Kendrick Meek

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let us talk about what we disagree on. We disagree on the privatization of Social Security. There is nothing wrong with that. We disagree, Democrats, in our leadership, all the way down to the freshmen Member that just got here a couple of months ago. We disagree on increasing the deficit. We disagree on that. We disagree with the majority side. Democrats, we disagree with the majority side in this House on foreign nations acquiring more of our debt. We disagree on that. We disagree on Americans losing benefits under the flag of reforming Social Security. We disagree on that. People ask constantly, what is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? I am not one to generalize. And we said last week and I will say again this week, I commend my brave Members on the other side of the aisle, some Republicans, that are saying that I am not with you, Mr. President. I am not with you, majority side, on this whole philosophy of privatization of Social Security, and I commend them for that. I am glad that some Members went to go see the Wizard and picked up some courage and said that I am not going to do it. That is leadership. Leadership is saying not just because we can do it, we should. You do not do things just because you can. There are things that I can do, but I use restraint because it is the right thing to do on behalf of the greater good. So I think it is important that people understand there are 48 million Americans that are receiving Social Security; 33 million of them are retirees. And there are a number of people in this debate, that is the reason why last week and the week before that and the week before that and the week before that that we continue to come to the floor to talk about Social Security. Someone that is 17 right now, this is their issue. Someone that is 12 that is receiving survivor benefits because their parents have passed on or father or mother has passed on, this is their issue. Unfortunately, they cannot vote because if they could it would be another person in the fight that would be able to let this Congress know what they agree with and what they disagree with. For the individual that is down in my State of Florida that is retired, this is their issue because I go back to the Medicare prescription drug debate. There was a lot of discussion, there was a lot of politics going on, I must say, a lot of discussion about prescription drugs. And from Florida let me say that that is a big issue. I can say this also, that we came to this floor given information from the majority side and from the administration on the true costs of what they may call prescription drugs and not allowing us to have negotiating power with the pharmaceutical companies to be able to bring prices down for prescription drugs. Could the gentleman do that again?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would be concerned if we were by ourselves in the objection to privatization to the President's philosophy and some Members of the majority side. I would be very concerned, but I am not as concerned as I would be if we were wrong. There is times, folks say, well, you know, you have got to take it on the chin for the team. Let me tell you something. Social Security is no time to take it on the chin for the team because we have real people who are being affected by this, and I am glad the American Baptist Churches U.S.A. is on our side saying no to privatization, on the side of the Members that are willing to watch out for the American people that are counting on Social Security. When I started to talk about the fact that there is a 17-year old and 12-year old and someone that is 65 or 70 or 50 or 45 or 42 or 38, this is their issue, and the reason why it is their issue is that we as Americans believe in making sure that when we give our word that we keep it. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with keeping your word. There is nothing wrong with saying that this is wrong and we want to continue to head in the right direction. I am glad that we are not by ourselves, and I am glad that the Alliance for Retired Americans are out there doing the things that they are doing and having town hall meetings. I am glad that we have Members on the Committee on Ways and Means that are willing to go to the end on behalf of Social Security and making sure that Americans get what they paid into. This is not something that someone just kind of walked around and said, well, you know, I am not going to work, I am not going to do anything, but I look forward to collecting Social Security. These are people that work every day. These are individuals that are looking forward to Social Security being there for security when they need it. It is not a pension plan. This is not something that someone works for 123 Construction Company for 30 years and at the end hopefully the pension fund will be there for them and they will be able to retire on that, because even now, more than ever, we are seeing companies that are not holding up their end of the deal for their workers and their retirees. That is what Social Security is there for; you will not be left alone. Social Security has the back of so many Americans, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, you name it, no party. It is there for you, and we want to make sure that individuals who are looking to prosper on the back of American workers are not able to do that. Let me tell you what's a guaranteed deal, $955 billion in Wall Street, that is guaranteed. The folks that are running around here talking about privatization, that are not Members of the Congress, are individuals that are looking to prosper when we get those public dollars on Wall Street. I want to mention something else because I hear some folks running around here talking about, well, there are Members of Congress who do not want you to have what they have. Well, this is interesting. We have health care. I want my constituents to have health care. I want Americans to have health care. We have 25 million Americans working without health care, 46 million families without health care because those workers do not have health care. We have a health care crisis. This is a crisis. Someone wants to talk about crisis, that is a crisis. Social Security not being what we want it to be in 50 years is not necessarily a crisis, and I think it is important that Members and the American people understand that we have to deal with these issues in the order that they come in. We have Americans right now that do not have health care. I was just at a meeting. This is the Uninsured Americans Awareness Week throughout the Nation. This is a nonprofit group that is trying to come up with a bipartisan way to deal with the uninsured. It is a crisis, and I am glad that they are out there in the fight. I am glad that they are making sure that people understand. Going back to what I was saying, the issue about what Members of Congress have that Americans do not have, you hear Members of the majority side, you hear the President say, well, the Members of Congress and Federal employees have a thrift savings plan. Yes, we do. We have a thrift savings plan. A number of corporations that are out there and a number of businesses that are out there offer their employees some level of a pension plan or a thrift savings plan, but guess what? We also have Social Security. We have Social Security. Even Members of Congress have Social Security, but what is being offered now is is we want to privatize your accounts. It is not Social Security under privatization. It is Social Security under the way