Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is once again a pleasure to address the House of Representatives and also to talk about a very important issue to all Americans, which is Social Security. I would also like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing the 30-something Working Group to come to the floor once again to talk about issues that are facing not only young Americans but Americans in general.

Through her leadership and through others that are in the Democratic Caucus, the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez); and also the vice chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), we have been able to come to the floor to share facts, not fiction, to bring accuracy to the Social Security debate as it stands now.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just share a few things as relates to Social Security. We encourage the Members to continue to keep an open mind. First of all, I want to commend Members on the Democratic side of the aisle for having so many town hall meetings, a number of town hall meetings, hundreds of town hall meetings in their own districts and that have traveled outside of their districts to share with Americans the truth about Social Security and how we protect Social Security and how we continue to have the benefit structure that so many, 48 million Americans, are celebrating now today.

I must also add that I would like to commend some of my Republican colleagues that have the courage to stand up to the forces of leadership, to say that they are willing to make sure that their constituents are able to celebrate and to be able to survive in a program that they have been promised that will be there for them in their time of retirement.

I would also like to thank those Members on both sides of the aisle who see the benefit of protecting Social Security, not coming up with a privatization scheme, not because someone said it is a way that we can be innovative, not subscribing to saying that there is some sort of Federal emergency as it relates to the protection of Social Security, not the fact that the President is flying around the country some 60 days burning Federal jet fuel at taxpayers' expense, higher than at any other time in the history of this country since Presidents have been flying, to persuade Americans that there is some Federal emergency. We will try to address that a little later. We are going to celebrate not only within the moment but within the future.

I want to just share a few things, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to how many Americans that are not only beneficiaries of Social Security but also Americans who look forward to benefiting from Social Security.

Social Security is the foundation of all retirement for the American worker. Like I mentioned earlier, 48 million Americans celebrate and take part in the benefits that Social Security has to provide. Retirees receiving Social Security benefits are 33 million. That is a great number of Americans that have served our country well. Seniors who live within the poverty line, 48 percent of those individuals, of the 48 million, receive those benefits. The average monthly benefit is $955. That is making ends meet for so many Americans, some 48 million Americans.

The size of the average benefit, like I mentioned, is $955; but the real issue is the fact that the benefits will be there for almost 50 years. Some may say 48, some may say 49, but for almost 50 years, the present benefit structure as we see it now for Social Security recipients, including those individuals that are receiving survivor benefits that I must add, Mr. Speaker, those survivor benefits is the legacy of the commitment that their parents made that have passed on, that have gone on to glory. The only thing that they were able to leave for their child are survivor benefits. And the benefits will be here until 2052; 2052, Mr. Speaker. That is not tomorrow. That is not next week. That is not even 2 years. 2052.

And so many of the individuals that are running around here saying that we need to call the fire department because Social Security is on fire are not really telling the truth. One may say that the administration has a plan or the majority side leadership has a plan for Social Security. That is also not true. One may say that the President, like I said, the administration, has a plan. That is not true. Is there posturing on the majority side about the fact that they are going to come up with a plan? Yes, there is some conversation going on, but Washington is known for conversation. There is nothing wrong with conversation as long as it is bipartisan. And that is not happening. Leadership is about a bipartisan dialogue to improve Social Security. So if it is going to be addressed in this Congress, for us to move in a productive way, we are going to have to work together. And there is no leadership from the majority side for us to work together.

Some may say, well, where is the Democratic plan? Well, I think the Democratic plan is celebrated by 48 million Americans today, not fiction, not something that may happen in the future; and in the 1980s it was a Democratic Congress that came together with Speaker Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan and saved Social Security. A supermajority of Democrats voted for it, and even the creation of it.

So when one starts to argue about, well, where is the Democratic plan, the Democratic plan is in the wallets of 48 million Americans. And those Americans that are walking around working now with a Social Security card can say, wow, I am glad we have Social Security in the way we have it. And for those retirees that take their card out with those digits on them, they can thank the leadership of the Democratic Congress when it was created and also the Democratic Congress that saved Social Security to make sure that every American can have the maximum amount of benefits possible to them to help that 48 percent of the 48 million Americans that without Social Security would be living in poverty, to help 33 million of those retirees that are now, this is fact, not fiction, able to receive Social Security because, let us say, for instance, in that 33 million Americans, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, a number of their companies have gone back on their commitment on retirement. But Social Security is there for them. For those individuals that have passed on and gone on to glory, they were able to leave legacy benefits for their children.

Let us talk a little bit about the private accounts, because I think it is important that we talk about the privatization scheme that some people in this

town have in store or would like to put forth to the American people. Before I get into that, I would also like to add, since we are talking about the positive points of Social Security, that Social Security is important to stabilize the American way of life. If we start having benefits cut back, especially in this era of no health care, I must add, one may want to talk about health care accounts or special savings accounts and all of those things that are talked about from time to time.

Forty-seven million Americans are working without health care. These are not individuals that are sitting at home cracking their toes, saying the job situation looks sad. These are individuals that go to work every day. So if we start getting along with our friends in Wall Street and saying we are going to have private accounts and we are going to shore up some more money for Wall Street, then that is a gamble that I am not willing to take.

On the majority side, they are talking about, we need to privatize these accounts. Let me tell you, it is going to make it harder for everyone to achieve financial security, and I do mean everyone. Not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just independents, not just people of color, not just Asian Americans. Every American will suffer under it. The size of the benefit cuts proposed in the philosophy that the majority side has is 46 percent. The average reduction of benefits a retiree would see over their lifetime would be $152,000. The amount that Wall Street would profit from the private accounts would be $940 billion. That is the only real bright spot here for some. The issue as it relates to our risk as it relates to this risky plan for private accounts, $2 trillion. The amount of government tax on private accounts would be 80 percent.

If the Republican proposal to cut Social Security benefits were in place today, the average senior monthly benefit would be $516. This is very real, ladies and gentlemen. Remember, I said right now, as in the present, today. If we look at the clock right now, if we look at today's date right now, the average benefit is $955.

Under the proposed philosophy that the majority side has, it would be $516. That is not something to be proud of.

There are a lot of other things that were mentioned recently in the media, and we will talk a little bit about that. But as we start, as we continue to talk about the issue as it relates to the price tag of privatization, it is staggering. It is a lose-lose proposition, as presently presented, the philosophy that the President has. More than a 40 percent cut in benefits, adds nearly $5 trillion in additional debt over a 20-year period; 70 percent privatization tax, which on average takes back 70 cents on every dollar in private accounts. Some argue 80 percent. I mentioned this a minute a ago: $152,000 in benefit cuts for young people is based on the price index.

So I think it is important that we look at this, especially as Americans are forced to start thinking about this, something that is 50 years away of being a problem. And I must say, after 50 years, Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the benefits that are now offered in Social Security will still be intact. In 2052, 2053, people will still be able to receive 80 percent of the benefits. So I am wondering, where is the fire?

I can tell the Members what is the fire right now, if we can use that as a metaphor, or the emergency. The emergency now is the fact that we have Americans working without health care. Emergency is the fact that we are not able to provide benefits to our veterans that are now paying more for health care that they were promised that would be free. Emergency is the fact that we have a Department of Homeland Security, that we are rated as an F as it relates to protecting our information technology. Those are true emergencies.

Emergency is the fact that we cannot protect our borders. Those are true emergencies. Emergency is the fact that we have local districts, local cities, counties and State governments that are suffering through the acts of this Congress in what we call devolution of taxation. We will cut taxes, but we are going to make them raise them on the local level. Those are emergencies. Those are right now pocketbook, wallet issues that are facing Americans right now.

I am glad the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) joined me. I am starting to think that some people in this town may want us to say that something is an emergency, and it is actually not, while we are not looking at the ever-growing federal debt, the highest in the history of the republic; the fact that we are not looking at the fact that Americans do not have health care; the fact that we really do not have anything going on as it relates to making the dollar stronger; the fact that we do not want to address gas prices. Maybe this is the reason why we are spending all of this Federal jet fuel that the President is using flying around the country to try to persuade people to believe in a philosophy of privatization of Social Security when he himself has said privatization of Social Security alone will not save Social Security.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, my good friend.

A joint hearing, I must add, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make sure that we are factual, sir.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is important that we realize the urgency of so many issues that are before us. And the issue as it relates to Social Security, as the majority side or as the administration would like for us Americans to see it, is that it is not rocket science. It is not a Federal emergency.

Forty-eight million Americans celebrate Social Security right now. Thirty-three million of those Americans would be living in poverty if it was not for it. We have a number of young people that are going to school solely on survivor benefits because their family members have moved on.

And I can tell the Members what is even further appalling is the President saying to the African American that I am pushing private accounts because African American males do not live as long as Anglos.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is very wrong. But it goes to show us the desperation that some majority leaders on the majority side have to try to do this because they can.

