[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3106-3112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the 
opportunity, and also Democratic Leader Pelosi, for one more hour, one 
more week for the Democratic 30-something Working Group.
  As you know, over a period of time, from the 108th Congress now to 
the 109th Congress, we have been coming to the floor sharing 
information, not only with Members of the House and the other body, but 
also with the present administration in the White House and with the 
American people about what is happening for America and what is 
happening to America.
  I must say that it is discouraging to hear some of the things that 
are coming from the majority side and also coming mainly from the White 
House on Social Security. And we come to the floor week after week to 
give voice to those Americans that are educating themselves through the 
survivor benefits, through Social Security, and also those Americans 
that are 20, 30, 40, and 50-something that are looking for Social 
Security to be there for them when they retire; and to make sure that 
they can get the maximum benefit, especially for those that are in 
their 50s and 40s, as they start to think about retirement, making sure 
that Social Security is there for them when they are eligible.
  I must say that during the break, as you know, we were on the 
Presidents' break for some time. And many House Democrats, and some 
enlightened Republicans, I must add, went back home and started asking 
their constituents how they felt about Social Security. And many of 
them came back with positive responses. In fact, they want the maximum 
benefits out of Social Security, and they want to make sure that it is 
not privatized. And that was overwhelmingly the message during the 
Presidents' break. It is not what I am saying; it is what the press 
reports are saying, either via print or TV media.
  And the House Democrats have been out in America and united about 
opposing the privatization, in opposition to the privatization of 
Social Security. And over the past 2 weeks, 160 House Democrats have 
held over 300 townhall meetings, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make sure 
that that is definitely a note. Not only with the Members, the Members 
note that that is the case, but to make sure that the American people 
that we are here to serve understand that we are trying to do all we 
can.
  And in the minority, I must say, here in this House, I want to remind 
the majority party that if we had the power to call a committee 
meeting, if we had the power to look into things that may be 
questionable as it relates to some of the decisions that are being made 
and some of the abuse of power that is taking place on the executive 
branch end, then we will have better accountability.
  But as it relates to Social Security, we are fighting the good fight. 
We are working with what we have to go out to the American people to 
let them know what is going on here under the dome.
  Once again, 160 Democratic House Members have gone out and had over 
300 townhall meetings in their districts and around their States. And I 
think that is so very, very important.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) here, who co-
chairs this 30-something Working Group with me, who I must say that it 
is just a pleasure being here with the gentleman from Ohio just one 
more week. I am looking forward as we continue to hit the road and 
share the information about Social Security and why it is important to 
many young people throughout the United States of America. But it is 
just once again a pleasure to share this hour with him.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Pleasure. Same here, my good friend. I would also 
like to just make a couple of opening comments before we get into the 
nuts and bolts, into the meat of the issue here.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who every now and again I 
join down here doing an Iraq Watch or something on the veterans, he and 
I held a townhall meeting in Youngstown, Ohio, last week. And we had 
chairs set up for about 125 people. And the room was packed with 200 
people. We had to turn people away at the local library, Boardman 
Public Library.
  It was just amazing because of the amount of concern regarding this 
issue and how many people want to try to understand what the 
President's plan is. And as you put it a couple of weeks ago when we 
were here, we really do not have any of these details. And we do not 
know exactly what the President's plan is. And he is talking in these 
very broad concepts, because once you get down to the nuts and bolts of 
implementation of the privatization accounts, it gets very, very hairy 
and very, very scary.
  And one of the main concerns at the townhall meeting in Youngstown 
was the concern of having to borrow money to try to implement this 
system. And when you look at what we have here, and average people 
understand this, we are running close to a $500 billion deficit just 
this year. And so we have to go out and we have to borrow that money, 
and we are borrowing it primarily from the Japanese and the Chinese, 
which puts our country in a position of weakness.
  The one thing the President has said that he wants to for sure do is 
he wants to have these private accounts, the side accounts. So instead 
of putting money into the Social Security trust fund, you would put it 
in this private savings account.
  Because the money is getting diverted into the accounts, and we want 
the current beneficiaries of the program to get what they deserve, we 
have got to go out over the next 10 years, the first 10 years out from 
this plan, and we have to borrow $1.4 trillion just to cover the cost 
of the transition in the first 10 years.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to please 
repeat that.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes, certainly. I said that $1.4 trillion must be 
borrowed in the first 10 years of implementation of a Social Security 
reform package that includes the private accounts. And, again, I am 31, 
the gentleman from Florida is 30----
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Something
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Something. And the money we do pay in, because 
Members of Congress do pay into the Social Security system, the 6.2 
percent that we are putting in now that goes into the trust funds, the 
President is saying we will be able to take maybe all of that, maybe a 
portion of that and put it in a side account. In order to make up the 
difference, so that our grandparents and parents can get what they have 
put into Social Security and they get the full benefits, we have to 
borrow $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. But the massive figure is 
$5 trillion over the next 20 years.
  Now, that is $5 trillion we have to go out and borrow and pay 
interest on, which I think is probably the best argument for not doing 
this. We should not implement a program that is going to strap our 
generation with massive tax increases to pay for this, the $5 trillion, 
the interest on the $5 trillion, and then end up with a benefit that is 
not guaranteed. I think when you add all that together, it is a recipe 
for disaster.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, I can tell my colleague that I am at a 
loss for words when it comes down to all the Federal jet fuel that has 
been burned on the U.S. taxpayers' dollars on the flying around the 
country with no plan and talking about privatization of Social 
Security.
  There are millions of Americans that are benefactors of Social 
Security. We cannot break our promise to them. For anyone to go and say 
we will privatize and everything will be fine, the evidence, which we 
will talk about later on in this hour, is leaning towards benefits 
being cut as it relates to the privatization. We will be talking about 
that a little later on.

