[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10783-10789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honor to be 
here before the House of Representatives and have an opportunity to 
speak to the Members and to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we would also like to thank the Democratic leader, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), along with the Democratic 
whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and our chairman, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the 
Democratic Caucus, and also the vice chair, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for providing the kind of leadership that 
Americans need and want here in this great country of ours.
  This week, as every week, we come to the floor, the 30-something 
Working Group that was formed in the 108th Congress by Leader Pelosi to 
talk about the issues that are not only facing the 30-somethings, but 
also facing the American people in general.
  We also come to the floor, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan), my good friend, we come to the floor to be able to talk about a 
number of issues, not only Social Security, but also student loans; to 
talk about issues facing the environment, as well as the ever-growing 
debt, which is always on our agenda.
  Without any further ado, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan) how much I appreciate the fact that he commits, and our good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who will 
not be here tonight, every night to come to the floor to share good and 
accurate information not only with the Members of Congress, but with 
the American people.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the 
opportunity too.
  In the past several months, really since the beginning of the year, 
the President initiated a Social Security plan that he wanted to 
promote to the country, to say that privatization, these private 
accounts were going to be the answer to the Social Security solvency 
problem. We have been, just about every week since the beginning of the 
year that we are in session here in Washington, we have been talking 
about why the President's privatization scheme really is not the answer 
for the country.
  The President, when he initiated this discussion after the election, 
began to say that it was a crisis and it was a crisis for the country 
that we all needed to address. What we want to do tonight is, we want 
to begin by saying that Social Security is a solvent program. There is 
no crisis within the Social Security program. Do we need to make some 
minor adjustments? Of course, we do. Do we need to tinker with the 
program? Yes, we do. But is there a crisis there? We really do not 
think so.
  So tonight we are going to begin to talk a little bit about why 
Social Security is a solvent program and show a few numbers that we 
have shared with the American public every week that we have been on, 
but also to get into some of the areas where we believe a crisis does 
exist in this country that needs immediate attention.
  So we have this graph here that basically shows that Social Security 
is secure for many, many decades to come. These are facts. These are 
the Congressional Budget Office numbers that they have given us.
  The CBO is a nonpartisan organization, a nonpartisan group, and if 
they would lean one way or the other, the Republicans control the 
House, the Senate, and the White House, so if they are going to lean 
any one way, which I do not believe that they do, they would certainly 
lean in favor of making it look like Social Security is less secure 
than it actually is.
  So this graph here, we can see it starts in 2005, and it goes to 
2075, so it gives us a 70-year span. And from 2005 to about 2047, 2048, 
2049, right in there, if we do absolutely nothing with Social Security, 
Social Security recipients will still receive 100 percent of their 
benefits. And all in the blue here. So from 2005 to the late 2040s, if 
we do absolutely nothing with the program, if we do not touch it at 
all, we are still going to get 100 percent of our benefits up to the 
late 2040s, 2047, 2048. So at 32 years old, after 40 years, I will be 
72 years old, just about 72, on Social Security. So I will be 
guaranteed, if we do nothing, to at least get 100 percent of what I 
would earn right in here, or someone else who is 32 years old. Then, 
after that, from the late 2040s into 2075, one would still receive 80 
percent of one's benefits if we did nothing.
  So what we are saying on this side of the aisle is, is there a 
problem? Yes, of course. From 2047 to 2075 and beyond a recipient would 
only get 80 percent of what they should be getting now. So that is a 
problem.
  Is that a crisis? No, that is not a crisis. Something that happens 40 
years from now is not a crisis. What we want to do is just show tonight 
that this is not a crisis; 100 percent of the benefits will be paid 
until the late 2040s and, beyond, still get 80 percent.
  So if the President wants to sit down and work out a program, we are 
going to be able to deal with this 80 percent issue here coming 40-some 
years from now, and we will sit down and talk with the President.

                              {time}  2100

  But, unfortunately, the plans that are floating around Congress cut 
into the 100 percent benefits here and begin to reduce some of the 100 
percent benefits there.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan), just one moment. I want to ask just a quick question. 
What is a crisis? I mean, the President is saying, and some of the 
Members of the majority side leadership are saying that Social Security 
is in a crisis. And I cannot help but look in the dictionary when we 
start talking about crisis, because a crisis, there are a number of 
things that we can point out that are actually a crisis. And as the 
gentleman from Ohio knows, we received some e-mails that I hoped the 
gentleman would read early in our Special Order here. But we took a 
look at Webster's and exactly what does crisis mean. And basically it 
says, an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty.
  Now, 40 years from now, as the gentleman from Ohio had the other 
chart here, I could say that it would be a crisis if Social Security, 
like the administration and the majority side use words like, is going 
bankrupt. What does bankrupt mean? Bankrupt means that there is no 
money coming in or no money going out, and it is tomorrow, and it is 
eminent danger.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There is no money.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. There is no money. And I can tell the gentleman 
from Ohio right now, from what the gentleman has just said, and it is 
not just the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Ryan) report. That is from the 
Congressional Budget Office of this House of Representatives that put 
forth the kind of information that we need here in Congress, that we 
need to share with the American people and the Members of this 
Congress.
  I think it is also important to understand that, yes, we do want to 
work on Social Security and strengthen Social Security on this side of 
the aisle, but we will not buy into the rhetoric of a crisis.
  I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a crisis, in my 
opinion, is what we are in on the deficit. We