But I can tell the gentleman the reason why we do not have a bill on this floor yet is not because we have staff or Members here that are lazy and do not want to write a bill. The reason why it is not here is that Americans are not with the administration and some Members of the majority side on messing with Social Security, especially as it comes down to private accounts on a risky scheme, because if not the number one, it is one of the main reasons why so many Americans appreciate this Federal Government, that we will keep our word, that we will stand by what we said we will do.

So when we start looking at these issues, the American people are not necessarily with the administration and some Members on the majority side as it relates to trying to change Social Security on a scheme of private accounts. That is why there is not a bill here. That is the reason why we hear some posturing here and there and an article saying we are going to start marking some up pretty soon.

I am going to tell the gentleman right now that discussion has been going on since 1978, and the reason why that discussion has been going on as it relates to private accounts since 1978 is the fact that the American people are not marching up and down the street saying, ``We want a reduction in our benefits; we want to gamble on our retirement.'' They are not saying that. What they are saying is that ``I have a Social Security card and guess what. When I reach the age I should be able to receive Social Security, I look forward to it. I want you to stand next to your word.''

So earlier I commended not only all of my Democratic colleagues but even some of the Members on the majority side that have the courage to stand up and say, I am here on behalf of my constituents, I am not here on behalf of myself, on being accepted by those who are trying to persuade them to do otherwise.

So when we start looking at it in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, I am starting to believe more and more it is one of these things, look over here and think Social Security is Social Security. Meanwhile, we have the highest deficit in the history of the Republic. In Florida, that is a real issue; and I guarantee the reason why there are a number of Members of the Florida delegation that are not necessarily with the administration and the majority side and even some of those Members on the majority side are not with the majority side on the issue of privatization of Social Security, because eventually many of the gentleman from Ohio's constituents will be my constituents in the end in Florida.

And those are as-of-today numbers.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is important for the Members to understand and also for many Americans to understand that we did not just draw that number up in the back, that we were back there drinking a bottle of water, saying can we come up with a number that is a big number?

I know some of the Members are in their offices, and I think it is important that they know that national debt number as of today, and Americans and Members can go to the official Website of the U.S. Treasury. They have to go a couple of clicks, but I am going to share with the Members how they can get directly to that number and that ticker. Because if I am in the Treasury Department, I am going to have people go into two or three different clicks once they go to my home page and maybe, just maybe, they will get to the ticker because it is nothing that we can be proud of.

Also, as it relates, we need to talk a little bit about those countries that have bought our debt and we are beholding to foreign countries. The gentleman does that better than me. But the Web site is www.ustreas.gov. That is the Department of Treasury Web site. Www.ustreas.gov. Or you can go directly to when you go on the page, because we are trying to share with the Members and educate the Members and make sure the American people understand exactly what is happening here, because it is not a badge of honor to be a Member of the 109th Congress and for history to reflect that we made the decisions to have the highest deficit in the history of the Republic. That is just not something that one can be proud of. But you can go if you want directly to www.house.gov/budget_democrats. That is www.house.gov/ budget_democrats.

It is important, because our Democratic budget committee has really worked hard in making sure that we can pull this information out, that not only it should be useful to the Members on both sides of the aisle, but also to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, before the gentleman leaves for his meeting, that I am pretty sure is very, very important, the gentleman is going to have to not only give the information on the Web site, because we want to hear from Members, we want to hear from Americans, to make sure that we get the information from them on how they feel, especially as it relates to Social Security, the Federal deficit and other issues, because it is important that we share this, not only with young people.

We have the 30-something Working Group. But in our age range, I say to the gentleman, there are a number of young parents that are out there, and so many times here in Washington, people say, well, we are doing this for the future generation.

Well, the future generation has $26,000 in debt right now and climbing. So I do not know. I do not feel good about my daughter and my son having to worry about college and all these other things, and then worry about the Federal debt at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the gentleman for co-chairing this 30-something Working Group that consists of 16 or 18 Members on the Democratic side of Members of the House. We, like I said earlier, try to come together and share this information, not only with Members of the Congress on what is important to the American people, but also what is important to young people that are trying to raise their families and have a good future for their children.

I think that it is important once again to know that on the Democratic side when we start talking about Social Security or we start talking about Social Security reform, I think it is important that the American people understand that we want to strengthen Social Security without slashing the benefits that Americans have earned. I think that is important.

I think that when you start talking about what Americans have earned, I believe that is paramount in this debate. And I think when they earn something, I think we need to make sure that we stand by our promise.

Now, when we have a forecast for the present benefit structure that will for almost 50 years be in place, and then beyond those 50 years 80 percent of those benefits will be provided, I think that is standing next to our promise.

I think there are some things that we need to do to make sure that the Social Security trust fund is solvent for years to come. One is to stop deficit spending in such a large amount of money every Congress; every budget that is passed, deficit spending. The whole philosophy of pay-as-you-go is no longer a philosophy as it relates to the majority. It is putting it on the credit cards. It is saying it is okay for foreign countries to buy our debt. It is saying that we will forestall it off to future generations.

I do not believe that that is something that we should subscribe to. I think we should work hard in bringing the debt down and paying back into the Social Security trust fund. That will have us continue to provide the kind of benefits that we look forward to, that many Americans look forward to.

When the President starts off in saying it is going to be $5 trillion to put forth his philosophy, I think that is problematic at the beginning, saying we are going to save you money, but we are going to borrow money to help you save money. It sounds like the Potomac Two- Step once again. And so it is important that we realize the gravity of this situation, knowing that there are issues that are greater than an emerging problem in 50-some-odd years.

So it is important that we do as we always do as Americans, come together to save great programs and to be able to help our elderly and frail, to be able to help those individuals that have worked all their lives, the 48 million Americans I speak of that are already receiving Social Security benefits and that are counting on them.

So, Mr. Speaker, I look on the bright end of things as I start heading towards a close here. The 48 million Americans that are celebrating Social Security right now, that are receiving on average $550 a month right now, which we know as of today if the majority side and the President's philosophy was in force, because there is no plan, that those benefits would be $516. That is easy math. That makes a world of difference to someone that is on a fixed income.

We know that 33 million of those 48 million are retirees. So when the 30-something Working Group starts to look at priorities, we want to watch out for our parents, we want to watch out for our future and for our children's future.

So when we were here in the state of the union and the President started talking about, well, people over 55 do not worry about it, my proposal will not affect your benefits, are we promoting two Americas, or are we promoting unity? I am glad my mom did not call me up and say, Kendrick, guess what? I am okay. You are not. Good luck. That is not what Social Security is about. It is not the ``Kendrick Meek Report.'' This is what took place here in this Chamber, in the state of the union, with both Houses coming together at that time.

So it is important that we realize what is being said and what is being done. Forty-eight percent of those individuals, of the 48 million, would be living in poverty if it was not for Social Security. That is important to the 30-something Working Group, especially for those young professionals that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) talked about when they leave their higher educational experience on average $20,000 in debt.

For those individuals, I mean, I thank God for the ability to have had the opportunity to go to school on a football scholarship and I left college without being in debt. But, guess what? Everyone is not an athlete. Every student going to college did not go on a scholarship. Some people had to get a student loan. And even for those that went on scholarships that had parents that could not afford it, Mr. Speaker, the money that it takes to buy books and other things that scholarships do not provide, they leave college or a post-graduate degree $20,000 in debt.

So if we start messing around with the benefit structure under the privatization scheme, guess what? We are going to have to take care of our parents and our grandparents. We are going to have to subsidize their income. We do now, but it will be greater. So that is the reason why this is important, that the facts are put forth. Forty-seven years of solvency, the way Social Security is right now will continue.

So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward, as long as there are those that are in this Chamber and outside of this Chamber that are sharing with the Americans inaccurate information and saying that privatization is good and it is going to be a really nice thing for all Americans and we all should do it, the 30-something Working Group will continue to work not only with the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is our whip, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is our chairman of the Democratic Caucus, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is our vice chair of the Democratic Caucus, and sharing accurate information with the American people and staying in the fight of informing them on the truth about what is happening right now; not what might happen, what is happening right now and what is going to happen for years to come.

Because, remember, I say to my colleagues, Social Security in the 1980s was saved by a Democratic House, working along with Ronald Reagan in the White House, doing what we had to do on behalf of individuals that were carrying Social Security cards to keep our promise to them. We did the right thing, and we will continue to do the right thing. But the right thing is not increasing the Federal debt, and it is not taking a gamble on private accounts.

So we will continue to share this information. I want to thank the Democratic leader for allowing the 30-something Working Group to have this hour. We look forward to being back next week, sharing good and accurate information, and the topic will be Social Security, with the Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Members of the House and also the Democratic leader for allowing me to have this time tonight.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the life of Congressman Bill Lehman, the subject of my Special Order this evening.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, a great man who served in this House for 20 years went on to glory. On March 16, 2005, former U.S. Congressman Bill Lehman passed away peacefully in the presence of his family and a few close friends in Miami, Florida. He was ninety-one years old, and for 20 of those years he served in this great institution, the U.S. House of Representatives.

