[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13594-13600]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30 SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January

[[Page 13595]]

4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 
minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honor to 
address the House for another week. The 30 Something Working Group has 
come to the floor to talk about issues that are not only facing young 
people but also facing Americans in general, and I think one of the 
greatest values we have in this country is caring about future 
generations and caring about those that cannot represent themselves.
  It is important that we come to this House and in this great 
democracy that we celebrate every day and recognize the contributions 
of those individuals that go to work every day. Those individuals know 
what it means to punch in and punch out every day. Those individuals 
know what it means to not have health care; those individuals that are 
going to have to pay down this $7.8 trillion deficit; those individuals 
that are running small businesses that would like to have assistance 
from this Federal Government to be able to carry out their everyday 
needs, not only for their employees, but to make sure that we have a 
fair tax policy for the backbone of our economy.
  So we meet weekly to talk about these issues and then we come to the 
floor. We would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), the Democratic leader; and also in our leadership, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), as Democratic whip; the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is our chairman; and also, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is our vice chairman, 
for providing the kind of leadership within the Democratic Caucus that 
is needed not only for the caucus but for America.
  We come here as young members of the Democratic Caucus in this 
Congress to shed light and bring clarification to statements and 
actions or inactions by this Congress.
  I am pleased to announce, as I announced last week, that a number of 
the individuals in the White House and in the majority have now taken 
another look at Social Security. Once again, we come back to the floor 
to talk about that issue, Social Security. As they start to look at 
this issue, they are finding that Americans are just not with them on 
the privatization of Social Security.
  I am far from receiving from Social Security as it relates to 
retirement, but let us just think of hypotheticals of how important 
Social Security is. Someone my age could receive survivor benefits from 
a parent who wants to leave survivor benefits, not my age but younger, 
or receive disability.
  So when we start talking about Social Security on this side of the 
aisle, the Democratic Caucus, we are talking about strengthening Social 
Security. Even some of my friends over on the majority side, 
Republicans, are talking about strengthening Social Security, not 
weakening Social Security through schemes and privatization plans.
  So we continue to fight and also let the leaders on the majority side 
know that we are willing to work together once again, like we did in 
1983 with Speaker of this House Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan in the 
White House, of working out a way that we can strengthen Social 
Security, make sure that it is here beyond the 47 years that it will be 
here, providing 100 percent of the benefits that we are providing right 
now, and even 80 percent of the benefits after that period, of making 
sure that people can count on the fact that if they pay into Social 
Security, that it will be there for them when they need it.
  It is important. Some 48 million Americans receive Social Security 
right now. A number of those Americans are retired, but many of them 
are receiving disability benefits due to an injury on the job, and they 
cannot work or individuals that their parents have paid into the Social 
Security and now their children are able to not only educate themselves 
but help them make it through college with extra money to be able to 
help them to become productive citizens here in the United States.
  So that is the reason why this debate is so important. Are there 
other issues that are important? Of course, there are. Is the 
environment important? You bet it is. Is education important? That is 
our future; of course, it is. Is health care important? Health care 
puts the backbone into education, into workforce, into making sure that 
we have a healthy economy and that we are able to compete against other 
countries as it relates to making our country strong.
  So those are very, very important issues, but Social Security is in 
the halls of Congress now. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we break 
down this debate to the point that individuals, everyone, can 
understand, every Member can understand, every American could 
understand, everyone that will be affected, and that is all Americans, 
from young to old.
  It is important that we no longer allow the majority side to raid the 
Social Security trust fund, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is 
on his way to the floor, and we are going to talk about a proposal that 
was just introduced this week of saying that it is different than what 
the President is proposing. Well, another proposal that is supposed to 
be different than what the President is proposing.
  As you know, the Social Security trust fund has been raided to some 
$670 billion. So when we see proposals of individuals saying, well, we 
just take this from the trust fund and we will take that from the trust 
fund, the trust fund is there to make sure that individuals that are 
expecting their benefits out of Social Security, when they need it, 
Social Security when they need it, that it is there for them. It is not 
time to experiment. It is not time to say we want private accounts and 
this is just the way it is going to be.
  Paper is paper, and if you go get a yellow sheet of paper and say 
that, well, it is yellow, it is different; well, if it has private 
accounts in it, we already know and the American people know that that 
means fewer benefits for those individuals that are enrolled in the 
private accounts or not enrolled in the private accounts. So it is 
important that we pay very close attention in what is going on and what 
is being said.
  Now, there are a number of individuals that are very, very concerned, 
and I will tell you that for young people, and I do mean young people 
in America, and for parents that have young people that are in college 
or young people that are trying to make their way, you may have a son 
or daughter that is living in an apartment just trying to be 
independent, trying to get on their feet, trying to do what you have 
done, trying to build the kind of values that you placed in them, you 
try to place in them as you were rearing them and as you were trying to 
develop them as men and women. They are trying to stand up, and it is 
imperative that this Congress does everything that it has to do to make 
sure that their government does not gamble on their retirement.
  On average, young people are staying on jobs 3 to 4 years, on 
average. They need to make sure that Social Security is going to be 
there for them because a pension plan may never really develop in the 
way that it is supposed to. There are a number of Americans that are in 
pension plans right now that have failed them, and it is very, very 
unfortunate that is the case, but one thing that they can bank on 
literally is that Social Security will be there for them.
  So when we have individuals running around here talking about private 
accounts, thinking that it sounds good or cool or something new to 
present to the Social Security debate, I must remind them that we will 
continue to rise up, and it is a one-sided debate thus far on the 
private account end. It is only the majority side, the Republican side, 
and the leadership who is talking about private accounts and now want 
to act on private accounts but call it something else.
  It is not a tomato or tomato issue. It is an issue of being clear 
with the American people, and so it is important that we remember that 
44 percent of young people are living in poverty, and that means people 
within our family. I know that I have individuals in my family that are 
living in poverty,

