[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2341-2347]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to be 
before the House of Representatives to speak directly to our 
colleagues. I think it is important for us to remember that in this 
democracy of ours it is important that we share good information and 
accurate information on the issues that are being debated here in this 
Chamber and in the capital city, and I think it is also important for 
us to remember that many Americans counts on us to represent them in a 
way that is an honorable way, a way that will give them good 
information so when they stand in time of judgment on who their 
leadership will be here in Washington, D.C., that they can make a sound 
decision.
  There have been a lot of things that have been going on in the last 
couple of weeks. We have heard reference by other Members on both sides 
of the aisle to the President's budget and also to the President's 
State of the Union, but we also have a great deal of responsibility to 
the American people to make sure that we represent this branch of the 
government, which is the legislative branch.
  This is our 30-something Hour that has been designated by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader. This is 
now going on our third year of putting voice to many of the issues that 
are not only facing young people in America but also facing their 
parents and their grandparents. We try to make the direct connection 
between those that are trying to help themselves, that go to work every 
day, go to school every day, to those parents that know what it means 
to punch in and punch out every day to supply the necessary resources 
for their family to have a better opportunity than what they have had; 
all the way to the grandparents that, of course, their hope and prayer 
is to make sure that their grandchildren and their children are able to 
provide for future generations.
  And so this brings us to Social Security, and in the 30-something 
Hour I am so glad to be here once again with the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan), whom I admire quite a bit, who serves with me on the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  I just want to briefly say, as it relates to Social Security, when 
people think of Social Security they think of silver and blue hair. 
That is not necessarily what Social Security is all about. There are 
millions of Americans, I must add, that count on that Social Security 
promise that they were made in their years of working and providing for 
this great country of ours. And I must say that there are 48 million 
people that are receiving benefits, and they are not all over the age 
of 60, and they are not over the age of 55. They go all the way down 
into the younger years, and 17 percent of our young people are 
benefactors of survivor benefits of Social Security.
  Also, when we look at it, there are 33 million retirees that are 
receiving Social Security, and we also have seniors that are looking at 
an average of $955 from their Social Security benefits every month.
  So when we talk about Social Security, we are talking about the real 
backbone, the real backbone of what we do and what we are all about 
here in the U.S. Congress in providing the leadership to make sure that 
it is solvent. We do know that it will be solvent for another 47 years, 
and we even know that after that period, 80 percent of the benefits 
that are being paid out now will still be able to be paid out. So the 
fact that there is a three-alarm fire on Social Security, that is not 
necessarily the case.
  But to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), it is just such a 
pleasure. I was really looking forward to this. Last week when we left, 
I just could not wait until Tuesday night when we could get back in 
this Chamber again and share very good information with our colleagues 
and hopefully continue to stay in the fight to make sure that Social 
Security is here not only now but also for future generations.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding to me, and I would like to say how much I enjoy this as well.
  And those of us who ran for these positions and had to ask 700,000 
American citizens to give us their blessing to come here and represent 
them, there is nothing better than having a vigorous, honest debate 
about an issue that faces the whole country and do it in a way that is 
not personal. I am sure the President in many ways thinks that his plan 
is the best plan, and we in many ways think it is not and in the long 
term it will end up hurting many of these 48 million people, the 48 
million people that this program lifts out of poverty.
  I would like to take this opportunity tonight here in Congress to 
talk a little bit about the situation that the country is in right now. 
I do not think we can have this Social Security debate in a vacuum, 
just saying here is the little program and it has no effect on anything 
else that is going on around it. So we have some charts here that many 
of our colleagues have been using, and I think they are going to be 
very important to impress upon the American people exactly where we are 
fiscally in the United States of America. So I have this chart here 
that talks about the deficit that we are in, and then we will get into 
the plan later, and we will discuss the different approaches.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what plan?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The blueprint.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I mean, we need to make sure the 
American people understand there is no plan. There is no plan. We said 
last week that I have not received a bound copy from the President's 
office or from the majority about a plan on Social Security. There is 
no plan. So we need to make sure that people understand. I mean, people 
can talk concepts and philosophy all day; but it is important that once 
we start talking about a plan, then we can have a true debate, 
especially if it is a plan from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and 
Republicans.
  And the last time we dealt with this, Mr. Speaker, before our time 
here in the Congress, Democrats were in control and worked with Ronald 
Reagan, God bless his soul, in coming up and saving Social Security. 
And it was a true crisis then. They had to act right then. They did not 
have an opportunity to play around and dance around a tree and do the 
old Potomac two-step with the American people. They made it happen and 
they made it solvent, and that is the reason why beneficiaries, young 
and old, are able to celebrate that here today. But right now I just 
want to make sure that people understand, because I had an opportunity 
to check the different reports that are around. We get the 
Congressional Daily a.m. and the p.m. and the Congressional Quarterly, 
and there are a lot of publications that are around.