[[Page 10784]]

are at a crisis level when it comes down to the deficit. Highest 
deficit in the history of the Republic.
  You want to know what a crisis is? And I hope that we continue to 
share this with our colleagues. A crisis is that family right now that 
is a part of the 46 million American families that are working that do 
not have health insurance. That is a crisis. A crisis is the fact that 
small businesses cannot provide health care insurance for their 
employees. Many businesses are telling their employees you can get a 
better plan if you apply for Medicaid. That is a crisis.
  Furthermore, if you want to talk about a crisis, a crisis is families 
trying to put gas in their tank. That is a crisis, because some 
families have had to put their car down to try to figure out some sort 
of way that they can be able to take their kids to school or football 
or soccer or Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, to be able to conduct 
themselves in the way that they want to. That is a crisis, these gas 
prices that have doubled and tripled in some cases.
  And then we talk about issues that are facing our veterans. Providing 
health care for our veterans, that is a crisis. And so there are a 
number of issues that are out there. And I say to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan) this whole issue of abuse of power, I am sorry, I just 
want to point out a few things.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Nothing to be sorry about.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Because we are, I think those of us that are in 
30-something, and Members of the Congress, are sick and tired of 
individuals in Washington using Social Security as though there is some 
sort of imminent danger or, going back to the definition, an unstable 
situation.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And I thank the gentleman. And let us take the 
definition and apply it to this chart. A crisis is an unstable 
situation of extreme danger, or difficulty. Unstable situation.
  Now, how could you call this, 100 percent of the benefits for the 
next 40 some years, how is that an unstable situation? It is a very 
stable situation. And I would even argue that 80 percent, without doing 
anything, 45 years from now is not unstable. That is a stable 
situation. It needs to be dealt with. But extreme danger or difficulty? 
How could you call from 2005 to the late 2040s extreme danger or 
difficulty? It does not apply here. And using the word ``crisis'' is 
extreme, and it is trying to scare the American public. And you see it 
in the poll results. The American people are beginning not to buy it.
  Now, we could even try to go to the second definition of what a 
crisis is, a crucial stage or turning point in the course of something. 
There is no crucial stage or turning point that needs to happen here. 
We are not on a brink here that we have got to change something 
immediately. There is no crisis here. And as the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Meek) stated very eloquently, there are many more issues that I 
think we need to deal with.
  And there was one other thing, and we are kind of moving things 
around a little bit here, that I want to share just briefly.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan) just briefly, but before the gentleman moves from that chart, I 
think I know the reason why some in Washington want to try to fool the 
American public that there is a crisis, because we have individuals 
that are on Wall Street that have been guaranteed, if the President has 
his way, if the majority side leadership have their way, that they will 
receive over the next 20 years $944 billion worth of the taxpayers' 
money in risky investment, Social Security. So I think that is the 
crisis of trying to close the deal before the term runs out on the 
present President and the term may run out on the present leadership.
  But I can tell the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), I want to talk, 
when the gentleman is finished, when the gentleman makes the point that 
the gentleman is about to make, I want to make sure that we share with 