[[Page 13596]]

whether it be a cousin or uncle or even a neighbor, and it is important 
that we recognize that.
  Approximately 2 million young adults are without health care 
insurance for the entire year. That means young people are going to 
drugstores, trying to medicate themselves or trying to make themselves 
healthy when they should have health care, and this is important.
  It is also important to understand that young people in America call 
on their parents and grandparents and family members to help them when 
they are running into hard types. So, when we start talking about 
taking anything away, either benefits or a right they may have as it 
relates to Social Security, saying that they are trying to help them, 
it is not going to help them, and it is important that we fight against 
that.
  Now, as it relates to what the Democrats are talking about on this 
side of the aisle and what we are trying to do, and I think it is 
important, Mr. Speaker, that not only do I share with and remind the 
Members and those that expect Members on this side to be able to carry 
the ball in leadership, that by the rules, and I hate to be repetitive, 
but I think it is important that everyone understands, the rules of the 
House, the majority runs the operation here in the House. On the 
minority side, we cannot agenda a bill. We cannot agenda a bill in 
committee. We cannot place a bill through the Committee on Rules here 
on the floor of the House. We can only recommend.

                              {time}  2130

  So when you see private accounts and when you see lack of health 
care, when you see as a small business person unfair tax policies, to 
be able to allow your business to prosper, when you see environmental 
laws falling short of what they should be, then you must understand 
that on this side of the aisle we try to do all we can. And I will give 
credit to some of my Republicans colleagues that think in the same way 
and that are trying to do better as it relates to addressing those 
issues.
  As to veterans, and I am from Florida and have many veterans in my 
district, and they come to me. Congressman, I cannot understand, it 
seems like the list is getting longer and longer every time I go to the 
VA. Well, that is because we are not standing by our veterans. We march 
up and down the street on Veterans Day and Memorial Day and recognize 
those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice. But on that Tuesday after 
recognizing the veterans, it will be business as usual and as it 
relates to VA hospitals and copayments that veterans have to pay more 
and more for.
  We talk about individuals in Iraq, and 70 percent of those who are 
losing their life in Iraq are under 30 years old. So these are 
patriots. These are individuals that are going out there even before 
they are able to start their own family, in many cases even before they 
have an opportunity to be able to buy their first home. So it is 
important when we start saying we are doing something in light of our 
young people, it is important that we pay very, very close attention to 
this.
  I am going to show one of these charts here. This is the President's 
priorities as it relates to tax cuts. It is greater than the funding 
that is available for veterans in this country. I will tell Members, I 
have a veteran in my family. My uncle is a veteran. He served in the 
Korean War. He is a soldier from the Army. He did what he had to do on 
behalf of this country because this country asked him to do it. We have 
$1.8 trillion in permanent tax cuts. We also have tax cuts for the top 
1 percent which is $0.8 trillion, and then there is $0.3 trillion as it 
relates to veteran budget authority.
  I think it is important that Members understand that the way we work 
here in Congress, we talk a lot about veterans and what we should be 
doing for them, and we talk a lot about their contributions. And many 
of us walk and march and wave in parades. And, ho-hum, we salute the 
same flag. But better yet, when it comes down to where we put our 
dollars, where we put our priorities, how we take action as it relates 
to veterans, you can see where it falls short.
  I will tell you once again, giving credit to some of my Republican 
colleagues, some of them have a real problem with this. The past 
chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was removed, removed 
from the chairmanship of the committee, because he did not pass the 
legislation that the leadership on the majority side wanted to see 
passed.
  Mr. Speaker, he did the right thing and he paid. He paid with his 
chairmanship. So that is why it is important that I remind Members of 
the majority and the minority, and we will continue to bring factual, 
accurate debate on the issues that are either happening in this 
Congress or not happening in this Congress. When we are able to come 
together on issues that are facing America, fine. We can talk about 
that and we can be very proud of those accomplishments. But when our 
priorities differ, it is important for us to pay very close attention.
  I have another chart here. Those of us in the 30-Something Working 
Group, we have a constant watch on this number. These are our recent 
numbers. As Members can see, we are close to $1.8 trillion. This is as 
of June 20. Below that we have the share of the national debt for every 
American: Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, you name it. 
Reform Party, just born 10 minutes ago, they already owe the Federal 
Government $26,255.76. This has to be paid off. This is not monopoly 
money, this is not funny money. This is not the Meek Report or the 30-
Something Working Group Report. This is from the U.S. Department of 
Treasury. We will give our Web site out a little later where you can 
look at it.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, to back up, I think it is important that we 
go through the fundamentals and talk about the difference. When this 
House was run by Democrats, we balanced the budget without one 
Republican vote. That is a fact. That is prima facie evidence, as they 
say in the courtroom. That is not a fabrication. That is not 
exaggeration. That is not something that some Democrat said on the 
floor and it is not true. We balanced the budget.
  The number we have here was balanced and was going into surplus. As a 
matter of fact, it was not as high because this is the highest the 
national debt has been in the history of the Republic. Since we have 
been a country, the deficit has not been this high. Some may say well, 
it is the war in Iraq. That is not true.
  Well, we ran into a hard time; 9/11 happened and we had to create a 
new department. That is not true. That is not why it is so high. The 
debt is where it is now because we have decided to give tax cuts to 
billionaires. That is a big part of it. And then we turned around and 
made it permanent. Now, middle-class tax cuts, I do not have a problem 
with that because that grows the economy.
  But when we start talking about a fundamental difference in how we do 
business on this side of the aisle and how the majority does business 
on that side of the aisle, there is a big difference.
  Like I said, I am not a generalist because I do not like to 
generalize, but when I say some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have problems with some of the decisions being made by the 
leadership, that is true. So I think it is important that we focus on 
the things that we can continue to focus on as it relates to the 
priorities and how we work to make things better.
  I am going to start talking a little bit about the plan that the 
President has put out and that some Republican Members of Congress have 
put on the table. The President has said that he wants to bring 
privatization to young people. Young Americans will be able to have 
private Social Security accounts; that they will be able to use their 
own money and have options and invest it in a way that they want to 
invest it.
  The President has come to this Chamber and addressed this Congress in 
the last State of the Union and said if you are over 55, do not worry 
about

[[Page 13597]]

