[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1962-1969]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         30-SOMETHING DEMOCRATS

  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, it is always an honor to come 
before the House and also the American people in this great democracy 
of ours to address issues that are facing our Nation right now.
  I must say that earlier today we had an opportunity, the Democratic 
Caucus meeting and afterwards, having comments with not only the media, 
but other members of our caucus about the needs of Social Security.
  It is important that we make sure that Social Security is secured for 
years to come. We know that a number of Americans count on and look 
forward to Social Security being a part of their lives not only in 
retirement, but also in their everyday lives. We have 48 million 
Americans that are involved in Social Security right now, and they are 
not all retired. Many of them are in school. Many of them are middle-
aged individuals.
  Tonight we are going to have a number of Members from the 30-
Something Working Group, which I must add, Mr. Speaker, started in the 
last Congress,

[[Page 1963]]

in the 108th Congress. I cochair that working group with the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), and we are going to have a number of Members who 
are very, very concerned about the principles that not only the 
President but the majority side have put together as the way to save 
Social Security.
  I will be sharing a few of my comments along the way, but I want to 
make sure that my colleagues have enough time to share their concerns 
about what is happening, and the lack thereof that should happen, to 
make sure that Social Security is not only here for those that are 
enrolled now, but those that will be enrolled in the future.
  We know that every American participates in the Social Security 
program. We also know the average benefit of the person receiving 
Social Security now is $955 a month. I think it is important that we 
pay very close attention.
  Now, here in this Chamber last week, and I would say, around this 
time, the President came into a joint session of the Congress on the 
State of the Union and said that Americans over the age of 55 do not 
have to worry about the changes that he would like to make to the 
Social Security plan.
  I must say that that brought amounts of concern throughout the 
country not only with me and Members of Congress on both sides of the 
aisle, but many Americans. It was almost saying that if you are 55, do 
not worry about it; if you are under 55, trust us. And I can tell you 
that when we start dealing with generational Social Security, or one 
generation against the other, I think that is very dangerous. Social 
Security was never designed to deal with one segment of the population, 
giving them certain benefits, and another segment, not giving them 
benefits.
  But I just want to mention a few guiding principles that we should 
think about here tonight. Number one, we should try to make sure that 
we have a Social Security plan, that we are not borrowing from the 
Social Security trust fund. The Social Security trust fund is there to 
make sure that when we have a rainy day, or when we have a shortfall, 
we are able to go to that trust fund.
  What the President and the majority side are proposing now, they are 
saying that we are going to help save Social Security, but at the same 
time we are going to take us $2 trillion more into debt over the next 
10 years. There has to be a better way to make sure that we deal with 
the Social Security issue.
  Social Security is not at a crisis point. I have heard many Members, 
through press clips and press accounts and even here on this floor, say 
that there is a crisis, that there is a fire, that Social Security is 
going bankrupt, it is going belly up. That is not true. And I hope that 
through a bipartisan debate and a bipartisan plan, and I am not talking 
about one or two members of the Republican Caucus, I am talking about 
this entire Congress because we all have Social Security recipients 
that are our constituents that are counting on us to be able to make 
sure that Social Security is solvent for many years.
  Mr. Speaker, I will suspend on my comments right now, but I have my 
cochair here, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). He is a distinguished 
member in his own right.
  We have the privilege of serving on the Committee on Armed Services 
together and even on the same subcommittee. It has been indeed a 
pleasure working with him. He is also on the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce and Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And he is a well-