we see it now. So when folks start talking about, well, we want to give you what Members of Congress have, guess what? We have the backdrop of Social Security, and we want to make sure that every American has Social Security and they can count on it. We are where we are right now because there are good people that are out there not only in the organized labor community, but there are people out there in the pulpits that have members of their congregation or synagogue or what have you that are under the poverty line if it was not for Social Security. So when we start talking about privatization, I want to make sure that the Members understand, privatization means that we are going to gamble on your security, your security in your retirement. It has been already stated by the administration that benefits will be cut in the light of saving Social Security because they say, on the majority side, that it is in a crisis, which it is not. This is not fiction; it is fact. I know that the American people are aware of it. I want to thank my friends over at the Campaign for American's Future. I want to thank the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for the work that they do and sharing this work with Americans, young and old. I want to thank Rock the Vote that has been out there, and their representatives come to the Hill to speak before committees, to share their concern for the privatization of Social Security. They are flatly against the privatization of Social Security. People ask, well, why is the Children Defense Fund involved in this battle of no privatization of Social Security? They are involved because they know that young people that are already having a hard way to go right now in this country as we speak, and I mean throughout this country, not just in my district but in districts throughout this country, congressional districts in the States and in neighborhoods and in communities, they are having a hard enough time. The last thing we need to do since we are watching out for the future Americans when they grow up and become the leaders in this country, and the workers in this country, is to hand them a $26,000 share of the deficit because we are watching out for them, to take $5 trillion and say that we are working on your behalf to make sure that you are secured in the future or we are going to increase the deficit by $5 trillion. That is the number we are using today because, as I mentioned, the prescription drug plan that passed this House in the 108th Congress and the other body and was signed by the President, we were told it would be $350 billion to later find out it will be $727 billion. This is real money. This is something that we are passing on to future generations, and if we are going to watch out for future generations, we have to make sure that we are doing the right thing when we are in control. I just want to say that I feel good about the fact that the 30 Something Working Group, as we come together when we are not on the floor, that this is the number one issue. Yes, there are other issues, but Social Security is the number one issue facing Americans right now. The privatization of Social Security is something that we have to continue to fight on their behalf, those individuals, those 4 million Americans that are now in the Social Security program, those Americans that receive $955 a month on average, those 33 million Americans that are retired and those young people that are on survivor benefits, their parents have passed on or a parent has passed on who was taking care of them, brought them up. They are now receiving their survivor benefits. It is up to us and it is up to brave Members in this House to fight for them to make sure that we cannot say, oh, we had a bad week on Wall Street so, guess what, we have to cut some of their benefits. We have to fight for them.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride--but wit deep sorrow--that I rise to pay tribute to the late Dr. Nsidibe N. Ikpe, one of my community's quiet unsung heroes. On Saturday, May 7, 2005, he will be memorialized during a service to be held at Miami's Glendale Missionary Baptist Church. Born on February 18, 1949 in the village of Ndiya, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, West Africa, he was the first son of Chief Nelson Ikpe and Arit Akpan Uko. His genuine character as an industrious youth paved the way to his becoming one of the most accomplished professionals of Nigeria. Married to Helen Roberts of Nigeria in 1969, Dr. Ikpe immigrated to the United States to pursue higher education. He supported himself with odd jobs and was soon employed by the Boy Scouts of America, where he won several accolades. It was while he served as a custodian in a psychiatric hospital in Iowa that he was inspired by the work of the doctors there and decided to pursue a career in medicine. Entering Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas, he earned his Doctorate of Medicine and completed his internship and residency at Westchester General Hospital in Des Moines, Iowa. Afterwards, he established the Legion Park Medical Center in Miami, and expanded his practice to three more community clinics in South Florida at which he treated over 50,000 patients. It is this commitment that endeared him to our community, and it is with this remembrance that he will be sorely missed as one of our preeminent minority physicians. Though a highly private individual, he virtually consecrated his professional life to public service. In so doing, he symbolized everything that is good and noble about the spirit of idealism and optimism in serving his fellow man, particularly the downtrodden and less fortunate. The numerous accolades he received during his lifetime buttress the unequivocal testimony of the gratitude and respect he enjoyed from the community. I am deeply privileged to have enjoyed his friendship, and I now join our community in remembering his giving spirit and the magnificent works that emanated from his boundless heart.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is important that everyone understands we come to this floor once a week to share with Americans the truth about what is going on here in Washington, D.C. We are the 30-something Working Group, but this affects the entire family. When there is a family member who has a problem, Social Security is there for them. That alleviates the financial burden on the rest of the family. To be able to say we are a big family and we are going to take care of one another, guess what, times are not good for everybody. You are going to run into those real-life issues. Someone is working now and they pass on, for those individuals that are 17 and under, the only thing they have are survivor benefits. That is something that you leave for your child. Spiritually, emotionally, the best contribution and the highest contribution you can make to society is to make sure that your children and grandchildren have a better opportunity than you have had. The gentlewoman talked about the President coming to this Chamber during the State of the Union and talking about Social Security. The first thing the President said, if you are over 55, do not worry about it. So I guess folks over 55 are supposed to say, son, daughter, brother, sister, good luck. I am okay, I am over 55, but you better start saving. Let me say I cannot believe the information that this administration and the majority-side leadership give us. Now, I said this last week, I said it the week before, I said it the week before that, and I will continue to say it because we have to remind Americans you cannot believe everything