[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11767-11774]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to be 
before the House of Representatives. I would also like to thank the 
Democratic leader for allowing the 30-something Working Group to 
reappear on the floor again for another week to talk about issues that 
are facing 30-somethings throughout this country and are also facing 
Americans in general.
  When we talk about issues such as Social Security, the debt, national 
security, health care, education, those are issues that we all care 
about. And for the last couple of weeks, we have been talking about 
Social Security, talking about strengthening Social Security, talking 
about making sure that Social Security is there for not only the 30-
somethings but the 20-somethings, those that are receiving survivor 
benefits, retirees that are receiving benefits from Social Security, 
the 48 million Americans that we speak of, and also those that are 
receiving disability because of an injury while they were working.
  But it is an honor being here once again with the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Last week we recessed for Memorial Day, or Memorial week, and I had 
an opportunity to go to Puerto Rico to speak, along with the Senate 
president of the Puerto Rican Senate, to put 20-plus names on the wall 
of proud Puerto Ricans that died in the line of duty defending our 
great country.

                              {time}  2115

  They are great Americans, and I was glad to be there. It was really a 
moving event for me. They even added the name of a fallen hero from 
World War II. In Puerto Rico it is kind of hard. Here in the United 
States they usually say that a person is from the place that they 
trained or the base where they were assigned, not necessarily where 
they came from. So the family went through a lot of trouble in trying 
to get this information up and finally were able to place him on 
Memorial Wall there by the state capital for Puerto Rico, the capital 
of that territory.
  It is good to see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back.
  Memorial Day is one of the special days. Memorial Day, the 4th of 
July, Veterans' Day, those are some of the great moments to be a Member 
of Congress, because you get to go to all the different parades and all 
the different events and meet some of the great heroes from communities 
in Florida and Ohio, those people who were just from average homes, 
average families, and just went and did their duty. I think it is good 
that several times a year we remind ourselves.
  One of the things that I think that generation of soldiers from World 
War II gave us was a real spirit of what it is like and what it means 
to be an American. It was great over the past week to have these 
experiences, because I think in many ways we are losing that, that

[[Page 11768]]

