[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7396-7402]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schwarz). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to not 
only address the House, but the American people, to make sure that this 
government stays within the realm of the responsibility that the 
American people have given us to come to this U.S. House of 
Representatives and this Congress to represent them and their needs and 
their family's needs.
  Those great Americans that have worked their entire lives to save and 
be a part of the Social Security system, to make sure that we hold our 
promise to their well-being not only during their retirement years, but 
even those that are beneficiaries of those that have passed on.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, 
has designated this hour for the 30-something Working Group. And every 
week we come to the floor to address not only the House, but we keep 
the American people up to date on what is happening regarding Social 
Security and the challenges they are facing with the ongoing effort not 
only by the President, but also by some Members on the majority side to 
privatize Social Security.
  I can tell Members that we pride ourselves on making sure that we get 
not only accurate, but up-to-date information so we can share not only 
mainly with the Members of this Congress the importance of the reason 
why they need to stand up and represent their constituents.
  I must say I am very pleased that a number of Democrats on this side 
of the aisle, and I do mean almost 110 percent, I will say there are 
many Democrats who are big, heavy supporters of Social Security and do 
not want to see it privatized. I believe we are 100 percent.
  I believe, on the majority side, we have a few Members who are 
holding out and are saying they are not going to gamble with their 
constituents' future, their guaranteed retirement.
  Last week we talked about the 48 million Americans that celebrate a 
Social Security benefit which is right now, on average, about $955 that 
each Social Security beneficiary gets. That is very important because 
33 million of those individuals would be under the poverty line if it 
was not for Social Security. So when we start looking at what is going 
on and the hype around the fact that Social Security is going to blow 
up tomorrow, I think it is important that we share the facts.
  The facts are that there is not a crisis as it relates to Social 
Security. A crisis is something you have to respond to right now 
because if you do not respond to it now, it will turn into something 
that will be devastating to whatever the situation may be.
  We do know now, in the next 47 or 50 years, we all agree that Social 
Security will be able to provide the benefits to the individuals that 
are in the program. When they reach retirement, it will be there for 
them. That is 100 percent for the next 47 to 50 years. I will receive 
100 percent of my benefits if nothing happens to Social Security.
  We know we want to look beyond that and do creative things to make 
sure that not only my generation, but future generations, the 
generation-after-next generation, that Social Security is there for 
them. As Democrats, we agree on the fact that we have to make sure that 
it is there. But to say to privatize it is the answer, it is not the 
answer. I cannot help but share some of the issues that are going on.
  Last week we talked about the 48 million during our hour. I ran into 
some of my colleagues this past week. They said, We know about that 48 
million, and a lot of them are in Florida and that is what you are 
concerned about; my State is not really affected, and the private 
accounts will not hurt.
  I guarantee Members this, they will hurt and benefits will fall in 
Social Security if we go to private accounts. That is a fact.
  Alan Greenspan had some interesting comments yesterday as it relates 
to the stock market, and if we had private accounts right now, how 
those individuals would have been penalized. The President said, We are 
going to secure and isolate. If you invest in the stock market, it is 
very hard to isolate your investments. When it goes under, it goes 
under. So to turn Wall Street into Las Vegas as it relates to folks' 
retirement, that may be good for a private pension plan, but it is not 
good for Social Security.
  I pulled some of the statistics from my colleagues' States so they 
understand what we are saying about this issue, not just voting with 
the next person because they say we have to follow the leadership and 
privatize Social Security.
  I think it is important to know in the great State of Alabama that 
the report as it relates to young Social Security beneficiaries, and I 
think this is important because a lot of folks have a misperception of 
the fact that Social Security is just for individuals who have retired. 
Right now we have 801,290 beneficiaries in Alabama: seventeen and 
under, 71,350; from age 18 to 39, we have 30,930; and other ages beyond 
that point is 699,010. Those are the numbers of Alabamians that count 
on Social Security. And I will say if folks want to start playing the 
Potomac two-step with Social Security, they need to understand that 
their constituents are going to end up losing versus gaining.
  Another State that is important to address because we have folks that 
say they do not quite understand what is going on as it relates to the 
State of Illinois. 1.816 million individuals receive benefits right 
now. The number of those individuals that are over the age of 39 
receiving are 1,652,030. I think it is important that people know there 
are a number of individuals who will be affected by this privatization 
plan.
  I want to be able to address the Members and let it be known what we 
should be doing. The 30-something Working Group, when we sit down and 
talk about this, we talk about bipartisanship, and we talk about the 
fact that to come up with a Social Security forecast, Democrats and 
Republicans have to come together. In 1986, we know that Speaker Tip 
O'Neill and also Ronald Reagan came together to save Social Security, 
and I think it is important that we do that now.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe under the circumstances we cannot do. It is not 
because the minority side does not want to do it, it is because the 
majority side does not want to do it. I think it is important that you 
understand that we believe in strengthening Social Security 110 percent 
because it is a Democratic plan. And it is a plan that Republicans 
voted for in 1986, not all of them, but enough to say it is a part of 
our Nation. I think it is important for us to realize that with the 
numbers we are dealing with now, as relates to Social Security, we must 
pay very close attention to what we are doing.
  Now, the President has been flying around the country. This is not 
about politics because the bottom line is that the President is in his 
last term. So criticism that that is just some guy from Florida that is 
trying to hurt the President's hopes from being reelected, he cannot be 
reelected again. But it is important that we share accurate and good 
information, and it is important to make sure that every American has 
an opportunity to see his or her President when they come to their town 
or their city or their county.
  Now, if the President was to come to south Florida and I was standing 
in line to see the President, I would not

