Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to be before the House of Representatives. I would also like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing the 30-something Working Group to reappear on the floor again for another week to talk about issues that are facing 30-somethings throughout this country and are also facing Americans in general.

When we talk about issues such as Social Security, the debt, national security, health care, education, those are issues that we all care about. And for the last couple of weeks, we have been talking about Social Security, talking about strengthening Social Security, talking about making sure that Social Security is there for not only the 30- somethings but the 20-somethings, those that are receiving survivor benefits, retirees that are receiving benefits from Social Security, the 48 million Americans that we speak of, and also those that are receiving disability because of an injury while they were working.

But it is an honor being here once again with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Last week we recessed for Memorial Day, or Memorial week, and I had an opportunity to go to Puerto Rico to speak, along with the Senate president of the Puerto Rican Senate, to put 20-plus names on the wall of proud Puerto Ricans that died in the line of duty defending our great country.

They are great Americans, and I was glad to be there. It was really a moving event for me. They even added the name of a fallen hero from World War II. In Puerto Rico it is kind of hard. Here in the United States they usually say that a person is from the place that they trained or the base where they were assigned, not necessarily where they came from. So the family went through a lot of trouble in trying to get this information up and finally were able to place him on Memorial Wall there by the state capital for Puerto Rico, the capital of that territory.

It is good to see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is very interesting. I am so glad. For us, we hear it, we know it here in the Halls of this Congress. That is what we were elected for here, to find out this information, to not only share this information with our colleagues in this Chamber and Democrats and Republicans and the one Independent we have here in this House, to share that information with them, but it is important that we do not allow some of these statements that are being made while the President and others are flying around burning all kind of Federal jet fuel saying otherwise, that it is a crisis.

I think the American people know exactly what is going on. It is our job to make sure that in the minority, since we talk about this, we have to explain what the minority-majority issue means. It is important for everyone to know that Democrats, we are in the minority in this House. We cannot agenda bills to come to the floor. We cannot call hearings or committee meetings. All of these privileges are left to the majority, which is the Republican Party at this particular time.

We also have to remember that for many of the issues we are talking about here there are alternatives to those issues. We will be talking about those tonight.

This Federal debt that you have here on the chart right beside you, every American's share of that debt that is on that chart, we had a solution for it and it worked. We were dealing with surpluses. Now we are dealing with that large number.

Reclaiming my time, I will say this: When we balanced the budget, we did it without one Republican vote in this House. Our children did not have to pay $26,349.67. Someone who was just born when we started this Special Order already owes that to the Federal Government. Those are the issues we talk about.

But as relates to Social Security, one may say, what are Democrats standing for? We are standing for strengthening Social Security, bottom line. We stand for what happened when Tip O'Neill was in that Chair and Ronald Reagan was in the White House and how they came together and came up with the bipartisan bill without privatization. That is what we stand for.

We look to go back to the days when we saw the Senate, the other body, voting to adopt a Social Security plan 58 to 14. That is bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans. In 1983, when this House voted to put Social Security where it is now, because, as you mentioned, into 40-plus years, and I would just say 40-plus, even though we know it is higher, 100 percent of the benefits will be provided and then 80 percent after that. But in 1983 this House, and it was a Democratic House at that time, but that did not matter, because we moved in a bipartisan way, some 243 Members of the House versus 102 voted for Social Security. If you want to break it down at the partisan level, it was 80 Republicans that voted for, 48 against; 163 Democrats voted for, 54 against. That is a bipartisan bill that passed this House. The discussion that is going on today is far from that.

To start talking about, well, Democrats, they do not want to do anything, or they just want to keep things in the status quo, well, guess what? My constituents are not calling me complaining about Social Security. I do not think the gentleman's constituents are calling him either. Because it is one of the best Federal programs and initiatives that has ever been launched in this country.

We want to strengthen it. We want to strengthen it without going to privatization. From the beginning they are saying benefits will be cut even if you are not part of the privatization program. If you opt not to be a part of the majority side privatization plan, you still lose benefits. So I do not understand the logic there.

But when I started looking at the information and we started looking at the Congressional Budget Office and what they are saying, the only plus benefit I can see here is $940 billion to Wall Street.

Guess what? I care about the folks that sent me up here from Florida. I care about their well-being. I care about them receiving 100 percent of their benefits versus 70 percent. They paid into it, and they have the right to have their benefits.

Now I just want to say this again, because I want to make sure there is no confusion in this House: To the Members that are watching us, to make sure that they understand that we want to strengthen Social Security without taking us further into debt, and if we have to deal with the whole issue of borrowing the money, at least have a plan to pay it back. That is how we got to that number; not ``we,'' but the majority side, because we have been voting against the budget that they put forth. We have just been spending on a credit card. Where is my credit card? If I can have it, this is the congressional spending credit card right here.

I do not consider myself a hard partisan, because I have some good friends on the other side of the aisle that care about this, that care about this Federal debt. They do not believe in using a credit card to give out all kind of cake and ice cream when we do not need it as relates to the Federal dollar. I am using ``cake and ice cream'' as a metaphor. Because if I was to feed my kids only cake and ice cream, what kind of health will they be in?

If we just spend and borrow and allow foreign countries to hold 44 percent of our debt and say we are a financial superpower, that is a misstatement, because soon it is going to be over 50 percent, if some of the Members of Congress, and I mean some of our Members on the majority side, if they do not go see the wizard and say, ``you know something? I came here as a fiscal conservative and I want to leave here as a fiscal conservative.''

But I can tell you one thing. The leadership on the other side is damaging that image of those individuals that came here. So, obviously, we are in a Federal debt situation, and growing.

We are going to have to make one of two things happen: Either the American people are going to have to rise up and say, enough is enough, we are saying we are going to deal with Social Security for future generations and then we hand our children a debt that as far as the eye can see and say you handle it? When the President marched down this aisle here, went up to the podium and said, if you are over 55, do not worry about it? So now grandparents and parents over 55 are supposed to say to their kids and grandchildren, good luck?

That is the reason why I believe we do not have a bill coming to this floor on Social Security. Yes, there is some discussion, but I believe as long as the majority side leadership and the President are talking about the privatization, the gamble of Social Security, and if you look at some of the articles that are coming out now on this whole issue, you have to be very skeptical of what the President is talking about.

Even the poll that came out, the Washington Post-ABC News poll, I wanted to talk about that, because we are not talking about issues facing Americans.

Health care. When a company's employees come in and start looking at the benefit package, and the small business owner says you will be better off getting Medicaid versus the plan that we offer because the premiums are too high, that is not health care.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion or my opinion or the gentlewoman from Florida's (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) opinion or anyone in the 30-something Working Group's opinion, as long as they have merit and foundation, and that it is meaningful and that it is fair play.

And there is nothing personal about what we are talking about. I mean, one may speak of the President, but the bottom line is that the President is term-limited out. There is not anyone who thinks there is some political motivation here to try to make the President look bad; this is not the intent here. The intent is saying that there are leaders in this House, may they be Democrat or Republican, who are going to have to rise up and say, you know, you are wrong, I am sorry.

We are going to talk a little further about young people and dealing with debt; but before the gentleman takes that chart down, I want to make sure, because we are both on the Committee on Armed Services and we are dealing with the issue of national security, and we are dealing with making sure that our democracy stays strong and we protect the homeland. So I think that chart there is very appropriate that the gentleman has up there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure because, once again, I believe in third-party validators, and I believe that it is important that if folks want the current number as we stand right now as it relates to the Federal debt and where these numbers come from, I think it is important. I just want to make sure that the Members understand. The U.S. Treasury Web site will give this information also; you can go to www.house.gov/budget/democrats_, just to make sure that you are able to get that information and pull it up for yourselves and share it with your family and friends, and I do mean that in the most serious way. I think it is important that we share that information.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing that the gentleman mentioned before I yield back; there are a number of things that are going on in the economic sense. We talk about Social Security, because it is economics for families. And I think that it really, really hits home when families are going to have to find a way, how they are going to make up for that 30 percent that they are going to lose under the President's plan and the majority's plan.

A part of this effort of coming to the floor every week, our working group meets and we talk about these issues, are for the following reasons: one, we want to let folks know that we want to strengthen Social Security. I do not think there is a Member on the Democratic side, and I will even add some of my friends on the Republican side, who do not want to strengthen Social Security. Folks get elected protecting Social Security. But for the life of me, I do not understand why we do not have more of our Republican colleagues letting the President know we appreciate you on their side of the aisle, we voted for you, but you are wrong. And, I mean, that takes courage, and it takes leadership. I think it is important so that we can move on to issues of dealing with Social Security so we are not stuck in neutral or in park on Social Security because someone has said that is the only way we will deal with Social Security unless the private sector gets its cut. So I think it is important that we understand that.

There is an article today in The Washington Post that is talking about ``big pension plans fall further behind,'' and this is exactly what the President is talking about. I have airline pilots, I fly back and forth from Miami to here, and they are telling me, they used to get $12,000 in pension a month on their pension plans. Now it is down to $2,000. That is what we are going to do with Social Security, which is security, the word security, saying that it will be there for you. So I think that is important.

But I just wanted to share that piece, because I think it is important that we add that information in so folks do not feel that this is the Tim Ryan philosophy or the Kendrick Meek philosophy. This is a bipartisan effort here as it relates to getting the information, especially from the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Speaker, there are even some folks who would start a freedom caucus in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, and I am glad that the gentleman shared that information as it relates to the debt that young people are in now. But guess what? Who is going to help them pay that debt? Nine times out of 10 they are going to come out and try to get a job and I guarantee you, dealing with that kind of debt, and we want them to be able to move into a home, I mean they are going to be living with their parents writing their name on orange

juice saying that they will get out of the house some day because they owe so much.

Now, I am going to talk about what Democrats are doing to put money into the pockets of Americans who are going to educate themselves, making this country strong. Are you ready?

We spend a lot of time making sure we have answers to problems, and I think it is important that the Members understand, if this was a Democratic House, as it stands now, this would not even be a discussion, this would already be an action, or some of the stuff that is happening to Americans would not be happening.

Now, Democrats in this House, we introduced a bill that would help over 1.3 million Americans as it relates to not losing money in their student loans and Pell grants. We talk about the Bush administration and the majority. Well, I can tell my colleagues that late last year in the 108th Congress, 1.3 million college students will lose Federal scholarships, will be unfairly reduced, their scholarship money will be reduced starting in the 2005-2006 school year due to congressional change that the Bush administration and the majority side made to the formula. And what Democrats are doing, we have put forth a bill to replace those dollars to make sure that young people who are trying to go to college, they will have an opportunity to go and not come out in that kind of debt.