studied gentleman that I hold in high regard.
  Earlier today I was talking with the gentleman about what we share 
with not only the American people, but also with our colleagues, that 
this Social Security issue is so important that we are willing to take 
the debate not only here on this floor, but also take the debate out to 
America.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back with the 30-
Something hour. I think it has never been more crucial to our 
generation than the debate that we are having here on Social Security.
  Let me first say, before I get into the Social Security debate, that 
I believe that Social Security is just one of the major issues that 
this Congress is facing and one of the main issues that our generation 
is facing. But while this debate is going on and while you watch the 
news and we are talking about Social Security or we are talking about 
the war in Iraq, the President has submitted his budget to Congress. 
And if you want to talk about generational fairness, like our good 
friends who were here earlier in the first special order hour, talking 
about generational fairness, just look at the budget that was submitted 
to this Congress if you want to talk about generational fairness.
  We are going to increase the Pell grant by $100 a year for 5 years 
when tuitions all over the country have doubled over the past 4 or 5 
years. That is not generational fairness. Cutting food stamps, which 
primarily go to children, is not generational fairness. Cutting 
Medicaid, which goes to poor children, is not generational fairness.
  So we can have this debate, we can bring our talking points here and 
march the party line and say exactly what we are told to say when we 
come to the floor and when we go on the talk shows; and you can hear it 
over and over.
  Our colleagues on the other side are good, not always accurate, but 
good. But when you hear generational fairness, think about cuts to 
Medicaid, think about cuts to food stamp programs, think about the 
miserly increase in the Pell grant program, $100 a year.
  I think if we wanted to make young people a priority in the Congress 
of the United States, we would increase Pell grant more than $100 a 
year if we wanted to be fair to every generation. So while this debate 
is going on here with Social Security, there is this other thing 
happening with the budget, and I urge our friends at home to pay close 
attention to what is happening.
  One of the gentlemen over there said that it has been 70 years since 
Social Security; 70 years ago Elvis was born, 70 years ago, which was 
my favorite, the Great Depression was here. And I thought that was kind 
of funny because here we are having a debate about putting the Social 
Security system into the stock market, and one of our colleagues is 
quoting how much the world has changed since the Great Depression.
  Well, I am sorry, but if you had your money in the stock market, you 
had your Social Security in the stock market and we had another Great 
Depression, there would be a lot of issues that we would need to talk 
about. But before we get into the Social Security, I want to kind of 
lay a little bit of a foundation on how this whole thing works and what 
the generalities are of the President's proposal, because we do not 
know all the facts just yet.
  What is happening here is, in order to run the Social Security 
system, the worker puts in a little over 6 percent of their wages and 
the employer matches that 6.2 percent, and it goes into the Social 
Security trust fund.
  Now, what the President is saying he wants to do is for the worker to 
take that portion, and that portion of the 6.2 that the worker puts in 
is debatable as to what that side is agreeing on should happen, but 
they all agree that they want to put a portion of that 6.2 percent into 
the side private accounts that would go into the stock market.
  I think on the face of it, when you hear it and you are 20, 25, 30, 
35, 40 years old, it sounds like a good idea. Here is the problem we 
face when you do that: The money that you would normally be putting 
into the Social Security system, your 6.2 percent that you are now 
diverting over into a private account, that means that your money you 
are normally putting in is not going into the Social Security system 
for your parents or your grandparents. In other words, the system will 
not have the money in it to handle. So the number that is floating 
around just for the transition cost to go from the system we have now 
to the personal accounts system is $2 trillion.
  Now, we are already running a $500 billion deficit this year. So we 
are going out and borrowing money and paying interest on it because we 
are