[[Page 3107]]

  I am glad to have my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz), who was here with us in the past. She had a 
townhall meeting, a couple of them I think in her district, and so I 
will now yield to her.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding to me. It is a pleasure to be here with my 30-
something colleagues once again.
  I did have townhall meetings in south Florida last week. I had three 
townhall meetings, and more than 500 people attended those meetings. 
Other than two, two out of those 500 hundred, every single person left 
with the feeling that they were completely opposed to the President's 
privatization plan. They understood first and foremost that it is 
incredibly disturbing that the privatization proposal he has put 
forward does not even solve the problem.
  We, I think, have tried to stress as Democrats that we are not saying 
there is no problem, that there is a problem that needs to be 
addressed. But, for example, and one of the examples I used in my 
meetings, was that the earliest that we have a problem where we are 
taking in less than we are paying out is in 2042, and many of the 
studies show that it really could last until 2052. Our generation, when 
I talk to my friends at home and ask them whether they think Social 
Security is going to be there, they do not think it will.
  Let me just throw out an example. I am 38 years old. In 2042, I will 
be 75. I will be 85 in 2052. So that shows you that Social Security 
will be there for our generation. What we need to do is we need to make 
some changes to Social Security, shore it up, help preserve the safety 
net; but we need to take the time to do it right. We do not need to 
perform the radical surgery the President is proposing, and that was 
the overwhelming message I got from my constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I want to be able to share with my colleagues 
here, and our other colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that this is important. As 
I explained earlier in this hour, maybe 5 or 6 minutes ago, we do not 
have the power within this institution, within the House to be able to 
agenda committee meetings, or agenda meetings or inquiries, or whatever 
the case may be, although we look forward to that day. Do not get me 
wrong, I look forward to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
one day becoming Speaker Pelosi. Because some of the things we talk 
about here on this floor we want to be able to use the power of this 
House to be able to make things right on behalf of the American people.
  Now, we are not just talking about Democratic American people. We are 
talking about Republican American people, Libertarian, what have you, 
the Green Party, Democrats, on and on and on. We are talking about the 
American people in general. But I wanted to take about 4 minutes 
sharing about what happens when we move in haste.
  The President wants us to move in haste. The majority party wants us 
to move in haste. The majority of the other body wants us to move as 
though there is some sort of Federal emergency. But there is not a 
Federal emergency. Social Security will be here. It will not collapse 
tomorrow or the next day or 10 years from now or even 20 years from 
now, thanks to the Democratic Speaker and the Republican President 
Ronald Reagan making sure that Social Security was sound.
  I can see the gentleman from Ohio is right there. He is ready. But 
let me just make my point. I am not giving a locker-room speech; I am 
just letting our colleagues know that there is not a Federal emergency 
as relates to Social Security.
  Now, here on this floor, and I pointed this out a couple of weeks ago 
and I want to point it out again, because maybe some of the Members 
that are watching us now might have missed it. During the Medicare 
debate here on this floor, when we were locked in this Chamber, well, I 
would not say locked, I do not want to sensationalize it, we were held 
here in this Chamber and the vote board was open for over an hour and 
some change, maybe getting close to 2 hours while the majority side 
went around twisting arms.
  And here, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend some of my colleagues on the 
majority side that stood on behalf of their constituents but had to 
break because there were a lot of arms being twisted on the other side.

