Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

It is wonderful to be here with the both of them, my two esteemed colleagues from the next generation in the United States Congress, and I have been able to listen to a little of what they have been saying on my way over here.

A few weeks ago when we were talking about this before the latest version of the privatization scheme was put on the table, we were talking about how interesting it is that no matter how many times they are told no, they still keep coming back with the same concept, just a different version. And I know I analogized it is like when I speak to my children and they keep asking me and asking me if they can do something that I do not think they should do for one reason or another, whether it is not responsible or they are not old enough, and they try a lot of different versions of the same thing, and the answer is still no because I have carefully reviewed what they want to do, as their parent, and decided it is not the best timing right now or

for whatever reason I have concluded it is not a good idea.

It would be as if one's teenager came to them and said Mom, Dad, I really want to go to this party, and I want to stay out until 2 o'clock in the morning, and the parent said, no, that is not a good idea, and so they come back to them. This new proposal is like if one's teenager came back to them and said I still want to go to the party, but I promise I will be home by midnight. The whole idea was that they did not want them to go to the party in the first place.

And after 60 days initially on the road trying to sell his privatization scheme to the American people and essentially they have rejected it and an additional 60-day effort where the more the President talks about this, the less people like it, it is mindboggling to me. And I am the sort of baby of the group of the three of us, I am a freshman, I was just elected. It is mindboggling to me that they do not want to come to the table now, as we have been asking them to do, and come up with a bipartisan solution.

Privatization balloons the deficit. It cuts benefits; and yet every version of their proposal, the premise of it is to privatize Social Security, and that pulls the safety net out from future retirees and, quite honestly, from people who are about to retire.

I actually had an electronic town hall meeting today at 4:30, which was amazing. We got tremendous feedback. But can I tell my colleagues that not one person who participated, and I had over 100 people participate live and 120 people signed on in advance of our beginning, and no one said, ``You really need to consider private accounts. We really want you to do this.'' I mean, it is time to sit down and put privatization aside, and like in 1983 when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan and Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others who were part of that group sat down and in a bipartisan way came up with a solution. It is time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the two of us are from a State and from a region of a State where it would be expected that there would be deep, deep concern about the potential privatization of Social Security. Obviously, we have a disproportionately high percentage of senior citizens in my district and the gentleman from Florida's district. But like the gentleman from Ohio said, across all demographic groups, all regions of the country, there is no group that has wide or deep support for this concept, and that is because people are uncomfortable at every level with the explosion of the deficit and this proposal's potential to expand it even more.

When I asked at my live town hall meetings whether people were confident enough in their own investment ability to be assured that their own investment decisions would carry them all the way through their entire retirement years, no one except for two people in three town hall meetings with more than 600 people in attendance, no one raised their hand, because look at the ebb and flow of the stock market; and this proposal is not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. If people hit a bump in the road where one year the stock market is not going so well, it is whatever is left when they retire in that account with a proportionate cut in their Social Security benefits.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida will continue to yield, if he does not mind my adding one more thing, like I said, I am a freshman. I was elected. I have been in Congress for 6 months. I really expected there to be a lot more collegiality in this body. The gentlemen are veterans, now, of this process. I have talked to my Republican freshmen colleagues on the other side. We all expected there to be more of an opportunity to work together, less rancor. It is sort of astonishing, and it is astonishing, I think, to the average American that we are still bickering about this and that we are all sharpening our elbows and digging in and going to our respective corners instead of acknowledging, like we are willing to do, that there is a problem with Social Security.

It is not a crisis like the President has been portraying; but there is a problem, a long-term problem with Social Security, and we need to come together and make some changes. But, unfortunately, the leadership in this Congress, the Republican leadership, just wants to be right, or somehow if they say it enough times, perhaps they think that they will be right when the American people are clearly telling them they are not.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, there are three things I want to add to augment the gentleman from Florida's comments. One of them is 30-something oriented.

I noted when I went and spoke at Memorial Day services this year and Veterans' Day services on November 11 of last year, that every previous Veterans' Day and Memorial Day that I was able to participate in as an elected official prior to my time in the legislature, I was able to thank them. And generally the crowds that come to those events are older folks, senior citizens especially in Florida, veterans of many wars. I was able to say ``thank you'' from our generation, because prior to now, our generation is the first since before World War II that has never been called to war, that had never had the casualties that the generations before us had. And I was able to thank them for allowing us to stand on their shoulders and their sacrifice.

But I cannot say that any more. I cannot say that any more, because, as was read tonight, the more than 1,500 names that we are in the process of reading, we could have a whole hour just on the Iraq war and our deep concerns over that.

But to continue in the gentleman's thought process about health care for veterans, I visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center a few weeks ago and had an opportunity to visit with soldiers who had come back from Iraq and Afghanistan without their legs, hearing their stories, watching the pain etched in their face, and the dedication that they have. To the person, they wanted to go back, and their regret was they were not able to, they had to leave their comrades behind.

