep focused on the national debt and the annual deficits 
that are costing each taxpayer that is in the country, or each citizen 
in the country, almost $27,000.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan), for a child that was just born 10 minutes ago already owes 
$26,349.67, and even that number has gone up. When we have our new 
chart next week, we will be able to have that new number. Unfortunately 
it continues to go up, and there is no sight of that number going down. 
We cannot see the end of the tunnel as it relates to the Federal debt 
continuing. I see that you have a new chart.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is exactly what you were talking about just 
before I arrived here. This is the chart of the deficits over the past 
probably 40 some years, since the Johnson administration. We ran a 
pretty tight budget for a good many years. And into the Reagan 
administration you see a deep, deep dip, and into the Bush 
administration, and we were running $300 billion deficits every year.
  And then when President Clinton came in with a Democratic House, with 
a Democratic Senate, in 1993 passed a budget without one Republican 
vote. Al Gore came to the Senate to break the tie to vote for it. And 
it led to record surpluses in the United States of America. This is 
where we were in the late 1990s; and back with the current President, 
back into an era of deficits, of borrowing money from the Chinese, 
borrowing money from Asian countries, putting in jeopardy the future of 
many of the young people who live in this country today.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan), the bottom line is that it is important that we not only come to 
the floor to make sure the Members understand what has happened, 
because we want to make sure that no one suffers from what one may say 
amnesia of not knowing what has taken place in this Chamber when the 
leadership rose to the level of saying that we had to do something 
about the Federal deficit and we did. I think it is also important for 
us to understand if we are ever going to have an about-face as it 
relates to spending, without having a plan to pay for what we are 
spending, it is going to continue to carry on.
  I do not look forward to not only our days left in the 109th 
Congress, but when the 110th Congress comes in to be able to talk about 
what took place in the 109th Congress, because we could not stop 
ourselves from spending irresponsibly. And, you know, serving on the 
Armed Services Committee, a lot of money, almost $150 billion are going 
into the war annually. With that, and the forecast of that continuing 
to take place, and I must say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), it 
is good to hear the Democratic leader and others push the card on the 
Republican leadership also as it relates to the White House of coming 
up with a plan, a plan on how we are going to proceed from this point, 
because the reason why we want to know what is the plan as it relates 
to training Iraqi troops is so that our troops can start focusing on 
other issues and be able to carry out action there in Iraq, versus 
every day patrol that Iraqi troops could be doing, the training of 
those troops are important. It is important that the majority side 
gives us that information so that we are able to make sure that we are 
on course in having the proper oversight over this war.
  Now, we both support our men and women in uniform. We are both on the 
Armed Services Committee. We both appreciate their commitment and 
sacrifice, and we give our love and appreciation out to those families 
that are also making a sacrifice and, unfortunately, those that have 
made the ultimate sacrifice of losing a loved one.
  But what I also think is important, Mr. Speaker, is that we make sure 
that we have a plan, a forecast plan, because there are domestic needs 
also that need to be addressed.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is right. A budget comes to this 
floor. We need something for our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
I am a yes vote. When education comes to this floor, leave No Child 
Left Behind, the fully funding of that program, I am a yes vote.
  But guess what? It is just not happening. And our leadership, and on 
the Democratic Caucus side we want to prioritize our children's future 
just as much as we are prioritizing the future

[[Page H4715]]

