[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4256-4262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

  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 as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to 
address the House. Also, I want to thank our Democratic leader, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for allowing us to have this 
time.
  Week after week, as you know, the 30-something Working Group comes to 
the floor on issues that are facing Americans, not only young Americans 
but all Americans, since we are a country that has very strong family 
values and that believes in making sure that the next generation has 
better opportunities than the generation before them.
  We come to the floor to not only share information but to share good 
information, information that can be shared with others. We also let 
not only Members of this House, but Members of the other body know 
where we got the information from: real accounts, not just fiction. I 
know some Members come to the floor well intended to share good 
information, but it is questionable as to where it came from.
  We are going to talk a lot about Social Security during this 30-
something hour, and we are also going to address and commend some of 
the groups that are out there fighting the good fight, sharing with 
young Americans about many of the issues that are facing them. It is 
important that we do so, so that they will be able to make accurate 
decisions and will be able to speak to their Members of Congress about 
what they should do as it relates to Social Security.
  This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I am again honored to have my colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who I have had 
the opportunity to serve with over the last 10 years in the Florida 
legislature and now here in Congress. Our colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan), is not here with us, and I will give him a hard time 
about that; but he had to leave, and so being from Florida, it is 
certainly appropriate for us to be here with so many Social Security 
recipients in our State. And even those individuals that are living in 
other parts of the country will no doubt eventually make it to Florida 
and become our constituents one day.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to yield to my colleague at this time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding 
to me, and it is an honor to be here once again with him. It has been 
my distinct pleasure to serve with my colleague in various capacities 
over the last 10 years, and particularly because we represent a State 
that would be so impacted by whatever the vague outlines of the 
President's suggestion, for lack of a better term. Because what has 
been truly unfortunate about the President's concept is that that is 
all it has become. It has just been a concept.
  We are trying to help people understand that the President, although 
he has been stumping the country promoting his concept, his concept has 
never amounted to legislation. He has not asked any Member of Congress 
to file legislation. We have not seen a bill; therefore, we have no 
specific details. And coming from the State that we do, which is one of 
the States whose residents would be the most significantly impacted by 
the devastating results of his proposal on Social Security, we have 
spent quite a bit of time trying to educate our constituents about the 
dire ramifications.
  Given our generation and the impact ultimately that the President's 
outline would have on them, we need to continue to spend time doing 
what we have been doing, which is trying to spread the word and make 
people aware that, despite what they may have heard in the previous 
hour, we are on a fact-disseminating mission. We need to get the word 
out and make people understand that there is a lot of fiction and a lot 
of trumped-up reality that has been disseminated.
  We need to help people understand that while there is a problem with 
Social Security, we need to be responsible and take the time that is 
required, that is our responsibility to take, to get it right. It is 
not a crisis.

[[Page 4257]]

  The year 2042 is what has been clearly acknowledged as the earliest 
that we have to be concerned about there being a cut in benefits. And 
while we absolutely do not think we should reach that point, in 2042, 
since this is the 30-something Working Group, I will be 75 years old. 
In 2052, which is the more likely scenario, given the dim economic 
picture they have painted and given our economic history, it is 
unlikely that in 2042 there would even be a problem yet. I will be 85 
years old.
  The reason that is important, as my colleague knows when he talks to 
his friends and when I talk to my friends, people who are listening out 
there, people our age think Social Security will not be there for them. 
They really do. And with the facts, they will understand that it will 
be there for them well beyond their retirement years. We need to be 
responsible and take some time to make the changes necessary and not 
yank the rug out from under our generation or our children's 
generation. We need to make sure we can preserve the Social Security 
safety net.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join my colleague this afternoon 
because we have a lot of educating to do.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am so excited 
to be here and to be able to share information, not only with our 
charts but about what is happening.
  This is about future generations, but it also is about the present 
Social Security recipients. Right now we have 48 million Americans 
receiving Social Security, and 48 percent of those individuals would be 
in poverty if they did not receive that Social Security benefit. This 
is serious business. This is not a numbers game. It is not an 
opportunity for this body or the majority side or the minority side or 
the President or what have you to give the American people the Potomac 
Two Step. We cannot allow that to happen. This is the very fiber of 
American values, as we value our older people and as we value our 
generations to come.
  If I can, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to talk about the 
reason why we have to be credible here on this floor. Now, once again, 
like I did last week, I want to commend not only the Democratic 
leadership, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus; and Vice Chair of 
the caucus, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), for being 
so stalwart and being out there and willing to be the hood ornaments of 
righteousness on this issue.