These people are struggling to get the health care they need when they are still enlisted. At home in South Florida and across the country, our veterans, as the gentleman said, 6 months is not an exaggeration for how long our veterans have to wait to get their health care needs taken care of. Is that the thanks that we give them, the proud veterans that have served this country?

We sound so soap-boxish, but your actions have to back up your words. It is really nice to stand on the floor and give a good speech and get all choked up, but what matters is how you cast that vote and what your light up on that board when they put it up there says, and you are either with them or against them. The Members that voted against those amendments that were offered in committee and on this floor and who opposed them, in spite of valiant speeches that were made on behalf of those veterans, should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have demonstrated here tonight, as we will in the future, that there are so many issues facing our generation, and we need to make sure that we take this country back in the right direction so that when our generation inherits the results of the decisions that we are making here, that we are not struggling to make sure that we can clean up the mess that was left for us.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on four amendments to H.R. 2863, Defense Appropriations for FY 2006, on Monday, June 20 due to a travel delay.

I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``aye'' on agreeing to the Velazquez amendment; ``aye'' on agreeing to the DeFazio amendment; ``aye'' on agreeing to the Doggett amendment; and ``aye'' on agreeing to the Obey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of arrogance, as a new Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Republican majority, I noticed, has become so arrogant that they are now attempting to silence even the opposition from the minority party, preventing us from giving any opposing testimony.

The latest abuse comes from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. As the committee prepares to vote on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, Chairman Sensenbrenner has conducted 12 hearings on the issue, but has refused to allow almost any testimony from those who oppose the PATRIOT Act or its provisions.

Opposing testimony was allowed only after the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) used the rules of the committee to force the chairman to hold a hearing that included Democratic panelists. Clearly miffed by this action, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) scheduled the hearing for just 18 hours later on a Friday morning when the House was not even in session. And that is not the worst of it.

During the actual hearing, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) rudely cut opposition voices off, and then abruptly and unilaterally concluded the hearing without a vote of the committee. After Democrats called a point of order, he gaveled the hearing to a close and left the room. When Democrats continued to voice their opposition, he turned the microphones off. When that did not stop them, he turned the lights off in the room.

Mr. Speaker, when are Republicans going to realize that the minority voice is an important one?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, last week it was an honor to begin my new assignment as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. This Nation was founded on the principles of ensuring that the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority. The display that I witnessed and experienced at our committee hearing last Friday was, honestly, the most egregious abuse of power witnessed in my 13 years of combined public service in three legislative bodies.

This is a political institution, with individuals who feel passionately about their views, and this is an institution that runs on power. But my hope is that even when we disagree, we will treat each other with respect and dignity. Respect and dignity were nowhere to be found at that hearing last Friday, and it was a shame.

I was particularly surprised and disappointed by the disposition demonstrated by the chairman during the hearing, and found it ironic that the Committee on the Judiciary, whose responsibilities include reviewing, safeguarding and upholding our Constitution, thought nothing of trampling the rights the minority's witnesses by severely limiting their opportunities to be heard.

After 9/11, the vast majority of Americans were and remain willing today to give up some of our freedoms and civil liberties in order to keep us safe. When the USA PATRIOT Act was adopted by Congress, there were 16 provisions that

were troubling enough to most Members that they were required to be reviewed by Congress before they could remain in law past this year.

I think I share the views of many when I say that I may ultimately support all 16 provisions remaining in law. However, it did not seem too much to ask to thoroughly review those provisions, and not just hear a drastically lopsided set of witnesses called by the majority party.

If we are going to restrict civil liberties in the name of national and homeland security, it is more important than ever to shine the light on these provisions and make sure they can withstand a rigorous test.

Forfeiting civil liberties is not merely an inconvenience for our citizens. It must be a conscious decision, made with full disclosure and review and for good reason. If this forfeiture cannot withstand a review where proponents and opponents have their concerns aired, then our citizens cannot be expected to give up rights they were born with and for which our forefathers and foremothers so desperately fought.

It is my hope that, like the other committee on which I serve, the Committee on Financial Services, which operates in an spirit of bipartisanship even on the most contentious of issues, that we can withstand the test, and this should be done without the abuse of power and trampling of democracy that we experienced last week.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for the time.

Mr. Chairman, Pericles, a 5th century B.C. Athenian statesman, once said that ``freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.'' I rise today in support of this amendment and to speak on behalf of freedom.

Librarians, booksellers, and everyday Americans across the country are deeply concerned about the chilling effect of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which clearly encourages individuals to self-censor their reading sources.

USA Today in June of 2004 reported that an FBI agent actually went to a Washington State library branch and requested a list of people who had borrowed a biography of Osama bin Laden. The librarian refused and informed the agent that he would have to go through legal channels before the names could be released. The FBI then served a subpoena to the library a week later demanding a list of everyone who had borrowed the book since November of 2001.