of the Iraqi people. And so it is important that towns and cities and 
locations that we both represent, the gentleman being from Ohio, I am 
being from Florida, that they receive their just due of their Federal 
tax dollar and making sure they are a part of the solution and their 
own family needs, versus saying that, well, we are going to continue to 
make a sacrifice, you know, on behalf of the Iraqi people, versus the 
individuals that are living in our own communities that we go to church 
with every day. And it is counterproductive if we do not plan to be 
able to focus those same kind of dollars and those efforts towards 
helping local communities.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The gentleman is exactly right. And I think when 
you look at the number that we are going to spend in Iraq, probably by 
the end of this year it is going to be over $300 billion that we are 
going to spend in Iraq with absolutely no end in sight. No one has any 
idea of how much longer we are going to be there and what the cost in 
human life and U.S. treasure is going to be.
  Now, imagine, 435 Members in this Chamber, $300 billion. You are 
talking about $6- to $700 million per Member of Congress. Now, the 
American people need to ask themselves, would you have rather given 
that money to your congressional Representative in the House of 
Representatives to spend in your community on building schools, on 
building clinics, on making sure everyone has health care, or on this 
mess that we have in the Middle East?
  And I know people in Youngstown, Ohio, and Niles, Ohio, and Warren, 
Ohio, and Akron, Ohio, and Ravenna, Ohio, and Kent, Ohio, they would 
rather have the money spent in their districts. Because you are getting 
the same kind of calls that I am getting. No money for police and fire. 
No money for mental health levies. No money for their schools. And we 
have a boondoggle going on in the Middle East right now that no one 
even knows where the money is being spent. And money is being lost. 
U.S. taxpayer money is being lost.
  Now, you mention how we have bills that come to the floor to fund 
education, fund veterans and fund some programs that we believe in and 
we support and how underfunded they are, and how many thousands of 
kids. We had a study in Ohio that said No Child Left Behind was 
underfunded in the State of Ohio by over $1 billion.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Do you know that four States have sued the 
Federal Government for lack of Leave No Child Left Behind funding? 
Texas is one of those States.
  I am going to tell you something, the bottom line is it is about 
priorities. Do we want to bring about the standardized testing of our 
children, making sure they are under the umbrella for them to learn, 
but better yet, we do not want to provide the dollars to make that 
happen? We do not want to give a teacher an environment where she can 
teach and children an environment they can learn?
  We are saying that, well, you know, do not worry, you have to work it 
out, and matter of fact, we are going to penalize you if you do not 
reach the bar. This is why it is important if we worry about these 
domestic needs, we do something about it.
  I want you to share that chart with the Members because I want to 
talk about what we have in plan and in store if we had Democratic 
leadership that was in the majority in this House, to be able to carry 
out some of these plans.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, what happened, what we had done here 
is we have a chart that we broke down and basically puts in the 
perspective, what has been happening down here. As you can see, on the 
left, it is the red chart. It is the cost in trillions of dollars over 
the next 10 years to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent, of which 
a majority went to people who make over $500,000 a year, $1.8 trillion 
is what we are going to spend over the next 10 years. This is our 
priority. Tax cuts for rich people.
  The next is of that tax cuts for the top 1 percent, $800 million. 
Now, the top 1 percent in this country make a lot of money. So we are 
going to take $800 million from education and health and all these 
other programs, and we are going to give that $800 million back to the 
