    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2005, Book I)]
    [June 8, 2005]
    [Pages 950-959]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks at the Associated Builders and Contractors National Legislative
    Conference
    June 8, 2005

        Thank you all. Please be seated. Thanks for coming. Thanks for the
    warm welcome. Thanks for the kind introduction, Gary; it's good to keep it in the old Texas family. [Laughter]
    All you other Texans who are here, make sure you behave yourself.
    [Laughter]
        But I'm really honored to be here. I appreciate ABC; I appreciate
    your leadership. I appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit. I appreciate
    the fact that you're hiring people and making your communities better in
    which you live. I want to thank Carole Bionda and Kirk Pickerel and the
    board of directors for having me here.
        You made a mistake, you should have invited
    Laura--[laughter]--to be your speaker, if you were looking for the A-
    team in our family. She's become quite the comedienne. [Laughter] I'm
    pleased to report, though, that she's doing great. I'm a lucky man when
    she said yes when I asked her to marry me. And I think the country is
    lucky to have her as the First Lady.
        You know, I came to Washington to get some things done. This isn't
    my permanent home. I'm going to give it my all, put my energy into the
    job, and pour my soul into my work, and when time is up, I'm going to
    head back home. But I want it to be said that my administration came to
    Washington, DC, to solve problems. And when we had a problem that we
    square--that we dealt with it squarely. And we did it based upon
    principle. And we've been presented with some problems in this
    administration. One of them was a recession, because of an enemy attack
    and the down cycle in the economy. We had to deal with the recession.
        And at the heart of my decisionmaking was my understanding that most
    new jobs in America are created by small businesses, and therefore, any
    relief, any decisions as to how to deal with the recession had to be
    good policy for small businesses. And the tax relief we passed made a
    difference for our small businesses here in America.
        And the economic policy is working. I mean, after all, more people
    work in America today than ever before in our Nation's history. The
    unemployment rate is down to 5.1 percent. Small businesses are
    flourishing. The entrepreneurial spirit is strong. But there's more work
    to be done; there's more work to be done.
        One of the main jobs we have here in Washington is to protect our
    country. You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession;
    the attacks reminded us that we are at war. It's a different kind of
    war. It's a war that has taken the country a while to adjust to, because
    we're not facing nation states; we're facing terrorist organizations
    that know no border, terrorist organizations that know no conduct the
    way civilized nations know it when it comes to fighting war. They'll
    kill innocent people like that in order to justify a hateful ideology,
    which means that we've got to do a couple of things here out of
    Washington.
        One, we've got to do everything we can to protect the homeland, and
    we are. We're doing a better job of collecting and analyzing
    intelligence and sharing intelligence. Tomorrow I'm going to go to
    Columbus, Ohio, to talk about the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, which is
    an important piece of legislation that on the one hand guarantees the
    civil liberties of the American people, but on the other hand, gives our
    terror fighters the same tools that we use to deal with drug lords or
    white-collar criminals. We're making progress about making sure Federal
    agencies do a better job of communicating.

    [[Page 951]]