sense of community, that sense of we are all in this together.
  During the war, and I am sure the gentleman has heard stories, as I 
have, of the kind of sacrifices that each community made, each family 
made. Some would send soldiers off to fight, some would send soldiers 
off to be a part of support units, some would serve here at home. But 
then the women and the mothers had their own roles to play back here at 
home. Whether it was going to the factory or working in the house or 
working on the farm or wherever it was, everyone in the country made 
that sacrifice to have the kind of success we had.
  I think if there is one governmental program that is indicative of 
that spirit, it is the Social Security program. We have been focusing 
on this for many, many months now, really since the beginning of this 
Congress, and just trying to hammer away at this issue and trying to 
get our arms around it.
  I think we have come to grips with the fact that this program is not 
in a crisis state. It is the greatest program that this country runs. 
It runs at a 1 percent administrative cost. Ninety-nine percent of the 
money that goes into the system gets back out into the pockets of 
beneficiaries. Only 1 percent is administrative costs. Even those folks 
out there that may say government does not run efficiently, and I would 
agree that there are cases throughout government where programs do not 
run as efficiently as they should, would say this is efficient.
  I think part of what we need to talk about from the Democratic side 
is about reforming government, about making it run efficiently, about 
how it should run in an age based on information, with technology and 
knowledge and communication abilities that we have today. How do we 
make this government run more efficiently? There is no question that we 
need to address that problem. Social Security is not one of those 
programs. Ninety-nine percent of what goes in comes back out and goes 
to the beneficiary.
  One of the kind of myths that we are trying to fight here with our 
30-something Working Group is that this program is not in a crisis 
state. We kind of just want to start the debate from there. We are kind 
of reacquainting ourselves with this.
  Here is a chart for the folks at home to look at. It starts in 2005 
and continues to 2070. It basically in the navy blue here, from 2005 to 
about 2047, 2048, if we do not do anything with Social Security at all, 
we will still be able to pay 100 percent of the benefits, 100 percent 
of the benefits. If we do not touch this program, if we do not 
implement anybody's reform package, we will still be okay until 2047.
  Then even after that, to the late 2040s, until 2075 where the light 
blue is, we are still able to pay 80 percent of the benefits that 
beneficiaries should be receiving. If we do not touch it, we are 100 
percent until 2047 and then still good until 2075.
  For the people at home, you make the judgment. Is that a crisis? Is 
this program being solvent until 2047, 2048, a crisis? That is the real 
question.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is very 
interesting. I am so glad. For us, we hear it, we know it here in the 
Halls of this Congress. That is what we were elected for here, to find 
out this information, to not only share this information with our 
colleagues in this Chamber and Democrats and Republicans and the one 
Independent we have here in this House, to share that information with 
them, but it is important that we do not allow some of these statements 
that are being made while the President and others are flying around 
burning all kind of Federal jet fuel saying otherwise, that it is a 
crisis.
  I think the American people know exactly what is going on. It is our 
job to make sure that in the minority, since we talk about this, we 
have to explain what the minority-majority issue means. It is important 
for everyone to know that Democrats, we are in the minority in this 
House. We cannot agenda bills to come to the floor. We cannot call 
hearings or committee meetings. All of these privileges are left to the 
majority, which is the Republican Party at this particular time.
  We also have to remember that for many of the issues we are talking 
about here there are alternatives to those issues. We will be talking 
about those tonight.
  This Federal debt that you have here on the chart right beside you, 
every American's share of that debt that is on that chart, we had a 
solution for it and it worked. We were dealing with surpluses. Now we 
are dealing with that large number.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. In 1993, a Democratic House, Democratic Senate and 
Democratic President passed a bill that balanced the budget; and we 
began to pay down the debt in the country because we were running at 
the surplus level.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I will say this: When we 
balanced the budget, we did it without one Republican vote in this 
House. Our children did not have to pay $26,349.67. Someone who was 
just born when we started this Special Order already owes that to the 
Federal Government. Those are the issues we talk about.
  But as relates to Social Security, one may say, what are Democrats 
standing for? We are standing for strengthening Social Security, bottom 
line. We stand for what happened when Tip O'Neill was in that Chair and 
Ronald Reagan was in the White House and how they came together and 
came up with the bipartisan bill without privatization. That is what we 
stand for.
  We look to go back to the days when we saw the Senate, the other 
body, voting to adopt a Social Security plan 58 to 14. That is 
bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans. In 1983, when this House voted 
to put Social Security where it is now, because, as you mentioned, into 
40-plus years, and I would just say 40-plus, even though we know it is 
higher, 100 percent of the benefits will be provided and then 80 
percent after that. But in 1983 this House, and it was a Democratic 
House at that time, but that did not matter, because we moved in a 
bipartisan way, some 243 Members of the House versus 102 voted for 
Social Security. If you want to break it down at the partisan level, it 
was 80 Republicans that voted for, 48 against; 163 Democrats voted for, 
54 against. That is a bipartisan bill that passed this House. The 
discussion that is going on today is far from that.
  To start talking about, well, Democrats, they do not want to do 
anything, or they just want to keep things in the status quo, well, 
guess what? My constituents are not calling me complaining about Social 
Security. I do not think the gentleman's constituents are calling him 
either. Because it is one of the best Federal programs and initiatives 
that has ever been launched in this country.
  We want to strengthen it. We want to strengthen it without going to 
privatization. From the beginning they are saying benefits will be cut 
even if you are not part of the privatization program. If you opt not 
to be a part of the majority side privatization plan, you still lose 
benefits. So I do not understand the logic there.
  But when I started looking at the information and we started looking 
at the Congressional Budget Office and what they are saying, the only 
plus benefit I can see here is $940 billion to Wall Street.
  Guess what? I care about the folks that sent me up here from Florida. 
I care about their well-being. I care about them receiving 100 percent 
of their benefits versus 70 percent. They paid into it, and they have 
the right to have their benefits.
  Now I just want to say this again, because I want to make sure there 
is no confusion in this House: To the Members that are watching us, to 
make sure that they understand that we want to strengthen Social 
Security without taking us further into debt, and if we have to deal 
with the whole issue of borrowing the money, at least have a plan to 
pay it back. That is how we got to that number; not ``we,'' but the 
majority side, because we have been voting against the budget that they 
put forth. We have just been spending on a credit card. Where is my 
credit card? If I can have it, this is the congressional spending 
credit card right here.
  I do not consider myself a hard partisan, because I have some good 
friends

[[Page 11769]]

on the other side of the aisle that care about this, that care about 
this Federal debt. They do not believe in using a credit card to give 
out all kind of cake and ice cream when we do not need it as relates to 
the Federal dollar. I am using ``cake and ice cream'' as a metaphor. 
Because if I was to feed my kids only cake and ice cream, what kind of 
health will they be in?
  If we just spend and borrow and allow foreign countries to hold 44 
percent of our debt and say we are a financial superpower, that is a 
misstatement, because soon it is going to be over 50 percent, if some 
of the Members of Congress, and I mean some of our Members on the 
majority side, if they do not go see the wizard and say, ``you know 
something? I came here as a fiscal conservative and I want to leave 
here as a fiscal conservative.''
  But I can tell you one thing. The leadership on the other side is 
damaging that image of those individuals that came here. So, obviously, 
we are in a Federal debt situation, and growing.
  We are going to have to make one of two things happen: Either the 
American people are going to have to rise up and say, enough is enough, 
we are saying we are going to deal with Social Security for future 
generations and then we hand our children a debt that as far as the eye 
can see and say you handle it? When the President marched down this 
aisle here, went up to the podium and said, if you are over 55, do not 
worry about it? So now grandparents and parents over 55 are supposed to 
say to their kids and grandchildren, good luck?
  That is the reason why I believe we do not have a bill coming to this 
floor on Social Security. Yes, there is some discussion, but I believe 
as long as the majority side leadership and the President are talking 
about the privatization, the gamble of Social Security, and if you look 
at some of the articles that are coming out now on this whole issue, 
you have to be very skeptical of what the President is talking about.
  Even the poll that came out, the Washington Post-ABC News poll, I 
wanted to talk about that, because we are not talking about issues 
facing Americans.
  Health care. When a company's employees come in and start looking at 
the benefit package, and the small business owner says you will be 
better off getting Medicaid versus the plan that we offer because the 
premiums are too high, that is not health care.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
as the gentleman is saying that, this survey that the gentleman was 
just talking about, the Washington Post-ABC News poll said that 58 
percent of those interviewed said that the President is concentrating 
mainly in his second term on problems and partisan squabbles that these 
respondents said were unimportant to them. Four in ten, 41 percent, 
said the President was focused on important problems, a double-digit 
drop from 3 years ago.
  The people are speaking. They are saying that, as the gentleman said, 
like this chart that we went over a few weeks ago showed, giving our 
debt over to these foreign countries, reducing the independence of this 
country, pushing the burden off on our children and grandchildren, the 
next generation, and asking them to foot the bill, that is the issue.
  Health care. We have had a health care crisis in this country for how 
many years now? How many years? And now we are talking about an issue 
that does not present itself for another 40 years?
  These are the issues that we need to begin to talk about. We need to 
begin to talk about the escalating costs of health care, year in and 
year out, 15 percent, 20 percent; the rising, skyrocketing costs of 
prescription drugs, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 percent. The most profitable 
industry in the world, and we are not talking about it?
  These are the issues that we need to focus on. And to have this 
charade going on on the side, this dog-and-pony show about an issue 
that does not present itself for another 40 years I think is misleading 
and not the proper execution of I think the top leader in the country. 
I just really believe that.