                              {time}  2215

  During the Medicare debate as relates to prescription drugs, the 
majority hid the true costs that it would cost to deal with 
prescription drugs. First they said it will only cost $350 billion. 
That is a lot of money. We were all taken aback by that because that is 
borrowed money. That is money on a high-interest credit card. That is 
money that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) talked about earlier, 
about knocking on the bank of China, saying, Please buy more of our 
debt.
  Then as we move down the road a little bit, it moved up to $400 
billion. This is not $4, not $400,000, this is not even $400 million, 
it was $400 billion. After the debate, the cost jumped up to more than 
$530 billion. But still that was not enough because when we move in 
haste, we make mistakes. It is important that we move in a way that not 
only Members can pay very close attention to what is going on, and that 
Members will have an opportunity to analyze plans and legislation. And 
I must add, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) knows, we do not have 
a plan from the President or the majority, and I will talk about that 
later. Now just before we left, just a week before the President's 
District Work Period, the cost went to $724 billion. Where are we 
headed? This is borrowed money.
  We have that going on, let alone the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We 
are about to have an $80 billion supplemental. The majority side here 
in the House would like for the American people to believe that there 
is a Federal emergency and Social Security will collapse if we do not 
act now.
  I will tell Members we have a lot on our plate right now. Members 
heard the gentlewoman from Florida talk about the fact that she will be 
84 and still look the same in the future. I am making fun of it, but 
this is a very serious situation.
  I had this on my chart the last time we were here on the floor but I 
thought I would blow it up because some of the Members I saw said I 
want a copy of that. I want to make sure Members can see it. There are 
people running around saying where is the Democratic plan? Our plan is 
already institutionalized in Social Security. The benefits that people 
are receiving, the survivor benefits Americans are receiving, that 
third rail when the Enrons of the world go south on America workers 
that have been paying into a retirement plan, Social Security is the 
safety net. And Democrats, our position, is making sure not that we 
have a Democratic plan, shoring up and making sure even beyond those 
years far out that Social Security is here for a long time, a 
bipartisan plan between Democrats and Republicans, and that is what the 
Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip, are 
talking about constantly.
  In 1998, President Bush was quoted as saying that he wanted to 
privatize Social Security as a solution to the financial problems. 
Chairman Greenspan on the House and on the Senate side said 
privatization alone will not solve or will not resolve the issue of 
Social Security. As a matter of fact, if they were to deal with that, 
then they would have to have tax increases and also cutbacks in 
traditional programs.
  In 2000, during his campaign, Governor Bush basically said he wanted 
to privatize Social Security. Then in 2001, now President Bush 
appointed a commission to develop a privatization plan for him.
  In December 2001, they followed their charge, and if you were on that 
commission, you would have had to have made previous statements that 
you were in favor of privatization, so of course you are going to get 
recommendations from this commission.

[[Page 3108]]