[[Page 1964]]

spending money we do not have. Now we are saying that if we implement 
this Social Security program, you will have, the government will have 
to go out and borrow at least $2 trillion, with a ``t'', $2 trillion, 
from China and Japan which is where we are borrowing our money from now 
to fund the $500 billion. We have to go out to China and Japan and get 
another $2 trillion and pay interest on that.
  You are going to have a tax increase because we are going to have to 
borrow $2 trillion in addition to the $500 billion that we are already 
running with our deficit this year. So there will be a tax increase in 
order to fund this system, the transition costs, and that is if the 
numbers are right, if the $2 trillion numbers are right.
  Now, we know that before with the war we were told weapons of mass 
destruction, we were told we would be greeted as liberators, we were 
told that we would use the oil money for reconstruction. It will not 
cost the taxpayer any money. That never happened. We are $300 billion 
into this.
  Then, with the prescription drugs, we were told it was only going to 
be $400 billion; then 2 months later it was $550 billion. Then we find 
out today $1.2 trillion is the real number.

                              {time}  2000

  So we do not even know if $2 trillion is the real number to do the 
transition costs of the system. We are borrowing money, $2 trillion, 
increasing taxes; and that is not enough to keep the system going.
  There will also be a 40 percent benefit cut because all this money is 
starting to go. I am 31. If I stop putting my money in, that is less 
going in. My mother will have a benefit cut or people in my mom's 
generation will have a benefit cut of 45 to 50 percent because of that 
money that is not going in.
  I am getting my taxes raised; we are borrowing money from China and 
Japan. Our benefits will be cut for my mom and her generation and my 
grandparents and their generation.
  In addition to that, if this is not enough to convince my colleagues 
this is a bad proposal, the investors on Wall Street that are running 
your personal account, they are not going to do it for charity. They 
are not going to do it for free. They are going to charge, and what 
they charge in Chile where they have a system just like this is 20 
percent.
  So any benefit you may get in your personal account will be eaten up 
by a tax increase, by benefit cuts, and by the user fee that you are 
going to have to pay to the investor who is going to invest your money, 
all the while risking the greatest social insurance program in the 
history of the country.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, 
and I just want to say I think that he said something that was very 
important.
  If the $2 trillion number is not right, because as my colleagues 
know, under this Medicare prescription drug benefit that the 
administration put forth in the last Congress, we were told one number 
and that was wrong, and then it was revealed that the numbers were 
suppressed and the actual number is higher. Just today, looking at the 
news reports, that number is even higher, and so as these mistakes are 
made, future generations and even the present generation is put at risk 
financially.
  I can tell my colleagues one thing that is fact. We do know who will 
benefit from this privatization scheme, which is $940 billion, Wall 
Street, to put these public dollars in open water, to gamble.
  The other issue that I thought the gentleman really laid out was the 
fact there are no guarantees that the benefit level will stay where it 
is now. Matter of fact, we are pretty much guaranteed that benefits 
will be cut, even for those who do not take part in the privatization 
accounts, and so I think it is important for us to continue to share 
that with the American people.
  Once again, I just want to say that Social Security is going to be 
solvent for another 47 years; and also, we have 48 million Americans 
that are now recipients of Social Security, and it has a lot to do with 
local economies, a lot of our disabled and very frail individuals. This 
is what they count on as a source of income.
  I must add that we still do not have a Social Security plan. We are 
just talking about principles now, guiding principles; but one thing 
that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, 
shared not only with the Nation but shared with many of us here, 
Democratic guiding principles to make sure that we do not increase the 
deficit in any Democratic plan that is put forth, a plan that does not 
send us further into debt; that every dollar will be paid for and not 
borrowed that will continue to make the problem worse.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, this is 
really the first thing that we need to do. No matter whether we are 
talking about Social Security or the budget or whatever, first thing we 
need to do in this country is plug the hole, balance the budget 
immediately, and stop borrowing money from Japan and China, now. We 
need to do this immediately.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we also have one of our colleagues, 
matter of fact, one of our classmates that came in with us, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), who is past rules chairman in the 
Georgia senate and now serves here in the Congress on the Committee on 
Agriculture and also on the Committee on Financial Services. He is 
going to be sharing some words with us on Social Security, and it is 
always a pleasure working with him and being with him, and we look 
forward to his comments.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, 
my distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Meek) for yielding.
  I certainly want to congratulate him and of course my distinguished 
colleague from Ohio; and we are at a crossroads in America, and we need 
to pay very, very close attention to what is happening.
  I want to talk for just a few moments some plain, kitchen-table talk 
because these are kitchen-table issues. These are issues of substance. 
It is how your tax dollars are being spent with the budget. It is also 
how we are going about to fix the most effective, most meaningful 
government program that has ever been created in Social Security; and 
when I get to the Social Security part, I want to stress an emphasis on 
young people and African Americans because there have been some very 
significant misleading statements and bad information that is being put 
out.
  First, let me just say a few words, if I may, on this budget, because 
it is very, very problematic.
  First, the Draconian cuts in discretionary spending do not reduce the 
deficit. In fact, the deficit continues as far as the eye can see. This 
budget is not honest because it omits many important priorities, thus 
negating President Bush's promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
  Further, this budget has the audacity to raise taxes on our veterans. 
As Shakespeare's Julius Caesar said to Brutus, ``Et tu Brutus, yours is 
the meanest cut of all.'' I am here to say, in this budget, the meanest 
cut is to our veterans, when we need to be doing more for our veterans, 
not less, and certainly not raising taxes on our veterans, as this 
budget does.
  Veterans, wake up. I have got so many veterans in my district down in 
Atlanta, Georgia. I just spoke to the American Legion in Jonesboro, 
Georgia, and they said, David, you have got to do more for the 
veterans, and I said we would.
  Then I come back here and see that this budget that President Bush 
has submitted raises the taxes on our veterans, and then this budget 
also hurts our farmers by cutting back on badly needed farm programs. 
Our veterans, our farmers, no two groups of people stand for what is 
right and good about this country more than our veterans and our 
farmers. That is how we got started, with our farmers; and that is how 
we sustain and grow our freedom in America and around the world for the 
price that our veterans paid.
  This budget is not balanced. In fact, this budget creates a new 
record deficit of $427 billion for fiscal year 2006. This 
administration's budget continues a

[[Page 1965]]