                              {time}  2130

  It is time for some real leadership in the country, and we just do 
not seem to be getting it now. The poll is absolutely right. We get 
into these partisan squabbles. We want to work. We want to solve some 
of these problems. We know there are different philosophies, and it is 
okay to have a fight about it, but at the end of the day, do what is 
best for the country.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with stating 
your opinion or my opinion or the gentlewoman from Florida's (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz) opinion or anyone in the 30-something Working 
Group's opinion, as long as they have merit and foundation, and that it 
is meaningful and that it is fair play.
  And there is nothing personal about what we are talking about. I 
mean, one may speak of the President, but the bottom line is that the 
President is term-limited out. There is not anyone who thinks there is 
some political motivation here to try to make the President look bad; 
this is not the intent here. The intent is saying that there are 
leaders in this House, may they be Democrat or Republican, who are 
going to have to rise up and say, you know, you are wrong, I am sorry.
  We are going to talk a little further about young people and dealing 
with debt; but before the gentleman takes that chart down, I want to 
make sure, because we are both on the Committee on Armed Services and 
we are dealing with the issue of national security, and we are dealing 
with making sure that our democracy stays strong and we protect the 
homeland. So I think that chart there is very appropriate that the 
gentleman has up there.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we went over this a few weeks ago, and 
this is a portion of foreign-owned debt. It rose to 41 percent under 
the Bush administration. In the far left corner here, we have the year 
2000 and over here, 2004. The purple is the debt held by foreigners. 
The aqua, turquoise, either/or, is domestically held debt and the 
billions of dollars, which comes to about the trillions. And in the 
blue, as my colleagues can see, the portion of the debt held by 
domestic banks, domestic concerns, domestic interests, has flat-lined. 
The purple is the foreign-held debt, and it begins to increase; it is 
starting to move up into the main and starting to even break through 
the border here.
  We can see that increase right there, and that is what worries us. It 
is that increase right there that says we are losing a portion of our 
independence, because when the Chinese, for example, own a higher and 
higher and higher portion of our debt, then we have to begin to factor 
that concern in when we are dealing with North Korea, when we are 
dealing with the situation in Iraq, when we are dealing with the way 
they are manipulating their currency.
  Right now, the Chinese are manipulating their currency, some say up 
to 40 percent. And why is the U.S. not taking a stronger stand? Why are 
we not being firm with the Chinese? Well, it is tough to play hardball 
with the bank when they are funding your debt; and that is really what 
is happening right now, is that the bank is becoming China and they are 
funding our debt, so we have less leverage over them as they begin to 
wipe out the manufacturing.
  So here we go, here is our debt, here is the chart that we are 
becoming way too familiar with, the national debt of $7.79 trillion, 
and each person shares $26,000. This is the issue. This is the crisis 
in this Chamber, and this is the crisis that the country needs to come 
to grips with.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure because, once 
again, I believe in third-party validators, and I believe that it is 
important that if folks want the current number as we stand right now 
as it relates to the Federal debt and where these numbers come from, I 
think it is important. I just want to make sure that the Members 
understand. The U.S. Treasury Web site will give this information also; 
you can go to www.house.gov/budget/democrats_, just to make sure that 
you are able to get that information and pull it up for yourselves and