top 1 percent of the people in the country.
  Now look at this. This is the bar for how much we are going to spend 
over the next 10 years for veterans budget authority, $300 million. 
$300 million. Why would we choose permanent tax cuts for people who 
make over four, five, six, seven, $800,000 a year? Warren Buffett, Bill 
Gates, they are going to get the big tax cuts. Our friends at Enron, 
Tyco, all the big dogs are going to get a tremendous amount of money, 
and yet, we are shutting out veterans.
  We have thousands of veterans who are now in our hospitals in 
Bethesda and Walter Reed who are coming back single, double, triple 
amputees. This is a real problem, and I think this sends a message to 
the country that we just do not have the priorities that I think a lot 
of people in America have, and if you look at the polling, if you look 
at what the American people are saying, the approval rating, 33 percent 
for Congress, the President's approval rating is not much better.
  The ultimate question is, does Congress or does the President or the 
administration represent your values? Do you think they are fighting on 
behalf of what you want and what you need? The answer is becoming more 
and more apparent that this Congress is out of touch with the American 
people, that this President's agenda is out of touch with the American 
people.
  I think when you brought up priorities earlier, in a recent bill that 
was passed, big oil got a $2 billion subsidy. Can you imagine with the 
price of gas now and oil by the barrel going over $50, that we are 
going to take money from middle class Americans, take their tax dollars 
and give $2 billion of it for big oil companies to go explore and find 
more areas to get more oil? Is that not what they say, when the price 
increases, they need that money because it is expensive to go dig for 
oil, it is expensive to go drill? We are going to take taxpayer money 
to go do this, and I think that is a perfect example of how this 
Congress does not represent the values that many people in this country 
have.
  Would you not rather have $2 billion spent on your schools? We have 
got to compete with 1.3 billion Chinese workers, over 1 billion Indian 
workers over the next couple of decades. We need to be investing into 
our kids. We need to be investing into our schools, making sure our 
kids are healthy with programs in their communities, in their schools, 
that they can learn Chinese and they can learn a different foreign 
language of the countries they are going to be competing with.
  Why do the rich schools have two swimming pools and art programs? God 
bless them, we want schools to have them, but why do all schools not 
have a liberal education and liberal in the sense of speech and debate, 
art, visual arts, music, dance, all these things that provide for a 
well-rounded education?
  Those are the first programs that end up getting cut, and it is 
because, back here, we are cutting taxes for the top 1 percent and 
cutting benefits for veterans and the No Child Left Behind program and 
the health and welfare of our average citizens.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. What is important, and I think, Mr. Speaker, it 
is good for the Members to be able to note the fact that if the 
situation was different in this House, and when I say the situation, I 
am saying, if we were in the majority on this side and it was a 
Democratic House, the discussion about veterans at .3 percent would 
been a discussion, as a matter of fact, the action would be taken to 
make sure our veterans are treated the way they should be treated for 
the service and the freedom that we celebrate every day.
  I think it is important because this is not the Kendrick Meek/Tim 
Ryan Report from Ohio and from Florida. This is what we are getting 
from the Congressional Budget Office. This is information that is 
publicly printed in a number of nonpartisan groups that are out there.
  I think it is also important for us to talk about our new partnership 
for America's future, what we are talking about on the Democratic side, 
and it is good to make sure that everyone understands that by the 
Democrats being in the minority here in this House, we cannot agenda 
bills to come before a committee by House rules. We cannot