        The best way to defend the homeland, though, is to stay on the
    offense, is to find these people, is to defeat them abroad so we don't
    have to face them at home. And that's exactly what the United States of
    America is doing. And for those of you who have got a loved one in the
    United States military, I want to say two things to you: One, we'll make
    sure your loved one has whatever is necessary to protect America; and
    secondly, thank you for their sacrifice.
        And the second way to defeat the terrorists is to spread freedom.
    You see, the best way to defeat a society that is--doesn't have hope, a
    society where people become so angry they're willing to become
    suiciders, is to spread freedom, is to spread democracy. You know,
    during the course of the last campaign, I used to tell people about the
    power of liberty to transform societies. And what I meant by that was
    that one of my close associates in world politics is Prime Minister
    Koizumi of Japan. He's a buddy. He's a
    friend. He's the kind of guy you can sit down at the table and say,
    ``What are we going to do together to help keep the peace,'' how best to
    deal with the--with Kim Chong-il in North Korea,
    for example. We strategize, all aimed at making the world a more
    peaceful place.
        But it wasn't all that long ago that an 18-year-old Navy pilot named
    George H.W. Bush--and I'm confident some of
    your relatives--were at war with Japan. When you really think about it,
    60 years isn't all that long ago, is it? And yet today, the enemy has
    become a friend. And the reason why that enemy is a friend is because of
    freedom and democracy. Democracy has got the capacity to change the
    world.
        I believe everybody wants to be free. I believe mothers all across
    the world, regardless of their religion or where they live, want to
    bring up their children in a free society. I believe that is a universal
    drive and a universal desire. And it has been proven that democracies
    are peaceful. The best way to defeat terrorism in the long run and the
    best way to leave behind a foundation for peace for a generation of
    Americans coming up is to spread freedom and democracy around the world.
    And freedom is on the march.
        For the youngsters here today, I want you to pay attention to what's
    in the news. You're living in a remarkable period. Just think about what
    has happened in a quick period of time. Millions voted in Afghanistan.
    Millions defied the suiciders in Iraq to vote. People turned out in the
    town squares across Lebanon demanding freedom. In the Ukraine there was
    a freedom revolution. People in the world want to be free, and the
    United States of America will promote democracy and promote freedom
    movements for the sake of peace and stability.
        So while we'll continue to work to do our duty to secure you, we got
    to do work here at home to keep this economy growing, and here's some
    practical ways to do that. First, I understand that health care is an
    issue for small businesses. See, if most new jobs are created by small
    businesses, it makes sense to have good economic policies that help
    small businesses. And so therefore, one of the things we've got to do is
    to be wise about how we help small businesses deal with insurance,
    health insurance.
        One thing is for certain, to deal with health insurance--is we need
    to pass medical liability reform. One reason your premiums are high is
    because of the junk and frivolous lawsuits that are running good doctors
    out of practice and running up the cost of medicine. When I first came
    to Washington, I wasn't so sure this was a Federal issue. You know,
    being the former Governor of a State, I kind of felt like States could
    take care of medical liability issues. But you see, all these lawsuits
    cause docs to practice what they call defensive medicine. They practice
    more medicine than necessary just in case they get sued. And all these
    lawsuits are running up the cost of medicine because premiums go up,

    [[Page 952]]

    that they pass on to the billpayer. Well, it just so happened the
    Federal Government pays a lot of medical bills. See, we're paying
    Medicare and Medicaid and veterans benefits. It is estimated that these
    junk lawsuits are costing taxpayers about $27 billion a year.
        And so I decided, well, maybe this wasn't a State issue. Maybe this
    was a Federal issue since it's affecting our Federal budget so much, and
    it's a Federal issue that requires a Federal response. And so I put a
    good bill out. The House passed it. It's stuck in the United States
    Senate. For the sake of affordable health care, the Senate needs to get
    a good medical liability bill out of that--[applause].
        A couple of other practical ideas that small businesses need to look
    at and that Congress needs to act upon, one of them is health savings
    accounts. I urge you to take a good look at HSAs as a good way to help
    deal with the rising cost of health care and, at the same time, make
    sure your employees have got coverage. Take a look at it.
        A second plan that makes sense is to allow small businesses to pool
    risk across jurisdictional boundaries--what's called association health
    care plans. It means that if you're a small business in Texas and you're
    a small business in New Jersey, that you can be in the same risk pool if
    you share the same type of industry--restauranteur, for example, in
    Maine and a restauranteur in Florida can be in the same risk pool.
    Obviously, the more people in the pool, the more you spread risk, the
    lower the cost. The way I like to put it is this: Congress ought to
    allow small businesses to join together so they can buy insurance at the
    same discount that big businesses get to do, for the sake of health care
    for small businesses and their employees.
        One way to make sure this economy continues to grow is to show the
    markets and the people that we're wise about how we spend your money. I
    sent some budgets up to Congress that are lean, that said, ``Well,
    let's--why don't we set priorities and also ask the question of, you
    know, some of these programs we're funding, are they working? And if
    they're not working, let's stop funding them,'' kind of a results-
    oriented system. I'm pleased to report both the House and the Senate
    passed my budget, which by the way, will mean that we can cut the
    deficit in half in a 5-year period of time without raising your taxes.
        Speaking about taxes, if we want this economy to continue to grow,
    we got to keep them low. The Congress ought to make the tax relief we
    passed permanent. Part of that tax relief was a provision I know you
    might be interested in. You see, I believe a person ought to be allowed
    to pass their assets on to whomever they want without the Government
    taxing them twice, once while you're alive and right after you die. We
    put the death tax on the way to extinction, except unfortunately, the
    law says that in 2011, it's going to come back to life again. That's not
    fair, and it's not right. The Congress needs to make sure that death tax
    is gone forever, for the sake of small businesses.
        I'm going to make two other points about how to make sure this
    economy grows. One of them is going to be--I'm going to talk about
    Social Security. I think that's an economic issue. It's a funding issue.
    It's an issue that says we got a lot of debt that we owe people, and the
    fundamental question is how are we going to pay for it.
        The other issue, before I get there, is energy. You know, when I
    first came to Washington, I recognized that we were--our dependency upon
    foreign sources of oil was going to be a problem for us. You see, if
    you're depending upon somebody else to provide energy, at some point in
    time, it becomes an issue, either an economic issue or a national
    security issue or both. And so I put a strategy up to the United States
    Congress, said, ``Look, why don't we do something smart. Why don't we
    put an energy strategy into law that