With government having the ability to easily obtain records of books that everyday Americans, our constituents, are borrowing, all of us forfeit the freedom to learn more.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act clearly gives the Federal Government an unwarranted amount of power. There must be a higher standard of suspicion to justify this invasion of privacy.

This amendment only applies to the records that contain information about the books and reading materials that are checked out of the library or purchased from a bookstore.

It is important to note that prior to September 11, law enforcement was able to arrest Ted Kaczynski, the Unibomber, via his library records. The authority already existed in law without the secrecy and overreach of section 215.

The adage ``keep your friends close and your enemies closer'' can be upheld via the freedom to obtain knowledge about those who wish to do us harm.

I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1996, a bill was proposed to the Broward County Legislative Delegation to annex all of the unincorporated area between Griffin Road to the north, Sheridan Street to the south, Flamingo Road to the east and SR 27 to the west, into the City of Pembroke Pines.

Hundreds of citizens from that unincorporated area, known as the Southwest Ranches, packed the Delegation hearing in November of 1996, to protest this attempted takeover and to call for the right to form their own city. As a result of this grassroots effort, the State Legislature passed a bill during the 1997 legislative session, calling for a vote of the citizens of Southwest Ranches in March of 2000.

In the summer of 1997, Southwest Ranches Homeowners Association members agreed to actively promote incorporation of a new city for the area and formed a political committee to explore this option. A feasibility committee was appointed to determine if a new city would be viable.

On July 3, 1999, the SWRHA sponsored a parade and picnic to declare the area's independence. The bill was passed by the Florida Legislature in 1997, authorizing the vote in 2000 to determine if residents wanted to annex or form their own city. On March 14, 2000, residents voted overwhelmingly to form a new Town. The election to approve the Town's charter was held on June 6, 2000, and Council Members were elected on July 25, 2000. On that day, Southwest Ranches was officially in business.

This year, we celebrate the Fifth Anniversary of the Town of Southwest Ranches and commemorate the preservation of the beautiful land and environment that its residents love so much.

I am so glad to be here; and I appreciate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi's) willingness to put this group together of the members of the 30-something, 10-year period. We each have a few more years to go.

I want to piggyback on something you were just talking about related to the eligibility bar for financial aid. I can tell you just from personal experience all of the way back to when I was entering college and my parents were applying for financial aid for me; and the calculation, even back then, as to what we were eligible for and what the formula said that my parents could afford to pay and lay out that would come out of their pocket for college costs was unbelievable then.

And now, with the changes in the financial aid formula today, I mean, even, I grew up in a middle-class family, you know, regular, average middle-class family, you know, not wealthy at all, parents who certainly did not live paycheck to paycheck but had a mortgage and car payments and credit card debt and, you know, pretty significant month- to-month bills. And none of that is taken into consideration when you calculate financial aid.

I mean, those major expenses, other than your income, have nothing to do with the formula. So when they say, and back then the numbers were something like, my parents, based on their income, could be expected to pay $16,000 a year for my college education. Now, given all of the bills that they were struggling to pay for, there was no way.

Now, fast forward to 2005; and the bar has been raised even higher. And add the credit card debt that has drastically increased, with the bar on the graph at a steep incline. You add that to parents' credit card debt, you have kids now who are starting out with credit card debt even in high school.

I mean, that was unheard of when we were in high school. I mean, kids did not start college with credit card debt. They certainly did not begin having credit card debt as early as they do now, with credit card companies literally preying on brand-spanking-new college students with offers and, you know, kids who are willing to sign up to get a credit card just to get a cool t-shirt.

These are students that are not financially sophisticated enough to make the kinds of decisions that they are going to have to make so that they will understand the ramifications for themselves financially for themselves down the road. And we have got to have policies that are going to be able to help them get along in the years to come.

You talk about financial literacy. You are absolutely right. What is happening now, number one, we are not setting the example at the top of the mountain. I mean, what we are doing here is adding to our deficit month after month, year after year.

What kind of message are we sending to generations that are going to come behind us about the importance of minimizing your debt? I mean, we are deficit spending. So why would most Americans think that that is not a normal way, a responsible way to live?

Most Americans, let me not overstate it, many, many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and they live right to their means. This is a society where, no, I cannot have that now because I cannot afford it right now, is not instilled in people from the time that they are young. That is why financial literacy is so important.

We have a Financial Literacy Caucus. I am on the Financial Services Committee, and we have begun an effort, especially on the Democratic side, to try to educate generations coming up through life that at some point you have to decide what you can afford to have, and there has to be a now and a someday and not everything can be in the now.

That is also a lesson that Congress and the President could learn, too: Not everything can be in the now. Sometimes we have to make some financial decisions that will say, well, it would be nice if we could afford that humongous tax break for the wealthiest few, but in order to be fiscally responsible we cannot have that now.

I represent a district with a pretty sizable percentage of wealthy individuals. And when I am home, I cannot tell you the numbers of people who come up to me and say, you know, I would love to have a tax break, but I care about my children's education a lot more. I care about the Nation's financial and fiscal health a lot more. Keep your tax break. I barely felt it, and it really is not going to make that much difference in my life.