We are here this evening to pay tribute to Congressman Bill Lehman who served with great dignity and integrity, who the Miami Herald described as a ``legendary figure in south Florida politics considered a visionary on racial issues and public transit.''

Only three people have ever served in the 17th Congressional District of Florida, former Congressman Bill Lehman,

former Congresswoman Carrie Meek and myself, Mr. Speaker. For this reason, it is a great honor for me to honor him today.

By any measure, Mr. Lehman was an extraordinary man. He was a successful businessman who went back to college, got his teaching degree and taught in the Miami Dade County schools. He also was a school board member and a chairman of the school board, and he led his school system through a very difficult time, the end of segregation in schools.

Congressman Lehman was a Member of Congress universally known for fairness, kindness and compassion. He had strong relationships on both sides of the aisle and guided national transportation policy through the 1980's.

Congressman Lehman started out as a used car dealer in Miami, and his nickname was ``Alabama Bill'' because Congressman Lehman was born in Selma, Alabama, and I think that it was very appropriate at that time for him to be in leadership, but he was a special kind of businessman even then. He developed a reputation as a used car dealer that you could trust, and that is something that is very uncommon these days, Mr. Speaker.

My constituents still tell stories about ``Alabama Bill.'' One person said that he bought a car from Mr. Lehman but the battery died a few days later after he drove it home, and for Mr. Lehman, the solution was very easy, give him a new battery, something very common.

Another person told the story of how she wanted to go to the prom with her boyfriend, but because they did not have a car, Mr. Lehman thought that it was fit for him to lend them a car for the evening. This was a very common man, but a man who walked softly and was a giant in this Nation.

Mr. Lehman's customers were loyal and he never forgot them. Once at a town hall meeting as a Congressman, a constituent showed up and said that he bought a car from Mr. Lehman 35 years ago. He asked Mr. Lehman, ``Do you remember me?'' Silence fell over the crowd as the two men looked at each other, and Mr. Lehman said, ``Your name is Willie,'' and the man said, ``No, that was my brother.'' Mr. Lehman remembered them both, and he had a great memory and that is something we do not see common in public service.

Mr. Lehman had a restless mind and could not be confined to business. His IQ was high enough to qualify him for membership in Mensa, a society formed in 1946 to promote intelligent exchange between very bright people. Mr. Lehman said later that he went to a few meetings of Mensa but soon stopped because he found the people there very boring.

So, after he got his business started, he went back to college and earned his teaching certificate and became an English literature teacher in the Miami Dade public schools. He would often quote Shakespeare and other English writers in his talks.

His foray into education led him into an interest in school politics. He ran for the school board and won, the first of an unbroken string of electoral victories at all levels of government.

Later, he would become the school board chairman, just as the Federal courts ordered busing to end racial segregation in the Miami Dade County schools.

Mr. Lehman described attending meetings of parents so angry that he had to have police guards escort him in and out, but his personal courage and his uncanny skill at easing tensions helped him win the day and the schools were integrated.

In 1972, the rapid growth in south Florida led to a new congressional district which was Congressional District 17. Mr. Lehman ran for it. Seven Democrats ran for that seat, and nobody ever gave Mr. Lehman much of a chance because he insisted on supporting busing to end racial discrimination in schools. But he came in a surprising second in that election against a well-known front runner and came in a surprising first in the run-off election that followed.

Bill Lehman started out as a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, but his work in Congress is most closely associated with his service on the House Appropriations Committee, his chairmanship of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and his membership on the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee.

As a member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lehman used his position to help improve the lives and relieve human suffering throughout the world.

An example is his work in 1980, when the flood of hundreds of thousands of Cuban refugees, known as the Mariel Boat Lift threatened to overwhelm all of south Florida. Financially, Mr. Lehman managed to get $100 million in Cuban refugee resettlement aid included in a foreign aid bill, only to see it later stripped from the legislation. Mr. Lehman did not give up then. He tried for the refugee money again and again until finally it got included in another bill.

Today, a whole generation of Cuban Americans who came to seek freedom in this country owe Bill Lehman for looking out for their needs when they first arrived in this country.

In 1988, Mr. Lehman used his congressional contacts to work with the Castro regime in Cuba to obtain the release of three Cuban political prisoners who had spent more than 20 years in jail for opposing the Cuban government. Lehman bargained behind the scenes through informal diplomatic back channels. He eventually traveled to Cuba and met secretly with Castro himself to win their freedom. It was a victory that only a person like Bill Lehman could achieve.

Bill Lehman only tried to use the power of government to help people who had no other recourse and often no hope. Just a few examples, Mr. Speaker: In 1991, Lehman engineered the release of a 16-year-old girl who was arrested and imprisoned by the repressive government of Argentina at the time. Lehman's personal diplomacy, along with a promise to the Argentine government that he would not publicize the case in a way that would embarrass the regime, led to her release which she is grateful for today and attended his funeral.

When a constituent who was a single woman wanted to adopt a foreign- born baby but found that the Federal Government prohibited her from doing so, Mr. Lehman introduced legislation to change it. The legislation became law, and now such adoptions are common.

On a visit to a Federal agency in 1986, Mr. Lehman was told about two employees, a husband and a wife, who both worked in the same agency. The wife had inoperable cancer and a few months to live. They had young children, and she had only a couple of months to live. They had used all of their sick and vacation time on the treatments and care. Their fellow employees wanted to donate their unused time to the couple but found that the Federal law prohibited that from happening. Mr. Lehman introduced legislation to make it legal and started what is known as leave sharing, which is today an established Federal policy.

When he learned in 1987 that the Communist government in East Germany would not allow Jews in East Berlin to have a permanent rabbi, Mr. Lehman made contacts with the U.S. ambassador to East Germany and the East German government and won approval for the first resident rabbi since World War II.

Congressman Lehman learned through hearings about ``golden Hour'' for accident victims. If an injured person gets proper care within an hour of an accident, he has a much better chance of living or of recovery. That is called trauma care. Mr. Lehman was one of the major champions here in this institution for that and could be given credit for trauma care throughout the Nation and definitely in south Florida.

He enlisted the help of then-Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole, now Senator Dole, and pushed through the establishment of the Miami Dade trauma center, which is known as the Ryder Center that is working today. The Bill Lehman Trauma Research Center in Miami is a testimonial to his work.

These are just a few stories of the kind of man that Bill Lehman was and how he tried to use the power of government not for personal or political advantage but to help the lives of others. Perhaps one of the reasons Congressman Lehman was so effective is that he knew what others were going through through his own tragedy and trials in his own life.

His beloved daughter Kathy died of a brain tumor. He was diagnosed with cancer and underwent surgery and rehabilitation therapy. Because of the surgery that cut some of the nerves that can allow him to speak, he had to take speech lessons to learn how to talk again. He used to joke he was the only politician that could only talk out of one side of his mouth.

He also suffered a stroke that effectively ended his active lifestyle, which included tennis and various other activities that he maintained well into his seventies.

Yet through it all, he was an example of grace, endurance and perseverance. His mind remained as sharp and as quick as ever, and he always had a sense of humor.

The many lives that Congressman Lehman touched, he touched deeply.

Our hearts go out to his wife of 66 years, Joan Lehman; his sons, Bill Lehman, Junior, and Tom; and their families and grandchildren and his grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I just would like to say that Congressman Lehman, they only walk this way once or twice in our lifetime, someone that was willing to lead at the appropriate time in the history of this country and definitely within the 17th District of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, the entire Florida delegation sends their heartfelt thoughts not only to the family but also to his friends who had a great appreciation for his existence. We are forever grateful as a humble country of having his family share his life with us.

I personally feel the key to public service is helping those who cannot help themselves, and Mr. Lehman was an example of that.

Mr. Speaker, there are many Members of the Florida delegation and Members of this Congress that will be adding their comments and memories.

Finally, I want to end this Special Order with this quote from a book of poetry that Congressman Lehman wrote in his spare time. He was a well-read, well-written man. This book of poetry was called ``Hear Today,'' and the poem is called ``Recognition.''

``We all have our problems,

But my acquiring wealth

Was not the cure.

Though I knew, sure as hell,

I didn't want to be poor.

Recognition was the thing

I knew I needed,

And before it's all over,

I may have succeeded.''

Mr. Speaker, I speak for my colleagues in the House of Representatives and for the people of South Florida and around the world whose lives were touched in recognizing Congressman Lehman this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following articles for the Record at this time:

[From the Miami Herald, Mar. 17, 2005]

William Lehman, 1913-2005

(By Amy Driscoll)

Former U.S. Rep. William Lehman, a legendary figure of

South Florida politics considered a visionary on racial

issues and public transit, died Wednesday at Mount Sinai

Medical Center in Miami Beach.

