Kendrick Meek

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Members need to truly understand this. We know where we are as Democrats. We are solid on the side of the issue of dealing with the solvency of Social Security beyond the 48 years it will be solvent, and beyond 80 percent benefits that individuals will receive after that. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I have been working on this issue. We have had town hall meetings on it. Democrats have had some 900 town hall meetings throughout the country and will continue to have more to make sure that we fight against this issue of privatization and make sure that we make sure that Social Security is there for future generations.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a trailblazer and community icon in South Florida politics, Hollywood, Florida City Commissioner Cathleen ``Cathy'' Anderson. Commissioner Anderson is celebrating her 30th year of uninterrupted service as a member of the City Commission, making her the longest serving member in the history of that body. The first woman to serve on the Hollywood City Commission, she was originally appointed in June of 1975 to fill the unexpired term of Thomas Wohl. A Broward County native, Anderson justifiably takes great pride in a family history that is intertwined with the history of our state--all the way back to 1896, when her great grandfather and great uncle traveled on the first Flagler train to Broward County. That pioneering spirit has since been a family tradition and a trademark of Anderson's career in Public Service. She was an early leader in the Broward County Environmental Movement which brought one-half of Hollywood's Barrier Island into public ownership. She was a founding Director of the Broward Chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews in 1979 (now the National Conference for Community and Justice); served for more than 20 years as a trustee of the Broward County Historical Commission; and served seven years as chairperson of the Broward County Historical Preservation Board. She is currently a long-time Board Member of the Broward County Tourist Development Council; and Honorary Board Member of the Hollywood Police Athletic League. Since early childhood, Commissioner Anderson has been an animal rights activist, with a deep and enduring love of animals. In 1970, she founded Animal Birth Control, a non-profit organization established for the benefit and welfare of cats and dogs. Today, the organization continues to successfully operate with Commissioner Anderson as President. Commissioner Anderson's innovative spirit and dedicated approach to public service has benefited and touched people in all walks of life and has resulted in her being recognized and honored by countless organizations, including NCCJ, American Jewish Congress, Humane Society of Broward County. Additionally, Commissioner Anderson was inducted in March of 1999 into the Broward County Women's Hall of Fame. A resident of Hollywood said of Commissioner Anderson in a recent Miami Herald article, ``No one owns Cathy; no one from old Florida, new Florida, no developer. Cathy is just Cathy.'' She has made and continues to make an indelible mark on the development of South Florida, and she is due a tremendous debt of gratitude for her foresight, courage and leadership over the past 30 years.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. This will not. By the sponsors. This is not someone walking down the street.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman gets a chance, I would like him to be able to share the Web site information and e-mail information not only with the Members, Mr. Speaker, but making sure that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about here. And I think it is important that we couch this 30-Something Working Group hour in saying that we have a number of issues that have to be addressed in America. We have issues that are facing people that punch in and punch out every day, or once did; individuals that ran a small business, put their kids through college, now having to really work hard to help their children or grandchildren make it in this America. And so it is important that we bring issue to that. It is also important to let people know that we have ideas, not only concerns but ideas. And we present that every week, at least two proposals that our colleagues have put forth or we have put forth to be able to strengthen America. So it is important that we continue on this track. I want to thank the gentleman and other members of the 30- Something Working Group for doing what they do. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. MEEK of Florida. There you go. It is not. This is by their own admission. No, it will not solve it. Furthermore, when you start looking at it, it really has three serious flaws. When you are talking about Social Security, there is no time to play around and start talking about, well, I am smarter than the next person. I believe this will work. We cannot go on belief. We have to know for sure. One flaw. The plan would worsen the Social Security solvency issue in the long run and in the short run. This is not something that will be kind of off into the future. The plan would also drain $600 billion from the Social Security trust fund in the first 10 years, $600 billion. This is what they are saying right now. You just talked about the prescription drug, quote-unquote, plan starting off at $350 billion and now $724 billion as we stand here today, and counting. This is what they are starting off with within the first 10 years. The third issue, the plan will cause Social Security to become insolvent 2 years sooner, in 2039 instead of 2041. This is not only saying, well, ladies and gentlemen, put your head down, we are going in for a crash landing; but we are going to hit the ground before we actually hit the ground. As a matter of fact, we are going to move the ground closer, or we are going to make the plane go faster to be able to hit the ground. I will tell you this right now, it is important and it goes to show you how the Republican leadership is willing to stop at nothing to deal with this private account issue. Furthermore, let me just say that