                              {time}  2015

  I can tell you that with administration, this is not about the 
President;

[[Page 2342]]

this is about a philosophy that is on the majority side to privatize 
Social Security. That is what it is all about.
  It started back in 1978 with the President. In 2000 he said he was 
very adamant about wanting to privatize Social Security. Then in 2001 
the President appointed a commission to develop a privatization plan 
for him. Then in December of 2001 the commission gave the President 
three options to privatize Social Security. In December 2001. Silence. 
Nothing.
  The President, you would have thought he would run to the Hill with 
the bill. Still nothing. Still no plan produced. In 2004, running for 
reelection, the President again said he was adamant about private 
accounts and a solution for Social Security. Then days after the 2004 
election he said he has the ``political capital'' to come to the Hill 
and make it happen. Still no plan. I just think it is important for us 
to share this with folks.
  Then the budget that was just submitted that we are all talking 
about, Democrats and Republicans, because there are a lot of good 
things in there, it is all about our principles and our values here in 
this Chamber; what we believe is important to the American people. 
Still no mention, still no plan, still no numbers on his privatization 
plan for Social Security.
  There are now a number of press accounts saying there may very well 
be no plan for this year. So when we start with the President flying 
around burning all kinds of Federal jet fuel, taxpayers' money, talking 
about his philosophy, Social Security is such a deep issue from young 
to old that we cannot walk around and start talking about, ``well, we 
think'' and ``we believe,'' because the Congress, I hope, will not go 
for it.
  So I just want to make sure. I know the gentleman is leading up to 
that. In some instances they say, ``Let's put the cookie on the bottom 
shelf so everyone can reach it and understand that there is no plan.'' 
So when folks start talking about Democrats, saying ``Where is your 
plan,'' there is not a plan out there now.
  Our plan is to make sure we pay for every dollar we spend or someone 
may borrow to make the deficit greater, to be able to pay it back. It 
is not a Federal emergency right now to protect Social Security.
  So I think it is important. I think this chart is good. I apologize, 
but this is something I wanted to say.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
appreciate the gentleman's passion on the issue, and I think he is 
absolutely right. There is not a plan.
  Basically what we are talking about and what the President last 
hinted for sure is he wants private accounts. He has made that 
perfectly clear. He has made it clear that privatization, throughout 
his career, since the time he ran for Congress in the seventies, he has 
been advocating these kinds of plans, where the private accounts go. 
Somehow, through a lot of fuzzy machinations, he figures out a way to 
say that will somehow shore up the system.
  What I want to do is basically paint the picture of where we are now, 
because you cannot say we are going to implement this ``option two'' of 
the commission's plan or the blueprint that the President has 
insinuated or indicated portions of. But we know he is for the private 
accounts, and many on the other side are for the private accounts as 
well. But we cannot just do it.
  My point is this: Here is a graph of the annual deficit that we have 
in the United States of America as of 2004. Now, the debt is the 
overall deficits all added up over time. We just raised the debt 
ceiling last year, I think it is over $8 trillion. Or the majority did. 
They raised the debt ceiling to $8 trillion. But here is what is 
basically happening.
  Here in 1989, we had a deficit in 1989 of about $153 billion for that 
year. It continued to slide. You remember President Bush-1 said ``Read 
my lips, no new taxes,'' and then he ended up putting some taxes on and 
cut some spending and put some caps on some programs.
  Then, in 1993, we still had in 1992 a $290 billion annual deficit. 
All these numbers are adding up to create our national debt.
  Then the Democratic House, Democratic Senate and President Clinton in 
1993 passed the budget, and it was after that budget that we started to 
begin to reduce the deficit. Then we had all the economic growth, 22 
million new jobs because of the balanced budget, low interest rates, 
and we all remember what it was like in the nineties, until we got to a 
$236 billion surplus.
  To make a long story short, since 2000-2001 with the decline, now 
here we are with over a $400 billion deficit for 2004; red ink as far 
as the eye can see. So right now we have to borrow over $400 billion 
from the Social Security Trust Fund, the Chinese and Japanese 
primarily, the same China that is cleaning our clock in manufacturing. 
So we are borrowing this money from the Chinese.
  Now, the President's plan, and let me just show real quick, that is 
the deficit, this is the debt, which is all the deficits added up. In 
2004, the Republican House, Senate, and President Bush raised the debt 
ceiling to $8 trillion, and the projection by the Congressional Budget 
Office is by 2014 the debt will be $13.6 trillion. That is a heck of a 
debt to have as a Nation, very unhealthy for our economy. So right now 
we are borrowing over $400 billion.
  The President's proposal, what little of it we have about the private 
accounts, the gentleman and I, should we choose to access one of these 
private accounts, would take a part of the money, a percentage of the 
money we put into Social Security, the 6.2 percent we put in, and we 
will divert that over into a side account, which leaves a gaping hole 
for our parents and grandparents in the Social Security system.
  So we have to borrow, if we do the private accounts, which the 
President has said he wants, $1.4 trillion, with a ``t,'' $1.4 trillion 
over the next 10 years. Because everyone has thrown their money in 
these side accounts, we have to plug that hole.
  So we do not have, as evidenced from this chart here, we do not have 
the money, because we are already borrowing $400 billion. If we were in 
surplus we would be having a different debate right now, but we are 
not. We are borrowing $400 billion now. Then we are saying over the 
next 10 years you have to borrow another $1.4 trillion, and over the 
next 20 years we have to borrow $5 trillion to pay for private 
accounts.
  We cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford to borrow $5 trillion. 
And if one thinks we are going to be able to run this scheme and our 
taxes are not going to go up, then you are missing the point. You are 
not being responsible to what the facts are.
  What happens is as the government is going out and borrowing money in 
the international market from China, there is less money for the 
private sector to go and get, which will raise interest rates for 
average citizens who want to buy a house or a car.
  That is kind of the background of where we are right now.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is just so 
very important to the American people, and also Members of Congress. I 
put a great deal of responsibility on Members of Congress.
  I do not take great pleasure, even though I am honored to serve in 
this institution of the U.S. Congress, elected by my constituents, 
representing not only my district but the State of Florida, but we are 
U.S. Members of this great House.
  I must say that we have to make sure that we frame this correctly, 
that we are in the minority. The Democrats are in the minority in the 
House and have been during the time of that great dive that we see on 
that chart that the gentleman just illustrated to the Members of the 
House.
  We have a great deal of responsibility. We are serving in the House, 
in the legislative branch, that is overseeing, or watching, I should 
say, the largest deficit in the history of the Republic. Not once 
before was it like this. This is the largest deficit in the history of 
the Republic.