                              {time}  1730

  When you are a hood ornament, nine times out of ten, you are going to 
get some bugs in your teeth. I used to be a State trooper, so I know 
about hood ornaments.
  But for us to do Social Security, it needs to be a true bipartisan 
effort. Where does the rub come in? I think where the rub comes in here 
is the majority side is saying we have to have these private accounts. 
Even the President had to admit that private accounts will not resolve 
the Social Security issue.
  Social Security is not in the stage of crisis. Let me say that again, 
because we have folks who are flying around and burning jet fuel at 
taxpayers' expense, on C-SPAN more than the House is on C-SPAN, and the 
other body, talking about a crisis.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, what could happen is our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle just spent an hour talking 
about how there is a crisis, and we need to address it. It could appear 
as though we are engaging in a debate of, yes there is, no there is 
not. Let me just show the folks at home who is saying and agreeing 
there is not a crisis.
  The other day, the Comptroller General, David Walker, testified in 
front of the Committee on Ways and Means, which is the committee with 
main jurisdiction over this issue. He said, while the program faces no 
immediate financial crisis, he did say that time is working against us, 
and the longer we wait, the further you put off solving this problem, 
the more difficult it is going to be. He did acknowledge in full public 
view, the Comptroller General of the United States, that the program 
faces no immediate financial crisis.
  Now, I would not think that the Comptroller General would 
deliberately contradict the President unless he wanted to make sure 
that he stuck to what is factual versus hyperbole. We have been truly 
committed to disseminating facts and not just blowing this problem out 
of proportion to get to our political goal. That is what the other side 
has been doing.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, taking from the words of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), we want to strengthen Social 
Security. We want to do it in a bipartisan way and without slashing 
benefits and making sure that we do not have private accounts that will 
make the Social Security challenge even worse. We will point that out 
as we move along.
  Once the President stops insisting on privatization of Social 
Security, we can have a real dialogue and move forward and make sure we 
can deal with the long-term challenges.
  I mentioned earlier about the 38 million Americans that are 
recipients, and the average benefit is $955. That is a lot of money to 
many Americans. This is not money that they just showed up and said, I 
have not worked and I want Social Security benefits. These are 
individuals who have worked every day of their lives, invested in 
Social Security and want to make sure that is the guaranteed American 
benefit that they are going to receive at the end of their working 
years, and rightfully so.
  What the private accounts are doing and what they should do is do 
what we did when President Reagan was president and Tip O'Neill was 
Speaker of this House. They got together on a bipartisan basis and came 
up with a solution for Social Security. That is what we are going to 
have to do. We cannot have an OK Corral with one at one end of the 
street and one at the other and then figure out who can say what the 
most, even if it is inaccurate, playing the political game, because 
Americans will lose in the long run.
  Let us talk a little bit, and I want to share a little bit about the 
credibility of inaccurate information. That is contradicting to say the 
credibility of inaccurate information, but it is important that 
Americans understand that if they are going to take something as fact, 
it is important that they have some sort of reference to go to because 
a lot of things have been said in this Chamber.
  I mentioned last week, dealing with the whole Medicare prescription 
drug debate, and I commend some of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who stood against the powers that be and said no, I will not 
vote for this give-away to some of the strongest lobbyists in this 
town, that we are going to give them a gift and not be able to give a 
gift to seniors that we should give them. That we will not, I will not 
continue to borrow money on a high interest credit card, and I have to 
get my credit card going again because I had a blown-up copy of the 
Federal debt, that we are not going to do it.
  When we started dealing with the prescription drug issue, everyone 
was running around saying we needed to deal with prescription drugs. On 
the Democratic side we said, yes; finally, we can get together and do 
something on a bipartisan basis. During that debate, the administration 
said the prescription drug bill will cost $350 billion. That is without 
giving the government negotiating power with the pharmaceutical 
companies to bring the cost down, that is just having the 
pharmaceutical companies set the price.
  Then the administration shared with us that it would be $400 billion. 
That is a lot of money; okay. We were able to not only pass the bill, 
and many of us voted against it because we knew the numbers were not 
correct and we could not get price negotiations in to bring the cost of 
prescription drugs down for everyday Americans. Sure enough, after the 
debate, we received information that it would be $530 billion. That is 
a lot of money. I am talking about future generations and what they 
have to pay on the debt.
  Then a couple of weeks ago, the cost went up to $727 billion. I will 
tell Members that is very, very wrong as it relates to inaccurate 
information that