    [[Page 953]]

    will accomplish some important goals.'' They've been debating this
    energy strategy for 4 years. And so I'm here to describe to you our
    strategy and, at the same time, remind the United States Congress that
    for the sake of economic security and national security, they need to
    get an energy bill to my desk by August of this year.
        American families and small businesses are paying higher gasoline
    bills, which is like a tax. And I understand that this has--that this
    tax has a drag on our economy. It's money that's going out of your
    coffers that could be otherwise used to pay a laborer or pay for health
    care. And the reason why your gasoline bills are going up is because we
    are dependent on foreign sources of energy. We import over 60 percent of
    the crude oil, which is the major stock for gasoline, from overseas--or
    about 60 percent. That's a lot. And therefore, when global demand is
    such and price goes up, we pay for it at the pump.
        And so I said to Congress, ``We need to diversify away from a
    hydrocarbon society. Now, that's going to take awhile, but we need to
    lay the groundwork to do so.'' And what does that mean? It means we've
    got to be better conservers of energy. We've got to have an incentive
    for people to conserve more. We can do a better job of being wise about
    how we use our resources.
        Secondly, we need to spend money on research and development to
    figure out how to use soybeans, for example, to develop fuel. Now, I
    went to a plant the other day in Virginia, a small soybean refinery,
    where they're making soy diesel--diesel fuel out of soybeans, called
    biodiesel. The more diesel engines there are that can use soybean fuel,
    the less dependent we are on foreign sources of energy. It makes sense
    to explore ways to make sure that we can use corn or soybeans to
    diversify away from oil that come from a foreign country.
        We're spending money on clean coal technology. Do you realize we've
    got 250 million years [250 years] * of coal? But coal has got
    environmental hazards to it, but there's--I'm convinced, and I know that
    we--technology can be developed so we can have zero-emissions coal-fired
    electricity plants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * White House correction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We ought to be using nuclear power. It's a renewable source of
    energy. I know that technology has changed, where I could say to the
    American people, ``Nuclear power is a lot safer than it ever has been in
    the past.'' These are all parts of this energy bill that Congress needs
    to pass to encourage renewable sources of energy, different sources of
    energy, clean sources of energy that will enable us to be less dependent
    on foreign sources of energy.
        We need to be, by the way, exploring for oil and gas in our own
    hemisphere in environmentally friendly ways. You know, a hot issue here
    is ANWR, the big tract of land in Alaska. It's millions and millions and
    millions of acres. And yet because of the advance of technology, we can
    find oil and gas on those millions of acres in a tract of land about
    2,000 acres in size. It's an amazing technological advance. But we ought
    to be using this technology to make us less dependent on foreign sources
    of energy.
        There's a lot of things we need to be doing and are doing. I don't
    know if you remember, but I put out a new initiative for exploring the
    possibility of using hydrogen to power automobiles. See, I believe in
    10-years' time, with the wise use of taxpayers' money, a new generation
    of Americans will be driving automobiles driven by hydrogen, not by oil
    and gas.
        Congress needs to stop debating this issue and stop playing politics
    and get this bill at my desk so I can say to the American people, this
    country has got a strategy which may not pay off yesterday but will pay
    off tomorrow for the American people.
        There's one other issue I want to talk about; that's Social
    Security. First, Social