[[Page 7397]]

want to be pulled out of line and escorted out of the parking lot and 
dropped off somewhere far away from the convention center or wherever 
the President is going to speak because I disagree with him on Social 
Security.
  I guess if I was not a Member of Congress, I would be escorted out. 
But we have accounts from throughout the country, and I happen to have 
one right here in front of me. Fox News, of all news organizations, 
criticized the President on the screening tactics that they are using.

                              {time}  1800

  One of my fine colleagues here in the House said, speaking of the 
President, ``Regardless of the affiliation of the individual, anybody 
should have the opportunity to go see the President.'' Aaron Johnson, a 
spokesperson for the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), ``It 
shouldn't be the job of anybody to make sure the crowd is 100 percent 
sympathetic.''
  So if I had this sign and I was standing in line, Mr. Speaker, to go 
see the President, I guess I could not go in because I do not 
necessarily agree with him. That is not democracy. That is kingdom 
politics. I think that all Americans and also Members of this House 
should not condone that, especially when the President is flying around 
on taxpayer dollars. It is important that a democracy stays a 
democracy, and it is not in the Constitution. Nowhere in the 
Constitution does it say, It's either my way or the highway.
  I think it is important, because this is an actual news account, and 
AP and other news organizations covered the fact that if you disagree 
with the President and you want to show up, you better be undercover, 
you better not show your hand, you better not have a bumper sticker 
because there are those that are watching out for those kinds of 
individuals that are attending these events. I think it is very 
unfortunate that that is happening.
  That sends a perception out to the American people as though the 
President is talking about private accounts and some proponents on the 
majority side are talking about private accounts, that it is so great, 
that there is not an objection to it.
  If I was standing in front of the precinct where I am elected to come 
and serve in this Congress and folks were getting out of their car with 
the literature of my opponent and I was to have my friends go over 
there and escort them down the street so they cannot vote, I would get 
100 percent of the vote. So when we send this perception through that 
we are all together on this, it is not true. It is important, and I ask 
for Members to let their friends know at the White House and other 
places where these events are going on that it is important. And also 
as it relates to individuals that disagree with the President on other 
issues.
  I think it is important, not only that the 30-something Working Group 
continues to do what we are doing, but we want to commend those other 
groups that are out there. AARP, I must add, the largest retirement 
organization in this country, continues to go around and raise 
objection as it relates to Social Security. It is working. The reason 
why there is not a bill here on the floor, the fact that we have other 
things to do, which we do, because Social Security is not a crisis. I 
mean, that has not stopped some people from continuing to talk about it 
as though it is a Federal crisis right now. It is not. It is the fact 
that the American people object to the idea of privatizing their 
guaranteed retirement.
  You heard the statistics that I read off as it relates to States of 
children that are beneficiaries, receiving survivor benefits. That is 
helping them make it through college. That is helping them make ends 
meet. They are a part of the 33 million that would be otherwise under 
the poverty line. It is important that we pay very close attention to 
what is going on.
  In that same report, I think it is important as it relates to the 
President and what is going on in this one-sided deal, we have the 
Secret Service in Denver that told the three the next day that the 
bumper sticker on their car which read ``No More Blood For Oil,'' a 
common anti-Iraq slogan, triggered the ejection of those three 
individuals from the Bush rally, or the Social Security rally. I can 
tell you that as we start leading into this era of kingdom politics, we 
are going to find ourselves in more and more trouble.
  I want to talk a little bit about what is guaranteed under what we 
are dealing with now, Mr. Speaker. Some folks say there is a great 
mystery of what the benefit of going into, or lack thereof, a private 
account and what it means. The President said, well, we are spending 
money to save money, $5 trillion onto the debt. There is not a $5 
trillion surplus or the surplus that the President had when he came 
into office, but this is a $5 trillion loan. I want to just pull my 
deficit chart up here. As the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), has said, the only thing 
that you are guaranteed, Members, and your constituents are guaranteed, 
is the $26,296.10 that you owe right now on the debt.
  That is not only for father. That is for mother, that is for child, 
no matter what the age of that child. A child that was just born 5 
minutes ago, they already have a debt to this country, a financial debt 
to this country, not due to the fact of irresponsible spending on 
behalf of Democrats. We are not in charge of the House of 
Representatives. But when we were in charge of the House of 
Representatives, we balanced the budget. We took down the debt. We had 
a surplus. So to say, Yeah, it's those Democrats that are spending the 
money, that is not necessarily the case. As a matter of fact, we are 
being fiscally responsible by looking at it from the standpoint of if 
we are going to do something, why make the situation worse financially.
  We want to deal with Social Security, but we do not want to dig into 
making the debt even deeper, the national debt. And the whole argument 
about the reason why we are privatizing or that the President wants to 
privatize and some Members of the other body and some Members within 
this body want to privatize Social Security is the fact that we have to 
watch out for future generations.
  Let us look at that for a minute. Future generations. I am a Member 
of the U.S. Congress. My mother before me was a Member of the U.S. 
Congress. I have two young children. They are going to have a different 
experience than the rest of my constituents within the 17th 
Congressional District in Florida. Not because they are that much 
smarter than the rest of the 8-year-olds and the 10-year-olds in their 
community, but it is the fact that I am a U.S. Congressman and their 
mother is an outstanding lady and she is a professional and my mother 
was a past Congresswoman, that they are going to have a different snap 
at life than the next person.
  But people did not elect me to have a better opportunity towards not 
only health care but a better opportunity as it relates to a good 
retirement. They did not say, That's what we're electing you for. They 
elected us to represent them. So we have to watch out for the future 
generations. A $26,000 debt and change, I must add, is not a way to 
help our future generations. There are a number of individuals that are 
graduating from college, especially those that have gone through the 
postgraduate experience, that are leaving on an average of $20,000 in 
debt, and we are adding this debt on what they are going to have to pay 
somehow some way in the very near future. Over 40 percent of our debt 
is owned by foreign interests.
  I think it is important to understand, also, that this information on 
the debt can be found. Some people may think, Oh, you're just coming up 
with those numbers and you're just putting them out there. I want to 
make sure that 
the Members are aware of this. They 
can go on www.house.gov/budget_democrats to get this information, not 
only on the ticker but also letting it be known that the $26,000 and 
change, what they can actually print out and place somewhere on the 
door so that they can know exactly what we are doing to our future 
generations. If you can check that Web site, in 4 hours it will even be 
higher, the national debt.