[[Page 11770]]

share it with your family and friends, and I do mean that in the most 
serious way. I think it is important that we share that information.
  Mr. Speaker, one other thing that the gentleman mentioned before I 
yield back; there are a number of things that are going on in the 
economic sense. We talk about Social Security, because it is economics 
for families. And I think that it really, really hits home when 
families are going to have to find a way, how they are going to make up 
for that 30 percent that they are going to lose under the President's 
plan and the majority's plan.
  A part of this effort of coming to the floor every week, our working 
group meets and we talk about these issues, are for the following 
reasons: one, we want to let folks know that we want to strengthen 
Social Security. I do not think there is a Member on the Democratic 
side, and I will even add some of my friends on the Republican side, 
who do not want to strengthen Social Security. Folks get elected 
protecting Social Security. But for the life of me, I do not understand 
why we do not have more of our Republican colleagues letting the 
President know we appreciate you on their side of the aisle, we voted 
for you, but you are wrong. And, I mean, that takes courage, and it 
takes leadership. I think it is important so that we can move on to 
issues of dealing with Social Security so we are not stuck in neutral 
or in park on Social Security because someone has said that is the only 
way we will deal with Social Security unless the private sector gets 
its cut. So I think it is important that we understand that.
  There is an article today in The Washington Post that is talking 
about ``big pension plans fall further behind,'' and this is exactly 
what the President is talking about. I have airline pilots, I fly back 
and forth from Miami to here, and they are telling me, they used to get 
$12,000 in pension a month on their pension plans. Now it is down to 
$2,000. That is what we are going to do with Social Security, which is 
security, the word security, saying that it will be there for you. So I 
think that is important.
  But I just wanted to share that piece, because I think it is 
important that we add that information in so folks do not feel that 
this is the Tim Ryan philosophy or the Kendrick Meek philosophy. This 
is a bipartisan effort here as it relates to getting the information, 
especially from the Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is absolutely 
right. When we check and verify our own statistics here that we are 
using, again, the poll that we had mentioned talking about really what 
the main issues facing the people of the country are, a strong majority 
of self-described political Independents, and this is the ABC News 
Washington Post poll, 68 percent of self-described Independents say 
they disagree with the President's priorities. Sixty-eight percent. The 
hard-core numbers on Social Security and the President's priorities are 
30, 35, maybe 40 percent in the grand scheme of things. So we are 
talking about 60 percent of the country not agreeing with the 
priorities of the President.
  As we talk about what the crises are in the country, one thing that I 
think ties into what we are talking about, the national debt, the 
annual deficits, the $26,349 that each citizen owes to that debt, the 
$500 billion annual deficit that we are running, plus, it kind of feeds 
into a notion in the whole country about debt. So what the 30-something 
Group wants to talk about a little bit tonight is the issue of young 
Americans dealing with debt. Because we are really, by the decisions we 
are making, putting a $26,000 bounty on the heads of young people, tax 
bounty on the heads of young people, the minute they are born; and they 
owe the government that much. Then we begin to look at, project that 
$26,000 out for another 22 years from the day they were born, and then 
we begin to deal with young Americans in college. And this was a very 
interesting statistic that we were able to find in an article last 
week.
  According to a survey released by Sallie Mae, the Nation's largest 
provider of student loans, college seniors expected to graduate this 
year, probably right around now, with $28,953 in debt; basically 
$29,000; $26,000 of it is going to be student loans, and another $2,800 
of it is going to be credit card debt. So if you are graduating from 
college today, you owe the 26 grand already from the debt that we need 
to pay off, which each citizen owes, and then they owe another $28,000, 
$29,000 basically in student loans and credit card debt.
  And that feeds into a real problem that we have in this country. It 
is a disincentive to go to school, it is a disincentive for college, 
and really it traps a young man or a young woman coming out of college 
with a good education, and all this debt. That is not freedom. And we 
hear freedom, freedom, freedom, freedom in this Chamber time and time 
and time again.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are even some folks who would 
start a freedom caucus in the Congress.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have freedom french fries down in the House 
diner. We do not have French fries, we have freedom fries. Freedom. Is 
this freedom? Is owing $29,000 when you get out of college freedom? Is 
owing the government $27,000 freedom? Is that freedom? That is not 
freedom. So we cannot really just apply freedom to little areas that 
are convenient. And freedom is economics too, and I believe that we are 
beginning to get into a situation by letting the credit cards run 
rampant through this Chamber, letting the spending get out of control 
in this Chamber, and it takes away the freedom for our young men and 
women.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, and I am 
glad that the gentleman shared that information as it relates to the 
debt that young people are in now. But guess what? Who is going to help 
them pay that debt? Nine times out of 10 they are going to come out and 
try to get a job and I guarantee you, dealing with that kind of debt, 
and we want them to be able to move into a home, I mean they are going 
to be living with their parents writing their name on orange juice 
saying that they will get out of the house some day because they owe so 
much.
  Now, I am going to talk about what Democrats are doing to put money 
into the pockets of Americans who are going to educate themselves, 
making this country strong. Are you ready?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Ready. Let us do it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We spend a lot of time making sure we have 
answers to problems, and I think it is important that the Members 
understand, if this was a Democratic House, as it stands now, this 
would not even be a discussion, this would already be an action, or 
some of the stuff that is happening to Americans would not be 
happening.
  Now, Democrats in this House, we introduced a bill that would help 
over 1.3 million Americans as it relates to not losing money in their 
student loans and Pell grants. We talk about the Bush administration 
and the majority. Well, I can tell my colleagues that late last year in 
the 108th Congress, 1.3 million college students will lose Federal 
scholarships, will be unfairly reduced, their scholarship money will be 
reduced starting in the 2005-2006 school year due to congressional 
change that the Bush administration and the majority side made to the 
formula. And what Democrats are doing, we have put forth a bill to 
replace those dollars to make sure that young people who are trying to 
go to college, they will have an opportunity to go and not come out in 
that kind of debt.
  It is going to get worse. Those are numbers under the present 
situation. The debt ratio on those kids and those young people that are 
trying to educate themselves, some are men and women that are serving 
in uniform, some are individuals that are trying to better themselves, 
these cuts will make over $300 million in a reduction in their 
scholarship money. So we have legislation that is on the floor now to 
replace those dollars.
  Now, all we can do as Democrats is try to fight through the tall 
bushes here in the House, here in Washington, D.C., to try to replace 
that money for