  In 2001, the commission gave the President three options for 
privatization of Social Security.
  From December of 2001 through 2004 when the President came here and 
walked down and spoke in front of us, he was silent on the issue of 
privatization. Absolutely nothing. No statements, nothing. Did not talk 
about it. And now in 2004, while running for reelection, there was some 
mention but no plan. No plan came about after the three options. 
Members would assume the plan would come the year after, nothing.
  Then days after the 2004 election he thought he had the political 
clout to be able to privatize Social Security. That did not happen. 
January of this year while at the White House, once again he talked 
about it and said there is a plan. Now the budget was submitted at the 
beginning of February, no privatization plan was included. When I say 
the President said nothing, he is saying nothing because he is not 
putting forth a plan. Now press accounts say it is not clear if the 
President is going to offer a plan this year.
  Now for all the American people that are sitting at home watching us 
now and for all those individuals concerned about their benefits, I 
want to let you know right now it is important that you call your 
Member of Congress, it is important that your Member of Congress pay 
very close attention to this.
  In closing, I want to let the Members on the majority side, for those 
that are not with the President, and I must add there are some, there 
are some from my State, that I commend for their courage and for their 
standing up to the majority and the President saying they will not sell 
out their constituents on a hasty plan saying we have to move it 
through.
  Remember I talked about the Medicare issue and how that ended up 
going all of the way to $724 billion from $350 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, that is a phenomenal outline of a 
consistent approach on what the plan was, has been, continued to be and 
now getting closer to try to implement. I think it is an ideological 
bent that is pushing us because as the gentleman said, we are going to 
have to go out and borrow the money. I think it is important that we 
mention what happens when the public side is out in the market 
borrowing money. The more money we are borrowing, there is less money 
to be borrowed by private interests which will drive up interest rates 
because there will be less money out there because we have to keep 
going out there and borrowing it for our own purposes, whether it is 
Social Security or running a deficit of $500 billion. That means 
increased interest rates, for those at home, who want to go out and get 
a car, get a house, want to go out and borrow some money for whatever 
reason, interest rates are going to rise if we keep going down the path 
we are on right now.
  One other comment I wanted to make that the gentleman brought up, the 
administration is trying to say crisis, crisis, crisis. The sky is 
going to fall in if we do not do something immediately. They used the 
word ``bankrupt.'' I think the President used the word in the State of 
the Union address. I am almost positive.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. He said bankrupt. To me bankrupt means there is 
nothing in the bank. It is belly up, zero. That is how I interpret 
bankruptcy. Nothing left.
  The problem is Social Security will never, ever, ever, go bankrupt 
because there will always be workers putting money into the system. Now 
it may not be, if we stay like we are now, it may not always be at the 
levels we want. Down the line, it may only pay 80 percent of the 
benefits, but there will always be money in the Social Security system 
so it will never be bankrupt.
  So when the President says bankrupt, he is misleading the public 
because the gentleman from Florida and I will be paying in for the next 
30 some years into the program. So even if you and I are just paying 
in, it is not bankrupt. It may not have enough funds, but it is not 
bankrupt.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that came up in 
my town meetings, talking about the debt and privatization would add to 
in America, the gentleman from Florida and I served with a wise 
Republican member of the Florida Senate, Senator Jim King, whom when we 
were engaged in a debate with our House colleagues and it was the State 
Senate versus the State House and our position in the State Senate was 
we should not be adding to debt and we should not be continuing to 
borrow to pay for our needs, he likened that concept to using our 
MasterCard to pay off our Visa.
  Mr. Speaker, that is really the policy that the President is 
advocating. He appears to think it is okay to add to the debt, make our 
deficit much more significant, to overrely on nations like China and 
Japan. I feel an overwhelming sentiment coming from my constituents, 
and just by applying a little logic, why would we want to leave our 
constituents' future retirement security in the hands of the economic 
whims or decisions of foreign governments. That is essentially what is 
being done when we talk about privatizing Social Security.
  The other really big issue that the President has tried to stress and 
underscore and use to try to relieve the concern that senior citizens 
may have over his plan, he is saying do not worry, people over 55 and 
over, we are not going to touch your benefits, nothing is going to 
happen.
  Well, as neutrally as I possibly could, and some people might chuckle 
about that, I presented that argument in my town meetings last week. 
And overwhelmingly, my constituents, the constituents of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Meek), understood when we have a massive program like 
we have in Social Security in America, and we are talking about the 
kinds of numbers and the impact that privatization would have on that 
program, $1.4 trillion cost to privatize in the first 10 years, and 
another $3.5 trillion in 10 years after that, when we apply a radical 
surgical procedure to a program that size, they understand there is no 
way you are going to avoid impacting them. It is not possible. They are 
smarter than that.
  The other reason for the answer to the question of why senior 
citizens care about this, assuming they believe the President, say they 
take the President at his word and believe it will not affect people 55 
and older, the reason they care is they understand that our generation, 
their children and their grandchildren, we are not the generation of 
savers that they were. They were the generation of savers. We are the 
generation of racking up our credit card bills and trying to have as 
much as we possibly can. There is nothing wrong with that, but it needs 
to be recognized that is a policy where Americans continue to add to 
their debt and there are eventually consequences to that.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is not a good way to run the government. 
Although a person may be able to get away with it longer and file 
personal bankruptcy without the ramifications to society as opposed to 
privatizing Social Security.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Exactly. And what the gentleman said about 
debt in general and making sure that we continue to have sound public 
policy when it comes to Social Security, these senior citizens 
understand that because we do not have the savings in generations 
following them, we have to make sure that we adopt an approach to 
fixing Social Security that recognizes that the emphasis should be on 
encouraging savings. There is a way to do that without moving to a 
radical proposal like privatizing the program.
  Chairman Greenspan testified before the Committee on Financial 
Services and was pretty unequivocal in his testimony before our break 
about what he believes the direction we should take is.

                              {time}  2230

  His focus was absolutely on any policy change that moved away from 
encouraging a national savings was not a sound one. Almost every one of 
the

[[Page 3109]]