[[Page 7398]]

  I think it is also important to know when dealing with the $5 
trillion what could happen and what we could do with that money. We 
talked about the fact that it is not a Federal emergency as it relates 
to the issue on Social Security, and it is not. But what does $5 
trillion do for programs over the next 20 years? I can do an awful lot 
for $5 trillion. I was talking to one of my mayors recently, and I 
mentioned $5 trillion to him and he said, goodness gracious, we could 
solve a lot of the issues facing our cities, and I can probably go 
around to many of my friends throughout the country. With $5 trillion 
we can make education better, we can make infrastructure better, we can 
do better services for our elderly, we can make sure that our 
communities are more secure, and we can make sure that we have a future 
for many of our young people.
  Let us look at $5 trillion. Pell grants. We hear a lot of discussion 
about Pell grants. It has helped a lot of young people and folks make 
it to school. Maybe they will not have that $20,000 in debt when they 
graduate. We know that there are a number of young people that go to 
school and have to return back home, not to take care of Mom and Dad; 
but it is the fact that they cannot go out and buy a home because they 
have debt. Unfortunately, many of our young people fall into that 
downward spiral of falling into debt and getting a bad credit rating.
  We can raise the maximum Pell grant from $4,050 to $59,500. Now, 5.3 
million students receive $4,050 in Pell grants. With $5 trillion, 23.7 
million students would receive a $59,500 Pell grant.
  I can go on and on and on, but I think it is important for us to 
understand what $5 trillion can do. The President and some of those 
proponents for private accounts want to go and borrow $5 trillion to 
not only take down the benefit structure but the benefits that now 
Americans enjoy. I think there is a majority of the Members in this 
Chamber, I know on the Democratic side, a supermajority on our side, 
and I think there are other individuals on the other side of the aisle 
that would say different, that we have other crises that are facing 
this country right now versus a crisis that is 50 years off, or could 
be a crisis where it would only go down to 80 percent of the benefits 
that we have now.
  We have got to deal with the Federal debt before we start getting 
into saying that, Well, we know we have the highest deficit in the 
history of the Republic, the 109th Congress oversees that debt, let's 
see, let's make it worse. Let's add 5 trillion more dollars on to it. 
Let's really make history. Let's go further than any other Congress has 
gone in the light of making sure that the only guaranteed benefit out 
of this whole exercise will be a $26,200-and-change debt given to every 
American no matter what their age may be.
  My colleague from Florida and a member of the 30-something Working 
Group and a good friend of mine, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz), I am so glad you came down.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Congressman Meek. We are 
continuing to try to educate our generation and other generations about 
the significantly negative impact that privatizing Social Security 
would have on them. As much as the President, as you have outlined, 
would like to lead people to believe that privatization is not going to 
harm people 55 and older, and there is going to be this amazing 
panacea, this incredible windfall for our generation and for supposedly 
savvy investors that are from our generation, we know differently. What 
we have been trying to do as the 30-something Working Group convened by 
Leader Pelosi is to try to separate fact from fiction.
  To follow up on some of your really excellent descriptions of what 
the kind of money we are talking about really means for people, you 
just talked about $5 trillion and what $5 trillion, which is what the 
President's privatization proposal would cost and add to the deficit in 
the next 20 years, what that would mean, what we could do with $5 
trillion instead of ballooning the deficit.
  I was just elected. I am a freshman Member of the Congress. We have 
had an opportunity to work together over the years. I am still 
definitely in learning mode, and I have got a learning curve. One of 
the things that I have noticed in my learning curve is that when you go 
from being in the State legislature like we were where you are dealing 
with billions of dollars, with a B, to the Congress, when you are 
dealing with trillions, with a T, it is hard for anyone, Members of 
Congress, Members of State legislatures and average citizens to really 
grasp what that kind of money is. No one deals with trillions of 
dollars. The current budget deficit is more than $7 trillion. It is 
$7.7 trillion.