[[Page 11771]]

these young people. The gentleman talks about freedom. That is 
definitely not financial freedom, I say to the gentleman.
  I will tell my colleague another thing on top of that: we are not 
only working with what we have and putting forth legislation, but we 
are also urging young people now, today, now, and parents and Members 
of this House that have children that have college debt or loans that 
they owe, to consolidate those loans now before July 1, because on July 
1, the interest rate will go up 2 percentage points.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. So you have the opportunity to do it now and 
work very hard. If you have a problem in getting good information on 
how to consolidate, there is information on line that they can use to 
be able to consolidate that information. You can go on the 
www.pirg.org/consolidation. That is pirg.org/consolidation to learn 
more. Or you can go on the House Democrat's Web site, which is 
www.house.gov/Georgemiller, who is our ranking member on education and 
workforce. That is house.gov/georgemiller.gov.
  I think that is important, to be able to share that information. 
Because this is for real. This is what everyday Americans are facing. 
This is not fiction. This is not what we should do or what we want to 
do. This is exposing what is going on here in Washington, D.C., $300 
million to kids and young people that are trying to educate themselves.
  Better yet, the President comes up here, tells folks over 55, do not 
worry about the Social Security issue. You will not be affected. We are 
doing this for future generations. And this is what we are doing to 
future generations.
  So I would say this again to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) who is here, that 
when the rubber meets the road this is what we are doing. Well, when it 
does meet the road, and which it has met the road now, we have this 
kind of scenario for young people, coming out with not only student 
loan debts, but only a Federal debt to the Federal Government, so you 
might as well make that a little under $50,000, when they come out of 
college in what they owe.
  I am so happy that that my colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz) is fighting these battles, who used to be chair of the 
education, higher education committee in the House of Representatives 
when we were in the Florida House of Representatives a couple of years, 
well more than a couple of years ago, but dealt with these issues that 
are facing young people. And I am so glad you are here.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am so glad to be here; and I appreciate the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi's) willingness to put this 
group together of the members of the 30-something, 10-year period. We 
each have a few more years to go.
  I want to piggyback on something you were just talking about related 
to the eligibility bar for financial aid. I can tell you just from 
personal experience all of the way back to when I was entering college 
and my parents were applying for financial aid for me; and the 
calculation, even back then, as to what we were eligible for and what 
the formula said that my parents could afford to pay and lay out that 
would come out of their pocket for college costs was unbelievable then.
  And now, with the changes in the financial aid formula today, I mean, 
even, I grew up in a middle-class family, you know, regular, average 
middle-class family, you know, not wealthy at all, parents who 
certainly did not live paycheck to paycheck but had a mortgage and car 
payments and credit card debt and, you know, pretty significant month-
to-month bills. And none of that is taken into consideration when you 
calculate financial aid.
  I mean, those major expenses, other than your income, have nothing to 
do with the formula. So when they say, and back then the numbers were 
something like, my parents, based on their income, could be expected to 
pay $16,000 a year for my college education. Now, given all of the 
bills that they were struggling to pay for, there was no way.
  Now, fast forward to 2005; and the bar has been raised even higher. 
And add the credit card debt that has drastically increased, with the 
bar on the graph at a steep incline. You add that to parents' credit 
card debt, you have kids now who are starting out with credit card debt 
even in high school.
  I mean, that was unheard of when we were in high school. I mean, kids 
did not start college with credit card debt. They certainly did not 
begin having credit card debt as early as they do now, with credit card 
companies literally preying on brand-spanking-new college students with 
offers and, you know, kids who are willing to sign up to get a credit 
card just to get a cool t-shirt.
  These are students that are not financially sophisticated enough to 
make the kinds of decisions that they are going to have to make so that 
they will understand the ramifications for themselves financially for 
themselves down the road. And we have got to have policies that are 
going to be able to help them get along in the years to come.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Another part of the Democratic platform, one that 
we will be issuing in the next few months, is financial literacy. 
Combat this at a young age, combat this. These kids are in grade school 
and high school and teach them about the stock market and compounding 
interest and all of the different aspects to managing money and being 
debt free, if you save now, and what it turns into 30 years from now. 
That is another part of the Democratic proposal. We need to teach these 
kids how not to get in this position here. We need to teach many 
leaders in the Congress here how not to get ourselves in this position 
here as well.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Or allow Americans to get themselves in that 
position. I know that this is a country based on freedom but not based 
on ignorance. It is important that we share this information. If we 
know better, we will do better.
  And the bottom line is, if the leadership was in place here in this 
House, the $300 million that I spoke of that took place in the 108th 
Congress in the closing days of the Congress has reduced the amount of 
money that students are able to get as it relates to their Pell Grants, 
it never would have happened if we were in control, if this was a 
Democratic House.
  So the challenge has to be there for the majority side to do better; 
and the bottom line is, better is not happening when it comes down to 
those kinds of statistics that you have there, Mr. Ryan, that the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) just spoke about. I 
think it is important that we remember.
  So we talk about solutions. Solutions is making sure that we make 
good decisions and we have good leaders in place that will allow 
legislation to either be stopped that is bad, coming from the other 
body, or recommendations from the White House, just say no, this will 
not happen. We are looking for future generations, and we are here to 
protect future generations.
  But the bottom line is, if we continue to do this kind of rubber-
stamping that is going on here on Capitol Hill, we are going to 
continue to go on a downward spiral. The deficit will continue to get 
higher. In the 108th Congress, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I said, well, 
this is the highest debt in the history of the Republic. How could it 
get worse? It is worse now, and it will continue to get worse until 
something different happens here in this Chamber and in this Capitol 
and in this city. So it is important that we look at these issues.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. One of the comments that a previous speaker made 
here not too long ago was that we do not have many options. You can 
raise taxes or you cut spending or you grow the economy. Well, you 
cannot grow the economy if you are putting this tremendous burden on 
students, the next generation of people who are going to go out and 
create things and not making the proper investment into education as we 
have talked about before. A lot of our urban areas and a lot of our 
rural areas, where many of those