that your leaders say. This is not about the President and do we like him or not. The election is over. He cannot run again constitutionally. They may try to change that, but as it stands right now, the President cannot run again. So this is not about somebody standing in judgment of his political future. During the Medicaid-Medicare prescription drug debate it came to the floor, and the President and his office said it would be $350 billion for a prescription drug plan, or lack thereof. Later it moved up to $400 billion. This is from news accounts and also from official documents here in the Congress. After the debate, after we passed the bill, and I voted against it because we could not negotiate for lower prices. I am from Florida. This is real-life experience. There are seniors, and in that $26,000 number, you can pay for prescription drugs for 11 Americans for the entire year. We are talking real money here on the whole borrow-and- spend issue. Then we found out recently that the true cost is $724 billion, which is all borrowed. This is not money that we have stacked up on the shelf somewhere, and this is real money, and this is what we are spending. Folks say, where is the Democratic plan? Guess what, the Democratic plan is in your wallet right now. The bipartisan Democratic plan, the bipartisan continuation of that plan is in your wallet right now. It is those Social Security numbers that you write down every day or every time you fill out an application or you are applying for some sort of credit card. That is the original Democratic plan. We have 48 million Americans that are celebrating benefits right now from Social Security because we held our word on the deal that it will be there for them when they need it. Thirty-three million of those Americans are receiving retirement benefits of the 48 million. So we have 33 million. The President says do not worry about it. I say be very worried from what we know right now and what history speaks to as it relates to accurate information. Forty-eight percent of the 48 million that are receiving benefits right now, 48 percent of them would be under the poverty line if it was not for Social Security. This is serious business. This is not if one likes the President or not. This is not a popularity contest. This is for real. And I must say, Mr. Speaker, under his plan, or under his philosophy, they will only receive 80 percent of what they have right now and they will only receive $516 a month. Under the plan right now, original Democratic plan, continuation in 1983, the bipartisan plan that was handed to the American people, as we stand right now, will be in force for the next 47 to 50 years, and then after that 80 percent of the benefits will be there for them. On average they get $955 a month. Imagine going from $955 a month down to $516 based on a privatization gamble. Some Members say there are some Members that are emotional about this. They are right. I am emotional about it because I have constituents who woke up early one day on a Tuesday and went down and voted not only for me but for democracy and to make sure that their voice is heard in this Chamber. And I guarantee my colleagues, as long as I am a Member, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I am pretty sure all of us, they are going to be represented. I do not care if they are Republican or Democrat or Independent or Green Party or what have you. Even if they do not have a voter registration card, it is important that we stand on their behalf. So wrong is wrong and right and right. And I will tell my colleagues right now some Members on the majority side, especially the leadership, are dead wrong on this issue. And let us just talk a little bit about 1101 grass roots, what happens here within the rules of this House. If we were in the majority, and when I say ``we,'' mean Democrats, with our present leadership right now, if the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) was the Speaker of this House, the conversation would be a lot different. It would be about saving Social Security, continuing to save Social Security, a bipartisan plan, if that was the issue of the day, because the real crisis, going back to what the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) said, is we do not have health care. We have 46 million Americans working, not sitting at home cracking their toes saying the job situation looks sad. These are individuals that wake up every day and go to work that do not have health care insurance. And local communities are falling to their knees because public hospitals are going under, because the Federal Government is just not there. For another 3, 3\1/2\ years, if left up to the mechanics of this House, if something does not change in the next election as it relates to leadership, look forward to having to pay through the nose for health care insurance. That is a crisis. And I have companies in my district now that are telling people that are coming for jobs, to apply for Medicaid, they get more benefits. Hello. Apply for Medicaid, they get more benefits? Because they cannot afford the premiums on the insurance. And meanwhile we are running around here talking about a pie-in-the-sky privatization plan that is risky at best, and we are asking Americans to gamble, and we are spending their money, telling them something that the polling has indicated and a number of Members in this Congress, especially on the Democratic side, have said it is just not going to work. So this is something that we have to continue to work very hard on. Some people say why are we all talking about Social Security? It is our issue. It is an American issue. It is an issue that is facing every American. It is a $26,340.67 issue. The baby who was just born when we started this Special Order here tonight already owes the Federal Government $26,000 and change, and climbing. So we have to put a stop to this, and we have to make sure that Americans fully understand that what they have right now in their wallet, the Social Security they have been writing down as their ID number when they went to school to better themselves, go to college, those that went into vocational trade school or what have you, vocational education school, Social Security is there and it is an American-produced program that the rest of the world envies. They envy this. So in closing, before I yield to my colleagues, I am just going to say that this is extreme. I am going to use the word. It is extreme. It is extreme for people to say or for the leadership to say that private accounts are good, ``It is good for you and it is good for me.'' That is not true. It is extreme. When folks are running around here saying we want to change the rules because we are not getting 110 percent of the judges to get confirmed through the other body there, that is extreme. And extremism is not going to help us come together as Americans. It is going to divide us. And I guarantee my colleagues this: I said it on this night, if I have got to stand by myself on it, the American people will make those individuals pay for being extreme. And I think the 109th Congress, unfortunately, will be remembered for taking extreme measures in a time when we should have been focusing on other issues such as health care, such as prescription drug care, such as making sure that our children are not in overcrowded classrooms and making sure that our teachers have what they need to be able to teach our future generations and small businesses are able to get loans to be able to keep our economy going. There are a number of issues, and I could go on and on and on, as my colleagues know.