[[Page 4258]]

we have received from not only the President but from the majority 
side.
  Before I move to the next point of accurate versus inaccurate, Social 
Security, Democrats have literally given flesh and blood for Social 
Security. This is something that we have fought for because we believe 
in not only the American worker but making sure that when we tell 
Americans that we are going to do something, that we are going to stand 
up to that responsibility. Private accounts are private accounts. They 
are private. It is privatization of Social Security, and it is not just 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz) saying that there will be issues if we take 
this private account gamble, but there are others that have come out 
against what the President is talking, this philosophy which is not a 
plan which we will address later. The gentlewoman has a chart to 
explain further what we are talking about.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, it is important to continue along 
the vein that we have. These are not manufactured facts by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz).
  If we look at this chart that shows how the debt would increase under 
the President's budget proposal if this plan goes forward, this is the 
portion of the debt from 2004 through 2015 that each American would be 
responsible for. It starts at $4,395 in 2004 and goes up to $10,500. 
This is gross income per family of four, and this is CBO numbers. This 
reflects the CBO's estimate of the President's budget that he has 
recently proposed. We are already in pretty dire straits when it comes 
to the deficit. The deficit, when divided amongst every American and 
each family, this is what it translates to over time. This is what it 
means to a family of four in real burden.
  So if Members think about the real burden that a family of four takes 
on in adding to the debt because the proposal that the President has 
put forward grossly increases the deficit. I want to take this chart 
down and go to the next chart, in order to privatize Social Security 
and make the transition to private accounts, that would cost $1.4 
trillion in borrowing in the first 10 years of the plan.
  That obviously will endanger the economy. It makes us further 
indebted to foreign nations and sends essentially the decision making 
about our economic future to China and Japan as opposed to remaining 
here in Washington, D.C., where we think most Americans would obviously 
prefer it to be. It raises taxes on our children and grandchildren over 
time because that number goes from $4,300 in debt per family of four to 
more than $10,000 per family of four.
  Going past 10 years, it costs another $3.5 trillion. The Republican 
Social Security privatization plan adds further to our debt. Here is 
the $1.4 trillion in the next 10 years and an additional $3.5 trillion 
over the 10 years after that. That adds additional debt in the first 10 
years, and this shows the current debt that we have.
  We have got to make sure that we become once and for all fiscally 
responsible. We have a goal to remain committed to the preservation and 
solvency of Social Security because we have been, as Democrats, 
supportive of creating, sustaining and improving Social Security since 
1935. The proof is in the pudding. The proof is in where the votes have 
been, and the votes have been in terms of sustaining Social Security's 
future, on the Democratic side of the aisle.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office has 
given us a lot of good information for us to be able to share with the 
American people about what is actually happening with this debate.
  I also want to say that the President and some Members on the 
majority side bought into the philosophy to hit the road. I am glad 
they are joining us because over 80 percent of the Democratic Caucus 
has gone out and had town hall meetings not only in their districts but 
throughout the country.
  A little later on, I would like to talk about a town hall meeting 
that I am having. I will be in the Capitol tomorrow, and at noon, I 
will be online. I will give that information later. I will talk about 
how you can become a part of a town hall meeting and send questions in. 
We have received 20 questions already, and we have not even gotten 
online yet.
  The President said in Columbus, Ohio, today, This is a debt to the 
future generations of Americans, and unless we do something about it, 
we will not be able to pay for it without wrecking the economy. This is 
what he said in Ohio, and I am glad we have a savvy reporter from the 
Associated Press that understands the plan as we understand the plan 
here in Congress.
  Under this plan, retirees and workers 55 and over will receive 
current benefits without changes. Younger workers would get a lower 
guaranteed government benefit at retirement than current retirees will 
receive right now on the assumption that their personal account 
earnings would make up at least a part of the difference. Under the 
administration's philosophy, younger workers who decide against the 
private accounts would also face cuts of their guaranteed government 
benefit.
  Some Republicans have been skittish about the issue, fearing 
political backlash, and I will say congressional Democrats are 
virtually unanimous in opposition to this philosophy.

                              {time}  1745

  I just want to say that as we start talking about cutting back on 
benefits, what the majority side is doing, they are saying even if you 
do not want to be a part of the private accounts, because you hear all 
this thing about options and choices, that even if you do not want to 
be a part of it, your benefits are going to be cut anyway. I do not 
understand it.
  Then some folks say, well, where is the Democratic plan? I would say, 
where is the majority side plan? There is no plan. There is not a piece 
of legislation. Nothing has been binding and sent to the Hill. Nothing 
at all.
  I want to show this chart to the Members because we need to make sure 
that we remind some individuals here about what has been going on with 
this debate on Social Security and private accounts. We have been time 
after time, and I say ``we,'' House Democrats and some good Republicans 
on the other side of the aisle, I just want to say again, there are 
some in the majority caucus that have taken a stand against the 
administration and the majority side in saying no.
  After the Medicare prescription drug issue, it is embarrassing. If 
you voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan, you are embarrassed. 
If you are a fiscal conservative, you have a bag over your head, 
because you are saying, I can't believe I voted for that. I can't 
believe that not only did I increase the debt, that we are knocking on 
the Bank of China to pay down on the debt, God forbid if they said, 
guess what, we don't want to buy any more of your bonds, we are in 
trouble.
  This is a time of war. This is a time when we are trying to protect 
the homeland. And as I see the administration out there running around, 
saying, I guess if we burn enough jet fuel and go around and talk to 
people, maybe they will start believing that there is a crisis.
  The crisis is the Federal debt. The crisis is the fact that 45 
million Americans working, not those that are sitting at home cracking 
their toes saying the job situation looks sad, these individuals are 
going in every day to work, and they do not have health care. That is a 
crisis. A crisis is our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and in 
the horn of Africa that are fighting terrorism. That is a crisis. A 
crisis is these military families, especially for the Army, that have 
been deployed some 12, 15 months, and they are trying to make ends 
meet. That is a crisis.
  I think maybe, just maybe, and I am not here with hypotheticals, but 
I am just saying maybe this whole thing about Social Security private 
accounts may just be, I will run that way when the issues are this way. 
And I think, or I know, that the American people are a lot smarter than 
some people may