the Members, if we had the opportunity to lead, not necessarily you and 
me, but the Democratic side, working with some of our Republican 
friends that understand the importance of making sure that we work for 
all Americans and making sure that Social Security is strengthened.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, I thank the gentleman. And after this we are 
going to move on to what we believe that the real issues are that need 
to be dealt with immediately, issues that we think are causing unstable 
situations, issues that we think are providing extreme danger or 
extreme difficulty for families here and issues, quite frankly, that we 
think the country is at a crucial stage or at a turning point on. We 
want to talk about what we believe those issues really are.
  Now, last week we asked Americans who were watching to write in and 
to e-mail us with what they thought were the immediate issues that 
needed to be dealt with, what was the crisis that they believed the 
country needed to address. And I am just going to share a couple of 
these because we want to get into some other issues. Mrs. Richard from 
Kansas said she had been watching and listening to our program on C-
SPAN. Our country now has so many needs. And we asked her to give them 
to us and she said, I will write them to you.
  To me, the number one need is to get out of Iraq. Stop losing lives 
and spending money. That may be a crisis. Probably is. After that, 
health care, fixing our national deficit, which we are definitely going 
to get into tonight, and many more things that need to be fixed. She 
appreciates the concern.
  Christie Fox, from the gentleman's great State of Florida, she is a 
second generation American. And on C-SPAN you asked for our comments or 
suggestions on what we think is important to America. Safety, the 
environment, the oceans heating and rising, need for solar power, 
recycling, windmills, fuel efficient vehicles, terrorism, which is a 
major issue that we are not really dealing with here, and to keep God 
in America. Great issues that we think may be or will have more of a 
profound effect if we address them immediately.
  So, again, we ask the citizens who are out there tonight to give us 
an e-mail, what you believe to be your crisis of choice, that is, 
something that we need to deal with immediately in the United States of 
America. Send us something, [email protected]. That is the 
number 30, the word ``something,'' and then dems, D-E-M-S @ 
mail.house.gov. Send us what you think, because, quite frankly, we do 
not believe that Social Security that is solvent for the next 45 years 
and will pay 100 percent of the benefits and then for the next 20-some 
years and into the future will still provide 80 percent is not a 
crisis.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we 
bring about great clarification of our message to make sure that 
individuals do not get confused of what the real issue here is. The 
real issue, I think, the reason why individuals want to, leadership on 
the majority side and the White House, want to talk about a crisis 
situation in Social Security is because they do not want to talk about 
health care. They do not want to talk about the issues that many 
Americans have to deal with on a day-in-and-day-out basis. I call it 
drugstore health care; when your child is sick, because you do not have 
health insurance, 46 million Americans without health insurance that 
are working families without health insurance, they have to go to a CVS 
or a Walgreens or a Rite-Aid or whatever the case may be, or Wal-Mart 
pharmacy, to make their kids better or try to hope that they just have 
a cold because they do not have the proper health care.
  And I am so glad that House Democrats are committed to taking the 
bold necessary steps to move us in the right direction of making sure 
that we do what we are supposed to do for Americans.
  In the 108th Congress, we worked very hard with Partnership for 
America's Future that reaffirms our commitment in six core areas. And 
those six areas are, making sure that we have American values, 
prosperity, national security, fairness, opportunity,