[[Page 2343]]

  Can the gentleman put the chart back up on ``backsliding into the 
deficit ditch?'' I think this is important, because I think that nose-
dive, you can see in the blue you have President Bush-1. You have the 
green, Bill Clinton and the Democratic House and other body that did 
what it took when the going was tough to say that we wanted to bring 
about surpluses.
  I will tell you in this House, I believe there were only five or six 
Republicans that joined the Democratic majority in passing that budget 
that took us into a surplus. One of the main themes was making sure 
that we could provide and keep the Social Security Trust Fund in good 
shape. We made the tough decisions. Back when President Reagan and this 
House, Democratic House, I must add, at that time, did what it took to 
make sure that Social Security was there for those that are receiving 
checks now and benefits now from Social Security, even survivors, they 
did what they had to do.
  Guess what? Two-thirds of the Democrats in this House voted in the 
affirmative to make the right decision to make sure that the guarantee 
we told the American people we would provide, that we did. I am proud 
of those Members and individuals that made that vote.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
those of us in this business and those at home obviously interested in 
this kind of debate and what is going on in your community and country, 
looking back and having all the anger and personal issues that we have 
today here in Washington, D.C. and in our State capitals, politics has 
gotten so bitter and so personal, can you imagine President Reagan and 
Tip O'Neil strolling out saying, ``We did it. We sucked it up for the 
American people and did what was best; and part of it was your idea and 
part was our idea; and part was conservative and part liberal. But we 
made it work for the American people, for the people who this program 
lifts out of poverty and the 48 million people that get it.''
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am saying all 
of that to say we have to work together. You cannot come to the Hill 
with a plan and say ``It is our plan; and, guess what, if you do not 
like it, so what?''
  This is Social Security. The campaign is over. For folks who did not 
get the news flash, our colleagues, the campaign is over. The signs are 
down, the commercials are no longer on television, and it is important 
that we actually work towards what the American people would like for 
us to work towards: bipartisanship.
  I will tell the gentleman what is also important in this debate: If 
there was a Democratic majority here in this House and a Democratic 
majority in the other body across the hall and there was a Democrat in 
the White House, guess what? Democrats could not pass a plan by 
themselves without Republican input. Because do you know something? 
When Mrs. Johnson goes to that mailbox counting on that Social Security 
check to be there, and when that 21-year-old young man or young woman 
that has a benefit from their father, who worked his entire life and 
was cheated on his job because the pension plan was raided and Social 
Security was the only thing there, his only financial legacy is that 
benefit to his child in Social Security. You cannot play around with 
that.
  You cannot be a Democrat or Republican or an independent when it 
comes down to that. You have to be an American, and you have to come 
clean with the American people.
  There is one other thing the gentleman mentioned that I think is 
very, very important and that we definitely need to highlight and 
illuminate as much as we can. What we tell the American people is 
important, and I will say to the Members that are watching us now, I am 
not going to go back to ancient-time double-digit years. I did not have 
to run over to the Library of Congress to look this up. This was just 
within the last 12 months.
  During the Medicare debate that took place right here on this floor, 
where the clock was held until 4 a.m. in the morning, arms were being 
twisted, Members were trying to make the right decision but were not 
allowed to, I must say here on this side of the aisle, Democrats stood 
firm, because the Medicare prescription drug plan was important to 
those that put it on the line for this country and allowed you and me 
to have an America that we can be part of and represent.