[[Page 4259]]

think they are as it relates to having a grasp on this issue of Social 
Security.
  The reason why we do not have a bill and the reason why the President 
has not come up with a plan and the reason why the majority side has 
not proposed a plan, because the American people are not with 
privatization of Social Security.
  I know the gentlewoman wants to say something, but I just have to 
make this point because this is about fact, not fiction. I think it is 
important. I think we have an obligation as the Democratic 30-something 
Working Group empowered by our leadership to come to this floor to have 
an hour on this floor every week is not only an honor for us but an 
honor for every young American that is out there and also for every 
parent and grandparent that is saying that I want my children to have a 
better opportunity than what they have had.
  Let us talk about what the President is doing now. In 1978, he said 
he wanted to privatize Social Security, that he would like to see it 
happen.
  In 2000, during the campaign, then Governor Bush said that he wanted 
to privatize Social Security.
  Then when he became President Bush, he appointed a commission to 
develop a privatization plan for him. In December of 2001, that 
commission gave the President three options for privatization of Social 
Security.
  From December 2001 to 2004, the President and the administration and 
the majority side were silent on Social Security. For this to be a 
perceived crisis that the majority side is talking about and that the 
President is talking about, to be silent over all of that time and say 
nothing.
  In 2004, while running for reelection, the President again talked 
about private accounts and saying they are a solution for Social 
Security's long-term financial imbalance.
  Days after the 2004 election, the President said that he had 
political capital and wanted to use it to push privatization of Social 
Security through the Congress right away.
  In January of this year, press accounts claimed that the White House 
would have a privatization plan to Congress by late February. This is 
March now, or early March. I am going to tell the Members right now, I 
do not think that we are going to see one. In the budget that was 
submitted at the beginning of February, there was actually no reference 
to this crisis that the President speaks of in his budget. No 
reference. Meanwhile, we have the President flying all around the 
country, this is a crisis, they are using words like ``bankrupt,'' and 
nothing in the budget. I cannot understand that. It goes against what 
you should do in a crisis. And now the press is saying that they are 
not clear if the President is going to offer a plan.
  I know it took me a little while to say all of that, but I want to 
make sure when individuals in the majority side start to talk about, 
well, where is the Democratic plan, I will tell you, we have been 
waiting years for the Republican plan. Years. Our plan is already 
enshrined in Social Security. The reason why it is going to be solvent 
for another 47 years is not because the majority side, the Republican 
side, has said we love and we want Social Security for years and years 
to come. It is because Democrats demanded that Americans that did 
everything that we told them to do, work hard, support your country, 
raise your children and at the end of those years, you will receive 
your benefits, even if you pass away, 17 percent of the individuals 
that are receiving these benefits are young people that are receiving 
survivor benefits. And so this is not a gray and silver hair, this is 
not a silver hair-blue hair issue. This is an American issue.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. To add insult to injury, if we are going to 
spend time talking about private accounts and that really seems to be 
the way the President has shaped this debate, that is the issue around 
which the President has shaped this debate, what is unbelievable is 
that private accounts by anyone's admission do not even solve the 
problem. Private accounts do not shore up Social Security, they do not 
improve its solvency, they do not solve the 2042 problem. They just 
create private accounts and privatize Social Security and pull the rug 
out from under people's future retirement security. That is all they 
do.
  Just so that we can stick to the facts and not hyperbole, I will 
highlight the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking member 
on Ways and Means. The other day, he spoke to Mr. Walker and asked him 
about private accounts and his opinion. Mr. Walker, the Comptroller, 
said that as a carve-out, and this was in front of the House Committee 
on Ways and Means, personal accounts financed with payroll taxes could 
worsen the program's financial stability. He said if it was designed as 
a supplement to traditional benefits, as an add-on, that personal 
accounts would not cause a problem. And, essentially, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin) said, well, what the President proposed was a 
carve-out. That is clearly not acceptable under the Comptroller 
General's concept.
  By the President's own experts' admission, Social Security is not in 
crisis, Social Security is solvent until at least 2042; and then what 
is unfortunate is the hyperbole, because our colleague from North 
Carolina, who was spending some time on the floor a little while ago 
talking about their view, his view, on Social Security referred to the 
solvency issue and said that out in 2042 that Social Security would be 
flat busted, I think was the term he used while I was listening to his 
debate. That is absolutely incorrect. Flat busted. My definition of 
flat busted means no money, gone, cannot provide any benefits at all. 
Then he, a few minutes later, said, well, it would provide 60 to 70 
percent of benefits.
  The reality is that the factual numbers from the Social Security 
Administration itself, from the trustees who manage the Social Security 
trust fund, they say that at the earliest in 2042, Social Security 
would pay 80 percent of benefits if we do nothing, which you and I and 
others continue and the leader and the whip and the chairman of the 
caucus continue to stress, we are not suggesting that we do nothing. We 
are suggesting that if we are going to focus on this problem, that we 
call it a problem and not a crisis, couch it the way it is, and let us 
come together in a bipartisan fashion and sit down and hash out 
solutions.
  Our point is why spend time wringing our hands, gnashing our teeth, 
and stressing out our constituents who are really concerned about 
whether or not Social Security is going to be there for them talking 
about privatizing Social Security which is the vast majority of what we 
are spending our time talking about when it does not even solve the 
problem. That is the bottom line.
  When I had my town hall meetings, Democrats have held more than 300 
town hall meetings, like the gentleman said, more than 80 percent of 
our colleagues in the caucus have had town hall meetings, there have 
literally been more than 300 of those. At so many of those, senior 
citizens, our wonderful senior citizens who literally we all stand on 
their shoulders today, you and I especially, our generation has been 
able to achieve what we have been able to achieve by standing on their 
shoulders.
  People ask, why do seniors care about this issue? The President has 
said, people 55 and over are not going to have to worry about it. They 
care because they care about their grandchildren. They also care 
because they have a healthy dose of skepticism. What they lived through 
in their lifetimes has taught them not to take everything at face 
value. And they understand that when you have such a gargantuan, 
mammoth change to a system as large as Social Security, there is no way 
that you can trust that people who are 55 and older will not have to 
worry.
  They also understand that they need to be concerned about their 
children and their grandchildren. That same AP story that the gentleman 
quoted a little while ago focused on the President and what he has said 
about this issue. The President commented on people 55 and older. At 
the same time he was saying they would not need to be concerned about 
his plan, he also said grandmothers and grandfathers need to