[[Page 10785]]

community, and also accountability. And I think it is important that we 
think about that, and that is something that is not happening right 
now.
  Now, one may argue, well, what is stopping you from doing that? I can 
tell you what is stopping us from doing that, not being in the majority 
here in the House of Representatives.
  And I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) that I think what is 
important is that we have to share with our colleagues and also with 
the American people, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we hold the 
individuals that are sent here to Washington accountable not only for 
their actions but also for their inactions. And so when we start 
talking about crisis, look right, but we are really going left. And I 
think it is important that we point these issues out.
  It is important that we take bold steps in expanding affordable 
health care and the health care coverage, including mental health 
coverage, making sure that we cut health care costs, increasing 
biomedical research, and also reducing racial and ethnic disparities, 
expanding affordable health care as it relates to coverage for small 
businesses by creating a new purchasing pool that will allow 50 percent 
tax credit to help small businesses and self-employed individuals in 
their health care costs.
  That is Democratic legislation that is already filed in this Congress 
that should move, would move, if we had the Democratic leadership that 
we talked about early on in this hour. If they were in control, it 
would not be an issue of saying that is what we would like to do. And I 
think it is important, it is very important that not only Members of 
Congress understand our responsibility in standing up to the real needs 
of Americans that are out there now, but to make sure that we are able 
to stand up and say that health care is a crisis, the issue of our 
environment is a crisis, the deficit is a crisis, and not just say it 
as buzz words or in a speech or a punch line.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I had a Social Security town hall 
meeting last night at Warren G. Harding High School in Warren, Ohio; 
and we were having a discussion about these kinds of issues. And one of 
the gentlemen, as we were talking about him as a small business owner, 
self-employed, he had to pay his own Social Security tax. He had to pay 
the whole amount, the employer's share and the employee's share for 
himself. And he was struggling because he had health care issues that 
he had to deal with. The health care costs were going through the roof. 
He had two kids in college. And tuition costs in Ohio have doubled over 
the past few years. And when we get back after the break we are going 
to get into a little more about the cost of college tuition.
  But the point is, the Social Security privatization scheme sounds 
like a good idea to some employers, because the way that the blueprint 
has it set up is that the employee will be able to take 4 percent and 
divert it to an account, and the employer will not have to match that 4 
percent; and so it is basically a tax break for the business person, 
which may be okay for small business folks and help them a great deal.
  But what we are saying as Democrats is, why are we not dealing with 
the real issue, the health care costs that are going through the roof? 
And if we want to help small business people, then we need to use the 
Democratic proposal that we have that is going to help small business 
people contain health care costs and contain tuition costs and give 
them aid and assistance and grants and lower tuition costs with block 
grants to different universities. We have a plan to do that. And what 
we are saying is, let us stick together on the greatest social program 
in the history of mankind, and let us fix these other programs that 
have been causing a great deal of economic pain to the small 
businessperson. We want to be there, and we have a plan to do it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. When you have employees that are healthy, you 
have what? A more productive company. And then what do you have then? 
You have more productive American workers that will be able to compete 
against other countries that are competing against us now.
  Before the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) goes to the chart, I think 
it is important we talk about the fact that health care costs, when we 
start talking about cutting health care costs, we have to look at the 
issue as it relates to prescription drugs.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Absolutely.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think it was a blown opportunity here on this 
floor by the majority side saying they were carrying out true 
prescription drug reform and failed to do so by not allowing us to 
negotiate with drug companies to have lower prices, not only for 
seniors but for people with disabilities. Also, guaranteed American 
consumers the right to deal with the whole issue of importation.
  I have some reservations about that, but the real issue is the fact 
that we have Americans that are now making a choice between groceries 
and prescription drugs. We still have Americans, and I am not just 
talking about older Americans, I am talking about middle-aged Americans 
and even children, because a number of children are on prescription 
drugs, be it for allergies, or middle-aged Americans taking heart 
medication or medication for diabetes or other ailments that we found 
that through prescription drugs that can prevent death or prolong life 
they are making decisions.
  They have to make decisions. So they are excited about the fact that 
we are looking at prescription drug reform, but it was not a true 
bipartisan effort because if it was we would have negotiating power. 
And I will tell Members right now, because I want to make sure that my 
Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I want to make 
sure, Mr. Speaker, that the American people understand that the 
Democrats have a bill filed right now to allow that to happen. 
Prescription drug costs would go down if we were in charge of this 
House right now.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have a discharge petition too that will allow 
Members of Congress to sign it and discharge it out of the committee 
process and bring it right to the floor. We have had this debate. We 
can bring it to the floor and let us vote on it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. But still, if we were in control of this House, 
if the American people said they were going to allow Democrats to be 
the majority in this House, we would have the following:
  We would have a Social Security debate about strengthening Social 
Security, not privatizing it. We will have not only a debate but we 
will have a bipartisan bill to make sure we can combine buying power to 
take prescription drug costs down for everyday Americans. We would not 
only have legislation that will be true environmental legislation, but 
it would be bipartisan legislation because we believe in working 
together with, at that time if we have a perfect situation where we are 
in a majority, working with the minority party in doing that.
  We would also have a health care plan, a health care plan that is a 
6-point plan that would bring about health insurance for everyday 
working Americans, and also allow those Americans between the ages of 
55 and 65 to be able to buy into Medicare early so they would have an 
opportunity to take advantage of good health care at a low cost as they 
reach their years of the 60s and 70s. So that is so very important.
  I am not laying ``what if,'' but I am saying what could be. And so I 
am saying this more of a challenge to the Members on the majority side 
because they do have the power. They have the power to be able to set 
the agenda and say what will be able to come to the floor. They have 
the power to be able to say that this is what we are going to work on 
and this is what we are not going to work on. I think it is important 
that the American people and I think the Members of this Congress also 
understand, Mr. Speaker, that the power of the majority sets the agenda 
and what happens in this House, nothing comes to this floor without the 
authority of the Republican leadership in this House.

[[Page 10786]]