[[Page 11772]]

kids go to school in poverty, do not have health care, are not getting 
the kind of education that they get in some of the suburban areas.
  Those are the kids that we need to fund, educate, and let them go out 
and create and grow the economy. But you cannot do that by tying a ball 
and chain around their neck and throwing them over the river, because 
they sink, and at the same time not make the kind of investments.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You talk about financial literacy. You are 
absolutely right. What is happening now, number one, we are not setting 
the example at the top of the mountain. I mean, what we are doing here 
is adding to our deficit month after month, year after year.
  What kind of message are we sending to generations that are going to 
come behind us about the importance of minimizing your debt? I mean, we 
are deficit spending. So why would most Americans think that that is 
not a normal way, a responsible way to live?
  Most Americans, let me not overstate it, many, many Americans live 
paycheck to paycheck, and they live right to their means. This is a 
society where, no, I cannot have that now because I cannot afford it 
right now, is not instilled in people from the time that they are 
young. That is why financial literacy is so important.
  We have a Financial Literacy Caucus. I am on the Financial Services 
Committee, and we have begun an effort, especially on the Democratic 
side, to try to educate generations coming up through life that at some 
point you have to decide what you can afford to have, and there has to 
be a now and a someday and not everything can be in the now.
  That is also a lesson that Congress and the President could learn, 
too: Not everything can be in the now. Sometimes we have to make some 
financial decisions that will say, well, it would be nice if we could 
afford that humongous tax break for the wealthiest few, but in order to 
be fiscally responsible we cannot have that now.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And patriotic. Quite frankly, tell the wealthiest 
people in the country, we would love to give you a tax cut. Who would 
not? Who in politics would not like to tell a really rich person I want 
to give you a tax cut? I mean, that would be great.
  But you have to do the right thing, and you have to say, you have to 
meet your responsibility to society. We cannot afford to give you a tax 
cut right now, because we have a $7.79 trillion debt. Now you can be 
selfish and still want one. Why not give the middle-class guy the tax 
cut, who has all of this debt burden, who is trying to send their kids 
to school? We cannot afford to give Warren Buffet a tax cut. I am 
sorry, Warren.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I represent a district with a pretty sizable 
percentage of wealthy individuals. And when I am home, I cannot tell 
you the numbers of people who come up to me and say, you know, I would 
love to have a tax break, but I care about my children's education a 
lot more. I care about the Nation's financial and fiscal health a lot 
more. Keep your tax break. I barely felt it, and it really is not going 
to make that much difference in my life.
  Many, many people who are wealthy and qualify for those tax breaks 
understand where their priorities are and should be. It seems that only 
the administration and the leadership of this Congress does not have 
their priorities straight.
  I mean, even Mr. Obey, when we were considering the Defense 
Appropriations Bill in the last couple of weeks, when he offered an 
amendment to reduce the tax break for the wealthiest few Americans, I 
think it was half a percent. I think it was an incredibly small amount 
of money, just a little bit less of a tax break, that the wealthiest 
few would have received in order to expand the inspections, the 
percentage of inspections that we perform at our ports, for the cargo 
in ports, and that, even that amendment was rejected.
  We chose tax breaks for the wealthy over our homeland security. Now 
if that is not priorities being out of whack, then I do not know what 
is.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I remember last year as well, we did the same thing 
for veterans benefits. It was an increase of, I do not remember how 
many billions of dollars, but it basically made it full funding. But it 
had to reduce in kind dollar for dollar what would be needed for the 
veterans from the tax cut that went to the top 1 percent. Voted right 
down, party line.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, what is very disturbing is when we 
commemorate or recognize or reflect on those that have fallen for our 
democracy, our veterans or our past veterans or those that did not even 
get an opportunity to be a veteran because they were an enlisted person 
and they died. Right down the street from here is Arlington Cemetery. 
When their colleagues or comrades that served with them, you know, side 
by side, and they come to Washington, D.C., to remember those that have 
fallen and to know when we honor them on one day, even on Veterans Day, 
we honor them on two days, their sacrifice to our country, and better 
yet on that next day, that Tuesday, they are waiting 6 months to see 
the ophthalmologist or they have to pay more on a copayment.
  We did not keep up with our end of the promise. You know something, 
it is even harder to keep up with it because of this Federal debt. But 
we would much rather make those that have been extremely, extremely 
successful in this country to save a few more dollars.
  There is actually another article that I am going to bring up a 
little later, but I just want to share this with you all. My uncle 
served in Korea, and he took a bus up here with some other veterans 
when we dedicated the World War II Memorial out in the Mall here.