It is going to get worse. Those are numbers under the present situation. The debt ratio on those kids and those young people that are trying to educate themselves, some are men and women that are serving in uniform, some are individuals that are trying to better themselves, these cuts will make over $300 million in a reduction in their scholarship money. So we have legislation that is on the floor now to replace those dollars.

Now, all we can do as Democrats is try to fight through the tall bushes here in the House, here in Washington, D.C., to try to replace that money for these young people. The gentleman talks about freedom. That is definitely not financial freedom, I say to the gentleman.

I will tell my colleague another thing on top of that: we are not only working with what we have and putting forth legislation, but we are also urging young people now, today, now, and parents and Members of this House that have children that have college debt or loans that they owe, to consolidate those loans now before July 1, because on July 1, the interest rate will go up 2 percentage points.

So you have the opportunity to do it now and work very hard. If you have a problem in getting good information on how to consolidate, there is information on line that they can use to be able to consolidate that information. You can go on the www.pirg.org/consolidation. That is pirg.org/consolidation to learn more. Or you can go on the House Democrat's Web site, which is www.house.gov/Georgemiller, who is our ranking member on education and workforce. That is house.gov/georgemiller.gov.

I think that is important, to be able to share that information. Because this is for real. This is what everyday Americans are facing. This is not fiction. This is not what we should do or what we want to do. This is exposing what is going on here in Washington, D.C., $300 million to kids and young people that are trying to educate themselves.

Better yet, the President comes up here, tells folks over 55, do not worry about the Social Security issue. You will not be affected. We are doing this for future generations. And this is what we are doing to future generations.

So I would say this again to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) who is here, that when the rubber meets the road this is what we are doing. Well, when it does meet the road, and which it has met the road now, we have this kind of scenario for young people, coming out with not only student loan debts, but only a Federal debt to the Federal Government, so you might as well make that a little under $50,000, when they come out of college in what they owe.

I am so happy that that my colleague from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) is fighting these battles, who used to be chair of the education, higher education committee in the House of Representatives when we were in the Florida House of Representatives a couple of years, well more than a couple of years ago, but dealt with these issues that are facing young people. And I am so glad you are here.

Or allow Americans to get themselves in that position. I know that this is a country based on freedom but not based on ignorance. It is important that we share this information. If we know better, we will do better.

And the bottom line is, if the leadership was in place here in this House, the $300 million that I spoke of that took place in the 108th Congress in the closing days of the Congress has reduced the amount of money that students are able to get as it relates to their Pell Grants, it never would have

happened if we were in control, if this was a Democratic House.

So the challenge has to be there for the majority side to do better; and the bottom line is, better is not happening when it comes down to those kinds of statistics that you have there, Mr. Ryan, that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) just spoke about. I think it is important that we remember.

So we talk about solutions. Solutions is making sure that we make good decisions and we have good leaders in place that will allow legislation to either be stopped that is bad, coming from the other body, or recommendations from the White House, just say no, this will not happen. We are looking for future generations, and we are here to protect future generations.

But the bottom line is, if we continue to do this kind of rubber- stamping that is going on here on Capitol Hill, we are going to continue to go on a downward spiral. The deficit will continue to get higher. In the 108th Congress, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I said, well, this is the highest debt in the history of the Republic. How could it get worse? It is worse now, and it will continue to get worse until something different happens here in this Chamber and in this Capitol and in this city. So it is important that we look at these issues.

You know, what is very disturbing is when we commemorate or recognize or reflect on those that have fallen for our democracy, our veterans or our past veterans or those that did not even get an opportunity to be a veteran because they were an enlisted person and they died. Right down the street from here is Arlington Cemetery. When their colleagues or comrades that served with them, you know, side by side, and they come to Washington, D.C., to remember those that have fallen and to know when we honor them on one day, even on Veterans Day, we honor them on two days, their sacrifice to our country, and better yet on that next day, that Tuesday, they are waiting 6 months to see the ophthalmologist or they have to pay more on a copayment.

We did not keep up with our end of the promise. You know something, it is even harder to keep up with it because of this Federal debt. But we would much rather make those that have been extremely, extremely successful in this country to save a few more dollars.

There is actually another article that I am going to bring up a little later, but I just want to share this with you all. My uncle served in Korea, and he took a bus up here with some other veterans when we dedicated the World War II Memorial out in the Mall here.

2200

It was a well-attended event, very historic. My mother came, a past Member of this Congress. We sat out there. And they had all the World War II veterans and veterans in general stand up. Some of them could stand. Some of them could only put their hand up in the air.

When you look at what is happening here with the Federal debt, taking this Federal credit card that I keep pulling up and charging it to the American people and to their future for many of the wrong reasons, it cannot help but make you very upset with the individuals that are making the decisions. And that is where the rubber meets the road.

When you start looking at those who have served, who allow us to celebrate the very freedom that we live under right now, and they are having to run around here worrying about if they can make a co-payment or not. You go to the VA hospital, they do not treat.

There are not a lot of veterans, unfortunately, that are Members of Congress, or maybe it would be a lot different in this town. They are waiting and waiting. And some of them call my office. Congressman, this is all I need. Can you help me?

It should not be an act of Congress to get what they need to get out of the VA or veteran benefits in general. And we are about to have a whole other crop of veterans after this war or after some of them leave the military that are going to need those services. And I guarantee you right now there is not an American that I run into that says, Congressman, we are giving the veterans too much. If anything, can you do something. There is a veteran next to me, he is not even part of a meal program because he or she cannot afford to get it.

So I would just leave it at that because I am getting upset talking about it.

I do not want to be greedy on the time, but I just have to say this to my colleagues, what happened? Was it the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) that stood up and said, we are going to do the right thing. A Republican chairman. We are going to do the right thing by our veterans, and I am going to pass a budget that is going to help the veterans.

You know what happened to him. They moved him off the committee. He lost his chairmanship. This is not the Wasserman Schultz/Ryan/Meek story. This happened and veterans throughout this country know it happened.

So when we start talking approximate issues such as Social Security; we start talking about Medicare when we were told $350 billion and now it is up to $724 billion; when we start talking about issues such as Leave No Child Behind authorization bill far beyond what the appropriations actually is, folks have to pay attention to this. And I will guarantee you this, if we had the opportunity to run this House, this would be a nonissue. As a matter of fact, we would be working in a bipartisan way to correct some of these issues. We are not saying Democrats will do it. No. Democrats and Republicans and the one Independent in this House will do it. So this is so very, very important.

You know something, I do not care. I hope that there is a Member in a leadership position right now that is listening that is saying we have got to change this because the pressure is being applied by the Democratic side of this aisle. And if they do not take the leadership responsibility to do what they have to do on behalf of these Americans, then guess what, they may be making a career decision. That is what democracy is all about. So I feel in no way sorry by pointing out the blatant inequities in leadership and being able to provide for those veterans and being able to provide for future veterans when we start talking about Social Security and what we should be doing here in Washington.

Let us get into some closing comments because we have about 5 minutes left.

Www.pirg.org/consolidation. Student loans, get them consolidated before the interest rate goes up almost 2 percent by the first of next month. And 70 percent of our troops are under the age of 30, which is a younger generation right now fighting in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honor to be here before the House of Representatives and have an opportunity to speak to the Members and to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we would also like to thank the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), along with the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and our chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, and also the vice chair, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for providing the kind of leadership that Americans need and want here in this great country of ours.

This week, as every week, we come to the Floor, the 30-something Working Group that was formed in the 108th Congress by Leader Pelosi to talk about the issues that are not only facing the 30-somethings, but also facing the American people in general.

We also come to the Floor, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), my good friend, we come to the floor to be able to talk about a number of issues, not only Social Security, but also student loans; to talk about issues facing the environment, as well as the ever-growing debt, which is always on our agenda.

Without any further ado, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) how much I appreciate the fact that he commits, and our good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who will not be here tonight, every night to come to the floor to share good and accurate information not only with the Members of Congress, but with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), just one moment. I want to ask just a quick question. What is a crisis? I mean, the President is saying, and some of the Members of the majority side leadership are saying that Social Security is in a crisis. And I cannot help but look in the dictionary when we start talking about crisis, because a crisis, there are a number of things that we can point out that are actually a crisis. And as the gentleman from Ohio knows, we received some e-mails that I hoped the gentleman would read early in our Special Order here. But we took a look at Webster's and exactly what does crisis mean. And basically it says, an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty.

Now, 40 years from now, as the gentleman from Ohio had the other chart here, I could say that it would be a crisis if Social Security, like the administration and the majority side use words like, is going bankrupt. What does bankrupt mean? Bankrupt means that there is no money coming in or no money going out, and it is tomorrow, and it is eminent danger.

There is no money. And I can tell the gentleman from Ohio right now, from what the gentleman has just said, and it is not just the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Ryan) report. That is from the Congressional Budget Office of this House of Representatives that put forth the kind of information that we need here in Congress, that we need to share with the American people and the Members of this Congress.

I think it is also important to understand that, yes, we do want to work on Social Security and strengthen Social Security on this side of the aisle, but

we will not buy into the rhetoric of a crisis.

I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a crisis, in my opinion, is what we are in on the deficit. We are at a crisis level when it comes down to the deficit. Highest deficit in the history of the Republic.

You want to know what a crisis is? And I hope that we continue to share this with our colleagues. A crisis is that family right now that is a part of the 46 million American families that are working that do not have health insurance. That is a crisis. A crisis is the fact that small businesses cannot provide health care insurance for their employees. Many businesses are telling their employees you can get a better plan if you apply for Medicaid. That is a crisis.

Furthermore, if you want to talk about a crisis, a crisis is families trying to put gas in their tank. That is a crisis, because some families have had to put their car down to try to figure out some sort of way that they can be able to take their kids to school or football or soccer or Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts, to be able to conduct themselves in the way that they want to. That is a crisis, these gas prices that have doubled and tripled in some cases.

And then we talk about issues that are facing our veterans. Providing health care for our veterans, that is a crisis. And so there are a number of issues that are out there. And I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) this whole issue of abuse of power, I am sorry, I just want to point out a few things.

Because we are, I think those of us that are in 30-something, and Members of the Congress, are sick and tired of individuals in Washington using Social Security as though there is some sort of imminent danger or, going back to the definition, an unstable situation.

I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) just briefly, but before the gentleman moves from that chart, I think I know the reason why some in Washington want to try to fool the American public that there is a crisis, because we have individuals that are on Wall Street that have been guaranteed, if the President has his way, if the majority side leadership have their way, that they will receive over the next 20 years $944 billion worth of the taxpayers' money in risky investment, Social Security. So I think that is the crisis of trying to close the deal before the term runs out on the present President and the term may run out on the present leadership.