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am sure glad the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) shared his closing there, and also showed us his sign. This is something I picked up today: ``Stop Privatization. Americans for Social Security.'' They have a Web site, dot com. It is actually good water. Also, this sign here: ``Keep Your Hands Off of My Social Security.'' I think it is important. We know whose hands they are talking about, those who want to privatize, not our hands. I also want to say thank you, because it is important. The reason why the polling numbers are what they are and Americans feel the way they are now, we want to thank the American Baptist Churches, USA, AFL-CIO, ACORN, Campaign For America's Future, Center For Budget Policy and Priorities, the Center For Economic Policy and Research, Children's Defense Fund, the Coalition of Human Needs, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the Economic Policy Institute, the Labor Council of Latin American Advancement, the Consortium of Citizens With Disabilities, the League of Rural Voters, the League of United Latin American Citizens, Links, Inc., the NAACP, the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Council of Churches, and I can go on and on and on. They are the individuals out there, individual Americans, that have taken upon themselves to carry the fight on.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) again. It is wonderful being with you all once again. We would like to thank the Democratic leadership, mainly the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for allowing us to be here.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. You could start a small business. You could fly from New York to Hawaii and back 12 times. The President is marching around here, and the majority side is marching around here saying we are trying to preserve Social Security for future generations; meanwhile it is not tax and spend, it is borrow and spend, and continuing to borrow. They are on borrowfest. They cannot stop themselves. So when folks start talking about, well, the President is flying around and burning taxpayers' dollars at $55,000 an hour, that is more than two or three people make in a year in America. Now, I am not shocked, because the evidence speaks to the highest deficit in the history of the Republic. He cannot help himself. Neither can the members of the majority side help themselves. And I cannot understand how the leadership, and I say the leadership because I do have friends on the other side that get it, and it is up to us here in Congress to make sure. Here on the Democratic side we have our act together, and a number of Members have that number outside their office to remind people when they come walking the halls to see their Member of Congress, this debt is continuing to click. So we have to make sure as Americans that we vote principle over politics. Principle over politics. So if you are working right now, and if Americans pull their check stubs out right now and look at what they pay in Social Security, and they have the majority side here saying, the leadership once again and the President saying we are looking out for you, meanwhile we are going to add $5 trillion onto that number, meanwhile we are going to cut your benefits. What they put out as it relates to their plan, they are going to lose 20 percent of their benefits right now, or more, on a gamble of privatization. I cannot understand it. But I can tell you one thing: The American people are not buying it because the polling numbers are reflecting that.

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, a pretty decent car. You could pay for 4 years of education at a public university. I got that from the College Board. For some of our young people, freedom in America, that buys about 2,250 CDs. I mean, we are talking to America here. You could also go on a luxury cruise around the world for four. You could buy groceries for five families for a year. That is from the Congressional Budget Office. You can put a down payment on a home. Well, that sounds like a great idea. We want more Americans to be in homes.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. And that is a perfect point, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes in our spare time, as we fly back and forth from our districts that we represent, I do a little something with that number, that $26,349.67 and counting. You could buy a new car for that, every American, not just Americans living in certain parts of the country.

Mr. MEEK

Mr. MEEK. And growing.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. No way we are going to hand up our constituents because someone else wants to privatize Social Security. I did not sign up for that. That is what I am hearing some of these Republicans saying. It is a very small number, hopefully a growing number, because I believe for those that are speaking boldly about privatization of Social Security, I think they are making a career decision, a career decision in a democracy where people believe in having the retirement that they were promised. The other point I want to make here is to mention today's newspapers, and I took some sections out. Account after account of Americans not being with the President on this. I am sorry, this is not the Meek- Wasserman-Schultz-Ryan Report. This is reality. Now, if the President wants to burn Federal jet fuel, taxpayers' dollars, at $55,000 an hour to fly on Air Force One to go tell people, and I might add these are canned crowds of individuals who have love and respect for the President, and I also have respect for the President, for the office that he holds, because he is my President too. He is President to us all. We support him as our Commander in Chief. But when we are wrong, we are wrong. So I do not care how many times you say, oh, well, privatization is good and we will save Social Security. Matter of fact, he said to the contrary; that it would not alone save Social Security. So I am proud of the people that are out there saying what they are saying. But I think it is important that we remember if this is about future generations, then the President is doing just the opposite. We are talking about $26,349.67, the average 30-something; the average college student that is graduating with a postgraduate degree or what have you, on average, $20,000 in debt. Add to that the $26,000 of the Federal debt they are going to have to pay, and you might as well make that $46,000 and some change.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is a pleasure to be before the House along with my colleagues of the 30-something Working Group. We would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us, once again, to address the Members of the House and the American people on issues that are facing the 30-somethings and the entire population of the United States. I think it is important as Members of Congress that we understand our obligation to the American people, making sure that they fully understand what happens in their house of democracy. Many times in Washington, D.C., we are here, we are making decisions that are going to affect all of our constituents and even ourselves and our families. So I think it is important we take it very seriously. We come back again tonight. Of course, we have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and also the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend from south Florida; and we are here to talk about Social Security. So I think we will just start off just kind of talking about some of the things and some of the events that took place today. This was a very eventful day for Social Security and making sure that Americans are able to get what they deserve as it relates to their full benefits on Social Security and making sure that we do not gamble with their retirement.