it, it will not affect you. The President has also said he will fight 
to the end, making sure we have private accounts. Regardless of the 
fact that not only news reports but nonprofit and government entities 
have found, and the White House has admitted the fact that if you are 
in a private account, if you decide to take a private account or not, 
you will lose benefits.
  So it really fights against logic to say well, I know I will lose 
benefits, but it is important that we go the private account route, 
even though Social Security is not in a crisis at this particular time, 
not an imminent crisis.
  There have been words out of the White House that it is a crisis and 
it is about to go bankrupt, using words such as that. And media, along 
with some Americans who are informed on the issue of Social Security, 
have said, yes, we have to strengthen Social Security. Yes, we have 
concerns with the trust fund, but we are not about to go bankrupt.
  So after the 60- or 90-day tour of burning Federal jet fuel, your tax 
dollars, the President went around the country speaking to Americans. 
And some were not allowed to come into the talks, or what have you, and 
still after all of that Federal money spent, Americans still came back 
and said no, we are not with you on this one. And so it is important 
that everyone understands.
  So if you feel oh, well, and we are talking about what the majority 
is doing now. Until the American people say different, that is what the 
situation is going to be. We are going to bring balance to this debate. 
It is important. And I ask the Republican leadership to work in a 
bipartisan way not only with our leadership but with every Member of 
this House, making sure that we strengthen Social Security and not 
privatize Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, there have been hundreds of town hall meetings 
throughout the country, talking about this issue of Social Security, 
and young and old have said we want Social Security. It is the best 
government program that we have in many cases, and we want it to be 
strengthened, we do not want it to be privatized. We know that when you 
privatize something, you have to meet the bottom line. And the people 
that are in the business of so-called making you money, they have to 
make their bottom line. If they have to make their bottom line, I 
guarantee if they are in business and making their bottom line, they 
are going to take care of that business first and then maybe your 
investments may make some profit.
  Mr. Speaker, I was about to go into the new plan or philosophy that 
has been brought to this House in the way of a press conference about 
private accounts, but since the gentleman just got here, and I have 
been talking about Social Security and privatization, going through the 
minority and majority issues. It would not be a discussion, if we were 
in the majority, that we would strengthen Social Security in a 
bipartisan way like we did in 1983, and that we would be dealing with 
issues such as health care and other issues that are facing us. We are 
going to talk about that, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I welcome and yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back. I am sorry I am 
late, but I agree wholeheartedly with the portion I heard that the 
gentleman was saying.
  I think the focus that the 30-Something Group has zoned in on is the 
issue of this borrowing, this raiding the trust fund, this taking away 
from investments that can be made in the next generation.
  The President came out with a plan that said $5 trillion would have 
to be borrowed over the next 20 years, 1.5 to $2 trillion over the next 
10 years. So imagine $5 trillion being borrowed, taken out of the 
economy, borrowing it from the Japanese and Chinese in order to fund 
this scheme that the President was pushing.
  Now, all of a sudden, we have a new privatization plan that is a 
little bit different, and we will get into the details in a minute. I 
think the principle is the same: We are taking money out of the trust 
fund. I think any time we do that, we are putting ourselves in a very, 
very difficult position.
  The key principle for the Democrats is to make sure that we maintain 
the benefit we have now, make sure that we maintain the guaranteed 
benefit that our parents and grandparents have, and then make the 
system more solvent.
  There are very few details. Unless there is new information, there 
are very few details to this plan.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are giving it too much credit by 
calling it a plan. It is a philosophy. The proponents are saying, and 
they have now come up with a new approach, it is different than the 
privatization proposal, but it is just like the privatization proposal.