Many, many people who are wealthy and qualify for those tax breaks understand where their priorities are and should be. It seems that only the administration and the leadership of this Congress does not have their priorities straight.

I mean, even Mr. Obey, when we were considering the Defense Appropriations Bill in the last couple of weeks, when he offered an amendment to reduce the tax break for the wealthiest few Americans, I think it was half a percent. I think it was an incredibly small amount of money, just a little bit less of a tax break, that the wealthiest few would have received in order to expand the inspections, the percentage of inspections that we perform at our ports, for the cargo in ports, and that, even that amendment was rejected.

We chose tax breaks for the wealthy over our homeland security. Now if that is not priorities being out of whack, then I do not know what is.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot emphasize enough, this is just another example of how the priorities here are out of whack. We had an opportunity a few weeks ago to visit our troops who were injured in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at Walter Reed Army Medical Hospital. These were young men, about a dozen of them, that I had an opportunity to visit, the most heart-wrenching stories, many of whom lost their limbs, mostly lost their legs, had their limbs obliterated, defended our country. Every single one of them said to me that all they wanted to do was to go back and they were so sorry to leave their buddies behind.

These are people that when they become veterans we slap them with a disabled veterans tax. We say to them that for every dollar that they earn in disability payments, we are going to deduct a dollar from their pension. That is the reward we are giving them for serving our country and for becoming injured in the line of duty.

Then we are saying to our members from the National Guard that unless you are within, I think it is, 90 or 180 days of being activated for duty, we are not going to pay for your health care. We do not provide health care to our members of National Guard who we know now are going to be activated at some point, who we know are giving up the salaries that they earn in their regular jobs, who are sometimes covered, sometimes not covered by health insurance at their regular jobs. But one of the things that members of the National Guard have to have to worry about is how to even pay for health care for themselves and their families. Yet we are still providing tax break after tax break for the wealthiest few Americans.

I mean, it just is shocking that the top of the priority list is tax breaks and this trickle-down concept that does not ever seem to go away when it comes to the Republican leadership in this Congress, that if we give the tax breaks to the wealthiest few that somehow their investing and spending is going to flow down and help all the little people.

We are at the point in our lives where we are real live grown-ups now. Has it worked in our lifetime? It still is not working, and we are still not providing for the people who really need the help, who are defending our country. Instead, we are taking money back from them.

We talk about the death tax. We should be talking about the disabled veteran tax, because that is what we are doing to our veterans' pensions when they have been injured in the line of due, and it is absolutely unconscionable.

What happened?

They spent 1.8 on tax cuts.

There is not a lot more that can be said other than that I think that we need to continue to come to this floor every week and I can commit to you that I will join you and make sure that we can continue to highlight the direction that they are taking this country and the increased debt and the selection of the people who need the least over the people who need the most. And I am not talking about people who are struggling to make ends meet.

You have average working families in America whose priorities include health care and quality education and just making sure that they can stay out of debt. And, instead, the wealthiest few are the priority of the leadership in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a young Florida student from my district who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Jaclyn

Einstein of Golden Beach was named one of the top honorees in Florida by the 2005 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Jaclyn, a junior at University School, is being recognized for raising more than $6,000 for organ transplants in a fund-raising walkathon, as part of an ongoing, multi-year effort on her part to promote organ donation. Not only did Jaclyn raise money for organ donation programs, but she also organized an assembly at her high school to recruit other students to walk with her. Combined, the students raised $6,200 for the University of Miami Transplant Foundation, winning a cruise that she then donated to an 18-year-old heart transplant recipient.

When asked what she hoped her efforts would accomplish, Jaclyn said, ``It is my hope, ultimately, that numerous individuals in need will benefit trom receiving an organ transplant through my efforts.''

In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution this young citizen has made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Ms. Einstein are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.

The program that brought this young role model to our attention--The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created in 1995 by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The program seeks to impress upon youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past eight years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, with more than 170,000 youngsters participating since its inception.

I heartily applaud Ms. Einstein for her initiative in seeking to make her community a better place to live, and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly noteworthy in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and honor a young Florida student from my district who has achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in her community. Sarah Moeller of Davie was named one of the top honorees in Florida by the 2005 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Sarah, an eighth-grader at St. Mark Catholic School, is being recognized for organizing a clothing drive to collect suits and nice dresses for struggling Haitian immigrants to wear on job interviews and for special occasions. Sarah was inspired when she heard the pastor of St. Joseph's Haitian Mission speak at her school. Her clothing drive, ``PASS Along Your Sunday Best'' collected 130 complete outfits, which Sarah would sort, wash, mend, press and hang on hangers for distribution to Haitian immigrants.

When asked what she hoped her efforts would accomplish, Sarah said, ``I felt that in a small way I was bringing hope and happiness to people in need.''