                              {time}  2030

  During the Medicare debate, the other side, the majority side, the 
Republican side, said that the true costs of the Medicare prescription 
drug plan, what the administration said and the majority embraced, that 
the bill would only cost $350 billion. I remember that just as clear as 
my daughter going to school for the first day. I can remember that 
number because it was a number that was highly suspect because there 
was just no way in the world that you can satisfy pharmaceutical 
companies and provide a benefit to the American people.
  Now, that is what makes me very concerned about this Social Security 
plan or, I'm sorry, not plan, but concept, that folks are talking about 
around here on the majority side, saying that there is a 3-alarm fire.
  We were originally told $350 billion. Then it slowly moved up after 
someone got fired in one of the budget offices and said, well, I do not 
know. This fell behind the copier. We did not necessarily get this 
page. There is a page 3 to the 3-page document or 2-page documents that 
you received. It slowly moved up to $400 billion. That is a lot of 
money, $400 billion.
  Then sure enough after the debate, we returned back here after the 
campaign and the signs went down, and then someone lo and behold said, 
you know, the true cost, the really true cost of the prescription drug 
plan that was put forth by the administration, it started off at $350 
billion. This is real money. This is not chump change. It started off 
at $350 billion. The true cost is $530 billion. It stops there. What 
are we going to hear in another couple months? $700 billion?
  Like my mother used to say, money does not grow on trees. The 
gentleman just mentioned China. I am not upset with China for making an 
investment in our country; but, you know something, I have a problem if 
they ask to cash in, because we will be in trouble. They are backed by 
U.S. bonds and what-have-you; but we are going to go through some real 
financial issues, and we are now.
  So when we talk about Social Security, I know the reason why, I am 
sorry. I stopped at $530 billion. I am sorry. The true cost, since this 
continues to go up, this is the fourth number that has now come in, is 
$724 billion. It is continuing to inch up.
  So what we are hearing now may well be the message that we are being 
told by the majority in this House and by the administration over on 
Pennsylvania Avenue right down the street from this Capitol building, 
what we want to hear, telling people over 55 they do not have anything 
to worry about. Do not worry. You can go to sleep. It is those folks 50 
and below that may have some concerns as it relates to privatization 
accounts and cutting benefits.
  But, you know something, this is America and we should not and we 
will not as far as we are Members here, and I stand firmly with our 
Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and 
not budging and saying we are not playing generational warfare. One 
thing about grandparents I can tell you, I have learned a lot about 
them and I have children and all, they will turn on you when it comes 
down to those kids. But they will not turn on the financial future of 
their grandchildren and children's retirement. They will not. And this 
administration and the majority is going to be up for a rude awakening 
when it comes to judgment time in 2006 if they continue to play around 
with the Social Security and the security of American families and 
their retirement.
  So I do not think that we are wasting our time, not a bit, by coming 
to the floor on a 30-something Working Group to say not only are we 
speaking and

[[Page 2344]]