                              {time}  2145

  It would take a portion of the Social Security trust fund revenues 
and put them into private accounts. That is privatization. It does not 
matter whether the total size of the account is limited to an amount 
each year as it relates to the Social Security trust fund rather than a 
percentage for the participants' payroll taxes. The gentleman from Ohio 
and I are very familiar with the Potomac two-step. We know what it 
means to say, Look over here but we're going over there. And so it is 
important that we not only come to this floor and let the Members know 
and say it out loud, A portion of what? How much? What is a portion? I 
can guarantee you it is in the trillions.
  And if we start talking about, well, it is not necessarily the 
President's private account plan, but it is dealing with private 
accounts, that is privatization. I am sorry, any way you cut it, it is 
privatization. As we learn more about and as we start to unmask this 
GOP leadership vision, which is based upon theory, not fact, we will 
start to understand as it relates to the privatization scheme and how 
they are trying to get there.
  I know as long as we have air in our body and God provides us another 
day to live, that as we see this old, Well, it's not private accounts, 
or we're going to take a portion, we are going to translate that not 
only for the Members but also for the American people, Mr. Speaker, and 
it is important that we do that, and we are going to continue to follow 
it. But the gentleman from Ohio is 100 percent right, we do have some 
additional information; but the bottom line is that they are going to 
go into the Social Security trust fund to be able to, I guess, secure 
these private accounts.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is so eerily familiar to what has been going 
on with all these other different programs. I do not know if you got a 
chance to talk at all about this, but remember the Medicare program? 
Remember how they had this great program that was going to move the 
country forward and, God almighty, it was only $400 billion.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am sorry, can I correct the gentleman? It was 
$350 billion.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. $350 billion, it started, at the very beginning. 
Then it became $400 billion. Then you and I sat in this Chamber until 3 
in the morning and watched the arms get twisted, the eyes start to 
bulge, the chicken wings were coming in, they had the arms behind 
people's backs. A $400 billion Medicare prescription drug bill passed 
this Chamber by just a few votes, with a lot of arm twisting.
  Then we find out a couple of months later that the $400 billion 
prescription drug bill that was $350 billion became $700 billion. And 
then we found out that the $700 billion prescription drug bill that was 
a $400 billion prescription drug bill that was actually a $350 billion 
prescription drug bill became over $1 trillion when you start factoring 
in some of the out-years with absolutely no cost containment through 
reimportation or giving the Secretary the power to negotiate down the 
drug prices.
  So now all of a sudden we go with the Social Security program, and 
let us not even talk about the war and all the nonsense that was given 
to us prior to the war and what ended up playing out, we will keep it 
on domestic programs, now we are in the Social Security and

[[Page 13598]]