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleague was able to get that thought out, because it is so very, very important, what he was saying. I tell you this: I was encouraged. I was not only encouraged by the polling numbers released recently but also about the number of people that showed up at the rally today here at the Capitol; and many of them looking forward to getting to that Social Security age were not silver and blue-haired individuals saying it is about me right now. These were hardworking Americans that came to this Capitol, to this great democracy we speak of, so their voice can be heard. I can tell you that I was encouraged. Mr. Speaker, I may digress a little as it relates to talking about what Social Security is all about, but I think it is worth saying that Democrats, not only here but in the other body across the hall, and in general here in Washington, D.C, we believe in bipartisanship. We talk about the 1983 vote an awful lot, but I want to let you know that in 1983, when Ronald Reagan, then President, and Tip O'Neill, then Speaker in a Democratic House, passed a bipartisan Social Security plan that would keep Social Security solvent for another 47 to 50 years, as it relates from this point on, from right now, today, as I speak, 100 percent of benefits going to the individuals that would be receiving it, be it in survivor benefits or retirement benefits, and it was a bill of bipartisan nature. In 1983, we passed a bill saving Social Security, with 243 Members voting for it and 102 voted against it. Eighty Republicans voted for it, 163 Democrats voted for it. That is bipartisanship. That is a bipartisan bill. And we are not going to get there if the individuals that are in charge, the majority seems to be the Republicans in this House, do not come to grips in having a true bipartisan dialogue in saving Social Security, and not the rhetoric of someone else wanting Social Security to be privatized. I am not talking about Wall Street, which is going to benefit by some $940 billion if Social Security is privatized. That is a guarantee to them. But what is a guarantee to the people, our constituents, Democrats, Republicans, independents alike? The only thing they have guaranteed is their $26,000-and-change in a Federal debt they are going to have to pay because the President wants to continue to talk about this privatization piece. One other thing I just want to add. I think it is important people understand the numbers on Social Security. Forty-eight million Americans are enjoying those benefits right now. Some people want to talk about where is the Democratic plan? Well, where is the Republican plan? Right now, we are talking about philosophy. There was a hearing over in the Senate. Well, there are hundreds of hearings on this Hill every day. Still, we are not at the point to where we can come to grips on a bipartisan approach. On this side of the aisle we are saying we want to be bipartisan. Now, hats off to Americans. The reason why no one is marching with a plan and we do not have a binded copy of some plan is the fact that the Republicans know full well, the Republican leadership, and there are some colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are saying no way, Jose, if I can say that.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Rightfully so. I am glad I am a Member of the Congress and no one can walk in here and escort me out. I mean, right now they cannot. But I am glad. I am glad that that is the case because I would be kind of concerned if I were standing outside at one of the stops that the President was making and we were having this conversation. We may very well be asked to spend some time in the parking lot because we cannot go in.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to not only address the House, but the American people, to make sure that this government stays within the realm of the responsibility that the American people have given us to come to this U.S. House of Representatives and this Congress to represent them and their needs and their family's needs. Those great Americans that have worked their entire lives to save and be a part of the Social Security system, to make sure that we hold our promise to their well-being not only during their retirement years, but even those that are beneficiaries of those that have passed on. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, has designated this hour for the 30-something Working Group. And every week we come to the floor to address not only the House, but we keep the American people up to date on what is happening regarding Social Security and the challenges they are facing with the ongoing effort not only by the President, but also by some Members on the majority side to privatize Social Security. I can tell Members that we pride ourselves on making sure that we get not only accurate, but up-to-date information so we can share not only mainly with the Members of this Congress the importance of the reason why they need to stand up and represent their constituents. I must say I am very pleased that a number of Democrats on this side of the aisle, and I do mean almost 110 percent, I will say there are many Democrats who are big, heavy supporters of Social Security and do not want to see it privatized. I believe we are 100 percent. I believe, on the majority side, we have a few Members who are holding out and are saying they are not going to gamble with their constituents' future, their guaranteed retirement. Last week we talked about the 48 million Americans that celebrate a Social Security benefit which is right now, on average, about $955 that each Social Security beneficiary gets. That is very important because 33 million of those individuals would be under the poverty line if it was not for Social Security. So when we start looking at what is going on and the hype around the fact that Social Security is going to blow up tomorrow, I think it is important that we share the facts. The facts are that there is not a crisis as it relates to Social Security. A crisis is something you have to respond to right now because if you do not respond to it now, it will turn into something that will be devastating to whatever the situation may be. We do know now, in the next 47 or 50 years, we all agree that Social Security will be able to provide the benefits to the individuals that are in the program. When they reach retirement, it will be there for them. That is 100 percent for the next 47 to 50 years. I will receive 100 percent of my benefits if nothing happens to Social Security. We know we want to look beyond that and do creative things to make sure that not only my generation, but future generations, the generation-after-next generation, that Social Security is