But I can tell the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), I want to talk, when the gentleman is finished, when the gentleman makes the point that the gentleman is about to make, I want to make sure that we share with the Members, if we had the opportunity to lead, not necessarily you and me, but the Democratic side, working with some of our Republican friends that understand the importance of making sure that we work for all Americans and making sure that Social Security is strengthened.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we bring about great clarification of our message to make sure that individuals do not get confused of what the real issue here is. The real issue, I think, the reason why individuals want to, leadership on the majority side and the White House, want to talk about a crisis situation in Social Security is because they do not want to talk about health care. They do not want to talk about the issues that many Americans have to deal with on a day-in-and-day-out basis. I call it drugstore health care; when your child is sick, because you do not have health insurance, 46 million Americans without health insurance that are working families without health insurance, they have to go to a CVS or a Walgreens or a Rite-Aid or whatever the case may be, or Wal-Mart pharmacy, to make their kids better or try to hope that they just have a cold because they do not have the proper health care.

And I am so glad that House Democrats are committed to taking the bold necessary steps to move us in the right direction of making sure that we do what we are supposed to do for Americans.

In the 108th Congress, we worked very hard with Partnership for America's Future that reaffirms our commitment in six core areas. And those six areas are, making sure that we have American values, prosperity, national security, fairness, opportunity, community, and also accountability. And I think it is important that we think about that, and that is something that is not happening right now.

Now, one may argue, well, what is stopping you from doing that? I can tell you what is stopping us from doing that, not being in the majority here in the House of Representatives.

And I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) that I think what is important is that we have to share with our colleagues and also with the American people, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we hold the individuals that are sent here to Washington accountable not only for their actions but also for their inactions. And so when we start talking about crisis, look right, but we are really going left. And I think it is important that we point these issues out.

It is important that we take bold steps in expanding affordable health care and the health care coverage, including mental health coverage, making sure that we cut health care costs, increasing biomedical research, and also reducing racial and ethnic disparities, expanding affordable health care as it relates to coverage for small businesses by creating a new purchasing pool that will allow 50 percent tax credit to help small businesses and self-employed individuals in their health care costs.

That is Democratic legislation that is already filed in this Congress that should move, would move, if we had the Democratic leadership that we talked about early on in this hour. If they were in control, it would not be an issue of saying that is what we would like to do. And I think it is important, it is very important that not only Members of Congress understand our responsibility in standing up to the real needs of Americans that are out there now, but to make sure that we are able to stand up and say that health care is a crisis, the issue of our environment is a crisis, the deficit is a crisis, and not just say it as buzz words or in a speech or a punch line.

When you have employees that are healthy, you have what? A more productive company. And then what do you have then? You have more productive American workers that will be able to compete against other countries that are competing against us now.

Before the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) goes to the chart, I think it is important we talk about the fact that health care costs, when we start talking about cutting health care costs, we have to look at the issue as it relates to prescription drugs.

I think it was a blown opportunity here on this floor by the majority side saying they were carrying out true prescription drug reform and failed to do so by not allowing us to negotiate with drug companies to have lower prices, not only for seniors but for people with disabilities. Also, guaranteed American consumers the right to deal with the whole issue of importation.

I have some reservations about that, but the real issue is the fact that we have Americans that are now making a choice between groceries and prescription drugs. We still have Americans, and I am not just talking about older Americans, I am talking about middle-aged Americans and even children, because a number of children are on prescription drugs, be it for allergies, or middle-aged Americans taking heart medication or medication for diabetes or other ailments that we found that through prescription drugs that can prevent death or prolong life they are making decisions.

They have to make decisions. So they are excited about the fact that we are looking at prescription drug reform, but it was not a true bipartisan effort because if it was we would have negotiating power. And I will tell Members right now, because I want to make sure that my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that the American people understand that the Democrats have a bill filed right now to allow that to happen. Prescription drug costs would go down if we were in charge of this House right now.

But still, if we were in control of this House, if the American people said they were going to allow Democrats to be the majority in this House, we would have the following:

We would have a Social Security debate about strengthening Social Security, not privatizing it. We will have not only a debate but we will have a bipartisan bill to make sure we can combine buying power to take prescription drug costs down for everyday Americans. We would not only have legislation that will be true environmental legislation, but it would be bipartisan legislation because we believe in working together with, at that time if we have a perfect situation where we are in a majority, working with the minority party in doing that.

We would also have a health care plan, a health care plan that is a 6-point plan that would bring about health insurance for everyday working Americans, and also allow those Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 to be able to buy into Medicare early so they would have an opportunity to take advantage of good health care at a low cost as they reach their years of the 60s and 70s. So that is so very important.

I am not laying ``what if,'' but I am saying what could be. And so I am saying this more of a challenge to the Members on the majority side because they do have the power. They have the power to be able to set the agenda and say what will be able to come to the floor. They have the power to be able to say that this is what we are going to work on and this is what we are not going to work on. I think it is important that the American people and I think the Members of this Congress also understand, Mr. Speaker, that the power of the majority sets the agenda and what happens in this House, nothing comes to this floor without the authority of the Republican leadership in this House.

Now, I am going to tell you, because I always, I do not use it as a disclaimer, I am seeing it as a Member of this House and someone that communicates with Members of the majority party, there are a number of Republicans that will go unnamed because of repercussions that want to see that kind of environment return back to this House, a true bipartisan environment that we had in 1983 when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill brought about the kind of bipartisan partnership we

needed to save Social Security at that time, a true bipartisan vote, not bickering, not we are going to run Social Security into the ground in some sort of schemey privatization plan, but a true approach to making sure that we do the right thing.

So it is important that individuals understand that bills like the bill that we have here on the floor to drive down prescription drug costs that we would like to pull out of on this discharge petition that is right here behind the gentleman for Members to sign to be able to have a true debate as it relates to bringing down prescription drugs costs, the buying power which AARP is on board with us on. But I think it is also important for issues as it relates to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the gentleman does not leave out what is happening to the American worker and our negative trade balance. If I can say the word China, I would like to say that, because I think it is important that not only Members of Congress understand our responsibility but the American people also understand what is happening right now. It is not on the 6 o'clock news, but if someone is at home right now without a job wondering where their job went, wondering why the factory, especially in the gentleman's State of Ohio, the whistle in that factory is no longer blowing when they knock off, like a blue collar worker would say, for the evening, while no lunch box is there, be it a man or woman.

The reason why we are continuing to put forth trade agreements in my State that are putting agriculture industries out of business or having them to give away jobs like the citrus industry, like the sugar industry and the nursery plant industry that is in my county of Miami Dade County that are concerned about these free trade agreements that are taking place.

Now, I voted for some free trade agreements, but I will state that some of those agreements that are coming down the pike are going to hurt the American worker and continue to give away the kind of apple pie that we have been talking about for so many years.

Before the gentleman leaves that chart, would he please let the Members know and, Mr. Speaker, we definitely want the American people to know where this information comes from, because I want to make sure we are clear.

Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman moves that chart, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office where the gentleman got this information from, am I right?

That is the question.

No, I want the gentleman to talk about it because he is doing such a great job.

Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to explain it because this issue is so very, very important. We both are on the Committee on Armed Services, and we know what it means as it relates to not only national security but financial security.

What is happening right now, and that is why it is important not only to the 30-somethings but to the 20-somethings and the teenagers and those that are yet unborn and also those seniors that understand what is going on, even the 50-somethings and the 60-somethings because this goes towards, I believe, our national security when we start looking at this issue.

Please explain.

Mr. Speaker, as I look at the printed material that I have before me, I cannot help but say this maybe is at the crisis level. Maybe what the gentleman just pointed out, maybe the fact that we have the highest deficit in the history of the Republic, maybe because we have a number of Americans that are still cutting pills in half after we, the Congress, or the majority side, has said we have done all that we can do. Maybe that is the crisis.

Maybe it is important to let not only the majority side know, but also the American people know that it is about who is running this House and who is not raising an objection to what has happened already, let alone what is going to continue to happen. If left up to the mechanics of the majority right now, 41 percent will be the early years of foreign countries buying our debt.

Mr. Speaker, it may very well go to 55 percent if the American people do not hold us accountable for the decisions we are making, or the decisions we are not making. I think it is important, and we have to talk a little bit about extreme measures in the Congress.

We know there are a number of issues that have come before us, and the American people are saying, When are you going to do something about the problems that we talk about every day? However, we spend more time in this Congress, especially in this House, getting involved in personal matters of families, taking the rules like the other side has attempted to do, which I understand some sort of deal has been worked out now on the other side of this Capitol as it relates to the filibuster, the other body. It is unfortunate we have to go to these extreme measures to threaten our way of democracy before we start to try to bring the best out of many Members of Congress.

I am concerned when the majority side in the 108th Congress made it illegal, prohibited the Medicare powers-that-be within the Federal Government to negotiate with drug companies for lower costs. They could have not addressed it and left it as a gray area for the administrators to say, maybe we can do something. But so indebted to big pharmaceutical companies, they prohibited it from happening.

That means if the administration said, Yes, we can bring diabetes or heart medication down $15 if we were to use our buying power with the drug companies. If you do it, you are not only making a career decision; it has been prohibited in Federal law.

I am so glad that so many of us on this side of the aisle, I mean record numbers, voted against that prescription drug scheme, because it is not providing what the American people were told it would provide. AARP, along with others, understand that now and that is why they are fighting to bring those prices down.

Let me tell Members something. Being from Florida, prescription drug costs are a very important issue. Being a middle-aged American, 30- something, or heading to middle age, this is an important issue to my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I have said this before: We were not elected to have better health care than our constituents. I did not run into anyone at the polling place at 7 a.m. who walked up to me and said, ``I am voting to make sure you and your family have better health care than I have. I cannot wait to go in there and vote for you so you can be better off than I am.''

Mr. Speaker, they elected us to come to this House and fight on their behalf to make sure that that individual voter and their families and future generations have better opportunities than what they have. We are not doing that now.

If we were in control, because I want to make sure that we really emphasize, if Democrats were in the majority, again I will say it, and I said it earlier in this hour, we would not be having a debate on privatization because privatization is bad. Individuals lose benefits under the privatization scheme that the President has put forth, if you are in the plan or not. That is the reason why the President has lower approval ratings as it relates to his Social Security privatization scheme. I would be worried out of my mind if it was the other way around, but people are getting it.

I can tell you another thing, we would not be having a discussion about why 46 million American families that are working do not have health care because this House would be moving in that direction to provide the health care that I talked about in our six-point plan, and also our partnership with America, which is a real plan that has accountability and has follow-through. It would not be a discussion, to point out the issue of the deficit and the fact that every American at birth, when we started this hour, at birth already owed the Federal Government $26,349.67 and it has gone up since we have been here on this floor. It would not be a debate because we would be doing something about it.