                              {time}  1815

  And what the gentleman just described, the President's privatization 
proposal would add another $5 trillion to that.
  So let us just take the $7.7 trillion that is included in the 
projected deficit now and try to help people get their minds around 
what that is. If we took $7.7 trillion and can pile enough $1 bills, 
and there are actually people that figure these things out, on top of 
one another, it would reach the moon and back.
  The Moon is 93 million miles away from here. I am pretty sure that is 
right, 93 million miles away from here. So that is two stacks of $1 
bills that would reach the moon, and that is how much our deficit is.
  We would still have almost $6.5 billion left over. With that money, 
after traveling to the moon and back, we could make 1,329 stacks of $1 
bills that would reach up into the stratosphere, however high that 
would go.
  There is a really instructive Web site that the Department of 
Treasury has, and I think it would be helpful for people to know what 
that Web site is. It gives what the current deficit is, and it also 
gives what is each American's share of that deficit. It is a ticker and 
it is constantly changing. But that Web site is www.house.gov/
budget_democrats. And they can get access to the U.S. Treasury 
Department's Web page with that information; if they sign on to that 
Web site, it will link them right to that information.
  The national debt as of April 21 is $7,782,705,281,978.34. We could 
really improve the quality of people's lives with that kind of money.
  And the direction that this country has been going in is really 
disturbing. When I go home and talk to the people that live in my 
community in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, and we represent both of 
the same counties in South Florida, it does not matter whether I talk 
to people who consider themselves conservative, people who consider 
themselves moderate, people who consider themselves liberal. After the 
events of the last few weeks and the concerns that people have over the 
deficit, their share of it, this privatization plan which the President 
is suggesting would pull the safety net of Social Security out from 
under people.
  People are really starting to say just hold it a second, we need to 
get this train back on the tracks and start going in the direction that 
most people are comfortable with.
  And I think we really need to start encouraging people, as we have 
been doing, to raise their voices to help get that train back on the 
tracks, because it is moving so far to the right even for people who 
consider themselves on the right, even people like that are coming up 
to me and telling me they are disturbed. So I just wanted to share that 
illustration with people.
  We have talked often about the impact that privatization has had, and 
we had been on a break and we were not able to spend time during our 
30-something hour. We did not have a 30-something hour last week 
because of votes.
  So I think it is important, and I am not sure if the gentleman 
already talked about it, the impact that privatization would have on 
different categories of people. Particularly as the 30-something Group, 
we want to explain how it would hurt young people and working families.
  The cost of privatization would just explode the national debt, which 
we have been talking about, but what it means beyond exploding the 
national debt is that people who collect Social

[[Page 7399]]