    [[Page 954]]

    Security worked great for a lot of folks for a long period of time. My
    predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, did a smart thing in setting up the
    Social Security system. Social Security provided a safety net for a lot
    of seniors, and it was an important safety net. So you know, I'm
    traveling--or you may not know; I'll tell you now; you will know--
    [laughter]--I'm traveling a lot talking about Social Security. I'm
    meeting people that say, ``I'm dependent upon my Social Security
    check.'' I'm confident you know folks that say, ``I need my check. It's
    a part of my life.''
        And so the system has worked fine for a lot of folks. As a matter of
    fact, it's going to work fine for everybody born prior to 1950. So if
    you're a senior getting your Social Security check out there, you have
    nothing to worry about. The system is solvent for you. You're in good
    shape. I don't care what the politicians say. I don't care what the ads
    say, the pamphlets say. Don't let them scare you. You're going to get
    your check, and that's important for people to understand.
        But if you're a younger citizen, you'd better be paying attention to
    this issue. And here's the reason why--here's the reason why. There's a
    lot of people like me--we're called the baby boomers--who are getting
    ready to retire. See, my retirement date is 2008. [Laughter] I'm turning
    62 years old on 2008. [Laughter] It's a convenient time. [Laughter] And
    I'm just the beginning of the baby boomers. See, I was born in 1946;
    we're called the leading edge of the baby boomers. And there's a lot of
    others behind me.
        Do you realize that there's about 40 million Americans retired
    today. By the time the baby boomer generation fully retires, there will
    be 72 million Americans, more or less. There is a lot of us. We're
    living longer than the previous generation. You know, we're living
    longer, I hope, than any other generation. I'm pulling for that part of
    my generation. [Laughter] And a lot of politicians have run prior--in
    prior years, and said, ``Vote for me; I'll increase the benefits for a
    generation coming up.'' And you know what? They did. And so therefore,
    my generation, our generation, which will be living longer--and more of
    us--have been promised greater benefits, which is okay until you realize
    this aspect of the problem: Fewer people are now paying into the system.
        In 1950, there was about 15 workers per every retiree. In other
    words, the load was pretty well spread across a group of people paying
    payroll taxes. Today, there's 3.3 workers per retiree. Soon there's
    going to be two workers per retiree, trying to take care of a generation
    which is going to be living longer with greater benefits and a lot of
    us. So that's the problem. That's the math. That's the beginning of your
    understanding--or the country's understanding of why we have a problem.
        Let me put it in terms of dollars for you. In 2017, the system goes
    into the red. In other words, more benefits going out than payroll taxes
    coming in. In about 2027, it's about $200 billion short. In other words,
    every year from 2017, the red--the deficit gets larger and larger and
    larger. In 2027, it's 200 billion. In the 2030's, it's about 300
    billion. In 2041, the system is bust.
        Now, think about that for a minute. We're fine, by the way, those of
    us born before 1950. All seniors who are getting their check, you're in
    good shape. But you need to start asking people who have been elected to
    office what we intend to do about this problem for your children and
    grandchildren, because we're asking young Americans to come up in a
    system and pay a pretty sizeable payroll tax into a system where those
    of us in Washington who look at the facts understand it's going broke.
    That doesn't seem to make sense to me. That doesn't seem like good
    stewardship of the people's money, nor does it seem like good
    leadership. See, my job as the President of the United States is to
    confront a problem if I see one and

    [[Page 955]]