comments that he made undermined the President's arguments. He 
testified in front of our committee that the overriding long-term 
retirement issue facing the Nation is increasing national savings. 
Before I yield back, I want to tell my colleagues a really telling 
story. The thing that I think is important to stress is that Social 
Security was created in 1935. It was created by Democrats, it was 
sustained by Democrats, it was improved by Democrats and that has 
generally been virtually without any Republican support for Social 
Security. It was not created with Republican votes. It has not been 
fixed by Republican leadership. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), our ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services, 
asked Chairman Greenspan this question:
  Mr. Chairman, in 1935 if you were a Member of Congress, would you 
have voted for Social Security?
  The chairman's response was: I can't answer that question.
  I think I will just leave it at that and allow that to underscore 
where the support for Social Security is. It certainly has not been on 
the administration's side of the issue.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think that is a telling point and I appreciate 
her sharing that story because I will use it to further make a point on 
this. What we have to realize is that this is a program that helps a 
lot of people, too. It is not just the 70 percent of the program that 
goes to the retirees. This also has survivorship benefits in it. It 
also helps people who are disabled, blind, deaf, whatever the situation 
may be. This is something that brings a lot more value to our society 
than just the numbers that we put up on boards here in the House 
Chamber. There is more to this whole deal here than just money. This is 
about helping people and this was about bringing dignity to people so 
that they would not have to work until they died. It lifts seniors out 
of poverty. All our parents and grandparents recognize that. I think if 
the President says, like he said, 55 and over, you are fine, you are 
all right, which implies that if you are 55 and under, you better look 
out because we are not sure what is going to happen. If we really 
wanted to help kids, students right now, and that is sometimes how he 
pitches this, hey, these young people would be able to go save in a 
private account. If you really want to help these college students, 
increase the Pell grant more than $100 a year for the next 5 years. Let 
us help these kids reduce their college debt. They are graduating from 
college on average with about a $20,000 debt already which takes away 
from our national savings. Why do we not help them with that, as long 
as they put the money into some kind of long-term pension fund for 
themselves? There are ways we could get creative here and do this, but 
to say to dismantle the greatest social program in the history of 
mankind, I think is pretty foolish. The gentleman from Florida looks as 
if he has something very important to say.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I literally could not wait to get here tonight, 
even though we are here after supper and many of our Members are 
probably cracking their toes now getting ready to go to bed. But I will 
tell you this, that it is important. This is so important, not only do 
I have this notebook, but I have two other notebooks on this issue. 
This is not, as far as I am concerned, an attack on a Democratic 
program. This is an attack on the American people. It is our 
responsibility to make sure that we inform the American people what is 
going on. Once again, I am not saying that the President is not telling 
the truth. I am not saying that the majority side is not telling the 
truth. I am just saying they are inaccurate as it relates to the facts. 
It is important that we share these facts.
  I just wanted to share with the gentlewoman from Florida when she 
shared that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking 
member who is a respected Member of this House and has been here for a 
very long time on the Committee on Financial Services as the majority 
side and the chairman of the committee and he could not answer the 
question if he would have voted yes or no.
  Forty-eight million Americans receive Social Security. Forty-eight 
million. Not 4, not 48, not 4,800, not 48,000; 48 million Americans. 
These retirees and 33 million retired Americans that are already 
retired receive this information. It is not the Kendrick Meek report.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. How many people in poverty? Did the gentleman say 
that?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, I have not. I was on my way. Seniors who are 
living in poverty, that are receiving the benefits, 48 percent of those 
individuals, of the 43 million, receive Social Security.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So they would be in poverty if it was not for 
Social Security?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Forty-eight percent of the 43 million.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So what is your philosophy on life when you say 
that you are okay with those people going back into poverty?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, I am not okay.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I did not say you were okay. I know the gentleman 
is not okay with that.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. But that is the reason why we are here. People 
are asking for the Democratic plan. I am asking where is the 
President's plan? Where is the majority plan? I do not want to go back 
to 1978 again. We are still talking about philosophy, but if I can just 
for a second, I have said this and I will say it again verbatim, for 
the last 3 weeks we have talked about Social Security. Democrats want 
to strengthen Social Security without slashing benefits that Americans 
have earned. Private accounts makes Social Security's challenge worse, 
makes the challenge worse, the private accounts do, we will talk about 
that in a minute and we have been talking about that, as far as massive 
benefit cuts and it will increase the national debt. Already in the 
projection, $427 billion. Who is counting? I am.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I do not even think that counts the war.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is not even the war. So we are saying, not 
the Democratic plan, that we know all and we know best. We are not even 
advocating that. It is the majority side in this House that is saying, 
oh, we can figure it out because we have the majority and we have 
stacked all the committees and we can get it through the committee and 
we can get it to the floor, and if we have to do a Medicare move again, 
keeping the voting board open for over an hour while we walk around 
here and put pressure on individuals that have already made a sound 
decision on how they are going to vote, then we are going to do 
everything we can as Democrats.
  I commend our leadership, need it be in the Committee on Ways and 
Means, need it be in the Committee on Financial Services, need it be 
our Democratic leader the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), all the way to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and our Democratic Caucus, and also the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) who is our Vice Chair, to 
let the American people know that this will not happen and that with 
the President and with the majority side, they are talking about 
theory, not a plan. And so our plan is to make sure that we do not make 
life worse for people under 55. Even the President said, if you are 
over 55, you don't have anything to worry about. This is the same 
President, with all due respect to my Commander in Chief, that said it 
would only be $350 billion for Medicare prescription drugs and now we 
are way up to $724 billion. I am not saying he is not telling the 
American people the truth, I am just saying that it is inaccurate 
information. And inaccurate information, when people feel that they 
have the power to do whatever they want to do, is wrong.
  That is why it is important that we take this time out and that is 
the reason I commend my Democratic colleagues that are here saying, no, 
having over 300 town hall meetings, and I commend my Republican 
colleagues, in