giving some voice that people care about, and I know the gentleman has 
some e-mails that he will read later on. This is serious business.
  One other thing. I flew back to my district. When you go back to your 
district and you see your constituents and they say, please do not 
allow the Congress or the administration to cut my benefits I worked 
for for my entire life. We have watched veterans go through it. We have 
watched the copayments go up for veterans. Guess what? At the VA they 
do not ask you your party affiliation. They just tell you that your 
copayment has gone up and that your wait time has gone up to see the 
ophthalmologist or whomever you may want to see at the VA.
  But when you come down to 48 million Americans that what they were 
told and promised what would be at the end of the rainbow as it relates 
to their hard work over the years and that people who have died, have 
passed on, gone on to heaven, knowing that their children will receive 
their death benefits, we cannot break that deal. And we cannot sit idly 
by and watch them broken.
  I want to commend here in this House and in the other body and those 
that are willing to leader up enough to tell their constituents, I am 
not on this philosophy that the administration, the majority side, is 
on in this House of saying that there is a 3-alarm fire. Now we have to 
privatize Social Security that will bring $940 billion-plus to Wall 
Street. I am with the American families.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentleman 
more, and I think he spoke on behalf of a lot of us. I have two stacks 
of letters about this high over in my office from seniors. We have got 
2,400 as of last week, and I have not got the update yet this week, but 
2,400 letters from seniors in my district saying that they are against 
this proposal. They do not want their benefits cut, and one phone call 
that says, support the President and the President's private accounts.
  But what has been amazing is on several of the letters of those 2,400 
that have come in, the senior citizens will write a little note on 
there, and just typical of our grandparents' generation, they say, I am 
not worried about my benefits, but please fight to make sure that my 
grandkids will have Social Security when they get older.
  Now, is that not typical of that generation, of the Greatest 
Generation who made sacrifice after sacrifice after sacrifice until 
this day to not worry about Social Security for them but worried about 
it for their grandchildren?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman, those 
are the kinds of values that we talk about as it relates to our 
communities and our neighborhoods and our families. That is what it is 
all about. Those are true American family values.
  Like I said, I have kids and I watch grandma. They push me aside and 
say, I am on their side, and say, we are against you; and they spoil 
them and then they say, now you take them home. But as it relates to 
the financial viability of the bloodline of the family, grandparents 
and even parents, they do not say, I have mine, get yours, son. I am 
56; you are 30. Good luck. They do not say, well, I have all my 
benefits, but I do not know about yours.
  And guess what, I want to make sure that people understand because 
sometimes, yes, the campaign is over; but in our democracy, there will 
be other elections. And people need to take into account that 
sometimes, not from what you receive in the mail, not the phone call 
which you receive, not someone coming to tell you where you should 
stand on a particular candidate because he is our guy or our gal. It is 
what that individual has done or what that individual will do as an 
elected Member of this Congress as it relates to what is happening in 
my family economically.
  I have to make sure that my daughter, if someone is receiving 
benefits now and they are called to glory, they have to make sure that 
their daughter is going to be able to receive their benefits; and 
Social Security is pretty much all they have. It is the guarantee. It 
is not the Enron plan. It is not some of these companies that are going 
belly up and then you see folks crying on television saying, I paid in 
for years and years on that pension plan. So it is important that 
people understand.
  I just want to say it kind of hits home here in the Congress today; 
two of our colleagues said that they went to school on the survivor 
benefits. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who is the ranking member on 
the Select Committee on Homeland Security. They talked about growing up 
where they lived and if it was not for Social Security, they would not 
have been educated. And there are stories like that throughout America. 
We talked about a few of those last week, and we will continue to talk 
about those stories.
  We are here to say if we want to make sure that Social Security is 
solvent beyond the 47 years, it is going to be able to provide 100 
percent benefits that it is providing now, then let us have 
bipartisanship.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, said 
this past week on one of the Sunday shows that Social Security screams 
of bipartisanship and that it demands bipartisan input, and that is 
what we have to have. It cannot be Democrats against Republicans or 
Republicans against Democrats because, guess what, the majority in this 
House right now as it stands and as it has been for double-digit years, 
10 years or so, set the agenda, set what comes to the floor, talks 
about what legislation will move and what legislation will not move. It 
sets the agenda on what amendments will come to the floor. It sets who 
the committee chairpersons will be. It sets pretty much when we come to 
Washington and when we do not come to Washington. And if the majority 
said, there is no session this week of the House, then there will be no 
session of the House.
  So I must make sure that we remind our colleagues of the power that 
they have, the power we have to make the right decision or the American 
people will make it for them. So those are true American values that 
the gentleman has outlined.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Just to follow 
up, the number of people, Social Security beneficiaries, 15 million of 
the 48 million recipients, 30 percent receive disability or survivor 
benefits. We all grew up with kids in our schools that one of their 
parents got killed or one of their parents had cancer and passed away 
at a very early age. Those kids, our friends, received benefits from 
the Social Security system. This is a social insurance program. This is 
not the mega-millions lottery system, multistate lottery system. This 
is a social safety net, and you do not play games with this kind of 
system.
  You do what you did and what we did in 1983: in a bipartisan fashion 
sit down like adults and fix the problem and not try to destroy the 
system. I mean, I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but when I 
went through all these and we had a briefing today from people.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The gentleman is sharper than he thinks.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I spoke with some people today who study this and 
understand this system, and after hearing all the facts and after 
studying this for the past few months of what the President's proposal 
is or what little of it that we know about, we need to make sure that 
we save this system and protect this system. That is really what we 
need to do.
  What an honor it is for us to be joined here by a great friend, great 
athlete, great baseball player on the congressional Democratic baseball 
team, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
tonight. I consider myself an honorary member of the 30-something Group 
now that I have passed 40. I am here strictly as a visitor. But I was 
taken by some of the discussion that was going on here on the floor, 
and I want to make one philosophical point and one economic point to 
essentially affirm some of the things that the gentlemen were saying.
  First of all, there is a great deal of discussion inherent in the 
President's

[[Page 2345]]

debates that seeks to drive a wedge between two generations. The beauty 
of the Social Security program is it was a classic generational 
compact. One generation supports the other. And the President when he 
embarked on his campaign across the country kept saying, well, seniors, 
you do not need to worry about this. We are not touching your benefits. 
This is entirely about the next generations.