record of deficits and rising debt over the last 4 years. For the third 
year, the administration's budget creates a new record deficit, while 
offering no plan to restore the budget to balance.
  The $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus inherited by this administration 
from the Clinton administration, which should have been used to 
strengthen Social Security, instead has been used and squandered and 
replaced by a deficit of $4 trillion over the same period from 2002 to 
2011.
  One goal of the deficit reduction accomplished during the Clinton 
administration was to save for the retirement of the baby boomers. We 
have had our eye on this problem for a long time. This is not just a 
problem coming and all of the sudden this administration finds that it 
has all the wonders in the world. We Democrats have been grappling with 
this problem of Social Security and the baby boomer generation coming 
for a long time, but we vowed that we will solve the Social Security 
problem without cutting benefits and without raising taxes and without 
robbing the Social Security trust fund of $2 trillion to set up private 
accounts.
  Instead, this administration has run up mountains of new debt which 
just passes the bill for today's policy choices on to our children and 
our grandchildren.
  Under the administration's policies, the annual burden of the Federal 
debt on the typical American family will more than double over the next 
10 years, with each family's share of the Federal interest payments on 
the debt rising from just over $2,000 per year to around $5,000 per 
year. This is not the kind of legacy we should be leaving to our 
future, to our children. This debt transfer is essentially a birth tax.
  This budget is not honest. Several of the President's top priorities 
are omitted from this budget. What surprises me is that these projects 
that he is omitting from his budget this week were signature points in 
his State of the Union speech last week. These omitted policies, 
including debt service, add $2 trillion to the 10-year deficit.
  Not included in this budget are transition costs for privatizing 
Social Security. If we are going to privatize Social Security and set 
up the account, we have got to have $2 trillion. Where is that in the 
budget? How is the President going to pay for it?
  By delaying the start of the President's new Social Security plan 
until 2009 and then phasing in over 3 years, the budget manages to 
avoid showing most of the costs, but they are going to be substantial. 
Social Security actuaries have estimated that the cost would be about 
$750 billion over the 2009 to 2015 period alone.
  Also not included in the budget are funds for the operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Listen, we are at war. We have got our troops over 
there. We asked for $81 billion for them. It is not even in this 
budget. I ask my colleagues, is that responsible? Just think, the 
additional $81 billion being asked for this year for our soldiers, for 
their armor and for the military are not even in this budget; and 
according to the Congressional Budget Office, costs for operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan could run as high as $400 billion more than the 
budget includes.
  Another thing, the alternative minimum tax which protects middle-
income taxpayers is not in the budget, $640 billion.
  Then the veterans, my heart goes out for our veterans. They will not 
be able to even go into a hospital without first of all paying a fee of 
$250. This budget imposes a $250 annual enrollment fee for veterans 
without service-connected disabilities who also have incomes above the 
VA means-tested levels, and the budget also increases pharmacy 
copayments for our veterans from $7 to $15, over 100 percent. Veterans, 
wake up. Get on the phone and call your Congressman and see what they 
are doing to our veterans in this budget.
  Both of these veterans taxes were proposed in the last two budgets; 
but we in Congress rejected them and I assure my colleagues, under 
Democratic leadership we will reject them again this year.
  This Federal budget should be an honest blueprint for the spending 
priorities of the government. However, this budget is not honest. It is 
passing our obligations, responsibilities, and challenges to our 
children and grandchildren; and that is immoral. Let us stand up for 
the honesty and goodness of our Nation and reject this budget.
  I want to talk for just a moment on the Social Security; but as we 
can see, it is very difficult for us to even before we get to the 
Social Security, we have got to explain to the American people what is 
happening with this budget and the unmerciful cuts.
  Despite what the President claimed in his State of the Union speech, 
his proposal to privatize Social Security hurts everyone. His plan will 
cut guaranteed Social Security benefits by more than 40 percent in the 
coming decades, risky private accounts which will cut retirement, 
disability and survivor benefits of millions of Americans and will not 
help Social Security; but it will begin the process of dismantling it.

                              {time}  2015

  And somewhere I really believe that that might be the intention.
  Social Security needs a solid source of funding, not a plan that 
makes the problem worse by draining $2 trillion away from this 
important program and forces Americans to borrow millions of dollars 
from foreign governments, as my friend from Ohio pointed out. Why do we 
want to mortgage this country to China, to India, to Japan, to Saudi 
Arabia? Because all of our debt is being handled by them; 90 percent of 
our new debt is in the hands of foreign governments. And just the 
interest alone that we are paying them is more than what we in our own 
country pay for national security.
  America, wake up. Social Security needs a solid source of funding and 
not a plan that will make it worse. This President insists he is 
undertaking this drastic dismantling of Social Security for the good of 
our young people. Well, young people, I want you to listen to me 
tonight. And if you know any others, please get other young people on 
the phone. Go to the phone and call them and get them to listen to this 
debate tonight.
  The gentlemen from Georgia, Ohio, and Florida want to set the record 
straight for our young people, because this administration wants 
Americans to believe that private accounts are a great deal for those 
under age 55. The President is wrong. Privatizing Social Security not 
only does not help, it is a hindrance to the financial security of 
young people, for several reasons:
  First, these private accounts, young people, listen to me, these 
private accounts will not be monies that will be handed to you so that 
you will be free to invest however you see fit. There will be a few 
plans chosen for you and handled for you, plans that are complex, have 
restrictions and liabilities on them. And then there is the annuity 
issue that needs to be addressed.
  Again, I hope that most young Americans will begin to think about how 
their lives would change if their parents did not have Social Security 
on which to depend. In fact, without Social Security, their parents 
would likely have to rely on them for a portion of their income. And 
caring for aging parents is difficult enough for adult children without 
the added burden of having to replace income from promised Social 
Security benefits which were lost through the President.
  Young people must realize that the problems inherent in privatizing 
Social Security are there, and they must reject them.
  Now, finally, I must say how disappointed and how disturbed I was 
when President Bush said this. He said since black men die sooner than 
whites, Social Security is a bad deal for them, and that private 
accounts is a good deal for them. Now, I like President Bush 
personally, and I assume he is a decent man. I have to assume also that 
he must be getting some very bad information.
  I agree with columnist Paul Krugman, who noted recently that 
President Bush has blatantly manipulated the facts and made false 
assertions all in the hope of convincing African Americans that this is 
a good deal