Security would literally experience a 46 percent cut in their benefits.
  There has been this portrayal by the President on his 60-day tour of 
the country to try to sell this plan, which I know the gentleman 
outlined and talked about, how they restrict access to their town hall 
meetings and we let anybody come and we are willing to take on the 
people who stand up and actually ask questions that are not the same as 
the position that we take in our town hall meetings.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is what a 
democracy is all about. And I hope that the President disabused himself 
of escorting Americans out, taxpaying Americans that want to hear what 
he has to say.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue 
to yield, it is really unbelievable.
  I met with representatives of the Egyptian Government today, and they 
were talking to me about the democratic reforms that they are making 
and being more inclusive and involving their public in the role that 
government has. And I just cannot even imagine what kind of example the 
President is setting to burgeoning democracies and democracies that are 
trying to become even more democratic.
  I mean, if the President of the greatest democracy in world does not 
feel that the right thing to do is to let anyone into a town hall 
meeting whether or not they agree with him, then that really sends a 
terrible message.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the real issue 
is that the President would like to put the perception out there of 
roaring crowds, saying, ``We love you. We appreciate what you are 
doing. Thank God you are saving Social Security by privatizing accounts 
even though my benefit level is going to go down.'' And anyone that 
objects to that, they are going to see the parking lot.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SHULTZ. People have seen the parking lot.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. They will not even see the inside because they 
will take those individuals out of line.
  Like I said, if anyone were to show up with this, just as an 
American, freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court is right across the 
street, ``Hands off of my Social Security,'' they are a goner. They are 
out of there. They are taking them, ``Excuse me, sir, ma'am, we need to 
take you over here.''
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think they made it pretty clear how they 
feel about the courts.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is another special order, Mr. Speaker. This 
is democracy we are talking about.
  I am a member of the Committee on Armed Services. We have men and 
women, several thousand, that are fighting against this kind of thing. 
And we have to make sure that we give very little to others to point to 
and say, ``See, you are telling me to do something, but you are not 
doing it.''
  And if someone is the President of the United States, they can pretty 
much say, if someone has a T-shirt, if someone has a sign, if someone 
is standing in line and they say, ``I disagree with the President and I 
want to hear what he says, but I do not think we need to privatize 
Social Security.'' Or to go in and then come out and talk to the media 
or talk to anyone, they have the right to do that.
  This is not a private event. This is paid for by the taxes that the 
gentlewoman pays, I pay, and all of our constituents pay. So if our tax 
dollars are going to work against us because we disagree, and we are 
right to disagree, it is insane.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, what I have noticed is that this 
President treats democracy as an inconvenience. He treats democracy as 
if what it means is ``I am going to listen to you when you agree with 
me and I am going to apply democratic principles when I can surround 
myself with people who tell me what I want to hear.'' And that is just 
the worst message we could possibly be sending.
  When the gentleman and I listened to the State of the Union and we 
listened to the Inaugural Address, both of which included a treatise on 
the President's desire to help spread democracy around the world, I 
really think that the greatest democracy in the world and the leader of 
that democracy should be setting an example at home. And I think that 
that is what we expect parents to do.
  We ask parents to set examples for their children, and we tell 
parents that they cannot expect their children to behave any better 
than they do. And I do not know how the President could expect 
democracies or burgeoning democracies around the world to behave any 
better than he does.
  There are a couple other things I wanted to highlight for people 
about the impact of the privatization plan because we got on our soap 
box for a little while.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Rightfully so. I am glad I am a Member of the 
Congress and no one can walk in here and escort me out. I mean, right 
now they cannot.
  But I am glad. I am glad that that is the case because I would be 
kind of concerned if I were standing outside at one of the stops that 
the President was making and we were having this conversation. We may 
very well be asked to spend some time in the parking lot because we 
cannot go in.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. And that is because 
they do not want the facts to go out. Because if light is shed on their 
proposal, if they are forced to face their accusers, so to speak, if 
they are forced to respond to people who have the facts, their facts 
just do not hold up under the sheen of light.
  So what I started to say a few minutes ago was what his proposal does 
is, and like I said, I call it a proposal, but I should say his vague 
outlines of a proposal, he has promoted across the country the concept 
or the belief that private accounts would be a windfall and has led 
people to believe that they would both be able to have the money in 
their private accounts as well as their Social Security benefits, and 
that is not the case. There would be a commensurate cut in Social 
Security benefits, about 46 percent, commensurate in proportion to the 
amount in someone's private account.
  An average 20-year-old, over their 20-year retirement, would lose 
about $152,000 in Social Security benefits under the vague outlines of 
the President's proposal.
  Let us take disability insurance and survivor benefits, because I am 
not sure if the gentleman talked about that before I got here; but 
Social Security provides disability insurance for young families. There 
is no private insurance plan that could compete with the disability 
benefits provided by Social Security. For a worker in her mid-20s who 
has a spouse and her two children, and there are millions of those 
across this country, Social Security provides the equivalent of a 
$350,000 disability policy. Most people, especially a young widow with 
two children, cannot afford to go out and buy a policy on the private 
market like that. It would just not be available to her.
  Suppose, God forbid, there is a young parent who suddenly dies. 
Social Security provides for the children who are left behind. Social 
Security provides survivors benefits. Survivor benefits replace as much 
as 80 percent of the earnings for a 20-year-old average-wage worker who 
dies leaving two young children and a spouse. For that parent, Social 
Security survivor benefits are equivalent to a $403,000 life insurance 
policy.
  That is what it means when we talk about what privatization would do 
to young families. That is real. That would be gone, that benefit. 
Because when it comes to disability and survivor benefits, 
privatization does not apply because there is no income being 
generated. One has to have income in order to have a private account. 
People who are disabled and people who are widows and widowers do not 
have that income coming in by its very nature.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the thing about it is that 
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, white, black, Asian, name it, are 
part of the 48 million Americans that are receiving benefits right now. 
And this issue is not only in districts on the Democratic side of the 
aisle, but on the Republican side of the aisle. And I will tell the 
Members this will not hold.