    not pass it on to future Presidents and future Congresses.
        I see a problem. I've just defined it to you, and it's clear. This
    is a--these are solid numbers that I'm talking about. You can't--people
    in Washington can't say, ``Baby boomers aren't getting ready to
    retire.'' And there's a lot of us who have been promised more benefits,
    and we're living longer. That's a fact. And it's a fact that fewer
    people are paying into the system. And it's a fact this system is going
    bankrupt. I'm--and so I'm going to keep talking about it.
        My strategy is pretty simple: Explain the problem to the American
    people and keep explaining it and explaining it and explaining it and
    assuring seniors that you're going to get your check. And then at some
    point, the people of this country are going to say to Republicans and
    Democrats alike, ``Why aren't you doing something about the problem? I'm
    beginning to understand the problem as a citizen, now how come you, as
    an elected official, aren't doing something about it?'' And we're making
    progress. People understand there's a problem.
        I remember early on after I got elected, I told Members of Congress,
    I said, ``I'm going to take this issue on.'' Frankly, there wasn't all
    that much applause when I said it. [Laughter] Some folks up here would
    rather take the easy path and do nothing. See, it's the easy path to
    say, ``Well, we'll just let somebody else take care of it. Vote for
    me.'' But that's not--to me, that's not how you define leadership.
    That's not what the people expect. The people expect us, regardless of
    our political party, to come up here and solve problems. And we've got
    some Republicans talking about the issue, which is good. And we've got
    some Democrats talking about it. And my attitude toward them is, bring
    your ideas forward. I'm interested in building a consensus so that we
    can say we have done our duty for a younger generation of Americans
    coming up.
        Here are some principles by which I am conducting discussions. One,
    the reform system must say to future generations, ``You'll get benefits
    equal to or greater than the current generation.'' I think that's a wise
    principle to be able to say to somebody putting money into the system--
    remember, you've got these youngsters now putting money into the system
    to pay for us, and they're wondering where the system is going to be for
    them. And the answer is, a reform system for people coming up ought to
    be, ``You ought to get benefits equal to or greater than the current
    benefit structure.''
        Secondly, I think this principle is very important. And that is, if
    you've worked all your life, you've worked hard at a job, and you've
    contributed into Social Security, you shouldn't retire into poverty. I
    mean, the safety net is more than just providing a check. The safety net
    is to provide, you know, peace of mind in retirement. So I like the idea
    of sending this principle to Congress. You can work hard, but you're not
    going to retire into poverty.
        And there's a way to make the system do that, and here it is. It's
    called progressive indexing, an idea that I embraced in a press
    conference the other day, in the East Room of the White House. And it
    said this--it says--by the way, right now, benefits increase--they're
    all increasing, but for everybody, they increase at the rate of wage
    increases, not price increases. Wages go up faster than price. And so
    the benefits are going up faster than the cost of living.
        And so what I think Congress ought to consider doing is saying that
    for the poorest of Americans, ``Your benefits, future benefits will go
    up based upon wage increases,'' and for the wealthier of Americans,
    ``Your benefits go up based upon price increases.'' You know, it's
    everybody's benefits--calculated benefits for the future. Again, we're
    talking about a younger generation of Americans coming. Those of us born
    in 1950--prior to 1950, nothing changes. It's

    [[Page 956]]