[[Page 1966]]

for them. The claim that black people get a bad deal from Social 
Security because of a shorter life expectancy is wrong. And Mr. Bush's 
use of this false argument is doubly shameful because he is exploiting 
the high childhood mortality rate and the high black youth mortality 
rate to promote his privatization plan instead of trying to remove the 
deep inequities that remain and that black people face in our society 
every day.
  Blacks' low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in 
childhood and young adulthood. It is because of the lack of health 
insurance and other health disparities. What the President is talking 
about is like cutting your legs out from under you and then condemning 
you for being a cripple.
  What really is shameful about Mr. Bush's exploitation of this 
disparity is that it is taken for granted. The persistent gap in life 
expectancy between African Americans and whites is but one measure of 
the deep inequalities that remain in our society, including highly 
unequal access to quality health care. We ought to be trying to 
diminish that gap, especially given the fact that black infants die 
three times more often than whites.
  In conclusion, my colleagues, let me just say that the President is 
wrong on this Social Security issue and the private accounts. We have a 
problem with Social Security, but that problem must be solved in a way 
that stands for what is good and what is right in America. And what is 
good and right in America is that we protect and strengthen Social 
Security. And you do not do it with the private accounts.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Scott), and I can tell him that I concur with many of 
his comments. It was a thoughtful presentation.
  And just to reinforce, the trust fund has $1.7 trillion in reserves 
and will provide full benefits for the next 50 years, and even 80 
percent of the present benefits we have now beyond that. So to say 
there is a crisis and that the sky is going to fall tomorrow is just 
totally inaccurate.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Absolutely.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, and it is very important for 
the people to know that we have a surplus in Social Security as we 
speak today. And the only reason we will be having a problem is because 
we folks have borrowed from Social Security to pay other bills. And we 
have had IOUs, which are Treasury bonds, but they are good all the way 
up through 2052. And then beyond that, of course, we will even be able 
to pay 80 percent of it.
  But I think this kind of system with the President is that you create 
as much of a crisis as you can. But I do not think the American people 
will be fooled on this one, as they were with the crisis over the 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe so either.
  Mr. Speaker, I am joined by one of our very fine new colleagues from 
Florida. We represent neighboring districts, and we served together in 
the State legislature and now she is here in the Congress serving on 
the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague so much, and 
I have to say that it is a tremendous pleasure to join my 30-something 
colleagues, my colleague from Florida and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan). I am glad to see the ranks of the 30-somethings are expanding, 
especially on our side of the gender balance. No offense to my 
colleague. It is especially exciting that I can rejoin the Meek-
Wasserman Schultz tag team that we enjoyed in the Florida legislature.
  I am so glad my colleagues have been spending some time this evening 
talking about the significant disparities between the President's 
proposal and the crisis, the so-called crisis, it seeks to address and 
the facts. So I would like to spend a few minutes separating fact from 
fiction and maybe boil this down to some simple terms. Because often in 
Washington we talk about trillions of dollars, which is really an 
unfathomable amount of money. It is so hard for anyone to think about 
what $1 trillion means, never mind several trillion. So I want to spend 
a little time about what this means to real people.
  Clearly, the President's proposal makes Social Security weaker, not 
stronger. It does nothing, as the gentleman laid out, to resolve the 
funding challenges that currently face the system. The President's plan 
costs nearly $2 trillion to implement in the first 10 years alone and 
several trillion more dollars each decade after that. And his 
privatization proposal bankrupts the entire system faster than it 
would, that is the term he used, which was an inappropriate term, but 
it literally bankrupts the system in only 15 to 20 years. And as my 
colleague stated, without doing anything, which no one here is 
advocating, we have another 50 years to go and we can still pay 80 
percent of the benefits.
  There is a funding gap. We all agree with that. And we have to 
address that funding gap. But it does not have to be closed by reducing 
or cutting benefits. That is a totally inappropriate solution.
  The real crisis here is not in Social Security; the real crisis is 
the poor management of the Federal budget. That is the bottom line. We 
have someone here who has been mishandling the direction of the Federal 
budget, and it needs to be fixed.
  When I see a problem in my household budget, what my husband and I do 
is, we make sure that we do not give that problem an overdose of 
medicine. When we address a problem with our budget, we address it in a 
way that is proportionate to the size of the problem. We give the 
problem not an overdose of medicine, but we give the problem an 
aspirin. And that is the difference here.
  We saw earlier this week that the President's budget does not even 
cover the cost of any Social Security reform. This is despite the fact 
that extending the tax cuts permanently costs five times more than 
fixing Social Security for you, for me, for our children, and for their 
children. If we rolled back the President's tax breaks for just the 
wealthiest 1 percent, it would cover most of the funding gap right 
there, most of the funding gap just by the wealthiest 1 percent of 
Americans, rolling back their tax cut and not making it permanent.
  Of course, the Bush administration today eliminated any discussion of 
limiting tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans or anyone 
else just to ensure Social Security's solvency.
  The bottom line is that privatized accounts put Americans' hard-
earned retirement savings at the whims of the stock market. I do not 
know too many people out there that have had a tremendous amount of 
confidence in the stock market these days so that they would trust 
their entire retirement future and the security of that to the whims of 
the stock market.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, I think 
that is a tremendous point that we have overlooked, and that is why we 
get an hour to do this, to make all our points.
  This benefit that we have now is guaranteed. It is inflation adjusted 
and guaranteed. No matter what, you get your benefit. I think what the 
gentlewoman from Florida is saying, what happens if in 2000 or 2001, 
when you open up your 401(k) one day, it is cut in half and you were 
planning on retiring and it takes another 10 years to get back to where 
you once were, all this risk for no real gain overall?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker.
  Another important point, and why the three of us are here tonight 
highlighting this, is because our generation needs to understand the 
President has laid out a rosy scenario under his proposal that simply 
does not exist. No group of Americans has more reason to fight the 
privatization of Social Security than young Americans and young workers 
and their families. The President's proposal cuts benefits, it pulls