                              {time}  2045

  This is the first time in my memory, and we, the three of us, have 
not been around as long as some other Members of this august body, that 
you did not hear the President seeking to unify the country around an 
agenda. You heard him trying to divide the country to perpetuate an 
agenda, and I think that most Americans realize, whether they be 
younger or older, that at the end of the day the Social Security 
program has worked exactly as it was intended since the moment it was 
passed.
  Sometimes you build up large surpluses and you spend them down as the 
next generation retires. Sometimes you have gifts, sometimes you have 
ebbs and flows, and there has been inherent in this debate a certain 
sense of it is about me now, rather than the idea that we are going to 
be there for the next generation the same way they were there for us.
  If I could just make an economic point based on the charts that you 
have been showing, some people say and even some economists say, well, 
deficits really do not matter. There are a lot of people in this matter 
who are in the deficits-do-not-matter school. Well, that may have been 
true in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s because, frankly, there was no 
place else on Earth for someone to invest their money except in U.S. 
dollars. If you ran up a big deficit, it did not matter. It is not 
going to stop someone from coming in here and saying, well, if you are 
the Chinese, as my colleague so aptly put, if we are the Saudis or 
Egyptians, if we want to put our money someplace safe, we have to buy 
Treasury bills and invest in the economy, we have no other choice. What 
choice do we have? There is no other economy in the world that can 
sustain it.
  Well, for the first time the Euro has now become a reserve currency 
of the world that is competing with us. So what does this mean to the 
average New Yorker, the average person who lives in Ohio or Florida?
  What it means is that we, the Federal Government, are going to have 
to compete with Europe in terms of who is going to have the higher 
interest rate. What does that mean? That means that not only are T-
bills going to be higher, your interest rates on our credit cards is 
going to be higher. Your interest on your bank loans is going to be 
higher. Your interest rate on your mortgage is going to be higher. If 
you think this only matters to you, you are 30 years from retiring or 
getting a Social Security check today, you are completely wrong.
  If we keep going on this path, what we are going to be doing is 
essentially competing with ourselves for interest, and it is going to 
wind up costing average Americans hundreds and hundred of dollars each 
month on their dollars. If we have one good thing going for us in the 
last couple of years, it is low interest rates. If it were not for low 
interest rates driving demand for homes and cars, this economy would be 
in a worse rut than it has been in the last several years, and we are 
putting that at risk, and that is why deficits matter.
  Deficits matter for another reason. Those of us in this House, and I 
think the three of us are in this crowd, who are true conservatives 
when it comes to money, we look at the idea of being a conservative 
person is to say, look, I derive certain debts, I rack up certain 
debts, whether I borrow money or I spend freely, it is my obligation to 
be responsible for those things. Anyone who sits in this Chamber, who 
campaigns as a fiscal conservative, who supports the continuation of 
that chart that is to your right is simply not a conservative. You 
cannot legitimately make that claim.
  I believe that in the years that you refer to when Tip O'Neill and 
Ronald Reagan got together and did things, frankly sometimes did a 
half-a-loaf thing that neither side was completely happy about, the one 
thing they did have was this intellectual consistency about saying if 
we are going to spend it, we are going to pay for it; if we are going 
to augment the Department of Defense, we are going to do the best we 
can to pay for it.
  We even reached a moment in this House when our deficits were at the 
paltry amount of $250- or $260 billion, where we said we are going to 
pass laws to restrict ourselves. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act said you 
cannot spend a single dime unless you pay as you go. A lot of people 
said it was really bad because it hurt some programs more than others, 
but at least it was an acknowledgment in this House, an acknowledgment 
that the government has, at the end of the day, to be responsible for 
the deficit.
  Today, the philosophy is entirely different. Today, it is not our 
problem, which brings us back to the original problem, that we have now 
started to say it is all about us, it is all about this moment in time, 
not thinking at all about the next generation, not thinking at all 
about the past generation. That is why deficits matter. That is why the 
President's plan matters to wherever you are on the demographic scale, 
this is an issue that matters to all Americans.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) because he has 
been out here many times talking about this. People have been sending 
e-mails and saying we get it. That is where fundamentally the President 
has to understand. This is not a matter of going out and doing a 
campaign swing like you mentioned. This is a matter that fundamentally 
people understand it is our obligation, both in the Social Security 
system and fundamentally to our children, that we do not continue 
exacerbating that problem.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has an issue of 
concern, I just want to say that it is important that the American 
people understand that Social Security is not a program for the poor. 
Social Security is a program for everyone in America. It does not 
matter if you started off with a small business, a hammer and two 
nails, and you became the largest business in your community. If you 
are paying in your contributions to Social Security, you are going to 
receive a benefit from it.
  What is important is that people understand that this is not, and 
when we say Social Security program, I want to make sure people 
understand, this is for everyone. This is also dealing with survivors, 
and so many of them are helping themselves through the contribution of 
their parents, and many of them are no longer with us. So this is the 
only real legacy that they have, financial legacy, to be able to move 
on their aspirations.
  One thing that I must say that we are saying on this side of the 
aisle, and I think the majority needs to take some responsibility for 
this, too, you mentioned how can you say you are conservative, 
meanwhile you are seeing a nose-dive there at 450 with a ``t'' 
trillion, to 425 trillion, I mean down, nose-dive. How in the world can 
you say that you are a conservative? Now when we look at it, we know 
that.
  Our colleagues, some that put it on the line literally for us to go 
up to the 236, it was a price to pay.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am 
sorry to interrupt. I just want to make this point.
  As we run these deficits, as the gentleman from New York just stated, 
it is not free. We are borrowing, money and we have got to pay interest 
on it. The interest payments and the money that we have got to pay on 
our debt becomes a greater portion of the budget that we have every 
year here, and that is less money that we have for Pell grants, that we 
have for investing in the health and education and general welfare of 
our society in order to lift more people up, to create taxpayers.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it is national 
defense and it is antiterrorism programs. It is all of the things that 
all of