[[Page 4260]]

be worried about their grandchildren when it comes to Social Security. 
So at least the President acknowledges that people 55 and older have a 
legitimate reason to be concerned about this. We have got to make sure 
that we continue to disseminate the facts and not engage in the 
hyperbole that the Republicans have been.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I can tell the gentlewoman, I was here in the 
108th Congress. I know some of the things that have been said not only 
on this floor but also some of the information we have received from 
the administration, I think the American people have witnessed this 
information, too, for it to not be accurate, especially when it comes 
down to numbers.
  There are Members of the other body of this Congress, the other 
Chamber, they are concerned. They are not willing to take a gamble. 
They are not willing to throw the dice. It is not a crap game. This is 
Social Security. I want to be able to share not only with the Members 
but the people here in this Chamber that the rules that are set out by 
this House, Democrats, we are in the minority. We do not agenda the 
meetings, we cannot agenda the meetings, we cannot bring bills to the 
floor because we are not in control of the Rules Committee. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking member on Ways and 
Means, cannot call a Ways and Means Committee hearing to question the 
administration on the philosophy of privatization of Social Security 
since there is no plan.
  So I want to make sure that people understand, because there is 
desperation on the other side of the aisle for those that are 
participating with the administration in this game of a crisis of 
Social Security. And when you are in crisis, you start saying things 
that will sensationalize the situation. And the inaccurate information 
that is out there, and I am not using the generalization of saying the 
Republican Caucus, because there are some good Republicans. They are 
standing there. They are standing by their constituents. They are 
saying, no, this is not clear, I don't see how this benefits my 
constituents, young or old. With all due respect to the President, I am 
not saying that he is giving us wrong information; I am saying he is 
giving us inaccurate information.