[[Page 1967]]

the rug out from underneath our retirement security, and it adds 
trillions to the debt.
  Privatization will ultimately result in a crisis that means millions 
of young people will basically be forced to work into their 70s, when 
right now, under the current system, they could retire far earlier with 
a guaranteed benefit. And they would have to ultimately pay higher 
income taxes for the rest of their lives.
  I want to talk just briefly about the simple terms that I described 
earlier. This is how the President's proposal hurts everyone. The costs 
of privatization clearly explode the national debt. Most Americans 
understand what happens when you run up your credit card bill and do 
not pay it off. It is impossible to get out from under that debt, never 
mind trying to get a bank loan based on the credit you have, because 
your credit is gone.
  That is exactly what the President is doing here, essentially. He is 
using up America's credit, yours, mine, our children's, even our 
grandchildren's to fund a radical and untested program that puts the 
safety of America's workers and retirees at risk. That is really the 
bottom line. Because of the misplaced spending priorities, the national 
debt has grown so large that an average family of four pays thousands 
of dollars each year to pay down the government's debt, which is just 
like the interest that you pay on a credit card when you do not pay off 
that debt every month.
  Imagine what that family is going to owe when trillions of dollars 
are added to their monthly statements in the form of new and higher 
taxes. And what do they get for all that spending? Benefit cuts, 
removal of their retirement security, all of which is subject to the 
whims of politicians and the stock market's fluctuations. And that is 
totally inappropriate public policy, and young Americans should be as 
deeply disturbed as we are.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell my colleague 
from Florida that many of the individuals that are beating their chests 
about the President's plan, and I will not even call it a plan because 
there is no plan; I have not received a bound copy from the White House 
saying this is the Social Security plan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Maybe he did not send it to you.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, maybe he did not. But I do not think 
anyone has it, and I think there is a lot of Federal jet fuel being 
burned flying throughout the country, lining up individuals that are 
excited to see the President of the United States, but who may not 
fully understand the fact that they are going to receive fewer 
benefits, that Social Security is there for them for the next 50 years, 
and even beyond that with 80 percent of the benefits if we did nothing 
as relates to Social Security.
  We have to make sure that we maintain and do the things that not only 
the Democratic Congress did along with President Reagan, making sure we 
kept Social Security sound for future generations, but we need to make 
sure we do it in a way that we are not scaring Americans and making 
them feel that the sky is going to fall when it is not.