some of my friends on the Republican side have great issues not only with the President's plan but with this plan. I appreciate my colleagues who are trying to figure out a way, but there is a better way without private accounts. There is a way to strengthen Social Security. Better yet, a total Democratic plan is not the best plan. A bipartisan plan is the best plan. That is what we are saying. Mr. Speaker, the people that I run into, they say, Well, goodness, can you guys and gals, can the Members, can you work together? Can you just get along? Can you just come together on this issue on Social Security? If we can come together on making sure our men and women in uniform overseas, thousands of miles away and three or four different time zones away from here, if we can try to do our best and make sure that they get what they are supposed to get in a bipartisan way, then we have to make sure that the individuals that are here and the families that are here and the individuals that have paid into this, even those that have died and left survivor benefits for their children, that they get a fair shake. It is our responsibility to make sure that happens. We talked about the fact that we are in the minority, we would like to be in the majority, but in the minority we can fight, too. And we will make sure that the American people know exactly what is going on. One other point. We have to give credit where credit is due. There are some individuals that are not in the leadership on the Republican side that are not with this private account thing. I am asking my friends, and I see them in the hall, we bump into each other here on the floor, they say, I saw your 30-something Working Group, you were talking about this, I am glad you said some Republicans are not with this privatization thing. I am one of them. Do you remember the movie ``Jerry McGuire'' when they took Jerry McGuire out to fire him? The guy went out to fire him. He said, man, I'm sorry, but they sent me and I'm here to fire you. He is staring at this glass of water, and he is not saying anything. The guy said, You should say something. That is what I am saying to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle: you should say something. You should rise up and say, Enough with the private accounts. Maybe yes; oh, I think it's okay; let's try to find another plan. That is it. Let us strengthen Social Security, and let us just put this private account thing out the door so that we can get on with the business of the Congress in a bipartisan way. That is what we are saying.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is like walking down the hall and you never get to the end as it relates to the deficit. Let me just tell you a little bit more about this plan, because I had an opportunity to jot some things down. Let me just further break this down and water it down a little bit more so that we can all understand, every Member of Congress can understand exactly what we are doing or what some individuals would like to do. Under this new plan that they have put forth, Members of Congress, a Member in the House and another Member in the other body, they basically said under the current annual surpluses would shift to private accounts, so they are saying that what we have now as it relates to the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund would now be shifted to private accounts. The sponsors even admit the fact that this plan would do nothing to restore solvency to Social Security. This will not solve the Social Security issue.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am sorry, can I correct the gentleman? It was $350 billion.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are giving it too much credit by calling it a plan. It is a philosophy. The proponents are saying, and they have now come up with a new approach, it is different than the privatization proposal, but it is just like the privatization proposal. It would take a portion of the Social Security trust fund revenues and put them into private accounts. That is privatization. It does not matter whether the total size of the account is limited to an amount each year as it relates to the Social Security trust fund rather than a percentage for the participants' payroll taxes. The gentleman from Ohio and I are very familiar with the Potomac two-step. We know what it means to say, Look over here but we're going over there. And so it is important that we not only come to this floor and let the Members know and say it out loud, A portion of what? How much? What is a portion? I can guarantee you it is in the trillions. And if we start talking about, well, it is not necessarily the President's private account plan, but it is dealing with private accounts, that is privatization. I am sorry, any way you cut it, it is privatization. As we learn more about and as we start to unmask this GOP leadership vision, which is based upon theory, not fact, we will start to understand as it relates to the privatization scheme and how they are trying to get there. I know as long as we have air in our body and God provides us another day to live, that as we see this old, Well, it's not private accounts, or we're going to take a portion, we are going to translate that not only for the Members but also for the American people, Mr. Speaker, and it is important that we do that, and we are going to continue to follow it. But the gentleman from Ohio is 100 percent right, we do have some additional information; but the bottom line is that they are going to go into the Social Security trust fund to be able to, I guess, secure these private accounts.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. The States cannot even afford Medicaid. They are saying Medicaid reform. You know why? Because businesses are saying, when folks are signing up and filling out their employment information, they are saying, well, I think you are eligible for Medicaid. I think you need to apply there because you will get more benefits under the Federal program versus what we can provide you.