[[Page 3110]]

the minority in the majority, that are saying, no, Mr. President, who I 
campaigned for, I am not with you on this one. So we want to make sure. 
That is the reason why we do not have a plan yet, because there is no 
real plan. I would much rather the President say ``thank you'' and just 
move on to another issue because we have a war that is going on right 
now. Until we are ready to work in a bipartisan way, we should not 
approach Social Security, until we sit down at the table and to be able 
to hear both sides and that we can move together. The gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) would be at the White House right now as ranking 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means if we were hammering out a 
real bipartisan plan.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) would be at the White 
House right now as we speak hammering out a real bipartisan plan. 
Leader Pelosi, when she goes to meet and you know the American people 
at least once a week, they come together, majority and minority and the 
leaders come together at the White House, if she were included in that 
process of hammering out a Social Security plan, maybe, just maybe the 
American people will benefit. But that is not the case.
  I am going to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, and I hope she 
will explain at least some of the charts that she has there to be able 
to share what we are getting ourselves into if we allow the majority 
side to carry us down, not a yellow brick road but some other color 
brick road in making Social Security solvent for years and years and 
years to come.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just want to expound on a couple of the 
things that the gentleman said. Given from the three of us, me being 
from the opposite gender from the two gentlemen I am here on the floor 
with, I think it is important to note the effect that privatization 
would have on women. We have talked about this before but just to give 
you an idea of what women face when it comes to the comparison to men. 
In 2003, 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 still 77 percent relative to men in 2002 dollars. 
Women who reach retirement age live on average at least 3 years longer 
than men. So this is a female problem, to say the least. Social 
Security is the only source of retirement income for one in three 
unmarried retired women. That is a really significant number.
  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. It provides more than half of the total income 
for female widows and single women. The other thing I wanted to expand 
upon that the gentleman from Florida talked about is the issue does 
arise, where is the Democrats' plan? Do my colleagues remember, I think 
it was a Wendy's commercial, the really famous Wendy's commercial, 
``Where's the beef?'' That is what I would like to know, and my 
constituents want to know about the President's plan, where is the 
beef? It is very nice to talk about vague outlines of what you would 
like to see happen, pie in the sky concepts, but generally in my 
legislative experience, when a President or a governor in my experience 
makes a proposal, they usually send the legislative body a bill. They 
usually get a Member to sponsor it. And then we have an opportunity to 
dissect it and debate it and then the minority party offers their 
alternative. It is time. It really is time. It is the President that 
has laid out that this is a crisis. We call it a long-term challenge. 
We would be happy to sit down and discuss our approach to that long-
term challenge but we are in an apples-to-oranges situation here.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We want to be a part of this. I do not want anyone 
at home sitting there listening to us to think that we do not want to 
be a part of solving this problem. Not crisis. Problem. Long-term 
problem. We all have long-term problems. My family has heart disease. I 
have a long-term heart disease problem, long-term.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have some credit card debt.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We all have problems. I think this shows really 
where we are at philosophically, too. I have a school district, 
Youngstown city school district, over 50 percent of the kids in that 
school district live in poverty. Seventy percent qualify for free and 
reduced lunch. That to me is a crisis, immediate, needs to be 
addressed. Cuts in Medicaid and food stamps, that is a crisis. We need 
to fix that now. This is long-term.
  There are a couple of points I want to make. Let me get to this chart 
here. This is the U.S. trade deficit with China. This is the country we 
are borrowing all this money from. It is about $163 billion, maybe a 
$165 billion trade deficit. We are buying more than we are selling. I 
just want to show this because I think as we look at the big picture 
with the $420 billion or $430 billion annual trade deficit, this is all 
U.S. investment going over to China.