                              {time}  1800

  It is what you say. When you say words like ``bankrupt,'' that means 
no money. That means it is done.
  Listen, if the gentlewoman and I were the only Americans paying into 
the Social Security system, it would not be bankrupt. So I am just 
trying to break it down, because the President came in here and said, 
if you are over 55, you do not need to worry.
  Now, I am going to tell you, we are one America, and I do not know of 
any parent, and I am so glad that my mother and my father, God bless 
his soul, he has passed on now, they did not say, ``I am okay, son. You 
need to fend for yourself. I have mine, you get yours.'' That is not 
the American way.
  We will come to this Floor until the microphones no longer work as 
not only Democrats but some Republicans that are willing to stand up 
against this crisis philosophy that is wrong; 47 years of benefits not 
being cut, and even after 47 years, 80 percent of the benefits will be 
honored. So I commend them.
  I want to say to the gentlewoman that our leader, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic Leader has been on the 
road. She is speaking to young people. She is speaking to students at 
the universities, talking about Social Security and why it is important 
and what we want to do and how we want to work with the majority side.
  I will tell you, when we work together, good things happen. I have 
been here. I have witnessed good things happening when people sit at 
the table. But it is very rare, I must add. And if given the 
opportunity to lead this House in the majority, our leadership will 
provide the right formula or will write the right prescription, if I 
could say that, to make sure that we work in a bipartisan way.
  We have some e-mails we have to read from last week. Also, I want to 
be able to share, the 30-something online town hall meeting will be 
tomorrow at noon. You can go to the 30-something website to find out 
the details. Democratic.leader.house.gov/30something. That is 
Democratic.leader.house.gov/30something. That is the site.
  At our website, you can also check out the Social Security time line 
that I shared with you. I want to make sure the Members have this 
information, Democrat or Republican, I want them to have it, because I 
want to be able to make sure that the facts are out there. Everything 
that we share here, it is not fiction. It is not Star Trek. It is 
actually factual.
  You will see the President's Social Security time line, of how long 
the majority side has been talking about private accounts, and this is 
one I guess of value or something, talking points on young people and 
Social Security. Also linked to the web page of the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) Social Security and young people are clips from 
the past 30-something hours.
  We want to give people information, and we are so glad we are 
interactive, because we are hearing from people.
  I also would say, again, that is tomorrow at noon, the 30-something 
town hall meeting. We will be online to answer your questions, and the 
site is Democratic.leader.house.gov/30something.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I 
want to get to some of the e-mails we received since the last hour. I 
want to highlight an e-mail we got from a young woman, someone who just 
passed 30-something, she just turned 40, so she is just outside of our 
generational span here, but she said this about privatization and 
private accounts: ``I am very uncomfortable with the idea of using 
private accounts for Social Security. My mutual fund lost half of its 
value and, at the rate it is earning, will take another 5 to 8 years to 
get to the rate of my deposit. My stocks, bonds and annuities lost, but 
not as big, but they haven't really earned in about 5 years. My IRAs 
earned at about 3 percent. Everyone else I know, from my retired father 
to my peers to my kids who have mutual funds in their names for college 
funds, have been burned by the private financial sector. In addition, I 
know people whose employers have defaulted on pension plans.''
  This is the type of risk that we would be subjecting people's 
retirement security to if we transition to private accounts. That is 
what people are afraid of.
  There is not so much confidence in investing in the stock market. 
When I had my town hall meetings, and I had three of them, I asked 
people to raise their hands, and I had more than 200 at two of mine, 
and 500 or more at all three combined, and I asked people at each town 
hall meeting for a show of hands, how many of them would feel 
comfortable in their own ability to make investment decisions or their 
children's or grandchildren's ability to make investment decisions to 
ensure that they would have as much money as Social Security would 
provide for them when they got to their retirement. And literally, at 
my first town hall meeting, three people raised their hand; at my 
second town hall meeting, two people raised their hand; and no one 
raised their hand at the third one.
  People do not want to throw their retirement security to the wind. 
They do not want to subject it to the whims of the stock market. Social 
Security is not supposed to be a gamble, like investment in the stock 
market is. You go in with your eyes open when you invest in the stock 
market. You know you may lose your money.
  That is not what Social Security was designed to do. Social Security 
was designed to provide you with security, not designed to stress you 
out for the rest of your life and have you pray on your knees every 
night that you made the right decision and your money is going to be 
there for you when you retire.
  Twenty percent of women who are single and retired and collecting 
Social Security have Social Security as their only source of income. 
That number is only going to go up because, as we all know, given our 
age, our generation