He was 91. He died of heart failure, his family said.

A used-car salesman, teacher, school board chairman and

powerful congressman who exercised broad authority over

transportation spending in the United States, Lehman was

remembered by friends and former staffers as a compassionate

soul and a progressive voice who helped shape South Florida.

He was an Alabama-born Jew who opened a business in a black

neighborhood in Miami and once traveled to Cuba to rescue

political prisoners. Known at home as the father of the

Metrorail and Metromover systems, he was part of a renowned

generation of Democratic politicians, including U.S. Reps.

Dante Fascell and Claude Pepper, who delivered uncommon clout

to Florida.

``A person like this can only come along in a community

once in a century, twice in a century if you're lucky,'' said

John Schelble, once Lehman's press spokesman and now chief of

staff to Miami Democratic U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek. ``He was

truly colorblind.''

At the news of his passing, condolences poured forth, from

Miami to Washington.

a real `folk hero'

Former U.S. Rep. Carrie Meek called him a ``real

humanitarian and folk hero'' in Miami's poor communities. She

recalled his car dealership, set in the heart of black Miami,

and his fight as a school board member in support of

mandatory busing to integrate schools.

``He felt very strongly about the people in the black

community, and that wasn't just pious platitudes. He showed

it in all the things he did. He showed it when he built his

dealership. He showed it when he was on the school board,''

she said.

Mike Abrams, lobbyist and former state representative who

had known Lehman since the 1970s, said the former congressman

was guided by an unshakable sense of right and wrong.

``He was the most moral man I ever knew in politics--and

I've known a lot of men in politics. He was clearly guided by

his personal principles,'' Abrams said. ``But that didn't

mean he didn't know how to use his knuckles in the process.

If he didn't think you had character, forget it. He was a

character man all the way.''

Lehman's ability to reach people wasn't ruled by politics.

U.S. Reps. Clay Shaw and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both

Republicans, counted Lehman as a friend.

``He was a Democrat through and through, and I'm a

Republican, but that never interfered with our friendship,''

Shaw said.

Ros-Lehtinen characterized him as ``a gentleman to his last

breath.''

Lehman was born Oct. 5, 1913, in Selma, Ala., the son of

candy factory owners. He graduated from the University of

Alabama, and married the former Joan Feibelman in 1939. They

became the parents of three children--two sons and a

daughter, Kathryn, who died of a brain tumor in 1979. She had

been a high school English teacher like her father.

`alabama bill'

He spent 30 years as a used car dealer, calling himself

``Alabama Bill'' in advertisements, before he got into

politics. Lehman was elected to the Dade County School Board

in 1966 and became chairman in 1971. His first election to

Congress to represent a Northeast Dade district came in 1972.

The Biscayne Park Democrat was known for his low-key

manner, for the Southern drawl he never lost--and for his

political power.

``The fact that he was so demonstrably Southern probably

gave him an ability to play a conciliatory and constructive

role in some of Florida's toughest times,'' said former U.S.

Sen. Bob Graham.

In the years when the Democrats held sway in Congress, he

rose to a position of great influence, a member of the so-

called ``college of cardinals'' in the House. With an

unpolished speaking style and quiet strength, he controlled

billions of dollars for transportation as chairman for 10

years of the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee

overseeing highways, seaports and mass-transit systems.

millions for transit

He brought a significant portion of that money home to

South Florida, with some $800 million going to the

construction of the Metrorail transit system. Millions

secured by Lehman also went to build bridges and improve the

region's seaports and airports.

``Anyone who rides a bus or takes a train in this area,

they owe it to Mr. Lehman,'' Carrie Meek said. ``That's the

way poor people get around and he chose to make that his

priority.''

Other favorite causes included support for Israel and the

resettlement of Soviet Jews.

Sergio Bendixen, a Miami-based pollster who worked in

Lehman's Washington office as press secretary and executive

assistant from 1979 to 1982, said the congressman didn't need

the trappings of success to boost his ego.

small office

``He chose the smallest office--a cubbyhole, really,''

Bendixen recalled. ``He was a congressman. He knew he was

powerful. He didn't need all the plaques on the wall and the

symbols that seemed to make other members of Congress happy.

He was secure.''

Lehman was an unabashed liberal who voted against a

constitutional amendment banning flag-burning, against

military aid to the rebels fighting to topple Nicaragua's

leftist Sandinista government and against sending troops to

the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War.

prisoner release

But he won respect among conservative Cuban exiles in 1988

when he went to Cuba and negotiated the release of three

political prisoners.

It wasn't his first effort for victims of political

repression: In 1981, he won release of a political prisoner

in Argentina, and in 1984, he smuggled a synthetic heart

valve to a young patient in a hospital in the Soviet Union.

He was also a strong advocate for Haitian refugees.

``I'm a congressman,'' he told an aide inquiring about the

danger of venturing into the Soviet Union. ``If they catch

me, what are they going to do?''

down-to-earth

Despite his power, Lehman retained his down-to-earth

sensibilities. He was a breakfast regular for years at

Jimmy's restaurant on Northeast 125th Street in North Miami.

His two sons remembered him Wednesday as someone who never

raised his voice but taught them the value of working for

others.

``He'd get involved in things and he wouldn't skim the

surface--he'd get down to the very bottom,'' said Bill Lehman

Jr.

``He just took great pleasure in being a friend to

anyone.''

Their father always listened to his internal compass,

financing cars for black customers in the '40s and '50s, when

few other white car dealers would, they said.

``He would look at a man's arms and if they had salt on

them, from sweating, he would know that was a working man,''

said Thomas Lehman. ``That was his credit check.''

Surgery for jaw cancer in 1983 left Lehman's speech

slurred. But he stayed in Congress for another decade, until

his surprise

decision in 1992 not to seek reelection when his influence

was at its height.

Friends say that even as he struggled with his speech and

other health problems, Lehman maintained a sense of humor.

``I'm the only politician who can only speak out of one

side of his mouth,'' he once joked, referring to treatment

that left part of his mouth paralyzed.

But Lehman said he made up his mind to retire in 1992 for

health reasons: He said he had ``a sudden realization'' that

a 1991 stroke had made him a less effective legislator.

end of era

His passing marks the end of a political era, said lobbyist

Ron Book.

``They don't make 'em like that anymore--him, Claude Pepper

and Dante Fascell--they're all gone now.''

Lehman is survived by his wife of 66 years, Joan; sons Bill

Jr. and Thomas, and six grandchildren.

The funeral will be at Temple Israel at 1 p.m. Sunday. In

lieu of flowers, the family requests donations to the William

Lehman Injury Research Center, University of Miami Miller

School of Medicine, P.O. Box 016960 (D-55), Miami, FL 33101.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 13, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of the most dedicated public servants I have had the pleasure of working with, Miami-Dade County Commissioner Dr. Barbara Carey-Shuler.

Dr. Carey-Shuler has served in many capacities--as a teacher, counselor, administrator, university professor, assistant superintendent for Dade County Public Schools, and most importantly, ``a leader of community leaders.'' In October 2002, Dr. Carey-Shuler made history when she was selected by her peers as the first African- American woman to serve as Chairperson of Miami-Dade County Board of Commissioners--a position in which she served with distinction.

Throughout her elected service, which dates back to her appointment to the County Commission in 1979, Dr. Carey-Shuler has truly been a groundbreaking elected official. She introduced and led the effort to pass the set-aside law and affirmative action policy in Miami-Dade County, the latter of which was argued all the way to the Supreme Court. Both policies were enormously successful in producing more jobs and more business opportunities for minorities and women.

Among her many triumphs, Commissioner Carey-Shuler created the infill housing ordinance to provide clean-title lots to non-profits for the construction of low-income housing; initiated the ``No More Stray Bullets'' campaign to educate New Year's Eve revelers of the dangers of shooting weapons as part of the celebration; and established the Youth Crime Task Force which provides funding for new prevention and intervention programs to benefit at-risk youth.

During her 30-year career of service to this community, Dr. Barbara Carey-Shuler has been recognized for her outstanding service. She has received major appointments to boards, committees and task forces by U.S. presidents and state governors. She has also received hundreds of honors and recognition for her service and contributions.

Most recently she has been honored by the International Committee of Artists for Peace, a coalition supporting the United Nations International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World, and by the Dean of the Martin Luther King, Jr. International Chapel at Morehouse College in Atlanta for her work in promoting peace and non-violence. Her district includes much of the City of Miami, including the communities of Liberty City, Little Haiti, Overtown, the Upper East Side, Allapattah and Wynwood, as well as Miami Shores.