  Now, I am going to tell you, because I always, I do not use it as a 
disclaimer, I am seeing it as a Member of this House and someone that 
communicates with Members of the majority party, there are a number of 
Republicans that will go unnamed because of repercussions that want to 
see that kind of environment return back to this House, a true 
bipartisan environment that we had in 1983 when Ronald Reagan and Tip 
O'Neill brought about the kind of bipartisan partnership we needed to 
save Social Security at that time, a true bipartisan vote, not 
bickering, not we are going to run Social Security into the ground in 
some sort of schemey privatization plan, but a true approach to making 
sure that we do the right thing.
  So it is important that individuals understand that bills like the 
bill that we have here on the floor to drive down prescription drug 
costs that we would like to pull out of on this discharge petition that 
is right here behind the gentleman for Members to sign to be able to 
have a true debate as it relates to bringing down prescription drugs 
costs, the buying power which AARP is on board with us on. But I think 
it is also important for issues as it relates to the deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the gentleman does not leave out what is 
happening to the American worker and our negative trade balance. If I 
can say the word China, I would like to say that, because I think it is 
important that not only Members of Congress understand our 
responsibility but the American people also understand what is 
happening right now. It is not on the 6 o'clock news, but if someone is 
at home right now without a job wondering where their job went, 
wondering why the factory, especially in the gentleman's State of Ohio, 
the whistle in that factory is no longer blowing when they knock off, 
like a blue collar worker would say, for the evening, while no lunch 
box is there, be it a man or woman.
  The reason why we are continuing to put forth trade agreements in my 
State that are putting agriculture industries out of business or having 
them to give away jobs like the citrus industry, like the sugar 
industry and the nursery plant industry that is in my county of Miami 
Dade County that are concerned about these free trade agreements that 
are taking place.
  Now, I voted for some free trade agreements, but I will state that 
some of those agreements that are coming down the pike are going to 
hurt the American worker and continue to give away the kind of apple 
pie that we have been talking about for so many years.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the issue for me, that 
this is the crisis. This is just the issue that how can we say that a 
problem 40 years out from now is the crisis when you look at the 
numbers here. This is the crisis here. This is the manufacturing jobs 
loss, and I will go through some quick charts here.
  Manufacturing jobs lost. In Ohio we lost 216,000. In Florida, the 
gentleman's home State, they lost almost 73,000. All the red States 
here have lost more than 20 percent of jobs in their States: Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Illinois, all of these. And all 
throughout the country, the only two States with any kind of net gain 
are North Dakota and Nevada. That is the crisis and that is the issue 
that we need to be dealing with here in the United States.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Before the gentleman leaves that chart, would he 
please let the Members know and, Mr. Speaker, we definitely want the 
American people to know where this information comes from, because I 
want to make sure we are clear.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, so it 
is nonpartisan. It is from June 1998 to February 2005. This is the 
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics controlled by a Republican, so 
it is not any lies that we are just trying to stoke up propaganda here.
  These States that are purple have lost between 15 and 20 percent. The 
green States have lost between 10 and 15 percent. The yellow States 
between 5 and 10 percent. We are getting decimated in our manufacturing 
base, and these are the jobs that pay well. These jobs are going to 
China. The high-tech jobs are going to India.
  Now, another crisis, our overall U.S. trade deficit which led to the 
enormous job loss right here, overall trade deficit over $600 billion 
last year. We are buying $600 billion more worth of products than we 
are selling. And look at the growth. This is the startling thing. This 
is not just a kind of a temporary blip in the screen.
  In 1991 we were a little over $50 billion, or not quite $50 billion; 
and look at this, the steady growth. And these have been the trade 
agreements that we have been signing, and especially when we cranked up 
trade with China, bang, right down at the bottom, bingo, in 2004 over 
$600 billion in trade deficit. Of that the main culprit in this whole 
deal has been with China, another crisis that we need to deal with.
  I mean, how we can say Social Security is the main issue is beyond 
me. Again, trade deficits from 1991 to 2004. Again, a slow gradual, 
this is what we call in economic terms, and I am not an economist, this 
is what you call a trend. This is a trend that is going on in the 
country and has been for a good many years now, U.S. trade deficit with 
China over 160-some billion dollars a year. And we can see it just 
continue to decline. It will probably be worse next year. And when we 
see the job loss in Ohio, in the Midwest, all over the country except 
for Nevada and North Dakota, this is what is causing it.
  Companies are moving from the United States, not making the 
investment here in the country, making it in China; and we are getting 
walloped.
  Now, the most important issue as we are running these huge trade 
deficits and we are also running a national deficit, and let me just 
show one, before we show that one and then I will let the gentleman 
talk about the other, not only are we running huge trade deficits; we 
are also running a record national, domestic deficit on our own budget 
here.
  This red line starts with President Johnson where we pretty much were 
balancing our budgets all the way along, and we pretty much stayed 
steady up and down throughout the 70s. And into the 80s we got into the 
pretty high deficit through the Reagan and Bush era. That is the red 
line coming down close to $300 billion in our national deficit. That 
means the budget money that we spend out of here, we were spending $300 
billion more than we were taking in. And then the Clinton era, the 
balanced budget passed in 1993. Not one Republican vote, Democrat 
House, Senate, White House; Al Gore broke the tie in the Senate as Vice 
President. That led to booming surpluses in the United States. And then 
when the next administration came in here, we are again with record 
deficits.
  Now, will a real fiscal conservative please stand up, because we do 
not have anymore here. And this is the kind of deficit that you are 
passing on to your kids and your grandkids and the scary thing that the 
gentleman will talk about right now.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman moves that 
chart, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office where the gentleman 
got this information from, am I right?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Absolutely. The source is CBO, the Congressional 
Budget Office, nonpartisan. The most scary aspect of all of this is if 
we are spending 400-some billion dollars more than we are taking in, we 
are borrowing that from somewhere because we do not have it. Tax 
revenues bring us to this line here, and we are spending that much 
more, up to $400 billion more than we have in the kitty that we are 
taking in every year. So we have to go out and borrow it. This is the 
scary part. Who are we borrowing the money from?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is the question.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is the ultimate question, and I know the 
gentleman wants to talk about it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, I want the gentleman to talk about it 
because he is doing such a great job.