[[Page H4716]]

call a committee hearing. We cannot bring a bill to the floor because 
of the House rules, because we are in the minority. We cannot say, 
well, there will be no privatization of Social Security whatsoever and 
the bill will not come to the floor because we are in the minority.
  To be in the majority, it is going to take the American people and 
also some individuals to continue to focus on the issues that are not 
happening on behalf of not only our patriots, and patriots come in two 
forms. Many of them are everyday Americans that are out there, trying 
to make sure they provide for their families. They go to church, the 
synagogues, what have you, to the mosques, if they go, and they work 
hard every day. They expect their piece of the American apple pie.
  You have individuals that are going even a step further, those 
individuals that are wearing the uniform in a forward area, in Iraq and 
Afghanistan or wherever they may be, individuals that have served this 
country before. This is our veterans. Those individuals that not only 
have stories of war and conflict but have stories of real life 
experience.
  When they signed up, we promised them that we would help them in 
their health care. We promised them that they would not have to wait 6 
months to see the ophthalmologist. We promised them that they will 
receive the respect that they deserve out of this Congress as it 
relates to making sure they have the necessary funds to be able to 
carry out the rest of their lives, either with a disability or what 
have you.

  I must report that that is not happening right now. It is important 
that hopefully we can get some sort of forward movement to get us 
moving down in the right direction.
  We have the new partnership for America's future which is a 
Democratic plan that has six components, which brings about prosperity, 
national security, fairness, opportunity, community and accountability.
  Accountability, Mr. Speaker, is pivotal in this debate as it relates 
to balancing the national debt or making sure that we do not have a 
deficit at about $8 trillion number. Accountability is making sure that 
we pass a Leave No Child Left Behind Act, that we fund it and that we 
stand by our States and we stand by our children or our future 
generations, to be able to do what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) 
was talking about, of making sure that they are prepared to carry out 
the jobs that we need them to carry out. We are being outcompeted in 
other areas because our kids are not carrying the mathematics and some 
other areas, the sciences, that they need.
  So the Leave No Child Left Behind Act was put into place to hopefully 
bring about that kind of accountability, and guess what, it was a 
bipartisan effort. Guess what again, it is not a bipartisan effort to 
fund it. It is being underfunded, and if we were in the majority here 
in the House, it would have better funding. The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader, has said that she will 
fully fund Leave No Child Left Behind. That is a major statement, and 
better yet, an action that would take place because she said it would 
happen.
  Just like we are bold in saying we will make sure that the 
millionaires and billionaires get their tax cuts, we are going to make 
sure that our children are educated. Guess what, again, here is another 
thing. They are Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Green 
Party, Reform Party households. No one's picking and choosing. We are 
saying all of America's children should receive that kind of leadership 
and that kind of accountability.
  A perfect example, when we talk about opportunity within our six 
principles and we talk about community and we talk about prosperity, we 
are the 30 Something Working Group. We have individuals that are going 
to school and leaving college with what, 20, $30,000 in debt. Am I 
correct?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Absolutely.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. They are leaving in debt. Better yet, the 
administration gives them a bad hand of cards in saying that we want 
you to go to college, we want you to educate yourself. Individuals are 
running around here, going to commencement ceremonies throughout the 
United States of America saying that we are with you, but better yet, 
as it relates to the Pell grant obligation, it is because they changed 
their formulary it is going to be $300 million coming out of that 
formula, which is going to take the cost up of Pell grants in the year 
2005, 2006.
  I do not think that is a message of what we should do, but I can tell 
you what we are doing on this end. There is legislation that has 
already been filed, and which I have signed on to and you are signed on 
to, to replace that $300 million back in so that the Pell grant 
opportunity for kids that want to better themselves and move on and 
educate themselves, that they do not have to end up paying what you may 
call this, I call it a $300 million tax. When you change the formula 
and you go up and you give them a greater responsibility, you are 
taxing them, but better yet, you want to make tax cuts permanent for 
those individuals that are slamming Cadillac doors here in the United 
States, eating lunch at some of the finest restaurants in this country, 
walking around here, not even worrying about how we are going to pay 
the rent. They are collecting the rent, but better yet, we want to send 
our young people into a fixed situation.
  We already know that on average kids are leaving school with 20, 
$30,000 in debt, which means they are going to be living at home with 
mom or dad or grandmother or someone because they cannot get a loan to 
be able to buy a house because you do not come out of college making a 
lot of money to be able to make that happen.
  So I am glad on this side of the aisle, if anyone wants to know the 
difference between what is going on in the majority side, and I do not 
want to generalize because there are some individuals on the majority 
side who see it the way we see it. They see it the way we see it. They 
know that this is an important effort and that we have to make sure 
that we stand up for our children.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was talking to a young person in my 
district a couple of days ago, and he is so talented on the organ. He 
is a great singer, and he is a great song writer, and I go to his 
church in Youngstown, Ohio, frequently. He is the head musician and 
head of the choir.

                              {time}  1630

  And I talked to him, and he is going through a difficult situation. 
So I asked him, well, why not go to school? Why not sign up at 
Youngstown State and get a degree in music and teach music? You know 
what the initial thing he said was? I cannot afford it. I cannot afford 
it. There is no way I am going to be able to do it.
  Part of this that we talk about here is nuts and bolts. We need money 
for this program, and we are going to reduce or increase the Pell Grant 
scholarship by $1,000 per student. And I know if the Democrats were in 
charge, we would do that. But it is not just about reducing the debt, 
it is about communicating to that person. And there are millions of 
people just like this young man who are talented and skilled and want 
to do better, but do not think anybody is on their side.
  What we are trying to say is that if you put us in charge, if you 
give us a chance, we are going to be on your side. We are going to be 
your partner in this. We cannot do it for you. We cannot make this kid 
go to school. We cannot make him study. But there are millions of 
people out there who want to live a better life, and what the 
Democratic Party wants to do is help them do that; help them achieve 
their goals; help them move forward.
  Whether it is with education or health care or clinics or whatever it 
is, we are offering solutions here to create incentives for people to 
be able to go and experience their dreams and to move on. We are in the 
hopes and dreams business here. That is what the Democrats are all 
about. And we want to be in charge because we believe that we have a 
better program, better solutions than just saying everybody gets a tax 
cut, especially the top 1 percent, because that clearly has not worked.
  President Bush's dad called it voodoo economics. It has not worked 
yet. We are still waiting for what is going to happen here. Job 
creation is low and slow. People are taking up jobs that pay $10,000 
less than the job they lost, without health care benefits. That is not 
progress.