now they are telling us that, well, we had these private accounts and 
they were going to not cost too much and they were going to save us 
money in the long run; and we started the crunching the numbers, and we 
got to the fact that it was going to be $2 trillion over 10 years, $5 
trillion over 20 years. Our national debt now is $7.8 trillion, and we 
are going to add an additional 5 over the next 20 years.
  But now that did not work so now we are going to go back to the 
drawing board, and we are going to start playing a shell game with the 
Treasury bonds, but the bottom line in this is that they are still 
taking surplus money that is being used right now going into domestic 
programs, going to reduce the amount of the debt. They are going to put 
this in some kind of private account somewhere that nobody really seems 
to know what it is and have no way of balancing the budget or making 
investments for the American people.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is like walking down the hall and you never 
get to the end as it relates to the deficit. Let me just tell you a 
little bit more about this plan, because I had an opportunity to jot 
some things down. Let me just further break this down and water it down 
a little bit more so that we can all understand, every Member of 
Congress can understand exactly what we are doing or what some 
individuals would like to do.
  Under this new plan that they have put forth, Members of Congress, a 
Member in the House and another Member in the other body, they 
basically said under the current annual surpluses would shift to 
private accounts, so they are saying that what we have now as it 
relates to the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund would now be 
shifted to private accounts. The sponsors even admit the fact that this 
plan would do nothing to restore solvency to Social Security. This will 
not solve the Social Security issue.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Say it one more time.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. This will not. By the sponsors. This is not 
someone walking down the street.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is not the Kendrick Meek-Tim Ryan quote.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. There you go. It is not. This is by their own 
admission. No, it will not solve it. Furthermore, when you start 
looking at it, it really has three serious flaws. When you are talking 
about Social Security, there is no time to play around and start 
talking about, well, I am smarter than the next person. I believe this 
will work. We cannot go on belief. We have to know for sure. One flaw. 
The plan would worsen the Social Security solvency issue in the long 
run and in the short run. This is not something that will be kind of 
off into the future.
  The plan would also drain $600 billion from the Social Security trust 
fund in the first 10 years, $600 billion. This is what they are saying 
right now. You just talked about the prescription drug, quote-unquote, 
plan starting off at $350 billion and now $724 billion as we stand here 
today, and counting. This is what they are starting off with within the 
first 10 years. The third issue, the plan will cause Social Security to 
become insolvent 2 years sooner, in 2039 instead of 2041. This is not 
only saying, well, ladies and gentlemen, put your head down, we are 
going in for a crash landing; but we are going to hit the ground before 
we actually hit the ground. As a matter of fact, we are going to move 
the ground closer, or we are going to make the plane go faster to be 
able to hit the ground.
  I will tell you this right now, it is important and it goes to show 
you how the Republican leadership is willing to stop at nothing to deal 
with this private account issue. Furthermore, let me just say that some 
of my friends on the Republican side have great issues not only with 
the President's plan but with this plan. I appreciate my colleagues who 
are trying to figure out a way, but there is a better way without 
private accounts. There is a way to strengthen Social Security. Better 
yet, a total Democratic plan is not the best plan. A bipartisan plan is 
the best plan. That is what we are saying.
  Mr. Speaker, the people that I run into, they say, Well, goodness, 
can you guys and gals, can the Members, can you work together? Can you 
just get along? Can you just come together on this issue on Social 
Security? If we can come together on making sure our men and women in 
uniform overseas, thousands of miles away and three or four different 
time zones away from here, if we can try to do our best and make sure 
that they get what they are supposed to get in a bipartisan way, then 
we have to make sure that the individuals that are here and the 
families that are here and the individuals that have paid into this, 
even those that have died and left survivor benefits for their 
children, that they get a fair shake. It is our responsibility to make 
sure that happens.