[[Page 10787]]


  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will explain the chart, but I want the gentleman 
to lend his voice to it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to explain it 
because this issue is so very, very important. We both are on the 
Committee on Armed Services, and we know what it means as it relates to 
not only national security but financial security.
  What is happening right now, and that is why it is important not only 
to the 30-somethings but to the 20-somethings and the teenagers and 
those that are yet unborn and also those seniors that understand what 
is going on, even the 50-somethings and the 60-somethings because this 
goes towards, I believe, our national security when we start looking at 
this issue.
  Please explain.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right 
because you can have, and Mitt Romney was in front of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce last week, the Republican governor from 
Massachusetts, and he said you cannot have a tier two economy and a 
tier one military. And, unfortunately, we are moving into a tier two 
economy.
  We were talking about the trade deficits and then our national 
deficit and the debt. The deficit is what we accrue every year. We are 
$400 billion last year. The debt is the overall debt of the whole 
country, which is almost $8 trillion, but last year was over $400 
billion.
  Here is the portion of foreign-owned debt in our country that rose to 
41 percent under this administration. So this is the bottom line here 
in the blue. Of all of our debt, that portion is held by domestic 
interests, from this here, the turquoise, a nice shade of turquoise, I 
must say.
  The next level is the percentage of our marketable U.S. Treasury debt 
held by foreign interests, and this goes back to 2000. So over in 
California, 2000. Over here on the East Coast, it is 2004. Here we have 
domestic-held debt up to $2.5 trillion. The rest here in purple was 
foreign owned.
  As we move in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, you can see that the purple 
gets bigger. It gets up into Maine from the Carolinas. This purple is 
foreign-held debt. Basically what this chart says, and it is continuing 
to increase as the years go on, as we run these deficits that we had in 
the last chart, that we have been running as we are borrowing that 
money; more and more of that money is coming from foreign interests. 
This is a dangerous situation that we are putting the country in.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) stated, we are on the 
Committee on Armed Services. We see this in the committee hearings and 
with the poppy in Afghanistan. We see this dealing with the Chinese in 
their increase in military spending and the issue of Taiwan, and North 
Korea is beginning to test nuclear weapons.
  The more power we cede to foreign interests dealing with our own 
personal monetary situation, the more dangerous a situation we are 
going to be in. It is a bad political move, it is a bad economic move, 
and it threatens our country as well.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I look at the printed material 
that I have before me, I cannot help but say this maybe is at the 
crisis level. Maybe what the gentleman just pointed out, maybe the fact 
that we have the highest deficit in the history of the Republic, maybe 
because we have a number of Americans that are still cutting pills in 
half after we, the Congress, or the majority side, has said we have 
done all that we can do. Maybe that is the crisis.
  Maybe it is important to let not only the majority side know, but 
also the American people know that it is about who is running this 
House and who is not raising an objection to what has happened already, 
let alone what is going to continue to happen. If left up to the 
mechanics of the majority right now, 41 percent will be the early years 
of foreign countries buying our debt.
  Mr. Speaker, it may very well go to 55 percent if the American people 
do not hold us accountable for the decisions we are making, or the 
decisions we are not making. I think it is important, and we have to 
talk a little bit about extreme measures in the Congress.
  We know there are a number of issues that have come before us, and 
the American people are saying, When are you going to do something 
about the problems that we talk about every day? However, we spend more 
time in this Congress, especially in this House, getting involved in 
personal matters of families, taking the rules like the other side has 
attempted to do, which I understand some sort of deal has been worked 
out now on the other side of this Capitol as it relates to the 
filibuster, the other body. It is unfortunate we have to go to these 
extreme measures to threaten our way of democracy before we start to 
try to bring the best out of many Members of Congress.
  I am concerned when the majority side in the 108th Congress made it 
illegal, prohibited the Medicare powers-that-be within the Federal 
Government to negotiate with drug companies for lower costs. They could 
have not addressed it and left it as a gray area for the administrators 
to say, maybe we can do something. But so indebted to big 
pharmaceutical companies, they prohibited it from happening.
  That means if the administration said, Yes, we can bring diabetes or 
heart medication down $15 if we were to use our buying power with the 
drug companies. If you do it, you are not only making a career 
decision; it has been prohibited in Federal law.
  I am so glad that so many of us on this side of the aisle, I mean 
record numbers, voted against that prescription drug scheme, because it 
is not providing what the American people were told it would provide. 
AARP, along with others, understand that now and that is why they are 
fighting to bring those prices down.
  Let me tell Members something. Being from Florida, prescription drug 
costs are a very important issue. Being a middle-aged American, 30-
something, or heading to middle age, this is an important issue to my 
constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I have said this before: We were not elected to have 
better health care than our constituents. I did not run into anyone at 
the polling place at 7 a.m. who walked up to me and said, ``I am voting 
to make sure you and your family have better health care than I have. I 
cannot wait to go in there and vote for you so you can be better off 
than I am.''
  Mr. Speaker, they elected us to come to this House and fight on their 
behalf to make sure that that individual voter and their families and 
future generations have better opportunities than what they have. We 
are not doing that now.
  If we were in control, because I want to make sure that we really 
emphasize, if Democrats were in the majority, again I will say it, and 
I said it earlier in this hour, we would not be having a debate on 
privatization because privatization is bad. Individuals lose benefits 
under the privatization scheme that the President has put forth, if you 
are in the plan or not. That is the reason why the President has lower 
approval ratings as it relates to his Social Security privatization 
scheme. I would be worried out of my mind if it was the other way 
around, but people are getting it.
  I can tell you another thing, we would not be having a discussion 
about why 46 million American families that are working do not have 
health care because this House would be moving in that direction to 
provide the health care that I talked about in our six-point plan, and 
also our partnership with America, which is a real plan that has 
accountability and has follow-through. It would not be a discussion, to 
point out the issue of the deficit and the fact that every American at 
birth, when we started this hour, at birth already owed the Federal 
Government $26,349.67 and it has gone up since we have been here on 
this floor. It would not be a debate because we would be doing 
something about it.
  We understand if we are going to do something in this Congress, we 
are going to start a new program, we are going to point out how we are 
going to pay for it, and that is not what the majority side is doing 
now.