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honor to address the House for another week. The 30 Something Working Group has come to the floor to talk about issues that are not only facing young people but also facing Americans in general, and I think one of the greatest values we have in this country is caring about future generations and caring about those that cannot represent themselves. It is important that we come to this House and in this great democracy that we celebrate every day and recognize the contributions of those individuals that go to work every day. Those individuals know what it means to punch in and punch out every day. Those individuals know what it means to not have health care; those individuals that are going to have to pay down this $7.8 trillion deficit; those individuals that are running small businesses that would like to have assistance from this Federal Government to be able to carry out their everyday needs, not only for their employees, but to make sure that we have a fair tax policy for the backbone of our economy. So we meet weekly to talk about these issues and then we come to the floor. We would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader; and also in our leadership, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), as Democratic whip; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is our chairman; and also, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is our vice chairman, for providing the kind of leadership within the Democratic Caucus that is needed not only for the caucus but for America. We come here as young members of the Democratic Caucus in this Congress to shed light and bring clarification to statements and actions or inactions by this Congress. I am pleased to announce, as I announced last week, that a number of the individuals in the White House and in the majority have now taken another look at Social Security. Once again, we come back to the floor to talk about that issue, Social Security. As they start to look at this issue, they are finding that Americans are just not with them on the privatization of Social Security. I am far from receiving from Social Security as it relates to retirement, but let us just think of hypotheticals of how important Social Security is. Someone my age could receive survivor benefits from a parent who wants to leave survivor benefits, not my age but younger, or receive disability. So when we start talking about Social Security on this side of the aisle, the Democratic Caucus, we are talking about strengthening Social Security. Even some of my friends over on the majority side, Republicans, are talking about strengthening Social Security, not weakening Social Security through schemes and privatization plans. So we continue to fight and also let the leaders on the majority side know that we are willing to work together once again, like we did in 1983 with Speaker of this House Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan in the White House, of working out a way that we can strengthen Social Security, make sure that it is here beyond the 47 years that it will be here, providing 100 percent of the benefits that we are providing right now, and even 80 percent of the benefits after that period, of making sure that people can count on the fact that if they pay into Social Security, that it will be there for them when they need it. It is important. Some 48 million Americans receive Social Security right now. A number of those Americans are retired, but many of them are receiving disability benefits due to an injury on the job, and they cannot work or individuals that their parents have paid into the Social Security and now their children are able to not only educate themselves but help them make it through college with extra money to be able to help them to become productive citizens here in the United States. So that is the reason why this debate is so important. Are there other issues that are important? Of course, there are. Is the environment important? You bet it is. Is education important? That is our future; of course, it is. Is health care important? Health care puts the backbone into education, into workforce, into making sure that we have a healthy economy and that we are able to compete against other countries as it relates to making our country strong. So those are very, very important issues, but Social Security is in the halls of Congress now. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we break down this debate to the point that individuals, everyone, can understand, every Member can understand, every American could understand, everyone that will be affected, and that is all Americans, from young to old. It is important that we no longer allow the majority side to raid the Social Security trust fund, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is on his way to the floor, and we are going to talk about a proposal that was just introduced this week of saying that it is different than what the President is proposing. Well, another proposal that is supposed to be different than what the President is proposing. As you know, the Social Security trust fund has been raided to some $670 billion. So when we see proposals of individuals saying, well, we just take this from the trust fund and we will take that from the trust fund, the trust fund is there to make sure that individuals that are expecting their benefits out of Social Security, when they need it, Social Security when they need it, that it is there for them. It is not time to experiment. It is not time to say we want private accounts and this is just the way it is going to be. Paper is paper, and if you go get a yellow sheet of paper and say that, well, it is yellow, it is different; well, if it has private accounts in it, we already know and the American people know that that means fewer benefits for those individuals that are enrolled in the private accounts or not enrolled in the private accounts. So it is important that we pay very close attention in what is going on and what is being said. Now, there are a number of individuals that are very, very concerned, and I will tell you that for young people, and I do mean young people in America, and for parents that have young people that are in college or young people that are trying to make their way, you may have a son or daughter that is living in an apartment just trying to be independent, trying