                              {time}  2030

  The only thing that is guaranteed here is that $940 billion that will 
then fall into Wall Street and the companies, maybe the two or three 
that will be chosen to handle these private accounts, that will give 
young Americans, or even middle-aged Americans because, remember, the 
President said if you are over 55, do not worry. He also told us a 
number of things as relates to Medicare, and we are finding out it is 
not true. I am not saying that the President is not being truthful with 
us; I am just saying we are not getting good information.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, so we are going from a guaranteed 
benefit for Social Security recipients to a guaranteed payment for 
those Wall Street investors. No matter what happens, whether the 
investments or the portfolios they are negotiating go up or down, they 
are going to get paid, guaranteed. Why would you shift that from the 
beneficiaries?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up something that 
maybe has not been discussed and that is the disproportionate impact 
that the President's plan will have on women. Women are already 
starting far behind the eight ball as compared to men in their 
earnings. There are a number of factors that leave women even more 
vulnerable to this radical proposal than it leaves men.
  In 2003, for example, the average monthly Social Security benefit for 
a woman was only $798. That is $241 less than the average man's monthly 
retirement. Women's earnings are 77 percent relative to men back in 
2002. Women who reach retirement age live, on average, at least 3 years 
longer than men, and Social Security is the only source of retirement 
income for one in three unmarried women.
  Without Social Security, 52 percent of white women, 65 percent of 
African American women, and 61 percent of Hispanic women would live in 
poverty upon retirement without the safety net that Social Security 
provides. It provides more than half of the total income for female 
widows and for single women.
  So when the President talks about the different groups that his 
proposal would disproportionately benefit, he does not seem to care 
that we would leave women in this country completely out in the cold.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to emphasize that the 
young people need to realize that if you were to make this move into a 
private account, you will correspondingly have benefits cut down the 
road. You are going to lose in benefits far more than you would in the 
accounts with the risk-taking involved and because your Social Security 
investment is protected from inflation, it is guaranteed, and when you 
have those cuts taken away as a result of going into the private 
accounts, it should make one stop and think a little bit before even 
entertaining the idea of going into private accounts because they would 
correspond in the cuts.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan) has some examples of what can happen to many of the young people, 
and the gentleman knows he is in charge of the charts. I just want to 
say, it is important to not only give our e-mail address out, because 
we want to continue to talk with Americans about this issue, and also 
Members of Congress we would say, and even the other body, to go onto 
our Web site to get information on what we talked about today with the 
Democratic leader of going out into America, speaking to groups that 
want to know more information about what this Social Security 
privatization scheme has in store for them if we fail them as a 
Congress.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right that 
we should have a debate about this.
  To e-mail us, it is 30something [email protected].
  We have some charts here that kind of play out President Bush's 
scenario with four younger people. The one we have here is 18-year-old 
Ashley. We wanted to get a woman in there. These are the benefits under 
current law, what Ashley would get when she retires in 2052.
  Under the current benefit, she would get $1,628 if we do not do 
anything. Under President Bush's good blueprint, which is the best case 
scenario, but we have to factor in tax cuts, the 20 percent you have to 
give the investors, the borrowed money, everything else, the risk is 
probably not included in here, Ashley would get $1,099. So you are 
talking about a $529 difference. This is our system that we have today, 
and the Ponzi scheme which has been proposed. That is Ashley.
  Now we have Eric. Eric is 28 years old, lives in Miami, Florida. He 
retires in 2042. Under current law, when Eric retires in 2042, Eric 
would get $1,478 a month. In 2042, under the President's best case 
scenario, which we call the good blueprint, Eric would get $1,098 which 
is a $380 difference per month, just doing the math quickly.
  Clearly, under the current system, Eric at age 28, if you are 
listening and you are 28 and we keep things solvent, maybe make some 
minor adjustments

[[Page 1968]]