[[Page 10788]]

  The last point, because I can go on about the issue of responsibility 
and accountability, there would not be a what-if discussion as it 
relates to how we conduct business in this House and the real issues 
that are facing American families, programs that are working. Cut out 
the devolution of taxation to local governments and also to our State 
governments. There would not be a crisis as it relates to Medicaid and 
States ever running deficits in the States due to the fact that they 
have to balance their budget. Unlike our Congress, they have to balance 
their budgets on the backs of cutting programs that are helping so many 
young people stay out of trouble.
  It would not be a what-if discussion; it would actually be reality. 
And the good thing that I am excited about, because of the leadership 
we have, the Democratic Caucus, it would be bipartisan. That is 
something that every American wants. They want to take the politics out 
of doing business here in Washington, DC.
  That is the reason why our work is so important, making sure we come 
to this floor week after week, and letting it be known that we are 
doing all we can in the capacity that we are serving in to not only let 
the Members of Congress know about responsibilities and what we can do 
versus what we cannot do, but also letting the American people know 
what is happening here as it relates to individuals taking leadership 
positions, wanting to take action, and those that do not want to take 
leadership positions and do not take action. That is the real issue 
here.
  That is the reason why if there is a Republican, Independent, 
Democrat, Green Party, what have you, these issues get those 
individuals together because it is talking about real-life issues. The 
information that we are providing here, this is not something we were 
in the back of the room saying, Let us use that number, it looks good. 
It is bipartisan Congressional Budget Office information. This is 
information from outside sources that have a credible way of receiving 
their information, have credibility in the United States of America.
  So I think it is important for us to not only challenge the majority 
side because competition is good. I believe in that. Challenge the 
majority side, but also let the American people know if we had the 
opportunity to lead this House what this Congress could be and what it 
needs to be.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. We know what could fix 
the problem. The American people understand what is going on right now. 
If we review poll results, this Chamber is not one of the most popular 
institutions in the country. I think there is a 33, 34 percent approval 
rating for the Congress. I think some of the issues that the gentleman 
touched on are why that kind of sense around America is what it is.
  I want to share one final chart here that we have. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek) mentioned the $7.7 trillion debt and the $26,000 
that everybody owes, and the general theme tonight is, what are the 
real crises in the country. We explained that Social Security is 
solvent for another 45 years, and then we got into our over $160 
billion trade deficit with China, a $400 billion deficit here at home. 
We are spending more money, we are borrowing it from the Chinese. We 
are not participating in a sound fiscal policy.
  One final thing that kind of sums everything up, if Members look at 
it, and this is in trillions of dollars here, how much tax cuts for 
primarily millionaires are taking away from funding priorities that we 
have in this country. If we make the tax cuts permanent over the next 
10 years, it will cost $1.8 trillion. The tax cuts for the top 1 
percent, people making 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, over a million dollars a year, 
well above half a million dollars a year, will be $800 billion we are 
going to spend or not take in because of tax cuts primarily for the top 
1 percent.