                              {time}  2200

  It was a well-attended event, very historic. My mother came, a past 
Member of this Congress. We sat out there. And they had all the World 
War II veterans and veterans in general stand up. Some of them could 
stand. Some of them could only put their hand up in the air.
  When you look at what is happening here with the Federal debt, taking 
this Federal credit card that I keep pulling up and charging it to the 
American people and to their future for many of the wrong reasons, it 
cannot help but make you very upset with the individuals that are 
making the decisions. And that is where the rubber meets the road.
  When you start looking at those who have served, who allow us to 
celebrate the very freedom that we live under right now, and they are 
having to run around here worrying about if they can make a co-payment 
or not. You go to the VA hospital, they do not treat. There are not a 
lot of veterans, unfortunately, that are Members of Congress, or maybe 
it would be a lot different in this town. They are waiting and waiting. 
And some of them call my office. Congressman, this is all I need. Can 
you help me?
  It should not be an act of Congress to get what they need to get out 
of the VA or veteran benefits in general. And we are about to have a 
whole other crop of veterans after this war or after some of them leave 
the military that are going to need those services. And I guarantee you 
right now there is not an American that I run into that says, 
Congressman, we are giving the veterans too much. If anything, can you 
do something. There is a veteran next to me, he is not even part of a 
meal program because he or she cannot afford to get it.
  So I would just leave it at that because I am getting upset talking 
about it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Look at the numbers here. The reason the gentleman 
is upset here in trillions of dollars over 10 years, we have a graph. 
We have to have a graph for everything. Permanent tax cuts, 1.18 
trillion over 10 years. Tax cuts for top 1 percent 800 million; VA 
budget, .3, 300 million. When we need to fully fund this everyone says 
we do not have the money, but we have the money for this, and we have 
the money for that. So this is the question.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I do not want to be greedy on the time, but I 
just have to say this to my colleagues, what

[[Page 11773]]

