[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.