to get on their feet, trying to do what you have done, trying to build the kind of values that you placed in them, you try to place in them as you were rearing them and as you were trying to develop them as men and women. They are trying to stand up, and it is imperative that this Congress does everything that it has to do to make sure that their government does not gamble on their retirement. On average, young people are staying on jobs 3 to 4 years, on average. They need to make sure that Social Security is going to be there for them because a pension plan may never really develop in the way that it is supposed to. There are a number of Americans that are in pension plans right now that have failed them, and it is very, very unfortunate that is the case, but one thing that they can bank on literally is that Social Security will be there for them. So when we have individuals running around here talking about private accounts, thinking that it sounds good or cool or something new to present to the Social Security debate, I must remind them that we will continue to rise up, and it is a one-sided debate thus far on the private account end. It is only the majority side, the Republican side, and the leadership who is talking about private accounts and now want to act on private accounts but call it something else. It is not a tomato or tomato issue. It is an issue of being clear with the American people, and so it is important that we remember that 44 percent of young people are living in poverty, and that means people within our family. I know that I have individuals in my family that are living in poverty, whether it be a cousin or uncle or even a neighbor, and it is important that we recognize that. Approximately 2 million young adults are without health care insurance for the entire year. That means young people are going to drugstores, trying to medicate themselves or trying to make themselves healthy when they should have health care, and this is important. It is also important to understand that young people in America call on their parents and grandparents and family members to help them when they are running into hard types. So, when we start talking about taking anything away, either benefits or a right they may have as it relates to Social Security, saying that they are trying to help them, it is not going to help them, and it is important that we fight against that. Now, as it relates to what the Democrats are talking about on this side of the aisle and what we are trying to do, and I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that not only do I share with and remind the Members and those that expect Members on this side to be able to carry the ball in leadership, that by the rules, and I hate to be repetitive, but I think it is important that everyone understands, the rules of the House, the majority runs the operation here in the House. On the minority side, we cannot agenda a bill. We cannot agenda a bill in committee. We cannot place a bill through the Committee on Rules here on the floor of the House. We can only recommend. So when you see private accounts and when you see lack of health care, when you see as a small business person unfair tax policies, to be able to allow your business to prosper, when you see environmental laws falling short of what they should be, then you must understand that on this side of the aisle we try to do all we can. And I will give credit to some of my Republicans colleagues that think in the same way and that are trying to do better as it relates to addressing those issues. As to veterans, and I am from Florida and have many veterans in my district, and they come to me. Congressman, I cannot understand, it seems like the list is getting longer and longer every time I go to the VA. Well, that is because we are not standing by our veterans. We march up and down the street on Veterans Day and Memorial Day and recognize those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice. But on that Tuesday after recognizing the veterans, it will be business as usual and as it relates to VA hospitals and copayments that veterans have to pay more and more for. We talk about individuals in Iraq, and 70 percent of those who are losing their life in Iraq are under 30 years old. So these are patriots. These are individuals that are going out there even before they are able to start their own family, in many cases even before they have an opportunity to be able to buy their first home. So it is important when we start saying we are doing something in light of our young people, it is important that we pay very, very close attention to this. I am going to show one of these charts here. This is the President's priorities as it relates to tax cuts. It is greater than the funding that is available for veterans in this country. I will tell Members, I have a veteran in my family. My uncle is a veteran. He served in the Korean War. He is a soldier from the Army. He did what he had to do on behalf of this country because this country asked him to do it. We have $1.8 trillion in permanent tax cuts. We also have tax cuts for the top 1 percent which is $0.8 trillion, and then there is $0.3 trillion as it relates to veteran budget authority. I think it is important that Members understand that the way we work here in Congress, we talk a lot about veterans and what we should be doing for them, and we talk a lot about their contributions. And many of us walk and march and wave in parades. And, ho-hum, we salute the same flag. But better yet, when it comes down to where we put our dollars, where we put our priorities, how we take action as it relates to veterans, you can see where it falls short. I will tell you once again, giving credit to some of my Republican colleagues, some of them have a real problem with this. The past chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was removed, removed from the chairmanship of the committee, because he did not pass the legislation that the leadership on the majority side wanted to see passed. Mr. Speaker, he did the right thing and he paid. He paid with his chairmanship. So that is why it is important that I remind Members of the majority and the minority, and we will continue to bring