  We talked about the fact that we are in the minority, we would like 
to be in the majority, but in the minority we can fight, too. And we 
will make sure that the American people know exactly what is going on.
  One other point. We have to give credit where credit is due. There 
are some individuals that are not in the leadership on the Republican 
side that are not with this private account thing. I am asking my 
friends, and I see them in the hall, we bump into each other here on 
the floor, they say, I saw your 30-something Working Group, you were 
talking about this, I am glad you said some Republicans are not with 
this privatization thing. I am one of them.
  Do you remember the movie ``Jerry McGuire'' when they took Jerry 
McGuire out to fire him? The guy went out to fire him. He said, man, 
I'm sorry, but they sent me and I'm here to fire you. He is staring at 
this glass of water, and he is not saying anything. The guy said, You 
should say something. That is what I am saying to my friends on the 
opposite side of the aisle: you should say something. You should rise 
up and say, Enough with the private accounts. Maybe yes; oh, I think 
it's okay; let's try to find another plan. That is it. Let us 
strengthen Social Security, and let us just put this private account 
thing out the door so that we can get on with the business of the 
Congress in a bipartisan way. That is what we are saying.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is a great point. Because here we are today, 
we are passing an amendment to the Constitution today that has not gone 
anywhere for 12 years, never goes anywhere. At the same time we are 
cutting benefits for our veterans, and here we go. All of a sudden we 
have got another Social Security plan. Let us fight about this one for 
6 months. Let us have the 30-something Working Group come here and 
fight about this one and pick this one apart for 6 months.
  When is this administration and this Congress going to start 
addressing the real problems in the country? That is the real issue. 
You go back to your district and you are in south Florida. No one is 
worried about their Social Security check coming to their mailbox. Look 
at this thing. We are good until 2047, 100 percent of your benefits, if 
we do not do a stinking thing here. Then for the next 20 years, you 
still get 80 percent of the benefits if we do not do a thing in this 
Chamber.
  And we consistently have this debate on this plan and that plan, and 
we do not have a problem. We have got a challenge, but we do not have a 
big problem with the Social Security plan. I go back home and young 
kids have lead poisoning, thousands of kids in thousands of school 
districts around this country have lead poisoning. Kids do not have 
enough money to eat. Eighty-five percent of students in some of these 
school districts qualify for free and reduced lunch, and we are talking 
about 2047.
  We are running a $600 billion-plus deficit that is offset by the 
Social Security surplus. It is irresponsible to sit here and try to 
pretend that 2047 is somehow a crisis in the country. It is 
irresponsible that we are going to consistently come up with new plans 
that we are going to argue over. Where is the new plan to make sure 
young kids have enough food? Where is the new plan to make sure we 
build new schools? Where is the new plan to make sure everybody in the 
country has health care?

[[Page 13599]]

  This is a farce. This whole debate has become a farce and we are 
ignoring the real problems of the people in the country. All you have 
to do is check one of the polls that come out. This body here has a 30 
percent approval rating in the whole United States of America. What are 
we doing? It is obvious that we are not addressing the needs of the 
problems. This is my third year, this is your third year, this is the 
President's fifth year, sixth year. The Congress has been in control of 
one party since 1994. Come on. We have not addressed the health care 
issue in the country. Forty-some million Americans do not have health 
care. I get calls from General Motors, Goodyear, small mom-and-pop 
businesses, food chains. No one can afford health care for their 
workers anymore.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The States cannot even afford Medicaid. They are 
saying Medicaid reform. You know why? Because businesses are saying, 
when folks are signing up and filling out their employment information, 
they are saying, well, I think you are eligible for Medicaid. I think 
you need to apply there because you will get more benefits under the 
Federal program versus what we can provide you.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Look at Wal-Mart. They have gamed the system. They 
pay their employees just enough for them to qualify for Medicaid, so 
they do not pay them any more. They do not give them health care 
benefits and they qualify for Medicaid. That is corporate welfare. 
Everyone is worried about cutting welfare checks for poor people. How 
about the rich people that get at the public trough and pig out?