In light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contribution this young citizen made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Ms. Moeller are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow.

The program that brought this young role model to our attention--The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created in 1995 by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The program seeks to impress upon youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past eight years, the program has become the nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, with more than 170,000 youngsters participating since its inception.

I heartily applaud Ms. Moeller for her initiative in seeking to make her community a better place to live, and for the positive impact she has had on the lives of others. She has demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly noteworthy in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and respect. Her actions show that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in our communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say what a pleasure it is to have the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) join us for our 30-something working group. I have to tell you, as the freshman in the group, and the person who has been here for the shortest tenure, one of the most incredible experiences I have had is to have the opportunity to learn from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and especially the inner workings of the budget and to be able to absorb the expertise, at least attempt to absorb the expertise that the gentleman has been able to provide this country with your leadership. So I cannot thank the gentleman enough for that.

And I really want to pick up on what the gentleman from Alabama was saying because this really is, the budget is a statement of our values. It is our values versus the Republican leadership values. And it really is probably the most comprehensive expression of the direction that we believe the country should go in and the priorities that we have in our caucus versus the priorities that they have.

And, you know, it is interesting, look at the group of us assembled here tonight. I do not think that you could have a more eclectic group of Members than the Members assembled here. I represent a district, Miami Beach, Ft. Lauderdale and Hollywood. The gentleman represents Alabama. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and I share communities. And the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) represents, you know, a district in South Carolina. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is here with us tonight. We could not have more diversity in our caucus and more diversity represented here tonight.

And if you look at the homogeneity on their side of the aisle, even when they do not have homogeneity in their caucus, they walk in lock step. They fall in line. They do what they are told. And that is regardless of the fact that they have crafted a budget that clearly says to the American people: We do not care. We do not care about you. We do not care about making sure that your children have a quality education. We do not care about making sure that if your child is sick that you can afford to take them to the doctor. They have engaged, at least since I have been here and that I have been able to note, in slash-and-burn politics.

I mean, the thing that I think is the most interesting is that, over the time that I have been involved in public service, you know, we are constantly trying to figure out, and the American public, people, I think, are trying to figure out, how do you define a Republican, and how do you define a Democrat?

And I think that the budget document that they have put forward is probably the best expression of how you define what it means to be a Republican. And clearly, what it means to be a Republican is to balloon the deficit, cause the Nation to go further and further into debt, mortgage our children's future, cut health care, cut education, both in the lower grades as well as student loans.

And if you look at our budget document that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) put together, it also is an expression of our values and the direction that we would take the country. Our budget document, as crafted by the gentleman from South Carolina and the other Budget Committee Members would bring the budget into balance by 2012. It would make sure that we do not cut the programs that are the most important to the American people.

What are our priorities? Education, health care, making sure that we can improve the quality of people's lives and making the world a better place as opposed to improving the bottom line of the pocketbooks of the wealthiest Americans. I mean, that is essentially what the ultimate goal was, clearly, of the Republican budget document. And I think it is important that we help lay that distinction out in front of the American people so that, over the course of the next 18 to 22 months, they can make a decision as to whether we want to continue to move in the radical direction that they are taking this country or if we want to get things back on track.

Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to do is take off from what the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) was saying because the President started out this debate 4 months ago following the election saying that Social Security is in crisis, that Katie bar the door, we have to do something, we have to do something now; and if we do not, then the world will essentially come to an end.

Now, he has gradually backed off that and you do not hear the word ``crisis'' out of the President anymore. You hear more along the lines of what we have been saying which is there is a problem that needs addressing; and we have been saying that because you have the strength of a 70-year safety net in place, that we should not be irresponsible about how we reform it. We should not be irresponsible by slashing a gaping hole in that safety net through which millions of people would fall.

And because this is the 30-something Working Group, I have often pointed out that when we talk to our friends, our peers who are also members of our generation, I know I ask my friends if they think that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. I am 38. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 38, and we have friends who do not believe that Social Security will be there. Yet, if we look at the numbers, all the reliable numbers, the ones right from the Social Security Administration, the first instance that we have even a concern about whether or not we are going to be taking in as much as we are paying out is 2041.

Well, I will be 74 years old in 2041. And if you are using the more reasonable, non-Dooms Day numbers, it is more likely that 2051 is when we begin to approach a problem. I will be 84 years old. Now, that is about 20 years past normal retirement, so the sky is not falling.

There is a problem and a responsible government will recognize that problem and take the time to make the changes that we need to make without throwing out the baby with the bath water.

What I wanted to bring out was exactly what the gentleman was talking about. We have a problem that needs to be addressed. But we can not throw our Nation's retirement security, our constituents' retirement security, to the whims of the stock market and then add insult to injury by saying that we are going to adjust their benefits based on the price index as opposed to their wages, because obviously wages grow more quickly than prices do.

So their benefits are going to be cut both through the indexing and through the privatization and on top of that will add to the deficit.