factual, accurate debate on the issues that are either happening in this Congress or not happening in this Congress. When we are able to come together on issues that are facing America, fine. We can talk about that and we can be very proud of those accomplishments. But when our priorities differ, it is important for us to pay very close attention. I have another chart here. Those of us in the 30-Something Working Group, we have a constant watch on this number. These are our recent numbers. As Members can see, we are close to $1.8 trillion. This is as of June 20. Below that we have the share of the national debt for every American: Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, you name it. Reform Party, just born 10 minutes ago, they already owe the Federal Government $26,255.76. This has to be paid off. This is not monopoly money, this is not funny money. This is not the Meek Report or the 30- Something Working Group Report. This is from the U.S. Department of Treasury. We will give our Web site out a little later where you can look at it. Mr. Speaker, once again, to back up, I think it is important that we go through the fundamentals and talk about the difference. When this House was run by Democrats, we balanced the budget without one Republican vote. That is a fact. That is prima facie evidence, as they say in the courtroom. That is not a fabrication. That is not exaggeration. That is not something that some Democrat said on the floor and it is not true. We balanced the budget. The number we have here was balanced and was going into surplus. As a matter of fact, it was not as high because this is the highest the national debt has been in the history of the Republic. Since we have been a country, the deficit has not been this high. Some may say well, it is the war in Iraq. That is not true. Well, we ran into a hard time; 9/11 happened and we had to create a new department. That is not true. That is not why it is so high. The debt is where it is now because we have decided to give tax cuts to billionaires. That is a big part of it. And then we turned around and made it permanent. Now, middle-class tax cuts, I do not have a problem with that because that grows the economy. But when we start talking about a fundamental difference in how we do business on this side of the aisle and how the majority does business on that side of the aisle, there is a big difference. Like I said, I am not a generalist because I do not like to generalize, but when I say some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have problems with some of the decisions being made by the leadership, that is true. So I think it is important that we focus on the things that we can continue to focus on as it relates to the priorities and how we work to make things better. I am going to start talking a little bit about the plan that the President has put out and that some Republican Members of Congress have put on the table. The President has said that he wants to bring privatization to young people. Young Americans will be able to have private Social Security accounts; that they will be able to use their own money and have options and invest it in a way that they want to invest it. The President has come to this Chamber and addressed this Congress in the last State of the Union and said if you are over 55, do not worry about it, it will not affect you. The President has also said he will fight to the end, making sure we have private accounts. Regardless of the fact that not only news reports but nonprofit and government entities have found, and the White House has admitted the fact that if you are in a private account, if you decide to take a private account or not, you will lose benefits. So it really fights against logic to say well, I know I will lose benefits, but it is important that we go the private account route, even though Social Security is not in a crisis at this particular time, not an imminent crisis. There have been words out of the White House that it is a crisis and it is about to go bankrupt, using words such as that. And media, along with some Americans who are informed on the issue of Social Security, have said, yes, we have to strengthen Social Security. Yes, we have concerns with the trust fund, but we are not about to go bankrupt. So after the 60- or 90-day tour of burning Federal jet fuel, your tax dollars, the President went around the country speaking to Americans. And some were not allowed to come into the talks, or what have you, and still after all of that Federal money spent, Americans still came back and said no, we are not with you on this one. And so it is important that everyone understands. So if you feel oh, well, and we are talking about what the majority is doing now. Until the American people say different, that is what the situation is going to be. We are going to bring balance to this debate. It is important. And I ask the Republican leadership to work in a bipartisan way not only with our leadership but with every Member of this House, making sure that we strengthen Social Security and not privatize Social Security. Mr. Speaker, there have been hundreds of town hall meetings throughout the country, talking about this issue of Social Security, and young and old have said we want Social Security. It is the best government program that we have in many cases, and we want it to be strengthened, we do not want it to be privatized. We know that when you privatize something, you have to meet the bottom line. And the people that are in the business of so-called making you money, they have to make their bottom line. If they have to make their bottom line, I guarantee if they are in business and making their bottom line, they are going to take care of that business first and then maybe your investments may make some profit. Mr. Speaker, I was about to go into the new plan or philosophy that has been brought to this House in the way of a press conference about private accounts, but since the gentleman just got here, and I have been talking about Social Security and privatization, going through the minority and majority issues. It would not be a discussion, if we were in the majority, that we would strengthen Social Security in a bipartisan way like we did in 1983, and that we would be dealing with issues such as health care and other issues that are facing us. We are going to talk about that, too. Mr. Speaker, I welcome and yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I wanted the gentleman to say that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, getting back to talking about getting the job done, that is being shed light on, what the gentleman just shed light on as it relates to what is not happening and also what is happening to Americans versus for them. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), one of our colleagues, put forth a piece of legislation, and once again if Democrats were in the majority here in the House, which we fight for every day, of responding to the national health care crisis as it relates to young people, it is the Health Care for Young Americans Act that he has put forth that many of us are cosponsors of, which would allow States the option of extending health care insurance coverage to many uninsured young adults. States provide health care coverage to low-income uninsured children largely through two Federal/state programs, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. However, these programs often reclassify children as adults when they turn 19, making them ineligible for coverage. Mr. Speaker, we have to start on this health care issue somewhere, and we have solutions on this side of the aisle on how to deal with those issues. Just last week we talked about legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member, has put before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced bills with other Members here in the House that we are both cosponsors of, that replenish the issue of the Pell grants, because the Bush administration has changed the formula that are cheating young people next year, the next fiscal year, out of $300 million of dollars that should be in that Pell grant program that they have taken away. We want to put those dollars back because we know, just like the gentleman said as it relates to competing against China, competing against other countries that are competing against us, where we have a negative trade deficit as it relates to dealing in business with them, but they are having a great time doing business with us; and meanwhile here in America we have people that are trying to put themselves to work and businesses that want to put them to work, but cannot afford to put them to work and are putting them out of work because they can no longer afford to keep them in work because the jobs have moved overseas and they cannot compete with the prices that are there. But the 30-Something Working Group is not only pointing out the issues but also talking about what we have on the table that would be on this floor or going through the committee process in a bipartisan way to find the solution, not for Americans that happen to be Democrats, but for Americans that want a fair share from their government and being able to make sure that they have not only adequate health care but to make sure that their children have it. I am a father, Mr. Speaker, and I was married 14 years ago, going on 14 years, and I was a different person before I got married. But when I got married, it was a totally different relationship. And then when we start having children, we change as an individual, and then when our children start to get older, we continue to change. And then when our children, and I have not seen this yet, start to talk about leaving and going to college or getting into some kind of trade or getting out on their own, which some parents say that never happens, but when they start to develop themselves as young adults, we still parent. We still care about them. So when we start talking about health care for young people, when we start talking about making sure that they get a Pell grant to educate themselves, it is our issue. When we start talking about Social Security and we have the administration and some members of the Republican leadership saying privatization is the way to go when the only guarantee is $944 billion would go to Wall Street, that is our issue. We are here to watch out for future generations. I agree with the President in saying we have got to watch out for future generations, but we do not watch out for them. And seeing that deficit, that almost $7.8 trillion deficit that the gentleman has there behind him, there is not a real debate on the majority side or even legislation to provide health care or to make sure that every American is able to receive health care or making sure that small business is able to provide health care. There is not a real agenda, and if it is there, then why is it not happening? Why are we here saying what we are saying if it is happening? Because it is not happening. So that is the difference. People are asking, What is the difference between us and them? One, we are all Americans. Two, we have a Republican side and we have a Democratic side. Three, the majority runs the House of Representatives. So if people want change, if they want to bring about opportunity, then we have to put the pressure on the majority side to make them do the right thing, and hopefully they will do the right thing and then maybe it will work, or the American people are going to have to rise up, Mr. Speaker, and say they want different.