to keep the system going, you get almost $1,500 a month and under 
President Bush's plan, $1,100 a month.
  Last we have Jennifer. Jennifer is from Ohio. She is 38 years old. 
She retires in 2032, a little closer. Under the current law, she will 
get $1,343 a month. Under President Bush's scheme, $1,099. There is 
still a $250 a month cut because there is less money going in.
  People are putting money in private accounts. There is an increase in 
taxes because you have to borrow $2 trillion and you have to pay your 
investors their 20 percent for making the deals for you. So even 
someone 38 years old retiring in 2032 is still going to see under 
President Bush's plan a cut of $250.
  All we are saying is, we have a guaranteed benefit. The system is 
working. No one is going to hit the lottery on this system; we 
understand that. But it was not meant to hit the lottery. It was meant 
as a social insurance program. Fifty percent of the beneficiaries, if 
they did not get Social Security, would live in poverty; and we are 
going to flip this system upside down and go borrow $2 trillion from 
the Chinese, who are cleaning our clock economically anyway. It does 
not make a whole lot of sense.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that people 
understand that we are not just talking teenagers, we are not just 
talking about 20 or 30 something. Here is Bill. Here is an example. And 
many of these numbers, as we start talking about Social Security being 
able to provide the benefits that it has now, is not the Davis, Scott, 
Wasserman Schultz, Meek and Ryan report, this is from the Congressional 
Budget Office, numbers that they have given us. This is not anything 
that we sat in a room and said, let us see what works towards our favor 
here. This is fact and this is reality.
  Here is Bill, who is 48, from Georgia, probably from Montezuma where 
my folks are in Georgia. Let us say Bill retires at 2022. Under the 
present benefits, he has $1,266 in the year 2022. But under what the 
President is proposing under his privatization scheme that will 
guarantee billions for the corporations that are already prospering 
under his administration, and I mean the big corporations, not the 
small ones, he will receive under the Bush plan, $1,141.
  To create a crisis, to then step into a gamble is unfair to the 
American worker. It is unfair to American families, and I must add 
family benefits and survivor benefits are holding families, people who 
work every day, folks who wake up and catch the early bus in the 
morning, people who know what it means to have a 15-minute break in the 
afternoon and in the morning, these are people who work every day.
  Here in this Congress, we have to make choices. Here, in the 
Democratic Caucus and in the 30-Something Group, we have made the 
choice to be on the side of the individual that works every day and has 
paid into the system every day and expects that we will not go back on 
the deal as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) pointed out earlier, 
as we have done to veterans, and we are doing to veterans in this 
budget that the President has put forth. It is very unfortunate.
  It is time for not only the American people to wake up, but also for 
Members of Congress to wake up and stop following the so-called leader, 
and say, this is wrong and I am not going to move forward with a plan 
that is going to give my constituents less than what they had when I 
was elected.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I know we are using Congressional 
Budget Office numbers, and that needs to be understood. We are not just 
making this up to fit the picture that we want to show here.
  But the question I have is, when I sat in the Chamber and listened to 
the President deliver the State of the Union address, my understanding 
of the President's proposal was that he would try to put forward a 
proposal that would ensure future retirees would have more money. The 
illusion that he has created is that by privatizing Social Security, 
putting the future of Social Security into the stock market, he led 
people to believe Wednesday night that they would retire with more 
money than they would have if we left the system as it is. But each of 
the graphs I have seen here tonight shows consistently there is less 
money for each scenario, whether you are the youngest future retiree or 
the oldest future retiree.
  How are we wrong and he is right? How is it that he does not see that 
he is costing the government trillions of dollars, pulling the rug out 
from under our retirees and causing them to have less money, not more? 
What are we not getting here?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this is a real pattern of behavior. I 
think when we are talking to the young students out there, the 20-
somethings and 30-somethings, and we look at the track record of the 
last 4 years, weapons of mass destruction, oil money for 
reconstruction, American taxpayers are not going to have to pay a dime. 
Mr. Wolfowitz testified $5 billion was all the Americans were going to 
have to pay, and now we are $300 billion in; and that we would be 
greeted as liberators, and on and on and on. None of that was true.
  Then we went to the Medicare bill. It was $400 billion. Two months 
later, it was $550 billion. And today, and it is funny, if it was not 
so sad, it would be hilarious, $1.2 trillion. We went from $400 billion 
when we voted on this thing, to $1.2 trillion. So this is clearly a 
pattern. So when they come to us with this proposal, how are we 
supposed to believe them? How are the young people supposed to believe 
them?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So is their theory, if they say it enough 
times, it will become true?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think that is it. Basically we are going to bet 
the ponies, and we do not have any money in our pocket, so we are going 
to put it on our credit card at 21 percent. We have to pay the Chinese 
back because they issued us the credit card. It is a dangerous game.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that 
we reflect and understand the purpose of Social Security. This is an 
insurance program. We have investment programs for the stock market. We 
have 401(k)s in which an employer and an employee contributes. We have 
other kinds of alternatives. But, remember, it was the Democratic Party 
that birthed Social Security. It has been the Democratic Party that has 
protected Social Security. Social Security has been the bulwark of 
making America have the highest standard of living.
  Let us not forget the words of the gentleman who produced Social 
Security, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who said we want to make sure that 
at no time in America will any of our people, as they get old, succumb 
to the throes and the woes of poverty.

                              {time}  2045

  It is an insurance program, plain and simple. If they want private 
accounts, there is nothing wrong with investing in the stock market. 
There are opportunities to do that. They have 401(k)s. But Social 
Security is there.
  And I just say we are addressing most of our remarks to 20-somethings 
and 30-somethings, but our 20-somethings and 30-somethings will soon be 
40-somethings and 50-somethings and 60-somethings. At the end of the 
day, we need to make sure that we do not disturb that cushion that has 
provided America with the highest standard of living in the world, and 
that cushion is Social Security.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Scott) could not say it better.
  And just in closing, Mr. Speaker, as we close, we want to make sure 
that we want people to go on to find out more about not only what House 
Democrats are talking about, but as it relates to our tour throughout 
the country. It is democraticleader.house.gov/30something. Also, we 
would close with the message that Democrats want to strengthen Social 
Security without slashing benefits to Americans that they have earned. 
Private accounts make the Social Security challenge worse, enforce 
massive benefit cuts, and increase the national debt. Once President 
Bush stops insisting on private accounts, then we can have a true

[[Page 1969]]

debate as it relates to making sure the promise of Social Security will 
be around for future generations to come.
  It is always a pleasure to co-chair this hour with the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan). And also I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for being a part of the working group 30-
something. And to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), it is always 
good to have a 40-something. I will go ahead and put it that way.

                          ____________________