    really important for Americans to understand that. It's for the new
    generation coming up, as we calculate a reformed plan that permanently
    fixes Social Security.
        One idea is to say, for the poor Americans, ``Your benefits--
    calculated benefits over time go up with the rate of wage increases.''
    For wealthy Americans, ``It goes up at the rate of inflation, cost of
    living.'' And in between, there's a scale. Now, that's a system where we
    can say, ``Poor Americans won't retire into poverty.'' But interestingly
    enough, if that were to be passed by Congress, that alone would
    permanently fix a majority, a significant portion of the Social Security
    problem. Isn't that interesting? Just that alone, just that change alone
    would go a long way, a significant way for doing our duty to permanently
    fix the Social Security problem for a younger generation of Americans.
        And I've got one other idea that Congress needs to understand. And
    by the way, under this system, 99 percent of Americans would--1 percent
    of Americans would have the same purchasing power they have today; 99
    percent would have greater purchasing power under this kind of system.
        Today, the average American worker gets $14,800 a year in benefits
    from Social Security. Under the plan I just described, that would grow
    in real terms to $17,750 by 2055. And yet the system would be--most of
    the system would be permanently solved, most of the problem would be
    permanently solved.
        You know, a lot of folks, youngsters tell me that--let me say this,
    I have been told about a survey of youngsters who have said they're more
    likely to see a UFO than get a Social Security check. [Laughter] If this
    idea that says, ``If you're wealthier--top 1 percent of the country--
    your benefits, future benefits grow by cost of living. If you're poor,
    they grow by wage and, in between, is scaled up.'' And if you don't
    think you're going to see anything, it seems like to me, this makes
    sense for you if you're a younger worker getting ready to put something
    in the system.
        Now, there's a way to make the whole system permanent. There's other
    ideas, and I'll work with anybody who has got a good idea. But my job is
    not to shirk the problem. It's to deal with the problem head on and to
    bring solutions to the table, and here's a good idea called progressive
    indexing.
        I want to talk about another idea that Congress needs to seriously
    consider. As we permanently fix the system, we ought to make the system
    a better deal for younger workers as well. You see, here's the issue
    with--another issue with Social Security, it's called a pay-as-you-go
    system. You pay your payroll tax, and we go ahead and spend it.
    [Laughter] You see, some people think that the Social Security system is
    a system where you pay in your Social Security tax, and we hold it for
    you, and then when you retire, we give it back to you. That's not the
    way it works.
        The way it works is this: You pay your payroll tax; we pay out to
    current retirees; and then we spend your money on other Government
    programs. That's the way it works. And that's been going on for quite
    awhile. I happen to believe there's a better way to do this than to say
    there's a Social Security system where we're guarding your money and not
    spending it on other programs.
        And here it is: I think the best way to make sure that people have
    got real assets in the Social Security system, not just IOUs in a file
    cabinet, is to let younger workers take some of their own money, if they
    so choose, a voluntary program, and set up a personal savings account.
    In other words, the proposal I made to Congress says you can take a
    third of your payroll tax and set it aside as part of your Social
    Security retirement system.
        And here's why I believe that it makes a lot of sense. First, I like
    the idea of people owning their own assets in America. I like the idea
    of people having ownership

    [[Page 957]]

    in something. And I also understand the power of compound interest. In
    other words, when you set aside money, it grows. It compounds over time.
    That's how money works. Right now in the Social Security system, we get
    about 1.8 percent on your money for you, which is really low. [Laughter]
    A conservative mix of bonds and stocks is expected to pay about 4.6
    percent annually over time. It's been the historical average. Some of
    you do a heck of a lot better than that. I was campaigning with--on this
    issue with Senator McCain, and he thought out
    loud that he had made about 7 percent on his own personal savings
    account, conservative mix.
        In other words, you can do pretty well with a conservative mix of
    bonds and stocks. Heck, you can put your money in T-bills alone and do
    better than the 1.8 percent we get you. And over time, that money grows.
    The difference between what we can get on your money and what you can
    get in your own personal savings account, if you decide to set one up,
    is pretty darn significant.
        Let me give you an example. Say you've got children that are coming
    up, and they get married and enter the workforce in 2011. One is a
    nurse, say, and one is a police officer. Given the salary scales today
    and given what a 4.6 percent growth rate would mean on money set aside
    in a personal account, by the time that those folks retire at age 65,
    they would have a nest egg of $669,000, plus whatever is left for them
    in the Social Security system. See, it's their money. That's how money
    grows. That's what interest does. When you start setting aside money at
    age 20 years old and it's earning nearly 5 percent, it grows. It tends
    to accelerate growth the older you get, by the way. A lot of you know
    what I'm talking about.
        It seems like to me that that makes sense to let younger workers
    take advantage of the compound rate of interest. It makes sense to give
    people a better rate of return on their own money. After all, when we're
    talking about payroll taxes, we're not talking about the Government's
    money. That's your money. It's the money that you put into the Treasury.
        The money in the personal accounts, if you--the Government says you
    can do it, and if you decide to do it--remember, this is voluntary. This
    isn't to say--the Government is saying, ``You must do this.'' See, some
    people won't be comfortable about putting money aside in a voluntary
    personal account, and you won't have to. There will be a Social
    Security--reformed Social Security system available for you. This just
    says you can put some of it, if you so choose to do so.
        If you decide to do so--let me just give you a comparison between
    the couple I just mentioned to you of today's system and the future
    system. The couple would receive $42,000 a year in Social Security
    benefits. In a reformed system, the total amount of income from both the
    personal accounts and the Social Security check would grow to nearly
    54,000 in today's dollars. See, that's what--when you get your money to
    grow in an asset base you call your own, it means you have more money to
    retire with. And that's what we're trying to make sure is available for
    all folks.
        Let me tell you something else wrong with the current Social
    Security system. If you both work in your family, husband and wife work,
    and one of you dies before 62 years old, the Social Security system will
    pay for your burial benefit. And then upon retirement, the surviving
    spouse gets a choice between the deceased's benefit structure or the
    survivor's benefit structure from Social Security, but not both.
        See, in other words, the system today says, ``You get to work all
    your life, and if you die early, the money you put in the system just
    goes away.'' I don't think that's fair. I don't think it's fair to say
    to a citizen in this country who has been working hard to make a living
    that the money you've earned through the payroll taxes isn't around
    anymore if you go on.