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for his comments, and, like I said, everyone in the 30-Something Working Group, we would like to thank not only the Democratic leader but the Democratic leadership for allowing us to be here once again. And it was an honor to address the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, rise to honor a true leader in our South Florida Community, Ruth Shack. After she became the President of the Dade Community Foundation in 1985, Ruth spearheaded a campaign to encourage philanthropy and charitable giving by developing a permanent endowment to meet Greater Miami's emerging charitable needs. The Foundation protects and manages the assets of philanthropic funds and provides grant-making expertise to donors with various interests at all levels of giving. By bringing together diverse groups in Miami-Dade County, the Foundation helps improve the quality of life and build a more cohesive community by supporting local nonprofit organizations with grants and technical assistance. Spurred by her leadership, the Foundation made a radical change in its mission by diversifying its Board of Governors, its staff and its grant-making focus to better respond to the needs of Miami's greatest asset and our most intractable challenge: the incredible ethnic diversity of our community. They review the grants they award from the standpoint of their impact on the issue of cultural alienation and the need to help people work successfully across ethnic barriers. Empowerment and seed funding for emerging groups, based in the diverse multicultural communities of Miami-Dade, are the hallmarks of their grant-making program. In addition to her two decades of leadership at the Dade Community Foundation, Ruth Shack has also served three very productive terms on the Dade County Commission and in leadership capacities in numerous other organizations, both locally and across the country. Throughout her career she has demonstrated a profound commitment to making Miami a community where opportunity is available to everyone. Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for our entire community in congratulating and thanking Ruth Shack for her 20 years at the helm of the Dade Community Foundation.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I want to correct myself, because in my last statement I said we here, as a Congress, raise taxes. No, we did not; the majority side who came up with a strategy on how we can cut funding in certain areas did, and that is the reason why those States are suing the Federal Government right now. We have given them an unfunded mandate. When my constituents woke up at 7 a.m. on a given Tuesday morning last November, they did not go to the voting booth and take their voter registration card out and say, well, Congressman, I am going to vote for you to make sure you have better health care than I have, you and your family; or to make sure as relates to undue taxes or what have you that you can raise my taxes, and I will vote on me raising my own taxes. That is why I am sending you to Congress. No, better yet, I am sending you to Congress to make sure you do nothing about health care. Matter of fact, take my credit card, use it, because I am going to have to pay it off. I am going to let you use it. That is like sending someone to the mall that you know has a problem with shopping and saying, do not worry about it, take it to the maximum. Can I have my credit card? I said I was not going to pull it out, but I am. My congressional spending card right here, the numbers are going up so fast, I keep having to change the numbers. The thing about our credit card, unlike any other credit card in the wallets of everyday Americans, is that it just keeps going and going and going and going to the tune of $7.8 trillion. Now, I know my colleague wants to say something, but let me just say this. For those individuals on the majority side that want to say, boy, those Democrats, they just tax and spend, look at the deficit. I want to know where they are now? I cannot even hear them. I do not even see them. Where are they? Where are these fiscal conservatives? Where are they? They are nowhere to be found. You go out in the hall and say, conservative, it just keeps echoing, conservative, conservative, conservative. Where are they? So we have not been in the majority here, I would say, for 10 years now? Maybe 10 years. Maybe 8?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let our kids pay for it. Let someone else worry about paying for it. But as relates to the State governments, they have to balance their budgets, and the reason why they have to balance their budget is that they have a balanced budget amendment. Many States do. They cannot deficit spend. So they cut education, tuition goes up, and in many of the States Medicaid reform, oh, my goodness, it is just a travesty what is happening in many of these programs that have helped so many people. And transportation dollars on the State level is drying up. So when we get down to the county commissioners or the cities or the town, or what have you, municipal governments, which way are they going to turn?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is important that everyone understands that what my colleague and I are talking about here right now is doing something about the issues that are facing everyday Americans. Everyday Americans, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, Reform Party, you name it, we are out there trying to help them. We want to make sure that they get the butter from the duck. We want to make sure, as we start talking about devolution of taxation, that when we cut funding to State and local governments, the difference between us and them is the fact that we can reach back in our pocket, and I will not even use my big credit card today, matter of fact I do not even have my credit card in my wallet, but I have my debit card. If we were to take a card out and say, fine, we will put another $3 billion on the credit card. That is fine, we will put it away. Matter of fact, no, we will not put it away, we will just throw it away. We will throw it away because we do not have to pay for it. It is someone else who has to pay for it.