Dr. Carey-Shuler has made and continues to make significant contributions to the growth and dynamism of South Florida, and I take great pride in acknowledging and thanking her for all that she has meant to our community.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to Bishop Billy Baskin, one of the preeminent religious leaders of our community. On Sunday, April 10, 2005 beginning at 7 p.m., he will be honored at Miami's New Birth Baptist Church Cathedral of Faith International during a special appreciation service defined by the theme: ``Adding Years to Your Life--Adding Life to Your Years.'' Bishop Victor T. Curry, the Pastor of New Birth Church Cathedral, will lead other members of Miami's clergy and countless admirers throughout Miami-Dade County, in lauding this honoree portrayed as The Man, The Mandate and the Ministry.

Having founded Miami's New Way Fellowship Praise & Worship Center in 1975, Bishop Baskin truly evokes the genuine leadership of a Good Shepherd who attends to his flock in many ways, and the whole week long. As pastor and teacher, he exudes the knowledge and caring of a religious visionary who goes about empowering his congregation with his sermons. He has been a source of inspiration and a mentor to a host of other religious leaders who are now leading other congregations throughout South Florida and beyond.

Throughout the longevity of his pastorate, he has truly persevered in showing us the Way, the Truth and the Life that only his knowledge and experience could expound. As he continues to be involved with our faith-community, Bishop Baskin is never oblivious of the needs and concerns of others, particularly the less fortunate among us. It is his tireless consecration to his ministry that defines the measure of his consummate commitment to serve ``. . . the least of these.''

His timely and resilient leadership at the New Way Fellowship Praise & Worship Center for some thirty years is genuinely commendable. As a respected community leader, he has indeed earned our deepest respects and utmost admiration.

This is the legacy of Bishop Billy Baskin. I am truly privileged in thanking him for his many years of service. My honor in sharing his friendship is only exceeded by my gratitude for everything that has sacrificed on our community's behalf as he continues to teach us to live by the noble ethic of serving the community.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to pay tribute to Florida Memorial College, which will become Florida Memorial University during campus ceremonies to be held on Friday, March 18, 2005.

Founded in 1879 as the Florida Baptist Institute in Live Oak, Florida under the aegis of the Baptist Church and the leadership of the Rev. Matthew Gilbert, Florida Memorial is one of the oldest academic centers in Florida. It was later transferred to Jacksonville in 1892 as the Florida Baptist Academy. It was on this campus that faculty member J. Rosamond Johnson and his brother James Weldon Johnson co-wrote ``Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing,'' which is now known as the Negro National Anthem.

In 1968 the College moved to Miami, Florida where it has grown to include a student body of 1,378 students from all over Florida, the Nation and the Caribbean. President Dr. Albert E. Smith has provided inspired leadership of the institution and its 66-member faculty. Dr. Smith has been very effective in attracting talented professors and students, and in shaping one of Florida's most beautiful college campuses.

Florida Memorial offers thirty-eight degree programs through its seven academic divisions. It is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and is recognized by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSB) and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).

Throughout its glorious history, Florida Memorial has graduated thousands of professionals who have made history and are making productive, innovative contributions to this Nation and the world. It is for this reason that this transformation from Florida Memorial College to Florida Memorial University is genuinely deserved, for it manifests in no small measure the excellence of its programs and its significance in our community.

My best wishes to President Smith, his staff, faculty, student body and alumni on this great achievement. It is thrilling to imagine what this great institution will achieve in the next 124 years.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that it is an honor again to address the House and the American people, also. I am sharing this hour today with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), also. It is a pleasure to be here on the floor with her one more time.

Madam Speaker, if I may take just a moment to talk about a friend of ours and a pillar in Florida. Mr. Bill Lehman, Congressman William Lehman went on to glory today. He served our country well. He was blessed to be here for some 91 years. He passed away with his family by his side. He served in the 17th Congressional District, Madam Speaker, from the time of 1973 to 1992 with great distinction.

He was one of the longest serving, if not the longest serving, chairmen of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations and did good works while he was here. A quiet man but a man that enjoyed to have a good time, and we will appropriately honor him with an hour here on the floor, designated by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader, at a later date, with reflections of friends that served with him in the Congress and also those Members who knew him well. And we send our prayers and appreciation to his family for allowing him to serve this great government of ours and play his role in democracy as the annals will reflect.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. Not only I, but former Congresswoman Carrie Meek, the three of us had an opportunity to take a picture together. Congressman Lehman, in 1972, in the newly created 17th Congressional District, he ran for it. As the gentlewoman knows, he served in local government also and ran for that seat and won. So we are the only three that have served in the 17th Congressional District, and that was a good time. We have an opportunity to celebrate not only his life, but we will have an opportunity to celebrate his spirit for years to come. And I know that he is there with his good friend, Dante Fascell, and they are talking about old times when they used to run this House.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments; and like I said, we will honor him appropriately on this great House floor.

Madam Speaker, I just want to once again thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for allowing us to represent the minority side here tonight and also to all of the leadership on the Democratic side. And being a Member of the House, it is always a great honor and privilege to come to the floor. So many Members before us have had this opportunity.

The 30-something Working Group that was created, and we have to talk about this every time because we have to make sure that Members understand that we are here to come to this floor to share good information and to make sure the American people know exactly what we are doing for them and also in some instances what we are doing to them, and I think it is very important that we remember that.

We have been talking a lot about Social Security lately, but tonight we are going to talk about the deficit. And I want to once again commend those groups that are out there on the Social Security front, before we get into the budget, that have been out there working very hard.

The President today made some comments from the White House. One thing that he did say, and I am glad that he has decided to come with the American people, was that privatization of Social Security will not resolve the Social Security issue. Some may say crisis; I say issue because Social Security is going to be solvent for the next 47 years, providing 100 percent of the benefits to the American people as they enjoy today, the 48 million Americans who celebrate benefits from Social Security, including survivor benefits that individuals that are receiving from those individuals that have passed on and have left something for their children.

Social Security will not end tomorrow. So I said we are going to be here on the budget. But it is interesting, when we start talking about the budget, that none of the philosophy or principles, because there is no plan, is not reflected in the budget. So we will talk about that a little bit more. But I want to just say that Democrats believe that for every issue that is facing our Nation, it is our responsibility to ensure the policies that we pursue are consistent with the values that we cherish. These guiding principles are particularly crucial when it comes to our children and the future generations.

The Bush administration budget and the Republican leadership budget fall short of protecting or investing in our children, in our young people. It is fiscally reckless, adding trillions to the deficit over the next 10 years, but we teach our children to save and be fiscally responsible.

It is morally irresponsible to slash health care programs that are for young people and seniors, I must add, in my opinion. Education and youth development programs that provide our children opportunities to achieve the American Dream are crucial.

In Proverbs it tells us to ``train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.'' I think that it is important that we hold that as a value and cherish that here in this House. If the lessons to our children and young people are reflected in the House Republican budget, then we have failed them and ourselves and the future of the democracy.

We have only about 20 more minutes to talk, but we are going to share some of the values of the Democratic budget versus the Republican budget. And I must say there are some individuals that are well intended on the majority side, I must add; but they are being overwhelmed by individuals who are willing to fight for others and not fight for all. So I think it is important that we share the facts here tonight.

And I would love to here some of the gentlewoman's opening comments, and hopefully we can get into some of these charts we have so that we can share with the American people what is happening here in this House.

Well, reclaiming my time, I am so glad that the gentlewoman pointed that out, because I think it is important that the Members pay very close attention to what is happening. I think not only do we have the constitutional responsibility, but we have the responsibility to the people that elected us in our districts to make sure we are not followers, but leaders in this process.

I can tell you I take no pleasure, Madam Speaker, to be a part of a Congress that oversees the highest deficit in this history of the Republic. I must say at no other time in this country's history we have had the deficit that we have right now in, and it is very unfortunate that this is going to be passed on to not only my children and grandchildren, but definitely those that are yet unborn.

The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I are both parents. In many instances our children are going to be okay because of who we are and why we are here. But I can tell you that my constituents, and I know your constituents, did not say, well, I want to send you all to Congress so you can have better health care than I have, so that your children will have better opportunities than my children have. They sent us here to make sure we do not hand their children a bad deal. Because the goal of any parent or grandparent is to make sure that their children and grandchildren have a better opportunity than what they had.

I have a chart here that I want to share with the Members. As you can see, this is what has happened as relates to the backsliding here into the deficit ditch. This deficit went from a surplus, I must add, during the Clinton years when he started, and this House I must add, balanced the budget without one Republican vote, I must add, balanced the budget, and we were into surplus, some $263 billion in the surplus.

Now we have found ourselves in a downward spiral since this administration and this emboldened Republican

majority here in this House has taken us to some $4 trillion projected deficit. I think it is important that we understand that this is real money, these are just not numbers, and it is taking our children even further down.

I have another chart here, and I am going to talk rather quickly because I know we have to move on here. This is what is going on as relates to the interest payments on the deficit, on the debt, and I think that it is only getting worse.