                              {time}  2200

  We are subsidizing Wal-Mart while they are forcing their suppliers to 
go to China.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I wanted the gentleman to say that, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. But on and on and 
on this goes, and we are sitting here having a debate, a curious 
intellectual debate, about whether the new Social Security plan is 
going to work or not. It diverts $600 billion from the surplus. This is 
not working. The President's plan is not working. We really do not have 
a crisis for another 40 years, and meanwhile we are getting our clocks 
cleaned by the Chinese while they are taking the money and they are 
buying military equipment from the Russians. We are sitting here 
thinking who can come up with the next great Social Security plan.
  I know the gentleman goes back to his district every weekend, and I 
do too, and I know that people are not interested in our having 
intellectual debates about a problem that really does not even exist. 
That is left for the ivory towers. We are here to get the job done.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, getting back to 
talking about getting the job done, that is being shed light on, what 
the gentleman just shed light on as it relates to what is not happening 
and also what is happening to Americans versus for them.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), one of our colleagues, put 
forth a piece of legislation, and once again if Democrats were in the 
majority here in the House, which we fight for every day, of responding 
to the national health care crisis as it relates to young people, it is 
the Health Care for Young Americans Act that he has put forth that many 
of us are cosponsors of, which would allow States the option of 
extending health care insurance coverage to many uninsured young 
adults. States provide health care coverage to low-income uninsured 
children largely through two Federal/state programs, Medicaid and the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program. However, these programs 
often reclassify children as adults when they turn 19, making them 
ineligible for coverage.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to start on this health care issue somewhere, 
and we have solutions on this side of the aisle on how to deal with 
those issues. Just last week we talked about legislation that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member, has put 
before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced bills 
with other Members here in the House that we are both cosponsors of, 
that replenish the issue of the Pell grants, because the Bush 
administration has changed the formula that are cheating young people 
next year, the next fiscal year, out of $300 million of dollars that 
should be in that Pell grant program that they have taken away. We want 
to put those dollars back because we know, just like the gentleman said 
as it relates to competing against China, competing against other 
countries that are competing against us, where we have a negative trade 
deficit as it relates to dealing in business with them, but they are 
having a great time doing business with us; and meanwhile here in 
America we have people that are trying to put themselves to work and 
businesses that want to put them to work, but cannot afford to put them 
to work and are putting them out of work because they can no longer 
afford to keep them in work because the jobs have moved overseas and 
they cannot compete with the prices that are there.
  But the 30-Something Working Group is not only pointing out the 
issues but also talking about what we have on the table that would be 
on this floor or going through the committee process in a bipartisan 
way to find the solution, not for Americans that happen to be 
Democrats, but for Americans that want a fair share from their 
government and being able to make sure that they have not only adequate 
health care but to make sure that their children have it.
  I am a father, Mr. Speaker, and I was married 14 years ago, going on 
14 years, and I was a different person before I got married. But when I 
got married, it was a totally different relationship. And then when we 
start having children, we change as an individual, and then when our 
children start to get older, we continue to change. And then when our 
children, and I have not seen this yet, start to talk about leaving and 
going to college or getting into some kind of trade or getting out on 
their own, which some parents say that never happens, but when they 
start to develop themselves as young adults, we still parent. We still 
care about them.
  So when we start talking about health care for young people, when we 
start talking about making sure that they get a Pell grant to educate 
themselves, it is our issue. When we start talking about Social 
Security and we have the administration and some members of the 
Republican leadership saying privatization is the way to go when the 
only guarantee is $944 billion would go to Wall Street, that is our 
issue. We are here to watch out for future generations.
  I agree with the President in saying we have got to watch out for 
future generations, but we do not watch out for them. And seeing that 
deficit, that almost $7.8 trillion deficit that the gentleman has there 
behind him, there is not a real debate on the majority side or even 
legislation to provide health care or to make sure that every American 
is able to receive health care or making sure that small business is 
able to provide health care. There is not a real agenda, and if it is 
there, then why is it not happening? Why are we here saying what we are 
saying if it is happening? Because it is not happening.
  So that is the difference. People are asking, What is the difference 
between us and them? One, we are all Americans. Two, we have a 
Republican side and we have a Democratic side. Three, the majority runs 
the House of Representatives. So if people want change, if they want to 
bring about opportunity, then we have to put the pressure on the 
majority side to make them do the right thing, and hopefully they will 
do the right thing and then maybe it will work, or the American people 
are going to have to rise up, Mr. Speaker, and say they want different.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, 
that is a beautiful point. It is a beautiful point. The Republicans 
control the House, the Senate, and the White House. So obviously some 
agenda is getting implemented. Their agenda is getting implemented 
because they control all three Chambers. And when we look at what it 
is, it is obviously not