We understand if we are going to do something in this Congress, we are going to start a new program, we are going to point out how we are going to pay for it, and that is not what the majority side is doing now.

The last point, because I can go on about the issue of responsibility and accountability, there would not be a what-if discussion as it relates to how we conduct business in this House and the real issues that are facing American families, programs that are working. Cut out the devolution of taxation to local governments and also to our State governments. There would not be a crisis as it relates to Medicaid and States ever running deficits in the States due to the fact that they have to balance their budget. Unlike our Congress, they have to balance their budgets on the backs of cutting programs that are helping so many young people stay out of trouble.

It would not be a what-if discussion; it would actually be reality. And the good thing that I am excited about, because of the leadership we have, the Democratic Caucus, it would be bipartisan. That is something that every American wants. They want to take the politics out of doing business here in Washington, D.C.

That is the reason why our work is so important, making sure we come to this floor week after week, and letting it be known that we are doing all we can in the capacity that we are serving in to not only let the Members of Congress know about responsibilities and

what we can do versus what we cannot do, but also letting the American people know what is happening here as it relates to individuals taking leadership positions, wanting to take action, and those that do not want to take leadership positions and do not take action. That is the real issue here.

That is the reason why if there is a Republican, Independent, Democrat, Green Party, what have you, these issues get those individuals together because it is talking about real-life issues. The information that we are providing here, this is not something we were in the back of the room saying, Let us use that number, it looks good. It is bipartisan Congressional Budget Office information. This is information from outside sources that have a credible way of receiving their information, have credibility in the United States of America.

So I think it is important for us to not only challenge the majority side because competition is good. I believe in that. Challenge the majority side, but also let the American people know if we had the opportunity to lead this House what this Congress could be and what it needs to be.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio did make the point of what is actually happening here, and I think it is important that we highlight that. We are going to close out. I see my Republican colleagues that are here. We got a little excited in talking about some of these issues, but I want to make sure that when you mentioned the veterans, like I said before and I have said like three times during this Special Order, we do have some friends on the Republican side of the aisle that see it and get it. Okay? But this is what happens to them when they do the right thing and this is from Fox News.

Representative Chris Smith, former chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, passed a Veterans Administration budget that put him on the opposite side of his leadership on the Republican side. Actually doing what he should do as a chairman for the veterans. What happened? Did he get a parade? Did he get a commendation from the Republican leadership in their caucus? No. He got fired. He was ripped of his chairmanship. And so when we start talking about what we want and what we actually get, that is a perfect example.

We had nothing to do with him being removed. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader, had nothing to do with him being removed. The Republican leadership removed him. It is very unfortunate that that took place. I would say this, it is important that we come to the floor with solutions and not just problems. I am glad that we shared with the American people and also Members of this House what we have in store for them. Before we close, does the gentleman want to give this e-mail out quickly?

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the time here on floor. We would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us to have this time on the Democratic side.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the passing of Captain Alexander Ashe, Jr., an accomplished law enforcement professional and tireless community servant and activist, who died last Friday, May 13, 2005. Captain Ashe joined the Miami-Dade Police Department (MDPD) in December 1973. He leaves behind a legacy of achievement and inspiration, for he was an example of what genuine caring and unrelenting commitment can accomplish. His passing is a great loss for our community.

To let you know the kind of man Captain Ashe was, I want to share with my colleagues this passage from his last job evaluation, in 2002, which included the following: ``He has demonstrated concern for his subordinates, making himself available for guidance and direction. He encouraged his personnel to seek personal growth through departmental training and the promotional process.'' MDPD Major Chester Butler described Captain Ashe as ``. . . someone who thought along the same line as I did . . . it was the best working relationships I've been fortunate to have in my career. I could always depend on him to be there for me.''

As a resident of our community, he provided great wisdom and inspiration on issues affecting the Miami-Dade Police Department and was willing and ready to give of himself and put his problems on the back burner to help others. His colleagues remember him as someone who always had the knack for providing excellent insight and courageous guidance on countless situations aimed at enhancing the professionalism of the MPDP. He was helpful to many junior officers, assisting them in their professional growth and development to help them qualify for higher rank and responsibility, and he did this without asking anything in return. A respected member of the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, he was a golf enthusiast who was also fascinated with computers.

Captain Alexander Ashe, Jr. is survived by his wife, MDPD Officer Patricia Ashe, son James Ashe IV; daughters MDPD Officer Deidre Ashe, Jasmine and Rene; his mother, Jefferine Richards, his extended police family and numerous other relatives and friends. As a public servant, Captain Ashe truly exemplified a unique leadership whose courageous vision and genuine caring for his fellow officers and the people whom he pledged to serve and protect evokes the character of his humanity. This is the legacy he left behind and it is how we will always remember him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Einez Yap.

Einez Yap, who passed away unexpectedly on May 18, 2005, was a quintessential community activist who went about helping others in a quiet and dignified manner. Her passing is tragic, not just to her family, but to all those who knew her.

She was the visionary behind the establishment of LEASA Industries in 1977, when it began as a small family-owned business. Since its humble beginnings in Liberty City, the company has grown to become one of the largest growers of bean and alfalfa sprouts and one of the largest manufacturers of tofu and suppliers of fresh fruits and vegetables in the state of Florida.

A dutiful partner and wife to George Yap, President/CEO of LEASA Industries, Einez was a doting mother and proud grandmother. Her business acumen was instrumental in enabling LEASA Industries to become a recipient of the prestigious National Minority Manufacturer of the Year Award for 1997-1998 and the acknowledgement of LEASA Industries as one of Florida's fastest growing private companies by the University of Florida's Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation.

The tremendous success that Einez enjoyed in business, however, was secondary to her impact as a community leader. A member of several community organizations, Mrs. Yap was the resilient president of the Chinese Cultural Foundation and founder of the Organization of Chinese Americans, as well as the untiring entrepreneur spearheading the annual celebration of the Chinese New Year Festival in Miami-Dade County for the past decade. Additionally, she served on the Board of the Asian- American Federation of Florida, as well as Advisory Council of the National Alliance to Nurture the Aged and the Young (NANAY), Inc. She has been the patroness and benefactress of many more community organizations that are at the forefront of seeking equality of opportunity for minority groups; and she has been a featured leader for the Miami-Dade Community Relations Board as it deals with the challenge of inclusion of the disenfranchised and the underrepresented in our community.

Her contributions to our community were recently acknowledged in March of 2005, when she was honored as a Pioneer at Miami-Dade County's ``In The Company of Women'' Awards--a distinction previously bestowed on the likes of former Congresswoman Carrie Meek and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, among others.

Her Catholic faith was the source of inspiration and motivation for her reaching out to the downtrodden--as evidenced by her commitment early on at LEASA Industries to employ hard-to-place and at-risk residents.

``They're God's people, too--and are in need of a second or third- chance in life . . . if we can't help them, then who will . . .'' is often the stance that defined her commitment to the community she so loved.

Einez Yap was truly a woman of active compassion and a leader in our community, and her passing is a heavy blow to our community. I know I speak for all my colleagues in extending our deepest sympathy and condolences to her husband, George Yap, and son Andrew.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ms. Jacqueline H. Smith, North

Miami Beach City Councilwoman. On May 20, 2005, the Commission on the Status of Women of the City of North Miami Beach and Women in Politics will gather at a farewell luncheon to ``honor one of their own.''

Throughout Ms. Smith's 10-year term on the North Miami Beach City Council, she is best known for her work on programs for children and senior citizens. Ms. Smith is a liaison to children's ``Read Aloud Program.'' This tremendously rewarding program stimulates children's interest in reading and also promotes a decrease in television time by allowing children of all ages to listen to volunteers read books aloud. In addition, Ms. Smith is affiliated with the North Dade Children Center, where she is involved in youth and senior health fairs.

Ms. Smith has touched many peoples' hearts in North Miami Beach through her accomplishments as a member of numerous organizations. I want to applaud her tremendous commitment to community service, dedicating her time to organizations such as the National Organization of Women, the Carl Byoir Neighborhood Association, the Governing Board of Parkway Regional Hospital and the Board of Directors of United Democratic Club, just to name a few.

Besides serving as an elected official and community activist, Ms. Smith takes pride in being a teacher at Gertrude K. Edelman Sabal Palm Elementary School.

Ms. Smith has truly demonstrated that public service and education are achievements never beyond the reach of those willing to dedicate all their energy to accomplish the goals for the greater good of the public. I extend her my heartfelt gratitude for a superb job and wish her the best of luck in her retirement.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that will increase the amount of funding to the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's office by $200 million.

Mr. Chairman, this is so very, very important due to the fact that the Department of Homeland Security is the largest agency in the world right now, not only the Federal Government. It has 22 legacy agencies that had problems before the Department of Homeland Security was created. If it were not for the fact that they are in charge, this Department is in charge of protecting the homeland and making sure that all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations are implemented properly and also making sure that they protect our borders and our airways.

The inspector general really needs the additional funding and staffing to be able to keep up with the growing Department of Homeland Security. The spending on contracts alone was $6.1 billion in 2004, and in 2005 it moved up to $10.9 billion. That is a 40 percent increase in 1 year. It is literally impossible for the Inspector General's office to keep up not only with the policing of the Department but to ensure that the mission's integrity is followed through on.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the chairman pointed out the good points about this amendment and also maybe pointed out a few other issues as it relates to the budget issue.

This is the Homeland Security Authorization bill, not the appropriations bill. We are authorizing the Department, hopefully, to be able to move towards this $200 million to be able to take care of some of the issues that we hear about and read about in newspapers daily, about mismanagement, about contractors not following through on their obligation to the Federal Government.

I mean, it is not fine if it was just wasteful spending, but this is the protection of the homeland. And when we look at accountability and protection, I think it is important that we move in this direction.

I would also like to argue the fact that the Government Accountability Office, in report after report of issues and unmet mandates by the Department, reports by the Department to help this Congress make wise decisions are backlogged in the hundreds. And I think it is important that we as the oversight committee do as much as we can to bring about the kind of accountability that the American people deserve and that this Congress hopes to get.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just close by saying that this amendment is just a simple accountability amendment. Yes, I know it mirrors the Department of Defense. But the Department of Defense has the duty to protect not only Americans but also make sure that our men and women that are in harm's way are protected.

The Department of Homeland Security has a similar responsibility of making sure that we protect the homeland and make America safe and sound for future generations.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to vote in the affirmative for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, we argued this amendment in committee, and I have some concerns about it because I used to be a State trooper in Florida. I know exactly what happens when we feel that we are doing something, but we are really not doing anything.