    [[Page 958]]

    Your spouse gets the greater of your benefits or her benefits, but not
    both.
        So think about what a personal account would mean: A voluntary
    personal savings account would mean that there would be an asset base
    from both the husband and wife. And if one of them unfortunately died
    early, that asset base, that group of assets that had grown over time,
    could be passed on to the husband or wife, whoever the spouse is, the
    surviving spouse. That's fair. That makes sense. It means the money that
    you have worked for just won't go away. It will be available to help in
    times of need.
        Now, people say to me, ``Well, you know, this is going to be hard to
    figure out how to invest.'' I said, ``It may be,'' except I want you to
    all to remember, particularly you older folks here, like me, they've got
    401(k)s in society today. I don't remember talking about 401(k)s when I
    was growing up, or IRAs, but there's a whole investor society.
        One of the most amazing events came when I was in Mississippi at an
    automobile manufacturing plant. And I said, ``How many of you all have
    got 401(k)s?'' This was quite a diverse audience, people from all walks
    of life, mainly line workers. I'll bet you 95 percent of the hands went
    up. You know, this isn't what you call the typical investor class. These
    are people working hard to put food on the table. And you know what?
    They're managing their own money. They're watching their own asset base
    grow with time. That's healthy for our country, saying to somebody,
    ``You can grow assets, and you can pass your assets on to whomever you
    want,'' is good for America. The more people who own something in this
    country, the better off our country is. The more people from all walks
    of life have got an asset to pass on to their loved one, the better off
    America is.
        I like the idea of saying, you can take some of your own money, if
    you so choose, and set up a personal savings account as a part of your
    retirement plan. You know who else liked it? Members of the United
    States Congress. [Laughter] They've got what they call the Thrift
    Savings Plan here in America. It's a plan that says, ``It's okay if
    you're a Member of the United States Senate to take some of your own
    money and set it aside and watch your money grow at a better rate of
    return than Government would get for you.'' It's called a Thrift Savings
    Plan. And here's my attitude: If a Thrift Savings Plan, if a personal
    savings account is good enough for a Member of the United States Senate,
    it is good enough for working people all across America.
        Now is the time for Congress to come to the table and get something
    done. It's important, because we've got unfunded liabilities out there
    that can serve as a drag on our economy. And we've got a young
    generation of Americans coming up that are going to be contributing to a
    system that's broke. And that's not fair. I believe those of us who've
    been elected have got a solemn obligation to tackle tough problems. I
    know that's what the American people expect.
        I'm confident we can get something done; I really am. I don't care
    what all the naysayers say or the people that are so political they
    can't--they can't get out of their current mindset here in Washington.
    See, I believe when it's all said and done, the American people are
    going to start speaking. And louder and louder, they're going to say,
    ``We got the problem with Social Security folks. Now we expect you in
    Washington to do something about it.'' And I'm ready to take the lead on
    it and continue to take the lead on it. There's no doubt in my mind I'm
    doing the right thing addressing this issue. And there's no doubt in my
    mind when Republicans and Democrats come together to solve this problem,
    a lot of good people are going to be saying, ``You know what, I've done
    my duty for the American people.''
        Thanks for letting me come by to say hello. God bless.

    [[Page 959]]

    Note: The President spoke at 1:19 p.m. at the Capital Hilton hotel. In
    his remarks, he referred to Gary Roden, 2005 national chairman, Carole
    Bionda, 2005 immediate past chair, and Kirk Pickerel, president and
    chief executive officer, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.;
    Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; and Chairman Kim Chong-il of
    North Korea.