[[Page H4717]]

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is important we move beyond personalities and 
look at what is actually taking place and what is not taking place. I 
think it is important looking at the numbers that we understand that it 
is just not happening.
  When we dealt with the whole Medicare issue and we dealt with 
prescription drugs, the majority side, the leadership on the majority 
side came over and told us it would cost $350 billion. They also said 
that it would cost $400 billion. Now it is well over $400 billion; 
matter of fact, it is even closer to $500 billion.
  There was the same information that came to this House regarding the 
weapons of mass destruction. We had prima facie evidence that there 
were weapons of mass destruction. But no weapons of mass destruction.
  There was also an initiative that came to the floor by the majority, 
now majority side, that said we are going to do something about health 
care, and the President said, well, we are going to have these health 
care savings accounts, and everyone will be able to save, and everyone 
will be able to have good health care. Still, today, we have millions 
upon millions of working families without health care, families that go 
to work every day that do not have a health care plan.
  Public hospitals and private hospitals are going under throughout 
this country, and not because they are bad managers. It is because they 
do not have the necessary attention or the funds that they need from 
this Federal Government to be able to provide health care to the 
everyday American.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield once 
again, I might just comment that we should just look at the way it is 
set up. Everyone screams, let us have universal health care, and 
America needs universal health care. America has universal health care. 
Unfortunately, it is through the emergency room. It is the most 
expensive, inefficient way to run a health care system, because 
hospitals who run emergency rooms, especially in cities that have high 
concentrations of crime and people accessing health care through the 
emergency room, they get charitable funds. The taxpayer is still 
paying.

  So the question is are we going to pay for it up front and take care 
of someone when they have a cold, or are we going to wait until they go 
to the emergency room with pneumonia and it costs you 10 times more?
  What we are saying is restructure, reform the health care system and 
have the courage to take on the big donors with all the nice cufflinks 
and the Cadillacs; take them on and say, we are going to act on behalf 
of the American people, not on behalf of specific interest groups that 
are making a ton of money.
  Now, we cannot take on the pharmaceutical industry because they 
donate so much money to this body. So you either pick them, or you pick 
the people you represent back in your district. In the path of $400 
billion, then $700 billion, then a $1 trillion prescription drug bill 
you do not do one thing about reimportation to help drive the cost 
down, or not do something as simple as giving the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services the ability to negotiate down the cost of the drugs?
  Why not say to Pfizer and Merck, you want the contract for Medicare? 
Well, we are going to sit down and we are going to talk price. But no 
one had the courage to do that, because they get too much money from 
that industry.
  But there is a choice. And what we are saying is we are going to make 
a choice to represent the people of the country who need help, your 
grandparents, your parents who cannot afford prescription drugs, 
instead of the pharmaceutical companies. People elect us to come down 
here and do this. They want us to say, we do not want to bankrupt the 
pharmaceutical companies, we want you to keep doing your research and 
doing what you do, but you have to play fair.
  The bottom line is that a lot of the patents that the pharmaceutical 
companies get are researched out at the National Institutes of Health. 
They are publicly funded institutions. The taxpayers are paying for a 
good portion of this. Merck comes in and picks up a patent and only has 
to pay NIH .5 percent of their profits, and they go out and make 
billions of dollars at the expense of our grandparents, the 30-
somethings' grandparents, or our parents.
  There is a certain unfairness there. And what we are saying and 
communicating with these charts, and what we are talking about is we 
want a chance to lead this Chamber. We have ideas, and we will 
implement them, and we will help partner with the American people to 
make their lives better and improve their lives and give them 
opportunities that they do not have or have not had in many, many 
years.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is important that everyone 
understands that what my colleague and I are talking about here right 
now is doing something about the issues that are facing everyday 
Americans. Everyday Americans, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green 
Party, Reform Party, you name it, we are out there trying to help them. 
We want to make sure that they get the butter from the duck.
  We want to make sure, as we start talking about devolution of 
taxation, that when we cut funding to State and local governments, the 
difference between us and them is the fact that we can reach back in 
our pocket, and I will not even use my big credit card today, matter of 
fact I do not even have my credit card in my wallet, but I have my 
debit card. If we were to take a card out and say, fine, we will put 
another $3 billion on the credit card. That is fine, we will put it 
away. Matter of fact, no, we will not put it away, we will just throw 
it away. We will throw it away because we do not have to pay for it. It 
is someone else who has to pay for it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let our kids pay for it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let our kids pay for it. Let someone else worry 
about paying for it. But as relates to the State governments, they have 
to balance their budgets, and the reason why they have to balance their 
budget is that they have a balanced budget amendment. Many States do. 
They cannot deficit spend. So they cut education, tuition goes up, and 
in many of the States Medicaid reform, oh, my goodness, it is just a 
travesty what is happening in many of these programs that have helped 
so many people. And transportation dollars on the State level is drying 
up.
  So when we get down to the county commissioners or the cities or the 
town, or what have you, municipal governments, which way are they going 
to turn?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Nowhere to go.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Then guess what? The local folks start seeing 
the millage rate go up from the school board. They start putting these 
local bond referendums on the ballots, because they do not have the 
money. Meanwhile, we are sitting up here in Washington talking about 
what is the problem, we have not raised your taxes? Yes, we have, we 
have raised your taxes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is right. They raise them at the local level, 
and in many instances those people at that level vote ``no'' on the 
school board levy. Some States, like Ohio, it is elected. It just 
cannot be assessed. So in Ohio, the average person who lost their job 
and are making $10,000 less, and their kids' college tuition is up, and 
here comes the school board levy and they vote ``no,'' who is hurt 
then?
  We are all hurt then, because how are we going to compete with other 
countries who are focusing on educating their kids? How are we going to 
compete with an engineer in China who makes $5 an hour?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I want to correct myself, because in my last 
statement I said we here, as a Congress, raise taxes. No, we did not; 
the majority side who came up with a strategy on how we can cut funding 
in certain areas did, and that is the reason why those States are suing 
the Federal Government right now. We have given them an unfunded 
mandate.
  When my constituents woke up at 7 a.m. on a given Tuesday morning 
last November, they did not go to the voting booth and take their voter 
registration card out and say, well, Congressman, I am going to vote 
for you to make sure you have better health care than I have, you and 
your family; or to make sure as relates to undue taxes or what have you 
that you can raise my taxes, and I will vote on me raising my