As you can see here, in the 2004 budget, money that is being spent, we are spending more money on paying down the debt, and this number here is actually in the billions, I must add, some $150 billion in the 2004 budget. But better yet, here in education we are spending less than we are spending on taking down the debt.

Also as you start looking at the environment here in purple, we are spending far less than we are spending in paying off the debt because of irresponsible spending. And if you go further over, our veterans, our patriots, so many of us talk about them. I am on the Committee on Armed Services, we have a lot of chest beating going on in that committee about who loves the troops and who does not love the troops, and who loves veterans and who does not love veterans, and folks start talking about the tattoos on their chest that they love the troops and all of this.

But I can tell you one thing as it relates to our spending in the 2004 budget, it does not reflect our values. I was talking about Proverbs a little bit more, but I will come back to that a little later.

I think it is important for us to also look at the amounts spent by 2010 if we continue onto this track. This big red mountain here is not education, it is not the environment, it is not transportation, it is not spending money on our veterans, making sure that we hold up our end of the deal that we said we would provide to them if they serve our country. No, it is the debt. It is the Federal debt as the way we see it now and the way it will be seen up until 2010.

I think it is also important for you to see education and where it stands as it relates to the debt and environment and veterans and so on.

I can tell the gentlewoman that tomorrow on this floor Members will not only vote on the Republican budget but will also vote on the Democratic budget that we have put forth, and I must say that our budget will balance out in the next 10 years.

There has been so much cake and ice cream given out in the last 4 years and from the majority side. I want us to confuse Members and start talking about the President. The President proposed the budget of course, but we come up with our own budget. And I can tell you if you think the President's budget is bad, you need to look at the majority- side budget.

I can tell you some of my friends are Republicans and I can tell you this, here in the House, some of them are fiscal conservatives but they do not want to make a career decision as it relates to their position in this House to vote against their very own budget.

I will also tell you this, if one is a fiscal conservative there is no way in the world they can vote for that budget. I am very proud of the work that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and others have done on the budget. In our Democratic budget we have given $1.6 billion more than the Republican budget for veterans health care and also for other programs for 2006, and $17 billion more over the next 5 years. The Democratic budget also reversed the $798 million cut to veteran affairs which helped veterans and their families.

I must also share, not only with the Members, 77 percent of the troops that are in Iraq and Afghanistan are under the age of 30 years old. These young people should be paid the attention that the Congress should reflect their future and their families' future, and I think that is important.

I do not want to get too far away because I want to make sure people truly understand this because I know there are about 100 charts in this Chamber. I can tell you for every chart we have, we not only have the source, this is from the Treasury International Capital System from the House Committee on the Budget, the Democratic staff.

This is what foreign countries like China and others, what they pay for our debt. We go to them. We ask them

for money. They buy our bonds and they pay our debt. Now we are 44 percent indebted to foreign countries. And you can see how it has risen since the majority party has been emboldened by having the President in the White House. First it was 30 percent in 2000. In 2001 it was 30 percent. In 2002 it was 34 percent. In 2003, 37 percent; and 2004, 44 percent and climbing. There is no decline. There is no effort to bring a decline now.

What is the name?

That is very interesting because I heard some folks in here talking about borrowing and spending and blaming us. There is more spending that is going on, but it has not just been about the war. It has been about irresponsible policy-making here.

I want to say we want to thank those that contact us via e-mail. We receive quite a bit of e-mail from not only the American people, but also even within this Capitol complex. If you want to e-mail us at [email protected], we would appreciate it.

If you want to learn more not only about Social Security but about the Democratic budget, you can go on to Democraticleader.house.gov/ 30something. But you can go on the Democratic leader's Web site and get what we are doing here and what we are proposing.

I think it is also important for us to talk about. One may say, why are you all talking about what the Republican budget, what they are doing to the American people?

The reason why we are talking about it is because we are not in the majority. We fought all day on this floor, 5 hours of amendments, 5 hours of debate to fight on behalf of the everyday worker and retired American in this country. And if we were in the majority, it would be totally different. Those numbers I gave on veterans, the veterans would have what they need. The true budget balancing will happen in 10 years. We have made Social Security, the issue of privatization, we can tell the President to stop spending the taxpayers' money and burning Federal jet fuel, because it is not going to happen.

So until we are able to get the majority, then we will not be able to do some of the things we are doing; but we will fight to the bitter end to make sure that we protect American people and their values.

Does the gentlewoman have something else to talk about?

I want to close and touch a little on CDBG, which is the Community Development Block Grants.

The Republican budget cuts funding for Community Development Block Grants by $8 billion over the next 5 years. These cuts will likely fall on Community Development Block Grants which the Republicans have proposed to eliminate, I must add eliminate. These cuts will have a significant negative impact on the ability of State and local governments to be able to provide housing and community development needs.

Last year, 1.6 billion of CDBG dollars were used for housing, and the result of that was 120,000 homeowners received assistance for rehabbing or working on their homes; and 11,000 families became first-time home buyers, and 19,000 rental units were being rehabbed.

The proposed CDBG cuts will have a particularly severe impact on the resources provided by housing and job training, domestic violence prevention, child care assistance, homeless assistance, small business development, and other services.

The Democratic budget provides $2 billion more than the Republican budget for 2006 and $9 billion for over the next 5 years. Community and regional development will be eliminated and the downward spiral of these block grants will be detrimental to so many communities.

I want to say to the city and county mayors, you need to call your Congressman and your Congresswoman and the Members of the other body and the administration and say the cutting of what we need will hurt our communities.

Mr. Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to address the House. Also, I want to thank our Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for allowing us to have this time.

Week after week, as you know, the 30-something Working Group comes to the floor on issues that are facing Americans, not only young Americans but all Americans, since we are a country that has very strong family values and that believes in making sure that the next generation has better opportunities than the generation before them.

We come to the floor to not only share information but to share good information, information that can be shared with others. We also let not only Members of this House, but Members of the other body know where we got the information from: real accounts, not just fiction. I know some Members come to the floor well intended to share good information, but it is questionable as to where it came from.

We are going to talk a lot about Social Security during this 30- something hour, and we are also going to address and commend some of the groups that are out there fighting the good fight, sharing with young Americans about many of the issues that are facing them. It is important that we do so, so that they will be able to make accurate decisions and will be able to speak to their Members of Congress about what they should do as it relates to Social Security.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I am again honored to have my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who I have had the opportunity to serve with over the last 10 years in the Florida legislature and now here in Congress. Our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), is not here with us, and I will give him a hard time about that; but he had to leave, and so being from Florida, it is certainly appropriate for us to be here with so many Social Security recipients in our State. And even those individuals that are living in other parts of the country will no doubt eventually make it to Florida and become our constituents one day.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to yield to my colleague at this time.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am so excited to be here and to be able to share information, not only with our charts but about what is happening.

This is about future generations, but it also is about the present Social Security recipients. Right now we have 48 million Americans receiving Social Security, and 48 percent of those individuals would be in poverty if they did not receive that Social Security benefit. This is serious business. This is not a numbers game. It is not an opportunity for this body or the majority side or the minority side or the President or what have you to give the American people the Potomac Two Step. We cannot allow that to happen. This is the very fiber of American values, as we value our older people and as we value our generations to come.

If I can, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to talk about the reason why we have to be credible here on this floor. Now, once again, like I did last week, I want to commend not only the Democratic leadership, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi); the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus; and Vice Chair of the caucus, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), for being so stalwart and being out there and willing to be the hood ornaments of righteousness on this issue.

When you are a hood ornament, nine times out of ten, you are going to get some bugs in your teeth. I used to be a State trooper, so I know about hood ornaments.

But for us to do Social Security, it needs to be a true bipartisan effort. Where does the rub come in? I think where the rub comes in here is the majority side is saying we have to have these private accounts. Even the President had to admit that private accounts will not resolve the Social Security issue.

Social Security is not in the stage of crisis. Let me say that again, because we have folks who are flying around and burning jet fuel at taxpayers' expense, on C-SPAN more than the House is on C-SPAN, and the other body, talking about a crisis.

Mr. Speaker, taking from the words of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), we want to strengthen Social Security. We want to do it in a bipartisan way and without slashing benefits and making sure that we do not have private accounts that will make the Social Security challenge even worse. We will point that out as we move along.

Once the President stops insisting on privatization of Social Security, we can have a real dialogue and move forward and make sure we can deal with the long-term challenges.

I mentioned earlier about the 38 million Americans that are recipients, and the average benefit is $955. That is a lot of money to many Americans. This is not money that they just showed up and said, I have not worked and I want Social Security benefits. These are individuals who have worked every day of their lives, invested in Social Security and want to make sure that is the guaranteed American benefit that they are going to receive at the end of their working years, and rightfully so.