This is about the most irresponsible proposal that I have ever heard of.

Mr. Speaker, I just appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Meek) leadership and the opportunity for us to help explain to our generation what the ramifications will be if the President's proposal goes through. I think it is real important that we plug the Web site, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) has it up here on the board.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this special order.

Mr. Speaker, today is Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom Hoshoa.

Today is a day of reflection and remembrance, not just for Jews, but for everyone who needs to learn from the world's injustices in order not to repeat them. Today we need not just say, ``never again.'' We must live our lives by this mantra.

A few weeks ago, I attended a solemn ceremony to remember the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. As I reflected upon the horror of the death camps where at least 1.5 million innocent people from many different nations died, 90 percent of whom were Jews, I asked myself the following question: how far have we come as a civil society and a world in the last 60 years? How much have we learned? Have we honored their memory by not allowing these atrocities to be repeated?

Unfortunately, my answer had to be not far enough. In the last 15 years, we have seen genocide raise its ugly head in Bosnia, Rwanda and, most recently, in the Darfur region in Sudan, where at least 180,000 people are dead and over 2 million people displaced from their homes.

On Yom Hoshoa, let us recommit and reaffirm our vigilance against acts of horrific inhumanity. Let us make sure that the lost souls from the Holocaust did not die in vain.

Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of this legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), is my colleague and friend; but on this issue I must respectfully disagree with her.

I know that most of my colleagues believe teens should communicate with their parents and guardians when faced with difficult and terrifying choices. Unfortunately, that does not always happen; and in some cases where abuse and neglect are involved, we cannot force it to happen. In every community in every congressional district, whether red or blue, the sad truth is that there are unspeakable acts perpetrated against young girls by relatives that result in pregnancy, and this legislation does nothing to protect them.

In a perfect world, there would be no heinous acts against children. In a perfect world, no woman would become pregnant until she was spiritually, physically, and emotionally prepared to love and care for a child.

Just over a month ago, I stood on the floor of this House because I firmly believed that politicians have no right to meddle in personal and private affairs of medical decisions. As recent actions and events have reflected, leaders in this Congress across the country are seeking more ways to violate the Nation's laws and our personal freedoms in order to impose their will on American families. This is not the role of Congress, nor should it be. This legislation includes no provision for a teenager who fears turning to her parents because the pregnancy may be the result of an act of rape or incest. It is wrong and we must stop it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time.

I want to ask my colleagues to ask themselves, what messages are we sending to young women and girls about what their value is, with no provisions and no exceptions and no safety clauses in this bill to protect them from abuse? Why could we not have an amendment to ensure that protection for those young girls?

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider all of the unintended consequences and ramifications of passing this legislation. But more importantly, I ask them to consider the young women and girls and families whose lives we will be impacting. The result of this legislation, sadly, will not be more communication between parents and their daughters. It will not result in fewer minors becoming pregnant. It will result in more young girls ending their pregnancies themselves, giving birth in bathroom stalls and potentially harming their newborns and themselves. These and other dire outcomes are the potential unintended consequences of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to think carefully through the consequences of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Absolutely, this was a unique day.

Apparently, we reached the 60th day that the President has been out in America trying to sell the American people on his vague outlines of his proposal to privatize Social Security; and quite honestly, at the conclusion of the

60 days, apparently he has said that he wants to go out for another 120 days.

We had a rally today with more than 1,000 people in the crowd and over a hundred Members of Congress from both the House and the Senate Democratic caucuses, standing completely united in opposition to pulling the safety net out from under our retirees' retirement security, and we stood strong. We stood together. We stood together when people did not think that that was possible, that there was definitely, over the last few months, a lack of confidence that the Democrats would stand together united opposing privatization. We have all the way up until today and we will continue to be standing in opposition to privatizing Social Security.

Actually, at the conclusion of today's rally, we stood together and said, Mr. President, please do go out for another 120 days and tell the American people that you want to pull the safety net out from under their retirement security because apparently the more he talks about it, the less the American people like it. So we encourage the President to continue to go out and talk about it, continue to restrict the crowds and limit the access to his town hall meetings where he checks tickets at the door, checks people's philosophies at the door, as opposed to our effort where we are being as inclusive as possible.

We do not screen our crowds. We had more than 400 town hall meetings across the country in our districts as House and Senate Democrats, and we take all comers. Some of us have had maybe a couple of people here and there who have come to our meetings and said why do you not give the President's proposal a try, but almost universally our Members have experienced the communication from our constituents that, above all else, they expect us to be up here in Washington and protect their retirement security.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think it is important to highlight, again, this is the 60th day of the President's nationwide, cross-country tour; and one would have expected with the bully pulpit that he has the momentum that he believed that he was going to be able to build behind his vague proposal that by the 60th day, by today, that he would have Americans swinging from the chandeliers in the Capitol, insisting that we take up his proposal and that somebody file a bill.