With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side and their hard work, which I join them in the theory of making sure that we reimburse local law enforcement agencies that have invested time in doing what is a Federal agency responsibility, but the 9/11 report called for more ICE officers, it called for more Custom border protection officers, and it called for a Federal agency, like the Department of Homeland Security, to have what it needs to carry out its duties.

I must point out to the Members at line 10 on this particular amendment, on the front page, page 7 here of the overall bill, it says that the Secretary of Homeland Security ``may'' reimburse State and political subdivisions for the expenses that are carried out in this subsection.

Now, I am going to tell you right now this is the kind of language, and I want to make sure the law enforcement communities understand this, that this is not a guaranteed reimbursement. We are not guaranteeing them that they are going to be reimbursed. So I want to make sure the Members understand that wholeheartedly.

I understand the intent of this amendment, but I believe that if we are going to run, let us run. If we are going to walk, let us walk. But let us not jog on an issue such as this. I believe that that language should say ``shall'' if we are going to come to the floor and say we are going to reimburse local subdivisions and State law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to address this great House of Representatives. I want to thank not only the Democratic leader but the Democratic leadership for allowing me to be here on their behalf.

Our 30-something Working Group, which the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) put together in the 108th Congress, our focus is to work on issues that are facing not only young Americans but Americans in general. I think it is very, very important for us to state not only here on the floor but to also say in our communities and the workplace that there is no greater service than making sure that your children and grandchildren have a better opportunity than what you have had. That is kind of the unwritten statement for the 30-something Working Group. We are benefactors of the generation that allowed us to have better opportunities than what they have had. I think that is what makes our country great. I commend those Members that live with that philosophy.

But I think it is important in a time of judgment and a time that we all have to be leaders that we stand up, not only stand up, but inform the American people and future generations on what is going to happen good for them and in many cases what may not work out the way that is being portrayed here in the Congress or any issue that we are talking about here, that we are taking action on here in Washington, D.C.

There are a lot of good things that families are doing for one another to make sure that future generations and their bloodline have a better opportunity than what they have had. There are families that are trying to save money with a college plan or savings plan for their children to receive education for their bloodline for the first time. Some families that only made it after a 4-year experience stopped at an associate's degree or a bachelor's of science degree, and want their children or a family member to be able to receive a master's degree or a doctor's degree.

It is that individual in the middle of America that wants his or her son or daughter to be able to carry the family business further than they were ever capable to carry it. I know that it is in the fiber of our American Dream that is in our hearts and in our minds.

So when we start talking about the issue of Social Security, we have to say that that is a paramount issue when we talk about values and commitment to our future generations, we talk about value and commitment to those beneficiaries that are receiving Social Security benefits right now. We have to think about those individuals that are disabled that are counting on this Congress to stand up on their behalf, those individuals that elect us to speak on their behalf.

One thing about this body within the U.S. Congress, we cannot be appointed to the House. We cannot be appointed to this position. We have to be elected. The other body can be appointed. We have to be elected. Through the election process, there is a lot of commitment and sacrifice. A lot of Americans, someone woke up early one morning, 7 a.m., and showed up to their election polling place for some accountability. That is what we are here to do.

When we start talking about Social Security, I think it is important that we come to this floor to let the American people know and the Members of this House of Representatives know that many of us within the Congress are very, very concerned about the privatization scheme that is being talked about and that is being portrayed as a plan for future generations, or the preservation of Social Security.

We cannot believe everything we hear, especially when folks start saying, well, these are the facts and this is my plan and this is the way it is going to work. Right now, especially on the Democratic side, and I will say a few of my Republican colleagues understand that 48 million Americans are receiving Social Security right now, that 33 million of those Americans are already retired, 33 million that are counting on Social Security. Social Security is that security blanket, our end of the deal that we said we would hold, they paid into it, it is there for them and it will be there for them for the next 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years at the same level that it is right now.

Of course we want to strengthen Social Security. Also, it is important to understand that right now, today, $955 per month on average goes out every month to support families and support their unmet needs. This is not a giveaway. This is what they paid for. This is what they invested in. It is important that we do not gamble with those dollars. I think it is also important to understand that 48 percent of Social Security beneficiaries, if they did not have Social Security, they would be living in poverty today.

So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but have trouble with the administration's plan and some Members on the Republican side's plan to privatize Social Security and to say and admit up front that benefits will be cut and that they would not only receive a benefit cut but even those who do not want to go in a private account will suffer.

I cannot understand for the life of me how we can serve that up on a platter and say that we are trying to help future generations or present enrollees in Social Security right now. I cannot help but question $5 trillion. Until I got to the Congress, I had no meaning of what $5 trillion actually meant, $5 trillion, not of money that we have in our wallets but money that we are willing to borrow, $5 trillion. But better yet, this is supposed to help maintain Social Security.

I am going to talk a little further about what we are doing as Democrats, but I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say before I comment to what the gentleman from Illinois just said, I want to commend him for coming to the floor, not only representing his great district but representing some great Americans that are doing what they can under the circumstances. I have a similar program in my district, Good Will Industries, providing uniforms for our men and women that are in uniform, sewing together jackets. They are handicapped, some physically handicapped, mentally handicapped, many; but they are trying, and we have got to give them an opportunity to play a role in working America.

Another thing I want to also point out, and I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is here, is that the gentleman from Illinois is talking about working Americans, not folks sitting at home talking about where's my check. These are individuals that wake up every day and want to wake up every day and go and be productive. That is what this is all about. That is what our democracy is about.

It was a pleasure yielding to the gentleman. He is one of the most outstanding orators that we have in the Congress.

I look forward to that. Just not in the winter time, that is all I have to say, because I am from Florida. I do not know about all Chicago, holding on to the ropes and the wind blowing and everything. I love Chicago. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for standing up for those great Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is here. And we are, I tell the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the 30-something Working Group; so he can be 30-something, not under 30 or I think I would not be with this group. I would be with them in spirit.

Mr. Speaker, I was just talking here for a moment about the whole issue of a bad privatization scheme and throwing the dice on the retirement of so many not only Americans that are presently receiving Social Security benefits, and I am not just talking about retirees. We are talking about disabled Americans. We are also talking about those individuals who are going to school and surviving on survivor benefits of Americans that have passed on. They paid into Social Security. They knew there were survivor benefits for their kids. And one can ask even those Americans and those of us in the Congress that were pension funds outside of this Congress and we know what happened to our pension fund. It went straight down.

The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) our ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, said just today that airline pilots who were receiving $12,000 a month in pension benefits, now it is down to $2,000 a month. That is a $10,000 difference in their retirement. So now we are going to do that with Social Security? Even for those individuals who do not enroll in the program, they are still going to get benefit cuts. They still receive benefits cuts. And, also, the dollars that are needed to support them in their time of need.

So it is a great pleasure once again being with my good friend from Ohio and the fact that we come to this floor along with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), and others to share with Americans about what we are working on here in the Congress.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Ryan) point as it relates to pointing out the trade deficit is the fact that Americans, if we allow hypothetically, and I do mean hypothetically, in this Congress a privatization plan to go through this Congress the way the President and majority side would like to see it happen, then they are going to get a double whammy. They are getting a double whammy of not having high-paying jobs. And this is not just me talking. Folks can go to a number of third-party validators and even the White House itself said there will be drastic benefits cuts, benefits cuts to the tune of if someone is earning $37,000, they are going to get a 28 percent benefit cut than what they are experiencing right now. At $58,000, they are going to get a 42 percent benefit cut, and on and on and on. So there will be benefit cuts, and we have put that up front, and there will be a great gamble on the future of Social Security.

So I am really pleased that the gentleman brought those charts because folks really need to understand, and this is from the U.S. Census Bureau. That is where he received that information.

This is not the ``Tim Ryan Report.''

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just want to make sure because we point out when there is inaccurate information out there. And some of our friends here in the Beltway, which is Washington, D.C. they have an imagination about what the truth is about. We talk a lot about what the truth really is. We talk a lot about the $350 billion so-called prescription drug plan that is supposed to help Americans, and now it is $724 billion, but we were told $350 billion when it first started. So the President is saying $5 trillion on a privatization plan. What is it going to be next year? Is it going to be $10 trillion?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is the problem. This Social Security, it is not some small little program that a Member of Congress put in the budget and said this is our pet project. This is Social Security. This goes towards our generation for our children and grandchildren, and I hope to have them some day, grandchildren. I want them to have a better opportunity.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) came to the floor to talk about those individuals putting together clocks in his district, the Lighthouse Project. I yield to him, from the 30-something Working Group hour, to give him an opportunity, and he did not come here saying we need to create a program for people who do not want to work. We need to make sure that Americans, and he is talking about blind Americans, are able to continue to support themselves.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, 33 million Americans are retired, receiving Social Security benefits now. Forty-eight percent of the 33 million would be living in poverty if it was not for Social Security. And they have a plan that comes up here to the Hill. And I would not call it a plan. I would say it is some sort of philosophy or theory that the White House and majority side have.

And I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, we know that we have friends over there, few in number, on the Republican side that are willing to stand up and say, I am not with you on this.

And if you bring it to the floor, I am going to vote against it, rightfully so. Do we know why? Do we know why it is not on the floor tonight? Because I believe, just like the American people know and just like many Members of this House know, it is not because we are Democrats and we are right; we are Democrats and we are willing to stand up to say what is right for Social Security. This is not a political issue; this is an American issue.

So when we start talking about what people are saying here on the floor as it relates to the majority side, we do know we were given that prescription drug number, $350 billion, it ended up being $724 billion and climbing, and still did not put forth a plan where we can combine buying power and take the price down for seniors.

And change.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. We are both going to be in the Committee on Armed Services tomorrow late into the night marking up or creating the Committee on Armed Services for the United States of America authorization bill to protect the American public, to make sure our men and women that are in harm's way get what they need, to make sure that we do all of the things that we need to do to defend this country, adding $5 trillion to the debt and making decisions that should not be made.

And I just want to say, at the end of the legislative business of every week, we have our whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) come to the floor with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and they talk about the business of next week and what is going to happen. I hope when it comes down to Social Security that there is a bipartisan effort to not only make sure that we pay for what we do or have a plan to pay for what we do as it relates to borrowing the money that we are going to have to use to make sure that we make Social Security stronger and better, but there is no discussion about, well, next week we are going to talk about private accounts, because that is going to be a sad day in this Congress.

I will also say this, that it is important for people to understand that on the Democratic side, and I mentioned the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is our chair, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is our vice-chair, and other Members who are here with leadership roles and who have been here before the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and I, before we even thought of a 30-something Working Group; that a bipartisan plan like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) speaks of all the time, consists of Democrats and Republicans sitting down, sharing values on behalf of the American people, and putting forth a plan that will preserve Social Security for years to come.