[[Page 4261]]

has not been the generation of savers. Our generation has not 
squirreled money away under the mattress or in savings accounts. They 
do not have a significant nest egg.
  The President is trying to say that this could be their nest egg. The 
only trick is, if you move to private accounts, he does not really talk 
too much in his town hall meetings about how there is going to be a 
commensurate cut in Social Security benefits. You do not get both under 
his plan.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, under his philosophy.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. His outline.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Because there is no plan. I am sorry.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is okay. I thank the gentleman. He is 
right, I was giving him too much credit. You do not get both. You get 
at least a 46 percent cut in your benefits in the Social Security 
benefits that you would have gotten if you move to a private account.
  I want to give some information to our younger peers about what it 
would mean. Risky private accounts do not make up for the 46 percent 
cut in benefits that President Bush has proposed. A 20-year-old who 
enters the workforce this year would lose about $152,000 over their 
working lifetime in Social Security benefits under the Bush plan.
  Social Security provides disability insurance, which we have not 
talked too much about yet. I had a man who suffers from MS come to one 
of my town hall meetings. He could barely speak because it has affected 
his voice. He can no longer work. He collects Social Security. We need 
to remind people of people who are survivors, who are collecting 
survivors benefits, their families, people on disability.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Explain survivor benefits, if you will, to make 
sure everyone understands.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. A third of Social Security goes to 
people who are survivors of Social Security recipients. The Social 
Security recipient in their family has passed on. That person's 
dependents who remain alive collect that person's Social Security 
benefits.
  There are young children and widows who are sustained through their 
life, who are able to remain in their house, who are able to send their 
children to school and leave the legacy that their deceased parent 
would have wanted for them, because Social Security is in place.
  If you shift to private accounts, the President's outline does not 
help people on disability or survivors or their families because they 
cannot work, because they do not have a way to invest in private 
accounts, because they do not collect a salary. So we are going to 
essentially leave them out in the cold.
  For a worker in her mid-20s with a spouse and two children, and there 
are millions of families like that across this country, Social Security 
provides the equivalent of a $350,000 disability insurance policy. Most 
people that I know cannot afford to go out and buy one of those on the 
private market. That is the type of thing that Social Security 
provides.
  Suppose, God forbid, a young parent dies suddenly. Social Security 
provides for the children who are left behind. The survivors 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. 
For that parent, Social Security survivors benefits are the equivalent 
to a $403,000 life insurance policy.
  That is what Social Security means to real people who suffer through 
these unexpected tragedies every single day.
  We need to fix Social Security. We acknowledge that there are 
problems. We do not think that we should get to 2042 and have there 
only be 80 percent benefits paid. We believe in shoring up Social 
Security, but we believe in doing it responsibly, and we are not going 
to come to the table and negotiate on a risky privatization plan which 
does not solve the problem, which adds to our national debt, makes us 
more reliant on foreign nations and their economic decisions and leaves 
the future of our generation twisting in the wind, hoping that they 
will have benefits that would probably go away if this is the direction 
we are going in.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman. The more we can talk about Social Security and what is 
being presently given to Americans, like survivor and disability 
benefits, I am glad that the gentlewoman really talked about that, 
because a 20-year-old, it is a three out of ten chance they have of 
dying or becoming disabled before retirement age. That is important. 
That is why I say this is an American issue, Mr. Speaker, and not just 
a small issue.
  I have an issue of dealing with one generation or another. We will 
not pit generations against each other, not on this Floor. The reason 
this bill has not come to the Floor yet or a plan has not been placed 
on the table yet or Members are not falling over each other on the 
majority side saying ``let's do something, let's do something,'' is 
because if they bring a privatization account to this floor or to the 
other body, that I believe many of them will be making a career 
decision, because I believe the American people will say, I do not 
believe because the President and some Members of the majority side 
said we have to do this because the ball is rolling, because we started 
the ball rolling by saying that Social Security is going to come to an 
end tomorrow, we have to finish rolling the ball.
  Well, let me tell you, Social Security is not prescription drugs. 
Social Security is not other plans that the administration has put out 
there. Social Security is in our communities, in our neighborhoods, a 
part of our values as a country, a part of family values, knowing that 
if a parent will pass on, knowing their children will not be left with 
nothing. They know this, because they have Social Security.
  I want to just commend some of the groups, and I want the Members to 
know, that are in the fight of sharing good information out there with 
the American people. I want to thank the Center for American Progress. 
I want to also thank the NEA; A. Phillip Randolph Institute; the 
Alliance of Retired Americans; the American Association of University 
Women; also the African American Episcopal Church; also the American 
Baptist Churches of USA; the AFL-CIO; the Association of Community 
Organizations for Reform Now. We want to thank the Campaign for 
American's Future; also The Center For Budget and Policy Priorities; 
the Center For Economic Policy and Research; the Children's Defense 
Fund; the Coalition of Black Trade Unions; the Coalition of Human 
Needs; College Democrats of America; Congressional Black Caucus 
Foundation; Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities; the Economic 
Policy Institute; the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; 
also the League of Rural Voters; The League of United Latin American 
Citizens; and The Links, Inc. Also, we would like to thank the NAACP 
and several other organizations.
  We also need to point out the great job that Rock the Vote is doing. 
They are out there sharing good information.