[[Page 7400]]

  Now, it is not all doom and gloom because, guess what. Thank God the 
Democratic leadership is saying we do not want to increase the debt to 
go on a scheme of a $500 trillion over the next 20 years cost for 
individuals to have to pay more on the debt and also for individuals to 
lose some of their benefits.
  And the bad thing about what the President and some Members on the 
majority side, the Republican side, are proposing is the fact that they 
are saying that, yes, it will go up and down but over time private 
accounts will win. Guess what. If one is in a private account or they 
opt to be in a private account from the Social Security philosophy, and 
I must add if I said ``plan,'' I want to take that back, philosophy 
that the majority side has and that the President is talking about, 
they are going to lose, too. They are going to lose some of their 
benefits, too, and I think it is important that people understand that.
  Also, let us just put it this way: Some people may say what is the 
Democratic plan? I will say what is the Republican plan? Where is it? 
What Web site can I go to? Is someone coming to my office with some 
sort of bound copy? Maybe I need to come to my office to find out if 
something came since I have been here on the floor. Where is the bill?

                              {time}  1830

  Well, there is a hearing that is going to take place on Capitol Hill. 
Guess what? There are over 200 hearings that take place in every 
Congress. They do not all result in legislation. I am hoping that in 
that hearing, if someone wants to do something, or the majority side 
wants to work with the minority side, because I do know that the 
gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi), I know that the gentleman 
from Maryland (Whip Hoyer), and our caucus chairman and vice chairman 
and others in leadership would love to sit down. The gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) is always saying, my door is open, I am ready to go. 
Let us talk about this thing.
  But let me just say this, because I think it is important. The 
Democratic plan is already in 48 million wallets of Americans that have 
Social Security benefits. That is the Democratic plan. Hello? That is 
the Democratic plan. So the Democratic plan is to make sure that we do 
not add more to the $26,000 that every American already owes the 
Federal Government, the highest deficit in the history of the Republic. 
The Democratic plan is to fight to bring that number down and to go 
into surplus where we were before this administration got in.
  That is the Democratic plan.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, if I could jump in here for a 
second.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Of course. I was looking for my little note 
here, because I wanted to remind Members but also the American people. 
Please add to this. There is just so much, we do not know what to 
share. We have so many other plans as Democrats.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is why we spend an hour on this every 
week, because there is plenty of information to disseminate. I sit on 
the Committee on Financial Services, and I have an opportunity to 
interact with people on the New York Stock Exchange and Chairman 
Greenspan, who testified before our committee, and representatives of 
the Mercantile Exchange and the Board of Trade and all of the 
exchanges. One of the things that I got out of those meetings that was 
clear and that has been written about in the last few days is, let us 
remember what the foundation of this whole privatization is built on. 
It is built on the stock market. It is built on stocks and bonds.
  Now, last week, we had one of the most significant drops in the 
market in over 2 years. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 
more than 9 percent in the last 6 weeks, including a drop of 115 
points, or 1.1 percent, on Wednesday. Now, I do not know if most 
Americans are going to want to throw their retirement security to the 
whims of the stock market. There are two words in the name of this 
program: social and security. This proposal removes and decimates the 
concept of ``security'' in Social Security. It would be social 
insecurity, because there would be no ability to ensure that future 
retirees would have that investment there for them when they retired, 
because we have fluctuations in the market.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Dreier) wants us to yield for a minute here, so I yield to 
the chairman.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I am 
preparing to make some remarks myself about Middle East policy in just 
a few minutes. But when I heard about this drop in the Dow, I just 
wanted to state for the record, and my colleagues may not have heard it 
today, that the largest gain in the Dow Jones industrial average took 
place today, the largest gain in 2 years, and the largest gain in about 
9 months in the NASDAQ. So I just wanted to say that, for the record we 
had an over-200 point gain in the Dow today. How it fluctuates, I think 
that is just an important point I wanted to make.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, that is an important point, and I 
appreciate the gentleman making that point.
  But the point is that from one day to the next, we had a 200-point 
swing. Now, is that what people are going to be comfortable with in 
terms of their retirement security, in terms of ensuring that they have 
at least a minimum amount of money available for them when they retire? 
Because, for example, 20 percent of single retired women, most of whom 
are widows, the only source of their income is their Social Security. 
Now, if we invest it in the stock market and privatize Social Security, 
what are we going to do for those women when their nest egg that they 
banked on is not there because of fluctuations like the one that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) just referred to? I just wonder.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, that is important, and that is what 
happens when we start talking about investing private accounts in a 
private system; we may say publicly traded or whatever the case may be. 
But I think it is important to understand that what is guaranteed also 
is the $940 billion to Wall Street that is guaranteed in the proposal 
or the philosophy that individuals have, somewhere around that number.
  Now, I do not have a problem with investments, this, that, and the 
other; but Social Security, like the gentlewoman said, and her 
definition is Webster's definition; it is not a Debbie Wasserman 
Schultz's definition.
  But let me say, what is interesting here, Mr. Speaker, that we must 
pay very close attention to is that there are some very fine Members of 
this Chamber that came to this Congress and we were here late one night 
in the 108th Congress and talked about, well, this will be the number 
as it relates to the medicare prescription drug issue. We have a 
number; this is how much it will cost Americans. And some folks ran 
around here on the floor and gave emotional speeches about how we have 
to get prescription drugs to the people, and it is too high, and this, 
that, and the other; and I have another editorial on that.
  But we were told by the administration that it will only be $350 
billion. I mean, that is a big number. That is all it will be, so you 
do not need to be worried about it. Even though we are borrowing that 
too, that is all it will be. Later, I was looking, while the 
gentlewoman was talking, I was looking through my notes, because that 
is the reason why democracy has to play a role here. Bipartisanship has 
to be a part of this debate. If bipartisanship was a part of the 
debate, maybe we would not have been shocked later to find out that it 
would be $400 billion.
  Did it stop there? Well, sure enough, after the bill was passed, it 
jumped up to $530 billion. Now we are being told, now, just recently, 
just a month ago, we are being told that it will be $724 billion. This 
is real money. Meanwhile, community development block grants are being 
cut. Meanwhile, we are saying that, well, we are going to provide 
certain cuts here, certain cuts there, a trade bill here.
  Where is my credit card? We are getting the opportunity to pull out 
the