there for them. As Democrats, we agree on the fact that we have to make sure that it is there. But to say to privatize it is the answer, it is not the answer. I cannot help but share some of the issues that are going on. Last week we talked about the 48 million during our hour. I ran into some of my colleagues this past week. They said, We know about that 48 million, and a lot of them are in Florida and that is what you are concerned about; my State is not really affected, and the private accounts will not hurt. I guarantee Members this, they will hurt and benefits will fall in Social Security if we go to private accounts. That is a fact. Alan Greenspan had some interesting comments yesterday as it relates to the stock market, and if we had private accounts right now, how those individuals would have been penalized. The President said, We are going to secure and isolate. If you invest in the stock market, it is very hard to isolate your investments. When it goes under, it goes under. So to turn Wall Street into Las Vegas as it relates to folks' retirement, that may be good for a private pension plan, but it is not good for Social Security. I pulled some of the statistics from my colleagues' States so they understand what we are saying about this issue, not just voting with the next person because they say we have to follow the leadership and privatize Social Security. I think it is important to know in the great State of Alabama that the report as it relates to young Social Security beneficiaries, and I think this is important because a lot of folks have a misperception of the fact that Social Security is just for individuals who have retired. Right now we have 801,290 beneficiaries in Alabama: seventeen and under, 71,350; from age 18 to 39, we have 30,930; and other ages beyond that point is 699,010. Those are the numbers of Alabamians that count on Social Security. And I will say if folks want to start playing the Potomac two-step with Social Security, they need to understand that their constituents are going to end up losing versus gaining. Another State that is important to address because we have folks that say they do not quite understand what is going on as it relates to the State of Illinois. 1.816 million individuals receive benefits right now. The number of those individuals that are over the age of 39 receiving are 1,652,030. I think it is important that people know there are a number of individuals who will be affected by this privatization plan. I want to be able to address the Members and let it be known what we should be doing. The 30-something Working Group, when we sit down and talk about this, we talk about bipartisanship, and we talk about the fact that to come up with a Social Security forecast, Democrats and Republicans have to come together. In 1986, we know that Speaker Tip O'Neill and also Ronald Reagan came together to save Social Security, and I think it is important that we do that now. Mr. Speaker, maybe under the circumstances we cannot do. It is not because the minority side does not want to do it, it is because the majority side does not want to do it. I think it is important that you understand that we believe in strengthening Social Security 110 percent because it is a Democratic plan. And it is a plan that Republicans voted for in 1986, not all of them, but enough to say it is a part of our Nation. I think it is important for us to realize that with the numbers we are dealing with now, as relates to Social Security, we must pay very close attention to what we are doing. Now, the President has been flying around the country. This is not about politics because the bottom line is that the President is in his last term. So criticism that that is just some guy from Florida that is trying to hurt the President's hopes from being reelected, he cannot be reelected again. But it is important that we share accurate and good information, and it is important to make sure that every American has an opportunity to see his or her President when they come to their town or their city or their county. Now, if the President was to come to south Florida and I was standing in line to see the President, I would not want to be pulled out of line and escorted out of the parking lot and dropped off somewhere far away from the convention center or wherever the President is going to speak because I disagree with him on Social Security. I guess if I was not a Member of Congress, I would be escorted out. But we have accounts from throughout the country, and I happen to have one right here in front of me. Fox News, of all news organizations, criticized the President on the screening tactics that they are using. One of my fine colleagues here in the House said, speaking of the President, ``Regardless of the affiliation of the individual, anybody should have the opportunity to go see the President.'' Aaron Johnson, a spokesperson for the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), ``It shouldn't be the job of anybody to make sure the crowd is 100 percent sympathetic.'' So if I had this sign and I was standing in line, Mr. Speaker, to go see the President, I guess I could not go in because I do not necessarily agree with him. That is not democracy. That is kingdom politics. I think that all Americans and also Members of this House should not condone that, especially when the President is flying around on taxpayer dollars. It is important that a democracy stays a democracy, and it is not in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say, It's either my way or the highway. I think it is important, because this is an actual news account, and AP and other news organizations covered the fact that if you disagree with the President and you want to show up, you better be undercover, you better not show your hand, you better not have a bumper sticker because there are those that are watching out for those kinds of individuals that are attending these events. I think it is very unfortunate that that is happening. That sends a perception out to the American people as though the President is talking about private accounts and some proponents on the majority side are talking about private accounts, that it is so great, that there is not an objection to it. If I was standing in front of the precinct where I am elected to come and serve in this Congress and folks were getting out of their car with the literature of my opponent and I was to have my friends go over there and escort them down the street so they cannot vote, I would get 100 percent of the vote. So when we send this perception through that we are all together on this, it is not true. It is important, and I ask for Members to let their friends know at the White House and other places where these events are going on that it is important. And also as it relates to individuals that disagree with the President on other issues. I think it is important, not only that the 30-something Working Group continues to do what we are doing, but we want to commend those other groups that are out there. AARP, I must add, the largest retirement organization in this country, continues to go around and raise objection as it relates to Social Security. It is working. The reason why there is not a bill here on the floor, the fact that we have other things to do, which we do, because Social Security is