                              {time}  2245

  A lot of these job that were in the United States are now in China. 
Fewer people paying that 6.2 percent into the system, which would 
certainly help, as opposed to making 8 bucks an hour. The good high-
wage jobs that were 18, 20, 25 bucks an hour, 6.2 percent of 25 bucks 
an hour is a lot more than 6.2 percent of 8 bucks an hour, which is the 
rate we pay in. So I just wanted to put this up to give everybody some 
perspective.
  And we talked about Alan Greenspan and his testimony. I just want to 
read a paragraph from Bloomberg News. It is pretty interesting: 
``Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's testimony yesterday before 
the Senate Banking Committee,'' a couple weeks ago, ``undermined 
virtually all of the Bush administration's arguments for diverting some 
Social Security tax payments to fund private retirement accounts. If 
the hole left in Social Security finances by the diversion were filled 
by added government borrowing, as proposed by President Bush, creating 
the private accounts would not add to national savings, and for 
Greenspan national savings is the overriding long-term retirement issue 
facing the Nation.'' Greenspan says we need more national savings. The 
administration's plan is borrow $5 trillion. Two complete opposite ends 
of the spectrum.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say 
the list is endless for those who are opposed to the President's 
philosophy and the majority side's philosophy on this. I mean, it is 
not just House Democrats. It is not just the Democrats of the other 
body. It is not just Democrats that are out there hopefully wanting to 
be President one day. I mean, we have a number of individuals.
  I just want to name a few while we are here to let them know that we 
are paying attention to what they are doing. Along with the 300 
townhall meetings that House Democrats had, we had a number of other 
groups that were out there and still out there doing good things and 
sharing with the American people. I just want to start off with an 
organization that is out there of retirees, the AARP. They are opposed 
to the President's plan. And to be a member of the AARP, one has to be 
kind of middle-aged, I must add. I have been elected a long time. I am 
not going to call anyone old. But let me tell my colleagues this: one 
has to be at least middle-aged.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Fifty.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one has to be at least middle-aged, 
and one would have to have experienced life. So they are opposed to 
this plan, this philosophy of a plan. Nothing is concrete, but what 
they have heard thus far as it relates to privatization of Social 
Security they have a problem with. So does the A. Phillip Randolph 
Institute. So does the African American Ministers' Project. So does the 
Alliance for Retired Americans. So does the American Association of 
University Women; American Baptist Churches, USA; the AFL-CIO; the 
Association of Community Organizations for Reform. Also we have the 
Campaign for America's Future, the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, the Center for

[[Page 3111]]

Economic Policy and Research, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition on 
Human Needs.
  I mean, I can go on and on and on of these groups, and I have pages 
and pages and pages. Older Women's League. The ``wiser women's 
league,'' let us put it that way.
  But all of these groups, the League of Rural Voters, I have pages 
upon pages, and they would fall on the floor if they were not in this 
binder, of groups that have said it is not a plan; but from what we 
hear and from the individuals that are saying that they are trying to 
serve up something to young people, trying to get them to believe that 
it is cool, that it is okay to gamble on their retirement, they do not 
agree with it.

       A. Phillip Randolph Institute.
       African American Episcopal Church.
       African American Ministers' Project.
       Alliance for Retired Americans.
       American Association of University Women.
       American Baptist Churches, USA.
       AFL-CIO.
       Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 
     (ACORN).
       Call to Renewal [Faith].
       Campaign for America's Future.
       Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
       Center on Economic Policy and Research (CEPR).
       Children's Defense Fund.
       Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU).
       Coalition on Human Needs (CHN).
       College Democrats of America (CDA).
       Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF).
       Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities (CCD).
       Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
       Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA).
       League of Rural Voters.
       League of United Latin American Citizens.
       The Links, Inc.
       MoveOn.org.
       NAACP.
       National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL).
       National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc. (NCBA).
       National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare 
     (NCPSSM).
       National Congress of American Indians.
       National Council of Churches.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Organization for Women (NOW).
       National Puerto Rican Coalition.
       Older Women's League (OWL).
       People for the American Way.
       Progressive National Baptist.
       Rock the Vote.
       USAction.
       Women Investing in a Secure Retirement (WISER).
       Young Democrats of America (YDA).