[[Page 2346]]

us fight tooth and nail for here every year.
  I would argue that interest on the national debt that we are racking 
up every year is an expenditure that we get no value for. It is 
essentially foreign aid is what it really is because so much of these 
payments are going overseas because so much of our debt is held by 
overseas entities, but we do not get anything for that.
  You cannot go back to your district and say now we have 20 percent of 
the budget is going to just make these payments.
  Let us not forget something. The Social Security program is not 
supposed to be a profit retirement plan. The President is absolutely 
right. If we invested since 1935 every dollar in the stock market, we 
would have a lot more money in the trust fund for sure. The problem is 
the line would not go like this. It would go like this.
  The program was intended to be fundamentally an antipoverty program, 
a safety net program. It is a program that is there for everyone, and 
also, the idea you are getting out a lot more than when you put in. The 
President says that it is a sign that the program is broken. No. That 
is the way it was created because we assume that from generation to 
generation, just as your generation did for us, we would be creating a 
stronger economy with more coming into the Social Security program.
  He said there are so many fewer children supporting the parents. 
Yeah, but we are making a lot more. Thank goodness that economic growth 
continues growing which is even more preposterous, that when the budget 
actuaries concluded we are going to start going broke in the year 2042, 
they based it on a presumption that for the first time we are going to 
have a 20-year-period where we start going in the other direction. Some 
optimistic projection.
  I keep hearing about the President being the ultimate optimist. Well, 
not if you believe the Social Security actuaries.
  So the idea that somehow we get some value by doing this, I defy my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that if you want to pay for 
homeland security, which I do, if you want to pay for national defense, 
which I do, and if you want to pay for farm subsidies, as many of you 
do, we do not actually have farms in Brooklyn, but then you cannot do 
any of those things if you are paying that much in interest.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the other point is, as my colleague so 
aptly put this, the up, down and the ebb and flow of the stock market. 
Some of the plans that are being offered from the other side say no 
matter what your savings account or your private account, where it is, 
if it is down at the bottom, you rode the wave and then you started 
losing money, like if you wanted to draw out your private account in 
2001, in 2002 when your 401(k) was cut in half, some of our friends on 
the other side of the aisle are saying it is okay, there is a 
guaranteed minimum benefit for you, which sounds good.
  So here is a guy who, instead of paying into the Social Security 
system, is paying into the private accounts, and then when the private 
account goes belly up, the government will come back in again for the 
second time and bail them out with a guaranteed benefit. There are so 
many risky propositions here.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Once again, there is no plan. It is almost like 
saying I want to build a house but we do not have a blueprint, but we 
are going to build it and we are going to build it on philosophy and we 
are going to build it on what we may put out as guiding principles.
  I do not know if you heard us a little earlier, but at the top of 
this hour we talked about the majority side are saying, well, you are 
saying that we need to do something about Social Security, but where is 
your plan? The same thing, where is their plan? I mean, the President 
came into this Chamber there at that podium and said there was a state 
of emergency, urgency, about dealing with Social Security.
  This is not the Weiner-Ryan-Meek report saying that Social Security 
will be solvent for years. They made the tough decisions back when 
Reagan and Tip O'Neill was running this House, this House and even the 
leadership in the other body. So it is important that we come clean 
with the American people.
  If we can, I know that we have some e-mails that some folks sent to 
us, but we have to make sure that we are asking that the American 
people and also that Members of Congress are even asking some of the 
tough questions of the administration.
  I want to commend especially some of our colleagues on the other side 
that have said I am not comfortable with this guiding principle thing; 
I am not comfortable with the fact that people may lose benefits or 
will lose benefits under these private accounts.

                              {time}  2100

  And I do not believe that I can support it.
  Now, I hope that their back is strong, because I can tell those on 
the majority side that that is the same debate we had with the Medicare 
vote. The gentleman from New York was here on the floor. He saw that 
debate. We all have constituents, and now we are up to 740-something 
billion dollars, starting from 350.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues that the ultimate 
decider of this issue is not going to be the three of us. The ultimate 
decider will be the numbers of people sending e-mails to 
[email protected] and who contact their elected officials 
who say, before you go anywhere on this, you should all understand 
there are some issues that still unify a country that is 50-50, and 
Social Security is one of them.
  The endearing beauty of the Social Security system is that across 
demographic lines, across political lines in all parts of this country, 
just about every American has a story within their family about how the 
Social Security has worked for them. Now, some of our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are famous for standing up in March against 
something and then meekly, no pun intended, in June, voting for it. We 
saw that with the Medicaid bill.
  But at the end of the day, if we get a sufficient number of calls or 
e-mails to [email protected], we are going to have the 
ability to say, you know what, this is pure politics now. And if we let 
that voice go out there that this is not going to be touched, we will 
eventually win enough of them. And we will do this the old-fashioned 
way.
  There will be a core on the other side of the aisle that says we are 
unprepared. Now, admittedly, their ancestors in the Republican Party 
did not cast a single vote for this in 1935 either, so I am not so sure 
that they have the ownership that we do of it. And we are proud this is 
a Democratic legacy program, but it is also one that has helped 
millions and millions and millions of Republican families in suburban 
areas and rural areas and everywhere else.
  So the die has not been cast. This is ultimately going to be up to 
the people of the United States of America. And they are going to see, 
just like they got sold a pig in a poke with the Medicare bill, we are 
not going to let that happen with this as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The more 
cynical side of me, and being a 30-something I should not be cynical 
just yet, but that side of me says that this whole thing may be a big 
side show. While we are having this debate here and we are all focused 
on Social Security, we have a budget coming up here that is ugly. We 
have a budget that is coming up here that is going to slash food stamps 
and Medicaid and increase the Pell grant by $100 a year for 5 years 
when tuition costs have doubled.
  To those listening at home, I think we need to keep our eye on a 
couple of these issues here. Social Security is definitely one of them, 
but I think it is very important we understand there is this other game 
going on here with the budget and how dangerous that may be for the 
long-term consequences of the country.