not a crisis. I mean, that has not stopped some people from continuing to talk about it as though it is a Federal crisis right now. It is not. It is the fact that the American people object to the idea of privatizing their guaranteed retirement. You heard the statistics that I read off as it relates to States of children that are beneficiaries, receiving survivor benefits. That is helping them make it through college. That is helping them make ends meet. They are a part of the 33 million that would be otherwise under the poverty line. It is important that we pay very close attention to what is going on. In that same report, I think it is important as it relates to the President and what is going on in this one-sided deal, we have the Secret Service in Denver that told the three the next day that the bumper sticker on their car which read ``No More Blood For Oil,'' a common anti-Iraq slogan, triggered the ejection of those three individuals from the Bush rally, or the Social Security rally. I can tell you that as we start leading into this era of kingdom politics, we are going to find ourselves in more and more trouble. I want to talk a little bit about what is guaranteed under what we are dealing with now, Mr. Speaker. Some folks say there is a great mystery of what the benefit of going into, or lack thereof, a private account and what it means. The President said, well, we are spending money to save money, $5 trillion onto the debt. There is not a $5 trillion surplus or the surplus that the President had when he came into office, but this is a $5 trillion loan. I want to just pull my deficit chart up here. As the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), has said, the only thing that you are guaranteed, Members, and your constituents are guaranteed, is the $26,296.10 that you owe right now on the debt. That is not only for father. That is for mother, that is for child, no matter what the age of that child. A child that was just born 5 minutes ago, they already have a debt to this country, a financial debt to this country, not due to the fact of irresponsible spending on behalf of Democrats. We are not in charge of the House of Representatives. But when we were in charge of the House of Representatives, we balanced the budget. We took down the debt. We had a surplus. So to say, Yeah, it's those Democrats that are spending the money, that is not necessarily the case. As a matter of fact, we are being fiscally responsible by looking at it from the standpoint of if we are going to do something, why make the situation worse financially. We want to deal with Social Security, but we do not want to dig into making the debt even deeper, the national debt. And the whole argument about the reason why we are privatizing or that the President wants to privatize and some Members of the other body and some Members within this body want to privatize Social Security is the fact that we have to watch out for future generations. Let us look at that for a minute. Future generations. I am a Member of the U.S. Congress. My mother before me was a Member of the U.S. Congress. I have two young children. They are going to have a different experience than the rest of my constituents within the 17th Congressional District in Florida. Not because they are that much smarter than the rest of the 8-year-olds and the 10-year-olds in their community, but it is the fact that I am a U.S. Congressman and their mother is an outstanding lady and she is a professional and my mother was a past Congresswoman, that they are going to have a different snap at life than the next person. But people did not elect me to have a better opportunity towards not only health care but a better opportunity as it relates to a good retirement. They did not say, That's what we're electing you for. They elected us to represent them. So we have to watch out for the future generations. A $26,000 debt and change, I must add, is not a way to help our future generations. There are a number of individuals that are graduating from college, especially those that have gone through the postgraduate experience, that are leaving on an average of $20,000 in debt, and we are adding this debt on what they are going to have to pay somehow some way in the very near future. Over 40 percent of our debt is owned by foreign interests. I think it is important to understand, also, that this information on the debt can be found. Some people may think, Oh, you're just coming up with those numbers and you're just putting them out there. I want to make sure that the Members are aware of this. They can go on www.house.gov/budget_democrats to get this information, not only on the ticker but also letting it be known that the $26,000 and change, what they can actually print out and place somewhere on the door so that they can know exactly what we are doing to our future generations. If you can check that Web site, in 4 hours it will even be higher, the national debt. I think it is also important to know when dealing with the $5 trillion what could happen and what we could do with that money. We talked about the fact that it is not a Federal emergency as it relates to the issue on Social Security, and it is not. But what does $5 trillion do for programs over the next 20 years? I can do an awful lot for $5 trillion. I was talking to one of my mayors recently, and I mentioned $5 trillion to him and he said, goodness gracious, we could solve a lot of the issues facing our cities, and I can probably go around to many of my friends throughout the country. With $5 trillion we can make education better, we can make infrastructure better, we can do better services for our elderly, we can make sure that our communities are more secure, and we can make sure that we have a future for many of our young people. Let us look at $5 trillion. Pell grants. We hear a lot of discussion about Pell grants. It has helped a lot of young people and folks make it to school. Maybe they will not have that $20,000 in debt when they graduate. We know that there are a number of young people that go to school and have to return back home, not to take care of Mom and Dad; but it is the fact that they cannot go out and buy a home because they have debt. Unfortunately, many of our young people fall into that downward spiral of falling into debt and getting a bad credit rating. We can raise the maximum Pell grant from $4,050 to $59,500. Now, 5.3 million students receive $4,050 in Pell grants. With $5 trillion, 23.7 million students would receive a $59,500 Pell grant. I can go on and on and on, but I think it is important for us to understand what $5 trillion can do. The President and some of those proponents for private accounts want to go and borrow $5 trillion to not only take down the benefit structure but the benefits that now Americans enjoy. I think there is a majority of the Members in this Chamber, I know on the Democratic side, a supermajority on our side, and I think there are other individuals on the other side of the aisle that would say different, that we have other crises that are facing this country right now versus a crisis that is 50 years off, or could be a crisis where it would only go down to 80 percent of the benefits that we have now. We have got to deal with the Federal debt before we start getting into saying that, Well, we know we have the highest deficit in the history of the Republic, the 109th Congress oversees that debt, let's see, let's make it worse. Let's add 5 trillion more dollars on to it. Let's really make history. Let's go further than any other Congress has gone in the light of making sure that the only guaranteed benefit out of this whole exercise will be a $26,200-and-change debt given to every American no matter what their age may be. My colleague from Florida and a member of the 30-something Working Group and a good friend of mine, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), I am so glad you came down.