Social Security news flash, I say to the gentleman, because if we listen to what the White House is saying and all of the Federal jet fuel they are burning flying all around the country sharing with people what their side of what they believe the crystal ball may actually provide Social Security benefits to future generations, 47 years from now, 100 percent benefits as we see them now will still be in place. Forty-seven years from now, Social Security will be still be here. Do my colleagues know why? Because in 1983 this House, in a bipartisan way, Tip O'Neill, President of the United States Ronald Reagan, God bless his memory, voted off of this floor 243 to 102 to make sure that Social Security is there for future generations and that it provides benefits to the 48 million, those who are disabled, those who are living under survivor benefits, and those who are retired right now. It took leadership to do that.

So it all comes down to, if some Members of power, and this would not even be a discussion if we were in the majority. It would not even be a discussion, because there will be a panel put together to come up to the Committee on Ways and Means and other committees of substance as it relates to this issue to come together with a bipartisan plan.

And I guarantee my colleagues that private accounts would not even be an issue on the preservation of Social Security. We have always talked about making sure that the Social Security trust fund that has been a Democratic issue from two or three Presidential campaigns, about making sure that Social Security is here for future generations.

Whatever we want to call it. I will just say that this bipartisan number here, 163 Democrats for it in 1983, 80 Republicans for it in 1983, and Tip O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of this House was sitting in the Speaker rostrum, Mr. Speaker. It took leadership, and that is what we need now.

Folks ask, I say to the gentleman, what is the Democratic plan. Well, the Democratic plan is in the wallets of every American, the guarantee when they go through their wallet looking for lunch money for their children or looking for bus fare to catch the bus or, as we know, grabbing, unfortunately, for a credit card now versus cash to put gas in your tank, when they pass that Social Security card, what they know now is the fact that they will receive benefits for the next 47 years.

That is the Democratic plan, and the Democratic plan is also making sure in a bipartisan way that we move forward, make sure that we preserve Social Security for future generations, and make sure that we do not hand debt to our future generations.

Mr. Speaker, $5 trillion is an awful lot of money. Once again, on the armed services end, 44 percent of our debt is owned by foreign interests. If we want to talk about the future of this country, if we want to talk about security, if we want to talk about homeland security, if we want to talk about financial security, stability for this country and for the Republic, never before in the history of the Republic has the deficit been as high as it is right now.

Now, I can tell my colleagues, our friends on the other side, and I say the leadership, because I know, some of my good friends do not want this.

It is not a personal issue. And they know it is not a personal issue. They know that bad decisions have been made. They know that the deficit is as high as it has ever been, and climbing. We are so high up in debt right now, I mean, it is just bad. We cannot call these 1-800 numbers we see on the TV saying call us, we will help you with your debt. We cannot even take care of those issues right now, because it is so much and we are so high in debt.

So I think it is important, as we remember 30-somethings and those young Americans who are graduating from college now, Mr. Speaker, they are leaving, on average, $20,000 in debt, $20,000 in debt, the average American that is graduating. Now we are going to put more on them? I think that is something that we should not do, and that is the reason why we come to the floor. That is the reason why we have third, fourth, fifth, and six-party validators for the reason that this privatization plan is nothing but a pure gamble for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and others that are depending and looking for Social Security when they are in need.

Not just mine.

Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would just yield for one second, not just the college students, but their parents. I want to tell my colleague, when I graduated from college, I went straight into the Highway Patrol Academy. Thank God I had a full scholarship to Florida A&M. But a number of students that go into college, they do not have a scholarship, okay? And they come out owing student loans. And do we know who pays those student loans when they come out? Mom and Dad or Grandmom, to make sure that they do not end up falling into bad debt and also falling into an area where they are going to start off on the wrong foot.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is very, very important since we are talking about the future and we are talking about future generations, and we must talk about these numbers so future generations understand what their debt is.

For someone that is looking for additional help on Pell grants, that is not going to happen in any significant number. It is going to make a difference to your overall debt situation or credit situation. When you also look at the issue of Social Security from the beginning, remember, remember, $5 trillion to help save you money over the next 20 years. That is a lot of money, okay? It is going to stop us from doing the things we need to do in taking the debt down. It was the Democratic Congress here that made the hard decision to take down the debt and put us into surpluses as far as the eye could see, and then the Republican Congress took over and took us down into debt.

I think it is also important, and we always like to give the Members third-party validators, and I want you to write this Web site down: www.cbpp.org. That is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities. There is a lot of good information on that Web site. It gives not only Members but the American people good information on what someone may earn and how much of a benefit cut they are going to receive; not a benefit increase, but a benefit cut. And in this whole debate, there is no, there is no discussion about an increase. There is no discussion about some of the positive things that can happen outside of saying, this will be good for the trust fund in the future.

I also want to say that, you know, that I have no real problem with what is going on in New York and the whole Wall Street experience. Okay? Do not think that I have a problem with it. But I do have a problem, which the only entity or institution, or even if Wall Street was a perfect person, to be the only group that would benefit from a privatization plan, some $940 billion guaranteed to Wall Street, not necessarily to the individuals that are enrolled in Social Security.

And I thought while the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) was talking, as you know I have my papers, we get our briefings, and we call and we ask institutions that are studying this Social

Security privatization scheme to give us information as we work on ways to push this Congress towards a bipartisan approach to Social Security without private accounts. That is something that we are doing here as Democrats.

But I look, and I want to tell you, in your State there are a number of individuals, 315,000 survivor beneficiaries, 278,000 individuals that are receiving disability benefits. I think it is also important to understand, even in my State, in Florida, you have 450,679 that are receiving disability benefits and 408,543 that are receiving survivor benefits.

Even in the State of Pennsylvania just north of us, survivor benefits, these are individuals that their children are now beneficiaries from the work that their parents did. They didn't have anything to leave them, but they had Social Security to leave them, to help be there for them, because they wanted to be there for them financially, but that was a part of our deal with Americans that we will make sure that not only will they be taken care of, that we will have security for them, but for their children.

And in the State of Pennsylvania 353,000 survivor beneficiaries, and also you have 336,000 individuals that are on disability.

We have about 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important not only that the Members, but the American people understand, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes down to health care we are going to be okay. The reason why we are going to be okay is because we are Members of Congress.

Not because of our health plan, but because of our last name. And that is a crisis for real Americans, because my constituents they sit in the emergency room for hours. I walk into the emergency room, believe me, I can barely sit down before someone grabs my arm and says, Congressman, please let us check you out.

All right. When I need to get prescription drugs, I can get prescription drugs. When I want to get a doctor's appointment, I can get a doctor's appointment. I do not have to wait 6 months to see an ophthalmologist or on optometrist, whoever it may be, to see them.

I think what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) said in the last 5 or 6 minutes meant so much in this entire hour of really talking about the issues, where the rubber meets the road. And the reality of this argument is that originally the administration was saying that it is a crisis. They kind of have backed off of that now, because the American people said you want to know what a crisis is? The crisis is that my son is sick and I cannot afford to take him, I am taking care of him through the drug store. I am buying off the shelf, which I think is a greater problem. I hope it is a cold. That is a crisis.

A crisis is not saying, hey, listen you know something, I got to move this private account thing while we are in power so we can help make our buddies even more buddies to us. Because that is what I think the underlying issue here is. And so I just want to step in there, because you made an excellent point.

Go ahead and read the e-mail you have.

Give the e-mail address.

I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio. And to our e-mailer, we just want to say that all Democrats throughout this Congress will be calling into radio stations, be it country, rap, rock and roll, what have you, during drive time in the morning to talk about the importance of Social Security and young people.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to come to the floor and we thank not only the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, but the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) the Democratic whip, for allowing us to have this hour week after week. This is a strong part of our democracy, and we really appreciate representing the 30-somethings and above and under, that age, to give them a voice here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honor to come before this House of Representatives. I can tell you that this 30- Something Working Group, Mr. Speaker, that our Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), has designated this time every week for the 30-Something Working Group to come to the floor to not only speak to the Members but also have an opportunity to share good information in general with the American people, and that is why we are here, to represent them, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, in the last several weeks, we have been talking about the issue of Social Security. I can tell you that Social Security is not only at the forefront of the agenda in this Congress but also has been promoted throughout this Nation as being in a state of crisis, which it is not.

So, tonight, the 30-Something Working Group, we have asked a member of our caucus to come, the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), to come to talk to us a little bit about this double whammy that the American people will be going through because of the push of privatization of Social Security and the irresponsible spending by the majority side and also by the present administration.

This whole debate is about helping future generations. This whole debate is about making sure that we keep our end of the deal to the American people. I can tell you, keeping our end of the deal to the American people is saying we are going to do what we said we are going to do from the beginning, Mr. Speaker, and it is important. But I believe when misinformation or inaccurate information is given to the American people and to some Members of this House, it jeopardizes our commitment to keeping our end of the deal.

What I mean by ``our end of the deal,'' for those individuals that have paid into Social Security over the years, and they are looking forward to the security of Social Security being there for them at the benefit level to where it is now, I think it is very, very important that we do not let those Americans down.

I want to make sure that not only the Members of this House but everyone understands that Social Security will be solvent for the next 47 to 50 years at the present benefit level of where it is right now. Forty-eight million Americans who need the survivor benefits, retirees or individuals eligible for Social Security at this point will receive 100 percent of the benefits they are receiving now. On average, they receive $955 of monthly benefits from Social Security. Thirty-three million Americans are retired that are in that 48 million, and a large number of those Americans would be living under the poverty line if it was not for Social Security. So when we start talking about privatization of Social Security, it is a very dangerous thing and something that we should not play around with at all.

I am proud that Democrats on this side of the aisle, and I would even say some of my Republican friends, believe in strengthening Social Security without slashing benefits that Americans have earned and making sure that private accounts are not a part of the Social Security debate or reality, because there is strong evidence, not hearsay, strong evidence of major benefit cuts to Americans that are counting on Social Security.

I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, that the Members understand that, once we can get to the point that we stop insisting on private accounts, when it really does not add up for the individual that is receiving Social Security or that will receive Social Security, I think we can get on to not only a serious discussion but action in dealing with the question of Social Security.

We should not increase the debt by some $5 trillion and gamble on the future of Social Security. I think the American people deserve better. I think the American people demand better, and I think the American people will continue to pay very close attention to what is being said and what is not being said in this discussion about Social Security.

I do not believe that Members of this House or the other body will take a vote where they are going to make a career decision on a gamble on Social Security privatization. It is not at that point to where one has to gamble with the retirement of so many Americans. Social Security is there to make sure that it is a guarantee for men and women that have worked in this country.