[[Page 13600]]

an agenda that is helping Middle America, small businesses, addressing 
the health care issue, education issue, and all of the things we have 
talked about.
  The gentleman mentioned earlier business not being able to cover 
health care and all this, and forced to go to these other countries. 
And I even think the Democrats in many ways, Mr. Speaker, have not 
addressed this issue in the proper way. Small businesses and big 
businesses, they are not out to screw their employees. And sometimes 
many workers may feel that way, but they are not out to hurt people. If 
they could provide health care and they had the resources to do it, 
they would, especially the small businesses. Especially the small 
businesses.
  So the question is, What have we done here? We cannot blame a big 
company for not providing health care to their workers if they are 
trying to compete with people coming and shipping goods in from China 
with low cost, with low overhead, because of all the situations that we 
have talked about here. The finger should be pointed at this Chamber. 
The finger should be pointed at the U.S. Senate and at the White House. 
We are the ones not addressing the health care issue in the country. We 
have not done anything.
  I cannot tell the Members how many small business people I meet on a 
daily basis when I go back home that talk to me about health care, and 
they run a business of 100 to 200 people. They care about their 
workers. When someone in a worker's family gets sick, they know about 
it. When a worker gets sick, they know about it. They know the name of 
everybody on the floor in the machine shop. And to say that somehow 
they do not care, I think is wrong. I think it misrepresents what is 
going on.
  And my point here, as scattered as it may be, is that the finger 
should be pointed to us. We swear an oath to the Constitution, and part 
of that means helping people, coming together in a democratic fashion 
to move society forward. And we are not doing it. We are leaving people 
behind left and right, whether it is health care or whether it is 
education or anything else.
  So I know we are wrapping up here and we are running out of time, but 
I wanted to make that final point and let the gentleman make a point, 
and we will get our little chart up here and wrap things up.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman gets a chance, I 
would like him to be able to share the Web site information and e-mail 
information not only with the Members, Mr. Speaker, but making sure 
that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about here. And I think 
it is important that we couch this 30-Something Working Group hour in 
saying that we have a number of issues that have to be addressed in 
America. We have issues that are facing people that punch in and punch 
out every day, or once did; individuals that ran a small business, put 
their kids through college, now having to really work hard to help 
their children or grandchildren make it in this America. And so it is 
important that we bring issue to that.
  It is also important to let people know that we have ideas, not only 
concerns but ideas. And we present that every week, at least two 
proposals that our colleagues have put forth or we have put forth to be 
able to strengthen America. So it is important that we continue on this 
track. I want to thank the gentleman and other members of the 30-
Something Working Group for doing what they do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me, and I think he is exactly right. 
We have got to step up and pose the 
vision, an alternative to what is going 
on here. Give us an e-mail: [email protected]. Send us an 
e-mail and we will possibly read it here. We have brought in a lot of 
e-mail the last few weeks. We have been swamped with e-mail the last 
few weeks.
  So I thank the gentleman for yielding, and we will be back again next 
week.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again I thank the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for his comments, and, like I said, everyone in 
the 30-Something Working Group, we would like to thank not only the 
Democratic leader but the Democratic leadership for allowing us to be 
here once again. And it was an honor to address the House, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________