[[Page H4718]]

own taxes. That is why I am sending you to Congress.
  No, better yet, I am sending you to Congress to make sure you do 
nothing about health care. Matter of fact, take my credit card, use it, 
because I am going to have to pay it off. I am going to let you use it. 
That is like sending someone to the mall that you know has a problem 
with shopping and saying, do not worry about it, take it to the 
maximum.
  Can I have my credit card? I said I was not going to pull it out, but 
I am. My congressional spending card right here, the numbers are going 
up so fast, I keep having to change the numbers. The thing about our 
credit card, unlike any other credit card in the wallets of everyday 
Americans, is that it just keeps going and going and going and going to 
the tune of $7.8 trillion.
  Now, I know my colleague wants to say something, but let me just say 
this. For those individuals on the majority side that want to say, boy, 
those Democrats, they just tax and spend, look at the deficit. I want 
to know where they are now? I cannot even hear them. I do not even see 
them. Where are they? Where are these fiscal conservatives? Where are 
they? They are nowhere to be found. You go out in the hall and say, 
conservative, it just keeps echoing, conservative, conservative, 
conservative. Where are they?
  So we have not been in the majority here, I would say, for 10 years 
now? Maybe 10 years. Maybe 8?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Going on 11.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Going on 11. Once again, I want to make sure 
everyone understands that we have to be in the majority to be able to 
run this House. So everything that takes place in this House and comes 
to this floor and goes before a committee, the agendas in committees, 
and bills moving, and appropriations and all of that is done by the 
majority side because they are in the majority.
  In some instances, to be very truthful, we are able to work out some 
bipartisan efforts sometimes. We have a lot of votes that go up on the 
board where we are all together on the post offices and the Federal 
buildings, the naming of those post offices and the Federal buildings. 
But when it comes to issues like the budget, the Federal deficit, 
health care, education, in many cases we are not together, and that is 
unfortunate.
  This is nothing we would like to see continued. We would like to work 
in a bipartisan way. You know, I have Republican constituents, and I 
have Independent constituents, and I have all the other parties even 
though I am a Democrat. And they go and vote for what? Leadership. They 
are going to vote for leadership.
  So I want to make sure that Members understand, and before my 
colleague got here I was sharing with the Speaker and the Members the 
fact that I am glad that there are some leaders in this Congress that 
have said we need an exit strategy on the privatization issue.