                              {time}  1815

  They have a Web site, www.rockthevote.com; and I think it is 
important that Americans spend time, and I want to commend those 
groups, those that were mentioned and those that were not mentioned, 
for the hard work that they are doing out there in holding up the flag 
and making sure that people understand exactly what is at stake here, 
making sure that they are out there. They may not be, I say to the 
gentlewoman, they may not be on the evening news; they may not be at 
the top of the hour on any of these cable networks that are out there, 
but they are out there. And they are making sure that we hold this 
Congress honest in saying that, no, you will not give us the one-two 
step, you will not fake right, go left, you will not do that.
  So that is the reason why we do not have a bill. That is the reason 
why the President has not put forth a plan, because the American people 
are so educated on this issue and will continue to be educated on this 
issue.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to remain true to my 
gender, and I have done this every week since I have been participating 
in

[[Page 4262]]

the 30-something group. I have an 18-month-old who I want to take to 
Mommy and Me in the morning, so I am going to go home in a minute and 
catch my flight so I can do that.
  The reason that I am saying that is that I am one of three women 
younger than 40 in the Congress, out of 435 Members. There are a unique 
set of issues that women face when compared to men. The privatization 
outline that the President has suggested really puts women in a dire 
situation. For example, in 2003, the average monthly Social Security 
benefit for a woman was only $798, which is $241 less than the average 
man's monthly retirement. Women's earnings were 76 percent relative to 
men in 2003, which is down from 77 percent in 2002.
  Women who reach retirement age live on average at least 3 years 
longer than men, so this is going to be their problem 3 years longer 
than men. Social Security is the only source of retirement income for 
one in three unmarried, retired women. Without Social Security, 52 
percent of white women, 65 percent of African American women, and 61 
percent of Hispanic women would live in poverty upon retirement. It 
provides more than half of the total income for widows and single 
women.
  We have got to make sure that Social Security provides for all of us. 
We have got to make sure that we get the facts out as it relates to 
this problem. Not crisis, but problem. And we in the 30-something 
group, the members of our generation are going to continue to help 
educate, as we go around the country on the campus tours that we are 
planning, as we work with Rock the Vote and the myriad of organizations 
that the gentleman has detailed. The Older Women's League also is on 
that list in being in opposition to the President's outline.
  It is our responsibility to ensure that when the baton is handed to 
our generation, that we commit to carrying it forth and run up those 
stairs like they do in the Olympics and light the torch so that we can 
make sure that we preserve the safety net that was created back in 
1935.
  It is always a pleasure to be here with the gentleman, and I look 
forward to continuing our fact-disseminating mission.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I know that we are wearing 
something similar here. Can the gentlewoman tell us a little bit about 
what we are promoting here?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. The Speaker is also wearing the 
tie. During this week, the Lifetime Network has promoted the issue of 
violence against women and highlighted the issue of violence against 
women on their Web site and on their network. We have all been wearing 
and have been asked to wear this tie and scarf to highlight domestic 
violence and the tragedy of domestic violence so that we can make sure 
that we can fight domestic violence in every corner of this country.
  So I am pleased that the men and women of the Congress on both sides 
of the aisle have been committed to this and we are standing in 
solidarity with the women who have been victims of domestic violence.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that is so very, very important; 
and I thank the gentlewoman for explaining what we are doing. Some 
Members that were sick this week might have thought we have a new 
uniform or something, that we all have to wear the same colors.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to not only thank the Members for listening to 
our 30-something hour; but we also want to share in closing, especially 
here on the Democratic side, that we want to strengthen Social Security 
without slashing benefits that Americans have earned. Private accounts 
make the Social Security challenge worse. They force massive benefit 
cuts and increase the national debt. Once the President stops insisting 
on privatization accounts, we can work together on making sure that we 
keep the promise to Social Security recipients and future recipients.
  I also want to add that Social Security is an American success story 
that safeguards Americans' independence and economic security when they 
get older. Also, Social Security faces a long-term challenge, but not a 
crisis. A challenge, but not a crisis. I want to make sure that I put 
emphasis on that. Americans have earned their Social Security benefits, 
and it would violate their trust and penalize Americans who have paid 
into Social Security all of their lives to go to private accounts. Here 
on this side of the aisle, Democrats will preserve the Social Security 
promise that we made long ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to once again, before I close, commend not 
only my colleagues in Florida on the other side of the aisle who are 
not with the philosophy of some Members of the majority and the 
President as it relates to this Social Security scheme of 
privatization. I want to commend all of my Democratic colleagues for 
standing in solidarity in making sure that Social Security is promised 
for future generations and the present generation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to come to the floor and address 
the Members of this House.

                          ____________________