We have yet to see a bill offered in this Chamber or in the Chamber across the rotunda, and I think it is interesting to note that these are some of the comments and analyses that have been made at the conclusion of his 60-day tour:

``The President's campaign has frightened people, raising concerns that guaranteed benefits could be cut,'' said William Schneider, who is a public opinion scholar and CNN analyst. ``There's very little evidence in polls that Bush's campaign has been effective.''

``As he nears the end of a 60-day cross-country campaign, President Bush appears to be further from achieving his signature goal of transforming Social Security than when he began.'' That was from USA Today just yesterday, and that was the tip of the iceberg in terms of the commentary and analysis.

I just wonder when the President and the leadership of this body are going to get it. When are they going to tell us, when are they going to come to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and say, okay, we are taking privatization off the table; clearly we do not have any support for that; Americans do not want us to compromise their retirement security, and we are ready to come to the table and compromise, like they did in 1983 when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan came together and preserved Social Security for generations to come. It is just mind-boggling. It really is.

A pretty decent car.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I from Florida are parents, and I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryun) probably plans one day to be a parent. This is the 30-something Working Group.

Exactly. Once you get permission. And, believe me, I know that is definitely something that moms need to grant, or potential moms need to grant permission on. But we have little kids, and anyone out there that is a parent can understand what I am going to talk about now in this way.

It is mind-boggling that the President has not gotten off, after 60 days, the concept of privatization. I liken it to when my children do not like that I have told them no and they stamp their feet and they throw a tantrum. Now, I generally try not to give in, like we are not.

I feel like the Democratic Caucus in the House and Senate are the parents of a child in the White House throwing a temper tantrum, who is insisting that he get his way. And regardless of how many times he is told that he cannot have his way, that sometimes we have to compromise, sometimes we cannot have it exactly the way we want it; just like I explain to my children and I try to sit down and rationally explain to them that we are going to try to give you some of what you want but you are not going to have it

all your way, he continues to stamp his foot just like my kids sometimes do.

It was not lost on me that that was an appropriate analogy. I am certainly hopeful, like I am hopeful with my own kids, that one day they will grow out of it. We keep waiting for the President to grow out of the temper tantrums. It should not be surprising, because we come from a State where his sibling engages in similar activities. It seems to be a family trait. They do not seem to get the message when they are told by their constituents that they are not in agreement with what they are suggesting. They do not appear to be willing to let go and come to the table and compromise.

Now, another analogy I want to draw would be if we were, as Democrats, sticking our heads in the sand because we support Social Security so strongly. If we were here saying there is no problem, Social Security is fine, we should not do anything, then we would be just as guilty as the President and the leadership of this Congress are. But we are not saying that. What we have said from day one is that there is no crisis; that the crisis is manufactured, as my colleague from Ohio said; that we acknowledge that there is a problem, but there is not a problem that reaches anything that we should be significantly concerned about until we in this 30-something Working Group are well into our seventies.

Literally, 36 years from now, in 2041, I will be 74 years old, long past retirement age. When we ask most of our peers, if you ask your friends and our neighbors and friends who are our age, do you think Social Security is going to be there for you, most of our peers do not think it will. But the reality is that it will be there even if we do nothing. And we are not suggesting that we not do anything. We are suggesting that, just like in 1983, that reasonable people on both sides of this debate should come to the table, should try to find some common ground, and should not continue to kick and scream and insist that it is their way or the highway.

Another thing that I wanted to point out, and this is difficult to say, but it is hard to feel that the President is sincere on this issue. When I have a town hall meeting, and I am sure it is this way for my colleagues, I know it is for my colleague from Florida because I have done town hall meetings with him, I really want to know what people think. That is why I do not screen or ask for tickets or check people's opinion at the door.

Literally, the Secret Service this week sent agents to Denver to probe allegations by three area Democrats that they were ousted from President Bush's March 21 event. The three did not stage any protest at the rally and were later told by the Secret Service they were removed because their vehicle displayed an anti-Bush bumper sticker. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the man who removed them was a GOP volunteer, but apparently Mr. McClellan refused to divulge his name or whether he works in Colorado or Washington.

What Mr. McClellan said to this reporter is if someone is coming to an event to disrupt it, they are going to be asked to leave. Apparently, if you have an opinion that differs from the President's and from the message that is designed for that particular town hall meeting, you are not welcome, even if you plan on sitting there and saying nothing.

Now, I heard the President's State of the Union, I heard his Inaugural address, and I heard him talk about democracy. I heard him talk about promoting democracy around the world and how important it was that the greatest democracy in the world set an example, that we be the shining beacon of democracy around the world and that we export democracy.