[[Page 2347]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleague from Ohio to 
get to those e-mails. I want to make sure we talk about if someone 
starts in a company with a hammer and two nails, and then works for 
that company, not own that company, but that paid into Social Security, 
and maybe became the foreman or forewoman or whatever it may be, the 
supervisor, that that individual is counting on one thing. They may not 
be able to count on the company pension plan, but they can count on 
Social Security being there for them. Democrat, Republican, 
Independent, Green Party, what have you, it is there. And that is what 
it is intended for.
  If my colleague from Ohio could, so we can let some of the folks know 
that our e-mails, of course we cannot bring in the reams of paper and 
e-mails, and I am not being funny, I am just saying that I want to 
commend those that have e-mailed in and voiced their opinions.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, just to remind everyone of the e-mail 
real quick: [email protected].
gov. Send us your thoughts on this.
  We have a couple here: one from a Harvey Johnson from Baltimore, who 
says the ``issue of privatization of Social Security hits home with my 
mom, the age of 81, recently widowed, now lives on a total income of 
$1,000 a month from just Social Security. When you factor in the cost 
of much-needed medicine, bare essentials such as rent, utilities, and 
food, I still supplement her income nearly 50 percent just to make 
minimal ends meet. The thought of a drastic reduction in her benefit 
would force us to make even further tough decisions, including possibly 
the loss of some of her independence if she were to need to move again. 
Frankly, the more I hear of the President's proposals, the more upset I 
get.''
  That is from Harvey.
  Earl watched on C-SPAN last week. He wanted us to make sure to 
mention that the ``current system also provides disability and survivor 
benefits.''
  Earl, we did talk about that. We took note of your e-mail here, and 
we did make sure we mentioned that here tonight. ``If a younger worker 
becomes disabled for any reason, he or she would be guaranteed a 
disability benefit, including benefits to their dependents.''
  That is the thing. We are borrowing the money from China, and we have 
to compete with this great rising power in the world. And if we do not 
have every person on the field playing for us, we are at a 
disadvantage. This is also an economic argument, not even about 
compassion. Although some of us may feel that way, this is an economic 
argument. If one of your parents dies prematurely and society does not 
come in and step in and try to help, that is one less person on our 
team.
  One last one here, Mr. Speaker, from Karan who says she watched the 
`30-Something Dems' last week and related to a lot of the topics: 
taxes, deficits, veterans, and said ``after watching last week's talk, 
I feel more at home with the Democrats and would love to know more 
about how to become involved.''
  So we are getting people engaged in the process.
  Mr. WEINER. And let me just reiterate, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I 
have a less cynical perspective than my colleague does.
  I think something good is coming out of this in that our generation 
is remembering again that there was a time in this country, in the 
early to mid-1930s, where we had a poverty rate among seniors that was 
approaching 40 percent; that we had just come through the tremors of 
the Great Depression that had left, frankly, our economy in a shambles, 
and there were certain things we did that made fundamental sense that 
have endured throughout time.
  People sometimes do not understand what the Social Security is and 
what it is supposed to be. But if we can start to animate a discussion 
in this country among people of all generations about why this is 
important and why we should not be so sanguine about the idea that we 
are paying for a lot of this by borrowing out of Social Security today. 
If the President was so concerned about how solid the Social Security 
would be, one thing he could do is stop borrowing from that trust fund 
today.
  So I think, frankly, having this discussion is going to turn out to 
be very salutary if we prevail. If we do not prevail, and if the 
President is successful in pulling hundreds of millions of dollars out 
of the Social Security system, we are quite literally, our generation, 
will be the one to live to regret it first. Every other generation 
since the 1930s, our parents and grandparents, have benefited from this 
program, and we are the ones that will wind up having to fix it.
  Mr. Speaker, so much of what we do around here, unfortunately, is 
going to be left to others; my colleague's young child is going to be 
left to clean up the mess being created by the 107th, 108th Congress; 
and it is very important that we keep doing this.
  It is also important that people continue to send their e-mails to 
[email protected], because for every letter that we get, 
there is evidence that there are 100 or 200 that we are not actually 
receiving.
  One final point on this: for those of a generation who are not yet 
ready to get Social Security, this is an economic issue for you today, 
but it is also an economic issue for you tomorrow. Just the same way 
you would be smart in investing in your 401(k), we should be smart 
about legislating.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their 
time and for being allowed to address the American people.

                          ____________________