So, tonight, we are going to talk about the budget, the $26,000-plus that every American owes to the Federal debt, and tonight, we are going to, if I could use the word, cross-pollinate, Mr. Speaker, Social Security privatization philosophy and the reality of the ever-growing deficit, that it seems that this Congress is out of control of continuing to add on to the debt without any plan whatsoever, no real realistic plan, in making sure that we take down the debt for future generations. So I think that is very, very important.

Now, some individuals will say, Well, what is the Democratic plan? Well, I would like to know what is the Republican plan? Some of my good friends in this Chamber are Republicans and want to know the Republican plan.

I would say, the Republican leadership plan, because I do not want to generalize, because I feel there are Members in this Chamber that have a genuine argument and concern when they see statistics that are given by notable organizations and even by some of our Federal Government organizations that are saying that there going to be major benefit cuts if we go to privatization, to the point that where even individuals who do not enroll in private accounts are going to receive cuts. That is not fair.

So that is the reason why we come to this floor, week after week, the 30-Something Working Group, along with others, to be able to talk about this issue.

Now, tonight only are we going to have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who is always here, Mr. Speaker, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and we have one of our 30-Something Working Group members, the gentleman from the Great State of Alabama (Mr. Davis), who will come before this great House to be a part of this discussion, along with our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, the Democratic ranking member of the Committee on the Budget and a part of the Democratic leadership team in dealing with the issue of the deficit and the budget and responsible spending and also making sure that we do the right thing.

I would like to yield some time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). As you go to the well there, I want to just let you know how

much I appreciate not only the hard work that you have been doing but the fact that you have joined us here, the 30-Something Working Group. I know you have been really given to not only the Democratic Caucus but informing the Congress on what we are doing and what we are not doing.

I would like to say to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), feel free to be part of this, also a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important not only that the Members understand, but the American people also understand. I mean, the gentleman is the second most senior member on the Committee on Armed Services; and I think that the gentleman is in the right position on the Committee on the Budget, that this is Iraq, the early years. I mean, this is going to be a long-term commitment of the United States. We are there; we are going to be there for some time. The coalition is getting smaller. We need to make sure that we provide for these men and women and their families back here.

So I just wanted to say that so that the Members understand that we have an overall responsibility, but some of the things that the gentleman is showing us here on this chart of the realities that are obviously coming in the future and, on top of that, the Social Security issue, is going to be a train wreck in the making, if not already there.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz). I thought the gentlewoman and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) shared some really good comments.

I see that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has a board there that he wants to share with us, and I know the gentleman has some comments based on our comments.

If I may, I just want to ask a question, because I think this pie chart really paints the picture, literally. People think that this Social Security debate, some people do, feel that it is just about people that are already retired, and they are concerned about their retirement. Yes, valid point. They should be concerned because we do know, and you were a Member of the 108th Congress and many congresses before that. The President stood in the well there and shared with us, if you are over 55 you do not have anything to worry about.

But I remember vividly in the 108th Congress, when we talked about the prescription drug benefit plan, they said it would be $350 billion only, and now we know it is $724 billion and probably climbing as it relates to costs.

But disabled workers, that can happen any time in your lifetime.

And that is Social Security. And what we do know, and I hope that you would get an opportunity to talk about, the President's plan cuts benefits twice on one of the charts that I know you have there, to let the American people know that and also Members know that when you go to privatization that you lose benefits. I mean, that is what the record is reflecting right now. And I

think it is important that everyone understands what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, if I can, before we walk too far away, before we walk too far away from what the gentleman said, the fact that he was here in 1983. I will tell you how this argument works.

In 1983 I was in high school. I was a senior. The gentleman is still a good man. I was a senior in high school. And we know in that year it took a lot of leadership because there was a big Democratic majority here in this House and in the other body across the hall. There was a Republican in the White House, but on behalf of the American people, and there was a true crisis and the gentleman described it. And I just happen to have the vote here.

Here in the House it was 243 people that voted for it, voted for that bipartisan proposal. It took leadership in this House and in the White House, and that is what it will take in this debate. In the other body, we had 58 of our colleagues down the hall, 58 of them voting for it at the time.

That was a bipartisan bill. It was not something that was one sided, and that is what is wrong with this debate now.

I want to make sure that Members and the American people understand. If we were in the majority, we, Democrats, that it would be a bipartisan approach because many folks do not understand, well, why are they talking about it? Why do they not just do it?

Well, we want to do it. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader, wants to do it. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, want to see a bipartisan approach. But that is not happening right now, and that is the reason so many things are happening to the American people in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, we have about 3 minutes left. So if the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) wants to make some closing comments, he can.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

We even want e-mails from Members, but definitely from the American people and others. [email protected] is our e-mail address. We always look forward to receiving e-mails.

As we close, I just want to not only commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership but for the leadership of this Democratic Caucus here in the 109th Congress and the 108th Congress, which I have served in, and presently serving in the 109th, for standing up and saying what is right, making sure that we watch out for future generations; just for the charts that are being generated out of the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) committee staff and from the gentleman, I tell the American people and also I tell Members of the majority side, if it is about defense, then 44 percent of our debt is owned by foreign countries, up drastically since President Bush has taken office.

This chart that the gentleman showed dealing with retired workers of 62.8 percent that is dealing with Social Security, that the benefits they are receiving, 13 percent of workers that have disabilities. I mean, these are real issues that are facing families in America right now, and this is a moral issue as the gentleman mentioned.

Spouses with children, 10.1 percent, and survivor benefits, the highest outside of retired workers, 14.1 percent. These are individuals that their loved ones, mothers and fathers, have passed on, and they are living on the benefits that they left behind. Sometimes that is all they had to leave. The most shocking chart that the gentleman provided to all of us here is how the benefit structure goes down, 34,587 cut.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, once again for allowing us to have this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Day, known in Hebrew as Yom Hashoah, to memorialize the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust.

In 1933, Europe's Jewish population was over nine million. However, by 1945, almost two out of three European Jews had been killed as part of the Final Solution, a policy to murder the Jews. However, the Nazis' cruelty was not just limited to Jews, they also murdered gypsies, the mentally and physically disabled, homosexuals, and those deemed religious dissidents, like Jehovah's Witnesses.

We must remember the lives of those who were subjected to unspeakable atrocities, targeted simply because of their religious beliefs. We must remember those mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, daughters, and sons who perished so brutally in the camps, in the ghettos, and in the gas chambers of Nazi Germany.

This year, Yom Hashoah comes as we mark the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II. We must never forget what can happen to civilized people when bigotry and hatred rule.

We all share the responsibility to combat ignorance, intolerance, and prejudice no matter what the form. And 60 years later, it is still entirely unbelievable that individuals contemplated in seriousness the systematic destruction of over 6 million people. On this anniversary, as we honor lives lost, I extend my condolences to those who lost loved ones in the Holocaust. They will always be remembered.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to Bishop Walter H. Richardson, one of Miami-Dade County's quintessential religious leaders. During the Annual Unity Day Celebration held at the Allen Chapel AME Church in Miami last April 24, 2005, Bishop Richardson was honored, along with other distinguished members of our church community. The theme: ``United in Christ, Reaching out to Touch Others with God's Love,'' saliently symbolizes the ministry of this humble Man of God.

It was in the mid 1940s when he came down to Miami from his native Ansonville, North Carolina after accepting the Lord as his personal Savior. Indeed, it was a unique calling that evoked God's choice: ``. . . for many are called, but few are chosen.'' As a young man, he supported himself by getting a job at the old Miami Sears & Roebuck Store. He got engaged to his sweetheart, Poseline McLaughlin, whom he left behind in North Carolina, and she later joined him in Miami after she also accepted the Lord. They got married and were soon blessed with two sons. Their marriage lasted for 49 years until her untimely demise in 1996.

This tribute to Bishop Richardson comes at a time when his ministry is defined by the primacy of his consecration to God's covenant of love and compassion to all those hungering for the good news emanating from the Lord's Gospel. His calling is symbolic of his readiness to reach out to those who seek refuge and solace in the sanctuary of his Church, and bespeaks of God's preeminence in the conduct of their lives.

The longevity of his commitment to the less fortunate has become legendary. When I think of his early work with the civil rights movement, his untiring efforts paralleled much of our nation's history as we struggled through the harrowing challenges of racial equality and simple justice for all. I came to admire him for his understanding and empathy for the ``little people and poor folks'' of our community. Blessed with a lucid common sense and a quick grasp of the issues at hand, Bishop Richardson's influence continues to be felt at a time when our community needs to put in perspective the agony and dissatisfaction of marginalized blacks and other minorities yearning to belong and pursue the American spirit of optimism.

This is the magnificent legacy of Bishop Walter H. Richardson. My pride in honoring him today and my privilege in sharing his friendship are only exceeded by my gratitude for everything he has sacrificed on our behalf.

The gentleman used that distinguished thing quite loosely.

``Everyone Loves Ryan,'' is that your favorite show? I just want to ask. The gentleman used it as an example. Does the gentleman watch it?

I watch it every now and then. I am too busy reading legislation and trying to do the things that I need to do.

ESPN.

I like to watch the ``Home Shopping Network.'' I like watching things my kids watch. I like Sponge Bob, and I like quite a few other funny movies.

I watch ``Archie Bunker.''

I am a night owl so I stay up late so I see a lot of shows in syndication. It is good stuff. I like ``VH-1 Soul.''

That is a very funny show.

Get out of here. He is from Youngstown? Is there a road named in Youngstown after him?

That would be nice.

Why not. He is probably in the fight to protect Social Security.

A lot of hard-working Al Bundy-like guys that are out there.

What a great American.

As the gentleman knows, we like to put a little humor into this.

We think it is funny, maybe some others may think it is funny. They say if you do not like what you are doing and you cannot talk with a little humor now and then, you will worry about things you do not need to worry about 24 hours a day.

I can say it was great hearing the gentleman talk about the deficit, hearing the gentleman talk about the Social Security privatization plan or blueprint or philosophy that the President says he has. But I can tell you this, that I am very concerned. We know in the past whenever we have approached a national program that is a part of the fiber of our country, that the administration and the majority side, there is always a smokescreen there.

The numbers are not exactly what they say they are. So since the President last Thursday night talked a little bit about his blueprint and his philosophy, I do not know if I can take that

for being the accurate plan that the Social Security, that the President has for his Social Security plan. And I know there are some people on the Hill that are running around sharing some of those numbers and saying how we are going to save Social Security. And I can tell you there is more to saving Social Security than privatization. And private accounts and privatization of Social Security is the backbone of the President's philosophy or plan.