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Going on 11. Once again, I want to make sure everyone understands that we have to be in the majority to be able to run this House. So everything that takes place in this House and comes to this floor and goes before a committee, the agendas in committees, and bills moving, and appropriations and all of that is done by the majority side because they are in the majority. In some instances, to be very truthful, we are able to work out some bipartisan efforts sometimes. We have a lot of votes that go up on the board where we are all together on the post offices and the Federal buildings, the naming of those post offices and the Federal buildings. But when it comes to issues like the budget, the Federal deficit, health care, education, in many cases we are not together, and that is unfortunate. This is nothing we would like to see continued. We would like to work in a bipartisan way. You know, I have Republican constituents, and I have Independent constituents, and I have all the other parties even though I am a Democrat. And they go and vote for what? Leadership. They are going to vote for leadership. So I want to make sure that Members understand, and before my colleague got here I was sharing with the Speaker and the Members the fact that I am glad that there are some leaders in this Congress that have said we need an exit strategy on the privatization issue. That is in The Washington Post today. It is just not flying back home to say we are going to private accounts, and if you are in the private account or not, you are still going to lose benefits, but this is what we are doing to shore up Social Security. We can shore up Social Security and strengthen Social Security without private accounts. I am glad we have leaders here that can carry that message on.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Then guess what? The local folks start seeing the millage rate go up from the school board. They start putting these local bond referendums on the ballots, because they do not have the money. Meanwhile, we are sitting up here in Washington talking about what is the problem, we have not raised your taxes? Yes, we have, we have raised your taxes.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. They are leaving in debt. Better yet, the administration gives them a bad hand of cards in saying that we want you to go to college, we want you to educate yourself. Individuals are running around here, going to commencement ceremonies throughout the United States of America saying that we are with you, but better yet, as it relates to the Pell grant obligation, it is because they changed their formulary it is going to be $300 million coming out of that formula, which is going to take the cost up of Pell grants in the year 2005, 2006. I do not think that is a message of what we should do, but I can tell you what we are doing on this end. There is legislation that has already been filed, and which I have signed on to and you are signed on to, to replace that $300 million back in so that the Pell grant opportunity for kids that want to better themselves and move on and educate themselves, that they do not have to end up paying what you may call this, I call it a $300 million tax. When you change the formula and you go up and you give them a greater responsibility, you are taxing them, but better yet, you want to make tax cuts permanent for those individuals that are slamming Cadillac doors here in the United States, eating lunch at some of the finest restaurants in this country, walking around here, not even worrying about how we are going to pay the rent. They are collecting the rent, but better yet, we want to send our young people into a fixed situation. We already know that on average kids are leaving school with 20, $30,000 in debt, which means they are going to be living at home with mom or dad or grandmother or someone because they cannot get a loan to be able to buy a house because you do not come out of college making a lot of money to be able to make that happen. So I am glad on this side of the aisle, if anyone wants to know the difference between what is going on in the majority side, and I do not want to generalize because there are some individuals on the majority side who see it the way we see it. They see it the way we see it. They know that this is an important effort and that we have to make sure that we stand up for our children.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is important we move beyond personalities and look at what is actually taking place and what is not taking place. I think it is important looking at the numbers that we understand that it is just not happening. When we dealt with the whole Medicare issue and we dealt with prescription drugs, the majority side, the leadership on the majority side came over and told us it would cost $350 billion. They also said that it would cost $400 billion. Now it is well over $400 billion; matter of fact, it is even closer to $500 billion. There was the same information that came to this House regarding the weapons of mass destruction. We had prima facie evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction. But no weapons of mass destruction. There was also an initiative that came to the floor by the majority, now majority side, that said we are going to do something about health care, and the President said, well, we are going to have these health care savings accounts, and everyone will be able to save, and everyone will be able to have good health care. Still, today, we have millions upon millions of working families without health care, families that go to work every day that do not have a health care plan. Public hospitals and private hospitals are going under throughout this country, and not because they are bad managers. It is because they do not have the necessary attention or the funds that they need from this Federal Government to be able to provide health care to the everyday American.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we close out by not only thanking the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the rest of the leadership here on the Democratic side of the aisle for allowing us to take advantage of this hour, also the new Partnership for America's Future. We talked about the six principles if we had the opportunity to be able to lead within this House, which are values of prosperity, national security, fairness, opportunity, community, and also accountability. Accountability is making sure that we deal with issues such as health care, making sure our troops have what they need as it relates to national security, making sure our children have opportunities, making sure that every American is paying tax dollars which are spent in the way that they are supposed to be spent and bring about the kind of fairness that they deserve from their Federal tax dollars. And also opportunity, making sure our children have opportunities, that we do what we are supposed to do as the Federal Government in holding up our end of the deal.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.