                              {time}  1645

  That is in The Washington Post today. It is just not flying back home 
to say we are going to private accounts, and if you are in the private 
account or not, you are still going to lose benefits, but this is what 
we are doing to shore up Social Security. We can shore up Social 
Security and strengthen Social Security without private accounts. I am 
glad we have leaders here that can carry that message on.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we are not against deficits for the 
sake of being against deficits. Many would like to borrow and spend as 
much as they can, and that is what this Congress has been doing. But 
when you borrow, you have to pay the interest payments.
  Here is a very interesting statistic. Here is 2004, here is 2014, 10 
years from now. The red is the interest on the debt that we pay every 
year, $7.8 trillion. That is the red. The light blue is education, the 
purple environment, and this last one here, a bluish-green is veterans. 
This red gets bigger because the interest payments that we have to pay 
every single year are getting huge. We do not like deficits because it 
diverts money from education, from the environment, from veterans, from 
health, Medicare, Medicaid, investments in which we will see a good 
return by having healthy, educated citizens who will create wealth and 
keep the system running.
  With deficits, that money is going down the toilet. A bigger and 
bigger portion of the budget goes to pay deficits. It is a waste of 
money. For this Chamber to be run by a group of fellows who said in 
1994 that they wanted to pass a balanced budget amendment and make it a 
Constitutional amendment to have to balance the budget, to give us 
this, I think, begs the question why do we not turn the Chamber over to 
the other party. That is what we are asking for.
  The money we are borrowing is coming from outside of the United 
States. The turquoise here is domestically held debt, 2000 to 2004. The 
purple is debt held by foreigners. As we start to borrow more and more 
money, out in California it was not so much held by foreign interests, 
and as we move, we are borrowing more from the Chinese, Japanese, we 
are turning high deficits, high debt over to our children, and who do 
we owe? Asian countries we are competing directly against. Bad news, 
bad leadership, and we need a change. That is what this is all about 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, as we are starting to wind things down here, I just 
wanted to mention we had a tragedy in my district. On June 13, we lost 
a soldier in Iraq from Austintown, Ohio, Sergeant Larry Kuhns, Jr., who 
was 24 years old. He was 3 weeks from coming home.
  I wanted to take this opportunity to pass on condolences from this 
Congress to his family, to his wife, Courtney, their 23-month-old 
daughter, McKenzie, his mom, Kelly, and his mom's fiance, Jerry. We 
sometimes think we are important, but moments like this I think wake us 
all up and kind of allow us to recognize the gravity of some of the 
decisions we make. Whether it is sending kids off to war or putting the 
burden on them in the future, I wanted to mention Sergeant Kuhns and 
thank him and his family for his sacrifice to the country.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I send my condolences to the 
family. We appreciate the commitment of our men and women in uniform 
who pay the ultimate sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman give our Web site out.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, to send us an e-mail, tell us what the 
challenges in your life are, [email protected]. Drop us an 
e-mail, and we will possibly read it here on the floor.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we close 
out by not only thanking the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
and the rest of the leadership here on the Democratic side of the aisle 
for allowing us to take advantage of this hour, also the new 
Partnership for America's Future. We talked about the six principles if 
we had the opportunity to be able to lead within this House, which are 
values of prosperity, national security, fairness, opportunity, 
community, and also accountability.
  Accountability is making sure that we deal with issues such as health 
care, making sure our troops have what they need as it relates to 
national security, making sure our children have opportunities, making 
sure that every American is paying tax dollars which are spent in the 
way that they are supposed to be spent and bring about the kind of 
fairness that they deserve from their Federal tax dollars. And also 
opportunity, making sure our children have opportunities, that we do 
what we are supposed to do as the Federal Government in holding up our 
end of the deal.

                          ____________________