What the private accounts are doing and what they should do is do what we did when President Reagan was president and Tip O'Neill was Speaker of this House. They got together on a bipartisan basis and came up with a solution for Social Security. That is what we are going to have to do. We cannot have an OK Corral with one at one end of the street and one at the other and then figure out who can say what the most, even if it is inaccurate, playing the political game, because Americans will lose in the long run.

Let us talk a little bit, and I want to share a little bit about the credibility of inaccurate information. That is contradicting to say the credibility of inaccurate information, but it is important that Americans understand that if they are going to take something as fact, it is important that they have some sort of reference to go to because a lot of things have been said in this Chamber.

I mentioned last week, dealing with the whole Medicare prescription drug debate, and I commend some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who stood against the powers that be and said no, I will not vote for this give-away to some of the strongest lobbyists in this town, that we are going to give them a gift and not be able to give a gift to seniors that we should give them. That we will not, I will not continue to borrow money on a high interest credit card, and I have to get my credit card going again because I had a blown-up copy of the Federal debt, that we are not going to do it.

When we started dealing with the prescription drug issue, everyone was running around saying we needed to deal with prescription drugs. On the Democratic side we said, yes; finally, we can get together and do something on a bipartisan basis. During that debate, the administration said the prescription drug bill will cost $350 billion. That is without giving the government negotiating power with the pharmaceutical companies to bring the cost down, that is just having the pharmaceutical companies set the price.

Then the administration shared with us that it would be $400 billion. That is a lot of money; okay. We were able to not only pass the bill, and many of us voted against it because we knew the numbers were not correct and we could not get price negotiations in to bring the cost of prescription drugs down for everyday Americans. Sure enough, after the debate, we received information that it would be $530 billion. That is a lot of money. I am talking about future generations and what they have to pay on the debt.

Then a couple of weeks ago, the cost went up to $727 billion. I will tell Members that is very, very wrong as it relates to inaccurate information that we have received from not only the President but from the majority side.

Before I move to the next point of accurate versus inaccurate, Social Security, Democrats have literally given flesh and blood for Social Security. This is something that we have fought for because we believe in not only the American worker but making sure that when we tell Americans that we are going to do something, that we are going to stand up to that responsibility. Private accounts are private accounts. They are private. It is privatization of Social Security, and it is not just the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) saying

that there will be issues if we take this private account gamble, but there are others that have come out against what the President is talking, this philosophy which is not a plan which we will address later. The gentlewoman has a chart to explain further what we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office has given us a lot of good information for us to be able to share with the American people about what is actually happening with this debate.

I also want to say that the President and some Members on the majority side bought into the philosophy to hit the road. I am glad they are joining us because over 80 percent of the Democratic Caucus has gone out and had town hall meetings not only in their districts but throughout the country.

A little later on, I would like to talk about a town hall meeting that I am having. I will be in the Capitol tomorrow, and at noon, I will be online. I will give that information later. I will talk about how you can become a part of a town hall meeting and send questions in. We have received 20 questions already, and we have not even gotten online yet.

The President said in Columbus, Ohio, today, This is a debt to the future generations of Americans, and unless we do something about it, we will not be able to pay for it without wrecking the economy. This is what he said in Ohio, and I am glad we have a savvy reporter from the Associated Press that understands the plan as we understand the plan here in Congress.

Under this plan, retirees and workers 55 and over will receive current benefits without changes. Younger workers would get a lower guaranteed government benefit at retirement than current retirees will receive right now on the assumption that their personal account earnings would make up at least a part of the difference. Under the administration's philosophy, younger workers who decide against the private accounts would also face cuts of their guaranteed government benefit.

Some Republicans have been skittish about the issue, fearing political backlash, and I will say congressional Democrats are virtually unanimous in opposition to this philosophy.

I just want to say that as we start talking about cutting back on benefits, what the majority side is doing, they are saying even if you do not want to be a part of the private accounts, because you hear all this thing about options and choices, that even if you do not want to be a part of it, your benefits are going to be cut anyway. I do not understand it.

Then some folks say, well, where is the Democratic plan? I would say, where is the majority side plan? There is no plan. There is not a piece of legislation. Nothing has been binding and sent to the Hill. Nothing at all.

I want to show this chart to the Members because we need to make sure that we remind some individuals here about what has been going on with this debate on Social Security and private accounts. We have been time after time, and I say ``we,'' House Democrats and some good Republicans on the other side of the aisle, I just want to say again, there are some in the majority caucus that have taken a stand against the administration and the majority side in saying no.

After the Medicare prescription drug issue, it is embarrassing. If you voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan, you are embarrassed. If you are a fiscal conservative, you have a bag over your head, because you are saying, I can't believe I voted for that. I can't believe that not only did I increase the debt, that we are knocking on the Bank of China to pay down on the debt, God forbid if they said, guess what, we don't want to buy any more of your bonds, we are in trouble.

This is a time of war. This is a time when we are trying to protect the homeland. And as I see the administration out there running around, saying, I guess if we burn enough jet fuel and go around and talk to people, maybe they will start believing that there is a crisis.

The crisis is the Federal debt. The crisis is the fact that 45 million Americans working, not those that are sitting at home cracking their toes saying the job situation looks sad, these individuals are going in every day to work, and they do not have health care. That is a crisis. A crisis is our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the horn of Africa that are fighting terrorism. That is a crisis. A crisis is these military families, especially for the Army, that have been deployed some 12, 15 months, and they are trying to make ends meet. That is a crisis.

I think maybe, just maybe, and I am not here with hypotheticals, but I am just saying maybe this whole thing about Social Security private accounts may just be, I will run that way when the issues are this way. And I think, or I know, that the American people are a lot smarter than some people may think they are as it relates to having a grasp on this issue of Social Security.

The reason why we do not have a bill and the reason why the President has not come up with a plan and the reason why the majority side has not proposed a plan, because the American people are not with privatization of Social Security.

I know the gentlewoman wants to say something, but I just have to make this point because this is about fact, not fiction. I think it is important. I think we have an obligation as the Democratic 30-something Working Group empowered by our leadership to come to this floor to have an hour on this floor every week is not only an honor for us but an honor for every young American that is out there and also for every parent and grandparent that is saying that I want my children to have a better opportunity than what they have had.

Let us talk about what the President is doing now. In 1978, he said he wanted to privatize Social Security, that he would like to see it happen.

In 2000, during the campaign, then Governor Bush said that he wanted to privatize Social Security.

Then when he became President Bush, he appointed a commission to develop a privatization plan for him. In December of 2001, that commission gave the President three options for privatization of Social Security.

From December 2001 to 2004, the President and the administration and the majority side were silent on Social Security. For this to be a perceived crisis that the majority side is talking about and that the President is talking about, to be silent over all of that time and say nothing.

In 2004, while running for reelection, the President again talked about private accounts and saying they are a solution for Social Security's long-term financial imbalance.

Days after the 2004 election, the President said that he had political capital and wanted to use it to push privatization of Social Security through the Congress right away.

In January of this year, press accounts claimed that the White House would have a privatization plan to Congress by late February. This is March now, or early March. I am going to tell the Members right now, I do not think that we are going to see one. In the budget that was submitted at the beginning of February, there was actually no reference to this crisis that the President speaks of in his budget. No reference. Meanwhile, we have the President flying all around the country, this is a crisis, they are using words like ``bankrupt,'' and nothing in the budget. I cannot understand that. It goes against what you should do in a crisis. And now the press is saying that they are not clear if the President is going to offer a plan.

I know it took me a little while to say all of that, but I want to make sure when individuals in the majority side start to talk about, well, where is the Democratic plan, I will tell you, we have been waiting years for the Republican plan. Years. Our plan is already enshrined in Social Security. The reason why it is going to be solvent for another 47 years is not because the majority side, the Republican side, has said we love and we want Social Security for years and years to come. It is because Democrats demanded that Americans that did everything that we told them to do, work hard, support your country, raise your children and at the end of those years, you will receive your benefits, even if you pass away, 17 percent of the individuals that are receiving these benefits are young people that are receiving survivor benefits. And so this is not a gray and silver hair, this is not a silver hair-blue hair issue. This is an American issue.

I can tell the gentlewoman, I was here in the 108th Congress. I know some of the things that have been said not only on this floor but also some of the information we have received from the administration, I think the American people have witnessed this information, too, for it to not be accurate, especially when it comes down to numbers.

There are Members of the other body of this Congress, the other Chamber, they are concerned. They are not willing to take a gamble. They are not willing to throw the dice. It is not a crap game. This is Social Security. I want to be able to share not only with the Members but the people here in this Chamber that the rules that are set out by this House, Democrats, we are in the minority. We do not agenda the meetings, we cannot agenda the meetings, we cannot bring bills to the floor because we are not in control of the Rules Committee. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our ranking member on Ways and Means,

cannot call a Ways and Means Committee hearing to question the administration on the philosophy of privatization of Social Security since there is no plan.