happened? Was it the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) that 
stood up and said, we are going to do the right thing. A Republican 
chairman. We are going to do the right thing by our veterans, and I am 
going to pass a budget that is going to help the veterans.
  You know what happened to him. They moved him off the committee. He 
lost his chairmanship. This is not the Wasserman Schultz/Ryan/Meek 
story. This happened and veterans throughout this country know it 
happened.
  So when we start talking approximate issues such as Social Security; 
we start talking about Medicare when we were told $350 billion and now 
it is up to $724 billion; when we start talking about issues such as 
Leave No Child Behind authorization bill far beyond what the 
appropriations actually is, folks have to pay attention to this. And I 
will guarantee you this, if we had the opportunity to run this House, 
this would be a nonissue. As a matter of fact, we would be working in a 
bipartisan way to correct some of these issues. We are not saying 
Democrats will do it. No. Democrats and Republicans and the one 
Independent in this House will do it. So this is so very, very 
important.
  You know something, I do not care. I hope that there is a Member in a 
leadership position right now that is listening that is saying we have 
got to change this because the pressure is being applied by the 
Democratic side of this aisle. And if they do not take the leadership 
responsibility to do what they have to do on behalf of these Americans, 
then guess what, they may be making a career decision. That is what 
democracy is all about. So I feel in no way sorry by pointing out the 
blatant inequities in leadership and being able to provide for those 
veterans and being able to provide for future veterans when we start 
talking about Social Security and what we should be doing here in 
Washington.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, we cannot emphasize enough, this 
is just another example of how the priorities here are out of whack. We 
had an opportunity a few weeks ago to visit our troops who were injured 
in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at Walter Reed Army Medical 
Hospital. These were young men, about a dozen of them, that I had an 
opportunity to visit, the most heart-wrenching stories, many of whom 
lost their limbs, mostly lost their legs, had their limbs obliterated, 
defended our country. Every single one of them said to me that all they 
wanted to do was to go back and they were so sorry to leave their 
buddies behind.
  These are people that when they become veterans we slap them with a 
disabled veterans tax. We say to them that for every dollar that they 
earn in disability payments, we are going to deduct a dollar from their 
pension. That is the reward we are giving them for serving our country 
and for becoming injured in the line of duty.
  Then we are saying to our members from the National Guard that unless 
you are within, I think it is, 90 or 180 days of being activated for 
duty, we are not going to pay for your health care. We do not provide 
health care to our members of National Guard who we know now are going 
to be activated at some point, who we know are giving up the salaries 
that they earn in their regular jobs, who are sometimes covered, 
sometimes not covered by health insurance at their regular jobs. But 
one of the things that members of the National Guard have to have to 
worry about is how to even pay for health care for themselves and their 
families. Yet we are still providing tax break after tax break for the 
wealthiest few Americans.
  I mean, it just is shocking that the top of the priority list is tax 
breaks and this trickle-down concept that does not ever seem to go away 
when it comes to the Republican leadership in this Congress, that if we 
give the tax breaks to the wealthiest few that somehow their investing 
and spending is going to flow down and help all the little people.
  We are at the point in our lives where we are real live grown-ups 
now. Has it worked in our lifetime? It still is not working, and we are 
still not providing for the people who really need the help, who are 
defending our country. Instead, we are taking money back from them.
  We talk about the death tax. We should be talking about the disabled 
veteran tax, because that is what we are doing to our veterans' 
pensions when they have been injured in the line of due, and it is 
absolutely unconscionable.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) offered 
a motion here to recommit a couple of weeks ago.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What happened?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. A party-line vote went down. And that was on the 
health care side of it. That was on making sure our Guards and 
Reservists have coverage regardless. And the gentleman brought out the 
numbers and it was maybe a billion dollars, but these men and women are 
picking up and they are in all our districts, and they pick up and they 
leave their families and come back and leave and come back.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They spent 1.8 on tax cuts.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Exactly. And we have the money if we wanted it, if 
we wanted to ask the top 1 percent to make a sacrifice to help fund 
this. That money will work its way back into the economy anyway. The 
fact that that is bad for the economy is an argument that I have never 
bought into. It is the voodoo economics, the trickle-down economics 
theory. I would rather have it in the hands of people who are making 
50, 60, 70, $80,000 a year that go out and invest in their kids and 
those kinds of things. But to say we do not have the money, I think, is 
shameful.
  These are good people. These are not bad people. But to choose them 
when you have to make decisions based on the whole society right now 
over this group, I think, is shameful.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let us get into some closing comments because we 
have about 5 minutes left.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I have a couple of e-mails that I would like to 
share from last week. We asked everyone 2 weeks ago to e-mail us in 
what they thought their priorities were in the country. If it was 
Social Security, they could say it was Social Security. If not, tell us 
what you think the real crises are in the country.
  We have Jim Munroe and Nancy Grover from Albuquerque, New Mexico: 
``The number one priority has to be turning the deficit around while 
making the tax system fair and equitable.''
  Mari Howells from Erie, Pennsylvania, a 30-something Dem who saw us a 
couple of weeks ago: ``Health Insurance! Our health care system is 
awful. It is bringing the whole country down. Number 2: the war. What a 
mess. Number 3: poorly funded schools.''
  I am going to take a minute here to read a beautiful e-mail that we 
received a couple of weeks ago from a man who saw us three on C-SPAN. 
He was laid off on September 11, 2002, from a Fortune 500 company in 
Dallas, Texas. Informed that his position had been dissolved, ``and 
since I was one of the highest paid, 38,000 a year, on their help desk, 
that I had to be one of the first ones to go. I was given 2 weeks 
severance pay and found out through my network that the company had 
outsourced the help desk to an overseas vendor. I am a proud veteran of 
the U.S. Air Force where I served 8 years and received an honorable 
discharge. Before being unemployed I had great health insurance and I 
am in fact a cancer survivor, but after losing my job and not being 
able to afford the $340 monthly payment to COBRA to keep my health 
insurance, I had no other choice but to go to the Dallas VA hospital to 
register for my health care.
  ``I am 41 years young and I have now been unemployed for almost 3 
years. My father was forced into early retirement because of his heart 
and my mother just recently lost her job of many years at a local bank. 
They could barely make it on their mediocre salary and his Social 
Security. I do not know what they are going to do now and now I have 
nothing to help them with because I do no have a savings, checking 
account or 401(k).

[[Page 11774]]

  ``When I was working, I used to send my mother $250 a month to help 
her and my father out a little bit, but I cannot do that any more. He 
has a temporary job at the bank that pays $13 an hour with no benefits, 
a lot less than I used to make but I am very happy just to be working 
again. God bless you.''
  So these are the real people that I think we need to begin helping.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is not a lot more that can be said other 
than that I think that we need to continue to come to this floor every 
week and I can commit to you that I will join you and make sure that we 
can continue to highlight the direction that they are taking this 
country and the increased debt and the selection of the people who need 
the least over the people who need the most. And I am not talking about 
people who are struggling to make ends meet.
  You have average working families in America whose priorities include 
health care and quality education and just making sure that they can 
stay out of debt. And, instead, the wealthiest few are the priority of 
the leadership in this Congress.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The e-mail is [email protected]. That 
is [email protected]. Send us an e-mail. Tell us what you 
believe to be the main crises facing this country.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Www.pirg.org/consolidation. Student loans, get 
them consolidated before the interest rate goes up almost 2 percent by 
the first of next month. And 70 percent of our troops are under the age 
of 30, which is a younger generation right now fighting in Iraq.

                          ____________________