Well, you know what, how do we do that if we are not setting the best example of what democracy is all about. Would we like it if other nations, other fledgling democracies, started mirroring the conduct that the President is engaged in? I do not think so. I think if we heard an independent news report about some of the activities that the President has engaged in in this debate, we would be outraged.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is saying is absolutely true, and to just continue on the same theme the gentleman is referring to, if we are going to talk about crisis and things that are looming that we need to deal with, why are we not talking about Medicare? The President should be stumping around the country to get the Congress to address the looming crisis in Medicare because it could be more easily argued that Medicare's insolvency, which is much sooner than Social Security, is really going to cause us some tremendous problems.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and I are from a State that if Members want to talk about a crisis, if we have a crisis in Medicare, our constituents are really going to have a dire, serious problem. If that problem is not addressed, then there are senior citizens across this country who will die. There is no question if we do not preserve the ability to provide health care to senior citizens who under this proposal are already going to be in jeopardy because their retirement security is going to be pulled out from

under them, on top of that if we do not fix Medicare, we will not provide them with health care.

I would love to see the President stumping to try to address that problem. I can assure the President he would have a lot more willing participants, at least on our side, at least from me and from Members who represent States with significant senior populations.

Social Security is often thought of as just a program that benefits senior citizens; and people think if you did a man or woman interview on the street, and asked people who benefits from Social Security, virtually everyone on the street would say that Social Security benefits senior citizens.

In Florida, for example, children who are under 17, there are 174,500 current Social Security beneficiaries, kids who are receiving Social Security either because they are dependents of people receiving SSI because they are disabled or they are survivors of a deceased Social Security recipient. Again, that number is 174,530 kids under 17. And between the ages of 18 and 39, 71,870 Floridians receive Social Security benefits.

That is one of the things that has been lost that each week we have been trying to drive home, lost in this privatization debate. The President has basically wiped the table, or essentially wiped the floor, to be a little more direct about it, when it comes to the people who collect Social Security because they are disabled, which is a third, who are disabled, who are survivors and are receiving survivor benefits. They do not earn an income, so what happens to them when we privatize Social Security? Or when there are annuities and we yank Social Security benefits out from under people who are earning an income, and we are doing nothing for people who are survivors or who are disabled? It is like they do not exist. It is like if we ignore them, maybe they will go away.

I have yet to hear a response from the President or the leadership of this Congress about what we are going to do to help people who are disabled and who are survivors of Social Security recipients when Social Security is privatized and then shrivels up and blows away.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I think it is really safe to say that both of their remarks are cogent, and I think it is safe to say that we are really disturbed about the direction that this country is going in and the direction that the leadership is taking us. It is time to restore some balance.

We have got a Congress that sees nothing wrong with inserting itself in the midst of a private family tragedy a few weeks ago. Now they want to take Social Security, the most successful program that supports Americans throughout their retirement years, 70 years of success, they want to take it off the tracks. They want to yank the safety net out from under our retirees and under our generation. Because if the President is ensuring that people 55 and over are going to be okay, what is he saying to the rest of us? ``You may not be okay but I do not care.'' I mean that is a really foreboding message that he is sending to our generation.

And I tell the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) I do not think he has to worry about standing alone, because there were more than 3,000 people at that rally with us today, more than 100 Members of Congress, and it appears in the feedback we have gotten from across this country that we are standing together, not alone; that we have lots of people behind us and they are trying to send a very strong message to the leadership of this Congress and to the President that privatization needs to be dropped, that we need to stop talking about it, that we need to come to the table together and compromise, that we need to right the train.

And I am going to just take the privilege of my gender here for a couple of minutes, since I am the woman of the three of us, and just talk about the possibility of privatization's impact on women, because it is disproportionate. It really is. More than 40 years after the Equal Pay Act, women still only earn 76 cents on the dollar for what a man earns, 76 cents. One cannot save what they do not earn. This proposal will disproportionately impact women.

In fact, because of childbearing years and care for sick or elderly parents, on average, women are generally out of the work force for about 12 years. Older women are less likely than older men to receive pension income. Only about 28 percent of women compared to 43

percent of men have a pension. So when they do receive pensions, the benefit to women is only about half what a man will receive.

So what that boils down to is that when a woman received her Social Security retirement benefits in 2003, the average monthly benefit for a woman was only $798, which is about $241 less than the average man's monthly retirement.

What will happen to women, because we have got 20 percent of single women who are widowed, who are Social Security beneficiaries who are collecting Social Security today, about 20 percent of those women, the only source of their retirement income is Social Security?

We are just yanking out the security and the safety that we have guaranteed where we are going from a guaranteed benefit to a guaranteed gamble. And that is what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has been saying and leading us at the rally today and all the way leading up to today. We cannot shift the whole nature of Social Security from a guaranteed benefit to a guaranteed gamble. We have to keep the security in Social Security. That is the bottom line.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both of these gentlemen. I am losing the prop board here, but I wanted to close by quoting the President. He said, ``Leadership means not passing problems on to future generations and future Presidents.''

This plan passes trillions of dollars of debt on to our children and our grandchildren, and it is time that we all exercise some leadership, come together and think about the direction that this country is going in, bring it back to the center, restore some balance, come to the table and compromise, and take privatizing Social Security off the table and not yank the safety net from under our constituents.