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is another special order, Mr. Speaker. This is democracy we are talking about. I am a member of the Committee on Armed Services. We have men and women, several thousand, that are fighting against this kind of thing. And we have to make sure that we give very little to others to point to and say, ``See, you are telling me to do something, but you are not doing it.'' And if someone is the President of the United States, they can pretty much say, if someone has a T-shirt, if someone has a sign, if someone is standing in line and they say, ``I disagree with the President and I want to hear what he says, but I do not think we need to privatize Social Security.'' Or to go in and then come out and talk to the media or talk to anyone, they have the right to do that. This is not a private event. This is paid for by the taxes that the gentlewoman pays, I pay, and all of our constituents pay. So if our tax dollars are going to work against us because we disagree, and we are right to disagree, it is insane.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is what a democracy is all about. And I hope that the President disabused himself of escorting Americans out, taxpaying Americans that want to hear what he has to say.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, you are right. And Congresswoman, I am going to thank you for being an active Member within the 30-something Working Group and all the input, even when we are not on the floor in the discussion that we have on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that Members are fully informed about the fact that Leader Pelosi is out doing what she is doing. She will be speaking at Columbia University next Tuesday to young people on the issue of Social Security in New York. It is important that we continue to share this information.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, that is important, and that is what happens when we start talking about investing private accounts in a private system; we may say publicly traded or whatever the case may be. But I think it is important to understand that what is guaranteed also is the $940 billion to Wall Street that is guaranteed in the proposal or the philosophy that individuals have, somewhere around that number. Now, I do not have a problem with investments, this, that, and the other; but Social Security, like the gentlewoman said, and her definition is Webster's definition; it is not a Debbie Wasserman Schultz's definition. But let me say, what is interesting here, Mr. Speaker, that we must pay very close attention to is that there are some very fine Members of this Chamber that came to this Congress and we were here late one night in the 108th Congress and talked about, well, this will be the number as it relates to the medicare prescription drug issue. We have a number; this is how much it will cost Americans. And some folks ran around here on the floor and gave emotional speeches about how we have to get prescription drugs to the people, and it is too high, and this, that, and the other; and I have another editorial on that. But we were told by the administration that it will only be $350 billion. I mean, that is a big number. That is all it will be, so you do not need to be worried about it. Even though we are borrowing that too, that is all it will be. Later, I was looking, while the gentlewoman was talking, I was looking through my notes, because that is the reason why democracy has to play a role here. Bipartisanship has to be a part of this debate. If bipartisanship was a part of the debate, maybe we would not have been shocked later to find out that it would be $400 billion. Did it stop there? Well, sure enough, after the bill was passed, it jumped up to $530 billion. Now we are being told, now, just recently, just a month ago, we are being told that it will be $724 billion. This is real money. Meanwhile, community development block grants are being cut. Meanwhile, we are saying that, well, we are going to provide certain cuts here, certain cuts there, a trade bill here. Where is my credit card? We are getting the opportunity to pull out the U.S. Treasury credit card here and say, well, that is fine, let us just put it on the credit card; it is okay. We talk a little bit about responsibility within the family. I mean, my mom, when I used to be in college and say, Hey, I need some money. Oh, just put it on a credit card, it will be okay. She did not say that. She said, Either you cannot do it because you do not have the money, or you need to be able to generate the money to do it. Now, let me tell my colleagues something. I think they are doing both. They are generating the money, but they are generating it from the credit card. Now, some may say, well, he is just talking. By the rules of this House, if our leadership had the ability within the rules, we definitely have the will, but within the rules, if we can call a committee meeting and call some of these individuals out of why we are continuing to borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend. And I am a Democrat. So when folks start talking about the definition of the tax and spend, well, that is something that the majority side says, because that is not reality. The Democratic Congress balanced the budget, I say to the gentlewoman, and the Democratic Congress, along with many of the caucuses within this side of the Chamber, works day in and day out to talk about the Federal debt and the irresponsible spending, if we want to talk about future generations. The last point I want to make on this particular subject, I am going to pick up where I left off as it relates to what is the Democratic plan. Well, the Democratic plan is $555 on average benefit to 48 million Americans that receive Social Security today. The Democratic plan keeps Social Security solvent for the next 50 years. That is the Democratic plan. The Democratic plan is making sure that we do not see, under the philosophy that the majority has, the 46 percent decrease in benefits as it relates to the cuts that will happen over time. The Democratic plan is making sure that the monthly average benefit does not fall down to $516. That is the Democratic plan. The democratic plan is to make sure that we work in a bipartisan way with the majority if we want to approach this issue of Social Security. And the Democratic plan is to also get out the truth of the fact that this is not a crisis.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. We always appreciate your love and appreciation. Anytime we come before the Rules Committee, we would love to have our amendments passed in your committee. So I would just say that and then humbly walk out of the Chamber.