[[Page 7401]]

U.S. Treasury credit card here and say, well, that is fine, let us just 
put it on the credit card; it is okay.
  We talk a little bit about responsibility within the family. I mean, 
my mom, when I used to be in college and say, Hey, I need some money. 
Oh, just put it on a credit card, it will be okay. She did not say 
that. She said, Either you cannot do it because you do not have the 
money, or you need to be able to generate the money to do it. Now, let 
me tell my colleagues something. I think they are doing both. They are 
generating the money, but they are generating it from the credit card.
  Now, some may say, well, he is just talking. By the rules of this 
House, if our leadership had the ability within the rules, we 
definitely have the will, but within the rules, if we can call a 
committee meeting and call some of these individuals out of why we are 
continuing to borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend. And 
I am a Democrat. So when folks start talking about the definition of 
the tax and spend, well, that is something that the majority side says, 
because that is not reality. The Democratic Congress balanced the 
budget, I say to the gentlewoman, and the Democratic Congress, along 
with many of the caucuses within this side of the Chamber, works day in 
and day out to talk about the Federal debt and the irresponsible 
spending, if we want to talk about future generations.
  The last point I want to make on this particular subject, I am going 
to pick up where I left off as it relates to what is the Democratic 
plan. Well, the Democratic plan is $555 on average benefit to 48 
million Americans that receive Social Security today. The Democratic 
plan keeps Social Security solvent for the next 50 years. That is the 
Democratic plan. The Democratic plan is making sure that we do not see, 
under the philosophy that the majority has, the 46 percent decrease in 
benefits as it relates to the cuts that will happen over time. The 
Democratic plan is making sure that the monthly average benefit does 
not fall down to $516. That is the Democratic plan. The democratic plan 
is to make sure that we work in a bipartisan way with the majority if 
we want to approach this issue of Social Security. And the Democratic 
plan is to also get out the truth of the fact that this is not a 
crisis.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is right.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. So that is the reason why some of the Members 
even on the majority side are saying no can do: I am not going to 
disrupt my constituents and their way of life and add on to the party 
numbers of my district, because it is not right. And if it is not 
right, I do not care if you fly around for 160 days. It is not going to 
change as long as you are talking about gambling with the Social 
Security and the security of folks' retirement.
  So I can tell my colleague right now, I look forward to the day that 
Americans say, enough is enough, and that we do not have to speak from 
the position of saying, well, we are informing you; we will be actually 
doing it if we were in control of this House, and that is what the 
debate is about. It is about not only sharing with the Members that if 
they get into this whole issue of believing the hype on the 
privatization of Social Security and folks start losing benefits, they 
are making a career decision. They do not want to be in Congress, 
because I can tell my colleague right now, when folks say, listen, I do 
not know what I have been doing; maybe I have been voting politics over 
principle. Maybe I need to get back to voting principle over politics. 
Well, they say that the guy that was running against the other guy or 
the young lady, that they are tax and spend. Well, you know, the 
evidence does not necessarily add up to be that way.
  So I love to talk about the Democratic and the bipartisan proposal 
that went down in this Chamber in 1986 and even before then. That was 
bipartisanship. Even though a supermajority, all Democrats voted for 
it, some Republicans voted for it when Ronald Reagan was in the White 
House, and we made it happen. It is just that simple.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely 
right. We have to right the ship of state. I mean, it is keeling over 
right now. It is going to fall from the weight of the debt. I mean, why 
the Republican majority here will not listen to Chairman Greenspan when 
he expresses again and again, as recently as this week, again and again 
he has warned us about the danger of the increasing deficits.
  The leadership here is just ignoring it. It is like they hope that if 
they ignore the problem long enough, maybe it will go away. Maybe they 
will wake up, just like my kids hope that the next day something that 
happened that they did not like the day before will not be true when 
they wake up, like so many of us do. But the worst nightmare is that 
when something bad happens, when you wake up the next day, you cannot 
make it go away just by a night's sleep or ignoring it. It does not 
work that way. We have to be responsible. That is the whole way we need 
to deal with this Social Security problem. Problem, not crisis.
  We have a problem, but we need to be responsible and take the time 
that we need to address the problem and do it right. We did not create 
this problem overnight, and there is no miracle solution; there is no 
instantaneous solution to this problem. The President has already 
acknowledged that privatization does not even solve the problem. We 
need to make sure that we get privatization off the table so we can all 
sit down together, just like they did in 1983, and find a bipartisan 
solution that we can all be comfortable with, or at least that the 
majority can be comfortable with, because we will probably not get 
everybody. But the majority is willing to come to the table, it is just 
that the President needs to let go of an untenable proposal that the 
vast majority of the people do not support. It is time to let it go, 
Mr. President.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is right. We say 
this to make sure that the Members and also the American people 
understand 110 percent what we are dealing with here. We could have 
both been halfway home by now; but we have taken the opportunity 
because this is a pivotal time in history as we start looking at Social 
Security the way it is now and the way that it could be in the future.
  I read those medicare prescription drug estimates that were given to 
us officially in this House to serve as an example of the 
misinformation that takes place under this dome and the misinformation 
that is given to Americans. I talk a lot about the Potomac two-step, 
but when it comes down to Social Security and you have one out of six 
Americans that depends on this thing as it relates to the 48 million 
that is out there, you cannot help but think that if you are serving in 
a body where the discussion is taking place, not only in the halls, but 
in the newspapers, you cannot help but say in the future, when folks 
look back and they say, well, what happened in the 109th Congress and 
what role did you play to stop it?