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to expand on 
something since we are going to try to focus on young people in our 
caucus. A really good example of what impact this proposal would have 
on younger people, a 20-year-old who enters the workforce today, over 
the course of their career would experience a $152,000 loss in their 
Social Security benefits that they would have otherwise received. It 
provides disability insurance that young families need. There is no 
private insurance plan today that can match the disability benefits 
that Social Security provides. For a worker in her mid-20s with a 
spouse and two children, Social Security provides the equivalent of a 
$350,000 disability insurance policy. Most young people cannot afford 
or obtain that kind of coverage outside of Social Security.
  And let us say, God forbid, a young parent dies suddenly. I heard the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) today talk about a person 
who came to one of his townhall meetings whose spouse died when she was 
35 years old and Social Security provides the survivor benefits that 
are left behind for those kids.
  To such an extent, most people do not realize Social Security's 
survivor benefits will replace as much as 80 percent of the earnings 
for a 25-year-old average-wage worker who dies, leaving two young 
children and a spouse. That is the equivalent of a $403,000 life 
insurance policy. And the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) 
talked very poignantly this morning about the gentleman that he has 
known for years, and had never heard this story, that his 35-year-old 
wife, when she passed away, could at least rest in peace knowing that 
her life and her work had provided for her children's future benefit 
even in death.
  And that is the type of rug that we are pulling out from under people 
if we go in this direction.
  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 just want to make a comment on the 
AARP. These attack ads, the same consultant groups that attacked 
Presidential candidate Kerry, the same groups that did the Swift Boat 
ads are now attacking AARP, and they are saying that AARP is for gay 
marriage and against the troops. And the reason I want to comment on 
that is because their reference is to the Ohio AARP chapter, which was 
against an issue that was on the ballot in Ohio, and I believe it was 
Issue 1. The issue was to ban gay marriage, but it was written so 
broadly that it eliminated civil unions between men and women who were 
older, who were senior citizens. And I have people in my district, 
friends of mine, who were married and their spouses passed away and 
they were senior citizens and they were 70-something-years-old and they 
had families on both sides and kids and grandkids. They did not want to 
get married, but they wanted a legal binding contract. So the AARP, 
obviously, was against that because it took away the civil unions for 
senior citizens. Now all of a sudden here come the attack ads against 
AARP just to try to slam them because they are not for the President's 
proposal.
  So I just wanted to clarify that to the folks in Ohio. That is why 
AARP was against Issue 1 because it is eliminating the ability for two 
human beings, American citizens, to write a contract between each 
other, man and woman, a contract not allowed in Ohio.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I guess as we 
really start to look at this and as we wrap up in the next 3 or 4 
minutes, I just want to say tomorrow one of those groups that I did not 
mention, Rock the Vote, will be having a townhall meeting with some 
Democratic Senators and will also have a college campus tour as they 
start to go around and talk about this issue, and Republican Senators 
that have spoken out against this.
  And I must add that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz) and I join, in the single digits, I must add, members of the 
Florida delegation in this House that are opposing the President's 
philosophy at this time, rightfully so, because their constituents are 
not with them on this. And that is the way democracy is supposed to 
work.
  We are not up here to fly up here every week and walk around with 
congressional pins on and showing our card, walking in and out of this 
Capitol, and saying that we are here to represent ourselves. We are 
here to represent the people that have sent us here. And believe me, if 
I were walking around here saying I support the President's philosophy 
and the majority's philosophy, my constituents, and the gentlewoman 
from Florida knows them well, would be up in arms. So I am a 
representation of what they voted for. So that is the reason why we are 
here.
  I want to just add a few more things, and then I will yield to my 
colleagues to make closing comments. I must say I want to share with 
the American people again that 48 million Americans are receiving 
benefits of Social Security; 33 million are retirees already. That is 
the AARP group, and the AARP is against this. We also have seniors that 
would be in poverty if it were not for the 48 percent of those are 
within the 48 million. The average monthly benefit is $955. And Social 
Security will be solvent, will be there at what we see at present 
levels for the next 47 years-and-some-change.
  So I just want to make sure that people understand there is an issue, 
but there is not a crisis. There is a concern, but it is not an 
emergency. So it is important that we realize we have a war going on in 
Iraq, as a matter of fact,

[[Page 3112]]

two of them, in Afghanistan. We have this other little thing that we 
are calling, which is a big issue, $724 billion in the prescription 
drug plan, and then we also have, and I must add, this supplemental. We 
have an $80 billion supplemental that is coming before us, and the 
Department of Homeland Security to protect the homeland is only $40 
billion. So when we look at it in the big scheme of things, sheriffs, 
mayors, elected officials on the local level, they are looking for the 
dollars to come down, and they can see where they fall as it relates to 
receiving their fair share of protecting the home front.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, actually what I want to close 
with is I want to quote the President because the President has said 
that leadership means not passing problems on to future generations and 
future Presidents. And I take him at his word, and I am hopeful that we 
do not go forward with this proposal because this plan to privatize 
Social Security flies in the face of his stated belief that we need to 
exercise some leadership and make sure that Social Security is 
preserved into the future for our generation and for our children's 
generation. And I look forward to working with both gentlemen.
  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 hope we continue this discussion. It 
is nice because it is not a 30-second ad. We can actually talk about 
the facts and get into a little more discussion.
  I want to do this before we go. If there are any 30-somethings or 40-
somethings or 20-somethings or anyone out there who wants to e-mail us, 
it is [email protected], or they can get us on our Web 
site democraticleader.house.gov/30something, but they can send us an e-
mail if they have any comments or stories that they want us to share, 
and we will pick a few next week and maybe read them on the House floor 
here.
  But I think it is important that we recognize that this is long term 
and bad for our generation for all the reasons that we stated and I 
think most significantly $5 trillion that we have to borrow primarily 
from the Chinese.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure coming to 
the floor. We want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi), and we appreciate the opportunity to address the House.

                          ____________________