I just want to remind the Members and I also want to remind Americans that if they can just remember, and I said this last week and I said it a week before last and I will say it again this week because I think it is just that important, we have started talking about the deficit, the highest deficit in the history of the Republic.

Never before in the history of this country have we had a deficit as high as it is now. Never before have we been indebted to foreign nations, because they are buying our debt more than at any other time in the history of our country.

Being a Member of the 109th Congress, I always tell my constituents it is an honor serving them here in Washington, D.C. And the reason why it is an honor is because I have the ability to come to this floor because the Democratic leader designated this hour for the 30-something Working Group and other Members that wish to come to the floor to share with Members of this Congress and the American people the importance of focus and paying attention and making sure that they hold us accountable for what we do.

Now, this whole privatization issue, I can state that I am very concerned. And what I have read in the paper and what I am seeing of polling numbers, Americans are concerned. There is no place in this Social Security, some may call it reform, some may call it saving, some may say that it is a crisis. And I am glad that American people, they know and also Members of this House know the truth that Social Security is not in a crisis.

A crisis is if Social Security were going to dissolve or not be able to provide 100 percent benefits in the next 5 years. A crisis would be even if it was 10 years from now. A crisis would be even if it is 15 years from now. When we are talking about 50 or 47 years from now that the President's Social Security plan will not be able to provide the benefits that Americans deserve and they paid into Social Security, that is not a crisis.

Now, there will be some discussion, I believe in the 109th Congress, on Social Security. I think it is important that we talk about fact, not fiction. If folks want to see fiction, there are a number of cable stations that they can go to or Members can go to.

We just finished talking about what we do in our leisure time when we are ready to be entertained, but not here in the U.S. Congress. We are not here for entertainment purposes. We are here to handle the business of the country to make sure that the Republic is strong and to make sure that the American people get their taxpayer dollars' worth of representation.

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?

The gentleman was listening. I like that.

I think it is important that people understand that what is being said loosely at this particular time you cannot take to the bank as truth. Case in point: during the prescription drug debate we were told, all of us, every Member of Congress was told that it would be a $350 billion program. And then we moved down the line, and slowly it moved up to $400 billion. And then after the debate, after we passed the plan, we find out someone made the wrong calculation. The gentleman talked about math earlier. They goofed up. It is $530 billion.

This is real money. And then 3 months ago we find out that it is going to be $724 billion. What is the true number? Is $5 trillion the true number of the President's privatization plan, the majority side's privatization plan? Or is it $9 trillion, $10 trillion, $12 trillion?

You want to talk about saying that we are going to do things on a credit card, we are doing it in the worst way. I want to make sure Americans and Members of this House understand that we are not surplus spending here. This is deficit spending in the worst way.

I am on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Armed Services. We share in that committee; we will have a committee markup. We start working on bringing a bill to the floor for the defense of this

country to support our men and women in uniform that are abroad fighting for those that this Congress has given them the ability to do. We are saying that we are fighting on behalf of defense and making our country strong, economically strong. Meanwhile, we are spending on a credit card in the worst way and then finding new ways to be able to put more on that credit card.

Mr. Speaker, we are saying $5 trillion, but do we know if that is the real number?

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.

I wanted to mention a few other things I did not mention earlier. This whole $26,300 and change of the deficit that we are talking about.

Mr. Ryan, if you can put that board back up, because I think that is very, very important. Thank you, Mr. Ryan, I appreciate that. This $26,349 and change is something that we need to pay very close attention to.

We did some math, and this is good math. The average American that graduates, be it with a postgraduate degree or a 4-year degree or what have you, has on average a $20,000 debt of either student loans, because of the lack of Pell grant dollars or what have you. You can buy a new car with $26,000. You can put a downpayment on a home with $26,000 and still have some left over. You could buy groceries for five families for a year with $26,000. That is a lot of money. You could start a small business with your new education with $26,000.

Was this deficit delivered by the minority side? No. This deficit was delivered by the majority side. And I think it is important that Americans understand that. So if folks want to know what we stand for on this side of the aisle, I think we have made the point clear. I think Americans understand and the Members of this House understand that if we are going to approach the Social Security issue, that it has to be bipartisan, like in 1983 with Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan. That bipartisan bill passed this House and that is the reason why Social Security is solvent for the next 50 years.

Mr. Ryan, it was a pleasure being here with you once again. I look forward to the future and getting back to talking about this issue and, hopefully, taking some action.

Mr. Ryan, I have another Web site real quickly, because we like to verify, verify, verify where people can go on and Members can go on. If you want to learn more about what the President's plan does to the middle class, you can go on www.cbpp.org. That is the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities. That is cbpp.org.

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. 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.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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.

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.

And growing.

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.

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.

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. 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.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the real issue is that the President would like to put the perception out there of roaring crowds, saying, ``We love you. We appreciate what you are doing. Thank God you are saving Social Security by privatizing accounts even though my benefit level is going to go down.'' And anyone that objects to that, they are going to see the parking lot.

They will not even see the inside because they will take those individuals out of line.

Like I said, if anyone were to show up with this, just as an American, freedom of speech, and the Supreme Court is right across the street, ``Hands off of my Social Security,'' they are a goner. They are out of there. They are taking them, ``Excuse me, sir, ma'am, we need to take you over here.''

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.

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. Speaker, the thing about it is that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, white, black, Asian, name it, are part of the 48 million Americans that are receiving benefits right now. And this issue is not only in districts on the Democratic side of the aisle, but on the Republican side of the aisle. And I will tell the Members this will not hold.

Now, it is not all doom and gloom because, guess what. Thank God the Democratic leadership is saying we do not want to increase the debt to go on a scheme of a $500 trillion over the next 20 years cost for individuals to have to pay more on the debt and also for individuals to lose some of their benefits.

And the bad thing about what the President and some Members on the majority side, the Republican side, are proposing is the fact that they are saying that, yes, it will go up and down but over time private accounts will win. Guess what. If one is in a private account or they opt to be in a private account from the Social Security philosophy, and I must add if I said ``plan,'' I want to take that back, philosophy that the majority side has and that the President is talking about, they are going to lose, too. They are going to lose some of their benefits, too, and I think it is important that people understand that.

Also, let us just put it this way: Some people may say what is the Democratic plan? I will say what is the Republican plan? Where is it? What Web site can I go to? Is someone coming to my office with some sort of bound copy? Maybe I need to come to my office to find out if something came since I have been here on the floor. Where is the bill?

Well, there is a hearing that is going to take place on Capitol Hill. Guess what? There are over 200 hearings that take place in every Congress. They do not all result in legislation. I am hoping that in that hearing, if someone wants to do something, or the majority side wants to work with the minority side, because I do know that the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi), I know that the gentleman from Maryland (Whip Hoyer), and our caucus chairman and vice chairman and others in leadership would love to sit down. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is always saying, my door is open, I am ready to go. Let us talk about this thing.

But let me just say this, because I think it is important. The Democratic plan is already in 48 million wallets of Americans that have Social Security benefits. That is the Democratic plan. Hello? That is the Democratic plan. So the Democratic plan is to make sure that we do not add more to the $26,000 that every American already owes the Federal Government, the highest deficit in the history of the Republic. The Democratic plan is to fight to bring that number down and to go into surplus where we were before this administration got in.

That is the Democratic plan.

Of course. I was looking for my little note here, because I wanted to remind Members but also the American people. Please add to this. There is just so much, we do not know what to share. We have so many other plans as Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) wants us to yield for a minute here, so I yield to the chairman.

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.

So that is the reason why some of the Members even on the majority side are saying no can do: I am not going to disrupt my constituents and their way of life and add on to the party numbers of my district, because it is not right. And if it is not right, I do not care if you fly around for 160 days. It is not going to change as long as you are talking about gambling with the Social Security and the security of folks' retirement.

So I can tell my colleague right now, I look forward to the day that Americans say, enough is enough, and that we do not have to speak from the position of saying, well, we are informing you; we will be actually doing it if we were in control of this House, and that is what the debate is about. It is about not only sharing with the Members that if they get into this whole issue of believing the hype on the privatization of Social Security and folks start losing benefits, they are making a career decision. They do not want to be in Congress, because I can tell my colleague right now, when folks say, listen, I do not know what I have been doing; maybe I have been voting politics over principle. Maybe I need to get back to voting principle over politics. Well, they say that the guy that was running against the other guy or the young lady, that they are tax and spend. Well, you know, the evidence does not necessarily add up to be that way.

So I love to talk about the Democratic and the bipartisan proposal that went down in this Chamber in 1986 and even before then. That was bipartisanship. Even though a supermajority, all Democrats voted for it, some Republicans voted for it when Ronald Reagan was in the White House, and we made it happen. It is just that simple.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is right. We say this to make sure that the Members and also the American people understand 110 percent what we are dealing with here. We could have both been halfway home by now; but we have taken the opportunity because this is a pivotal time in history as we start looking at Social Security the way it is now and the way that it could be in the future.

I read those medicare prescription drug estimates that were given to us officially in this House to serve as an example of the misinformation that takes place under this dome and the misinformation that is given to Americans. I talk a lot about the Potomac two-step, but when it comes down to Social Security and you have one out of six Americans that depends on this thing as it relates to the 48 million that is out there, you cannot help but think that if you are serving in a body where the discussion is taking place, not only in the halls, but in the newspapers, you cannot help but say in the future, when folks look back and they say, well, what happened in the 109th Congress and what role did you play to stop it?

I am proud to say, boldly and with a chestful of air, the fact that the Democratic leadership and Members that sit on this side of the Chamber are sleeping with their fists balled up ready to use any tool verbally possible and power-wise to be able to educate and to be able to have town hall meetings with some 300, well now 400-plus town hall meetings that have taken place on this side of the aisle.

And I can tell you that if someone showed up and said that they support privatization, they can come in the town hall meeting. They are not saying, okay, you need to go over here and you need to wait outside, because you are going to ask a question that we do not want to answer right now.

We are saying, bring it on. We want to answer those questions because we have the prima facie evidence to show that what the President is talking about is not necessarily going to benefit Social Security as we see it today. So we fight for those individuals that have sent us up here to deal with that.

Last point, and Congresswoman, we have about 3 minutes left. I want to close. I want you to make your closing comments, then we will yield back our time. But, it is important that we keep up the fight. And I want to commend some of my Members on the Republican side of this aisle that are saying, no, I am not going to vote to privatize Social Security.

I want to let them know that as a Member of this House, I commend them for that, but the American people have a role to play too. They have to hold us accountable. If they do not hold us accountable, then the question will be asked of them, what were you doing when all of this was happening? Did you call your Congressman or -woman? Were you involved? Did you write? Did you do op-eds to the editor? What did you do?

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.

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.