                              {time}  1845

  I am proud to say, boldly and with a chestful of air, the fact that 
the Democratic leadership and Members that sit on this side of the 
Chamber are sleeping with their fists balled up ready to use any tool 
verbally possible and power-wise to be able to educate and to be able 
to have town hall meetings with some 300, well now 400-plus town hall 
meetings that have taken place on this side of the aisle.
  And I can tell you that if someone showed up and said that they 
support privatization, they can come in the town hall meeting. They are 
not saying, okay, you need to go over here and you need to wait 
outside, because you are going to ask a question that we do not want to 
answer right now.
  We are saying, bring it on. We want to answer those questions because 
we have the prima facie evidence to show that what the President is 
talking about is not necessarily going to benefit Social Security as we 
see it today. So we fight for those individuals that have sent us up 
here to deal with that.
  Last point, and Congresswoman, we have about 3 minutes left. I want 
to close. I want you to make your closing comments, then we will yield 
back our

[[Page 7402]]

time. But, it is important that we keep up the fight. And I want to 
commend some of my Members on the Republican side of this aisle that 
are saying, no, I am not going to vote to privatize Social Security.
  I want to let them know that as a Member of this House, I commend 
them for that, but the American people have a role to play too. They 
have to hold us accountable. If they do not hold us accountable, then 
the question will be asked of them, what were you doing when all of 
this was happening? Did you call your Congressman or -woman? Were you 
involved? Did you write? Did you do op-eds to the editor? What did you 
do?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I agree with you. I am ready to stand and 
fight and make sure that the security remains in Social Security.
  And, you know, just to close my portion of this out, the illustrative 
thing that I want to leave people with is we are both under 40; that is 
why we are here. Our generation, my friends, your friends, most of them 
when we chat with them when we are out to dinner, and we ask them 
whether they think Social Security is likely to be there for them when 
they retire, it is almost universal that the answer is no.
  In 37 years, 36 years, let us say 2041, we are going to be 74 years 
old. You and I are 3 weeks apart. And I am 3 weeks younger, I might 
add. We are going to be 74 years old.
  Now, when I learned that, I was amazed because I really was one of 
those people. Social Security will be there, even if we do nothing, 
which is not what we are advocating. We are advocating take a little 
slower approach. Let us make sure that we keep the security in Social 
Security.
  In 46 years, the outlying date for which insolvency is less likely to 
occur, we will be 84 years old. Now, that is well within the number of 
years, 20 years after retirement, that we can ensure that Social 
Security will be there for us.
  What we have to do is we have to stand with our feet firmly planted 
on the ground and say you have taken this country this far, no further.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, you are right. And Congresswoman, I am 
going to thank you for being an active Member within the 30-something 
Working Group and all the input, even when we are not on the floor in 
the discussion that we have on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that Members are fully informed 
about the fact that Leader Pelosi is out doing what she is doing. She 
will be speaking at Columbia University next Tuesday to young people on 
the issue of Social Security in New York. It is important that we 
continue to share this information.

                          ____________________