                              {time}  2145

  Look at what we are spending on veterans. This is $800 billion, this 
is $3 billion, over the next 10 years. So we are basically saying in 
this country that our priority is the top 1 percent, not the veterans 
of the United States of America. The other side would say, well, we 
have increased spending for veterans over the past few years. The 
answer to that is, yes, but thousands and thousands of more veterans 
are beginning to enter the VA system now. They are losing their 
pensions; they are losing their health care in places like Ohio. When I 
was on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs last session, Secretary 
Principi was in front of us and I asked him, is the reason more people 
are going into the health care system in places like Ohio, West 
Virginia, Pennsylvania because of the massive job loss and companies 
are going bankrupt? And he said, yes.
  We have people in Ohio that were veterans, that never accessed the VA 
system, who lost their jobs, lost their pensions, lost their health 
care, they had nothing, and they entered into the VA system because 
they were veterans. So, yes, you may be increasing the number of what 
we are spending on veterans; but when you have thousands of more 
veterans going in and nursing homes being closed down and nursing home 
beds being closed down, it is time to reevaluate what the policy is. We 
could go on and on and on with this on what we are going to spend on 
education, health care, which you so eloquently mentioned, all these 
great issues that we need to invest in.
  I want to make a point. We are not saying that some of these programs 
do not need reform. We are not saying that at all. These programs do 
need reform. We need to move into more preventative health care than we 
are doing now. You talked about CVS and Rite Aid and the emergency 
room. Why would we want people to go if they were sick into an 
emergency room? Because we are paying for that, anyway. The hospitals 
get charity aid that comes out of Federal money. Why would we wait 
until someone got pneumonia and went to the emergency room when we 
could have a clinic that provided them with basic antibiotics that 
would allow them to address their issue when they had a cold? But we 
wait. So the system does need reform.
  We need to put more emphasis on early childhood education. There is 
no question about it. We did a study in Ohio, and I mentioned it 
several times here before. The University of Akron did this study. For 
every dollar that the State of Ohio spent on higher education, the 
State received $2 back in tax money because you are educating someone 
and they are going to be worth more, they are going to create more 
value, and they are going to pay more in taxes over the long run.
  These systems need reform to where we are making good investments and 
saving the taxpayer money in the long run. These tax cuts are not 
having the economic impact they thought they would have. We have given 
trillions of dollars in tax cuts and the whole reason was to stimulate 
the economy. We are still in a recession or just modest, very modest, 
economic growth, if that. Some signs are saying we are going to go back 
into a recession. This is not having the impact, because these people 
who make this money are not investing it in the United States. I will 
pull out the China graphs again if you want me to, but these people are 
taking their tax cuts and investing it in Asia. The economic impact 
again is not being felt in the United States. It is being felt abroad. 
The old theory that tax cuts will stimulate your national economy no 
longer work. It is an outdated method; it is voodoo economics as 
President Bush, I, said; and it is not working here today.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio did make 
the point of what is actually happening here, and I think it is 
important that we highlight that. We are going to close out. I see my 
Republican colleagues that are here. We got a little excited in talking 
about some of these issues, but I want to make sure that when you 
mentioned the veterans, like I said before and I have said like three 
times during this Special Order, we do have some friends on the 
Republican side of the aisle that see it and get it. Okay? But this is 
what happens to them when they do the right thing and this is from Fox 
News.

[[Page 10789]]

  Representative Chris Smith, former chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, passed a Veterans Administration budget that put him 
on the opposite side of his leadership on the Republican side. Actually 
doing what he should do as a chairman for the veterans. What happened? 
Did he get a parade? Did he get a commendation from the Republican 
leadership in their caucus? No. He got fired. He was ripped of his 
chairmanship. And so when we start talking about what we want and what 
we actually get, that is a perfect example.
  We had nothing to do with him being removed. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic 
leader, had nothing to do with him being removed. The Republican 
leadership removed him. It is very unfortunate that that took place. I 
would say this, it is important that we come to the floor with 
solutions and not just problems. I am glad that we shared with the 
American people and also Members of this House what we have in store 
for them. Before we close, does the gentleman want to give this e-mail 
out quickly?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Again, send us an e-mail, tell us what you believe 
the real crises are in the country, [email protected], and 
possibly we will read your e-mail next week.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the time here on 
floor. We would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us to 
have this time on the Democratic side.

                          ____________________