So I want to make sure that people understand, because there is desperation on the other side of the aisle for those that are participating with the administration in this game of a crisis of Social Security. And when you are in crisis, you start saying things that will sensationalize the situation. And the inaccurate information that is out there, and I am not using the generalization of saying the Republican Caucus, because there are some good Republicans. They are standing there. They are standing by their constituents. They are saying, no, this is not clear, I don't see how this benefits my constituents, young or old. With all due respect to the President, I am not saying that he is giving us wrong information; I am saying he is giving us inaccurate information.

It is what you say. When you say words like ``bankrupt,'' that means no money. That means it is done.

Listen, if the gentlewoman and I were the only Americans paying into the Social Security system, it would not be bankrupt. So I am just trying to break it down, because the President came in here and said, if you are over 55, you do not need to worry.

Now, I am going to tell you, we are one America, and I do not know of any parent, and I am so glad that my mother and my father, God bless his soul, he has passed on now, they did not say, ``I am okay, son. You need to fend for yourself. I have mine, you get yours.'' That is not the American way.

We will come to this Floor until the microphones no longer work as not only Democrats but some Republicans that are willing to stand up against this crisis philosophy that is wrong; 47 years of benefits not being cut, and even after 47 years, 80 percent of the benefits will be honored. So I commend them.

I want to say to the gentlewoman that our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic Leader has been on the road. She is speaking to young people. She is speaking to students at the universities, talking about Social Security and why it is important and what we want to do and how we want to work with the majority side.

I will tell you, when we work together, good things happen. I have been here. I have witnessed good things happening when people sit at the table. But it is very rare, I must add. And if given the opportunity to lead this House in the majority, our leadership will provide the right formula or will write the right prescription, if I could say that, to make sure that we work in a bipartisan way.

We have some e-mails we have to read from last week. Also, I want to be able to share, the 30-something online town hall meeting will be tomorrow at noon. You can go to the 30-something website to find out the details. Democratic.leader.house.gov/30something. That is Democratic.leader.house.gov/30something. That is the site.

At our website, you can also check out the Social Security time line that I shared with you. I want to make sure the Members have this information, Democrat or Republican, I want them to have it, because I want to be able to make sure that the facts are out there. Everything that we share here, it is not fiction. It is not Star Trek. It is actually factual.

You will see the President's Social Security time line, of how long the majority side has been talking about private accounts, and this is one I guess of value or something, talking points on young people and Social Security. Also linked to the web page of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) Social Security and young people are clips from the past 30-something hours.

We want to give people information, and we are so glad we are interactive, because we are hearing from people.

I also would say, again, that is tomorrow at noon, the 30-something town hall meeting. We will be online to answer your questions, and the site is Democratic.leader.house.gov/30something.

Mr. Speaker, under his philosophy.

Because there is no plan. I am sorry.

Explain survivor benefits, if you will, to make sure everyone understands.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman. The more we can talk about Social Security and what is being presently given to Americans, like survivor and disability benefits, I am glad that the gentlewoman really talked about that, because a 20-year-old, it is a three out of ten chance they have of dying or becoming disabled before retirement age. That is important. That is why I say this is an American issue, Mr. Speaker, and not just a small issue.

I have an issue of dealing with one generation or another. We will not pit generations against each other, not on this Floor. The reason this bill has not come to the Floor yet or a plan has not been placed on the table yet or Members are not falling over each other on the majority side saying ``let's do something, let's do something,'' is because if they bring a privatization account to this floor or to the other body, that I believe many of them will be making a career decision, because I believe the American people will say, I do not believe because the President and some Members of the majority side said we have to do this because the ball is rolling, because we started the ball rolling by saying that Social Security is going to come to an end tomorrow, we have to finish rolling the ball.

Well, let me tell you, Social Security is not prescription drugs. Social Security is not other plans that the administration has put out there. Social Security is in our communities, in our neighborhoods, a part of our values as a country, a part of family values, knowing that if a parent will pass on, knowing their children will not be left with nothing. They know this, because they have Social Security.

I want to just commend some of the groups, and I want the Members to know, that are in the fight of sharing good information out there with the American people. I want to thank the Center for American Progress. I want to also thank the NEA; A. Phillip Randolph Institute; the Alliance of Retired Americans; the American Association of University Women; also the African American Episcopal Church; also the American Baptist Churches of USA; the AFL-CIO; the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. We want to thank the Campaign for American's Future; also The Center For Budget and Policy Priorities; the Center For Economic Policy and Research; the Children's Defense Fund; the Coalition of Black Trade Unions; the Coalition of Human Needs; College Democrats of America; Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities; the Economic Policy Institute; the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; also the League of Rural Voters; The League of United Latin American Citizens; and The Links, Inc. Also, we would like to thank the NAACP and several other organizations.

We also need to point out the great job that Rock the Vote is doing. They are out there sharing good information.

They have a Web site, www.rockthevote.com; and I think it is important that Americans spend time, and I want to commend those groups, those that were mentioned and those that were not mentioned, for the hard work that they are doing out there in holding up the flag and making sure that people understand exactly what is at stake here, making sure that they are out there. They may not be, I say to the gentlewoman, they may not be on the evening news; they may not be at the top of the hour on any of these cable networks that are out there, but they are out there. And they are making sure that we hold this Congress honest in saying that, no, you will not give us the one-two step, you will not fake right, go left, you will not do that.

So that is the reason why we do not have a bill. That is the reason why the President has not put forth a plan, because the American people are so educated on this issue and will continue to be educated on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are wearing something similar here. Can the gentlewoman tell us a little bit about what we are promoting here?

Mr. Speaker, that is so very, very important; and I thank the gentlewoman for explaining what we are doing. Some Members that were sick this week might have thought we have a new uniform or something, that we all have to wear the same colors.

Mr. Speaker, I want to not only thank the Members for listening to our 30-something hour; but we also want to share in closing, especially here on the Democratic side, that we want to strengthen Social Security without slashing benefits that Americans have earned. Private accounts make the Social Security challenge worse. They force massive benefit cuts and increase the national debt. Once the President stops insisting on privatization accounts, we can work together on making sure that we keep the promise to Social Security recipients and future recipients.

I also want to add that Social Security is an American success story that safeguards Americans' independence and economic security when they get older. Also, Social Security faces a long-term challenge, but not a crisis. A challenge, but not a crisis. I want to make sure that I put emphasis on that. Americans have earned their Social Security benefits, and it would violate their trust and penalize Americans who have paid into Social Security all of their lives to go to private accounts. Here on this side of the aisle, Democrats will preserve the Social Security promise that we made long ago.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to once again, before I close, commend not only my colleagues in Florida on the other side of the aisle who are not with the philosophy of some Members of the majority and the President as it relates to this Social Security scheme of privatization. I want to commend all of my Democratic colleagues for standing in solidarity in making sure that Social Security is promised for future generations and the present generation.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to come to the floor and address the Members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the United States maintains and has maintained for several decades extensive commercial and cultural relations with the people of Taiwan. In this context, I am concerned about China's proposed anti-secession law. I understand that the premise of this law is that China and Taiwan are now unified and that China has the right to punish anyone expressing separatist sentiments or engaging in separatist activities. A further concern is that this law provides justification for China to legally push for unification of Taiwan by force, which is the worst-case scenario.

Consideration of this proposal is coming at a time when both China and Taiwan have taken conciliatory steps toward each other, including the initiation of holiday charter flights that begin in late January 2005, which are the first nonstop commercial air traffic across the Taiwan Straight in 55 years, and both China and Taiwan have signaled they might be willing to restart talks relating to the status of Taiwan.

Understandably, the 23 million people of Taiwan are very upset over this proposed law, for they have lived under a full-fledged democracy and enjoyed the highest standards of freedom and human rights. In view of the importance of Taiwan to the United States, China and indeed, the entire international community, I urge Chinese leaders to exercise caution and wisdom and not adopt this confrontation and destabilizing approach to Taiwan.

We do not seek any military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, now or ever. The government of Taiwan has signaled that it stands ready to discuss and negotiate any issue with China. Clearly negotiation is the most desirable approach, and I urge both China and Taiwan to continue progress in this direction.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to Bishop Victor T. Curry, D.D., Min, President and CEO, and to everyone at the New Birth Broadcasting Corporation as they celebrate their 10th year in radio.

Celebratory events will begin with a community worship service at 7 p.m. on March 9th and will feature Pastor Jeffrey A. Johnson, Sr. of the Eastern Star Church of Indianapolis, Indiana.

Since the purchase of AM 1490 WMBM, the landscape of gospel radio has changed dramatically. WMBM has received local as well as national recognition for its contribution to our local community, for it not only plays the best in gospel music, but it also provides its listeners with late-breaking news and inspirational, life-changing programming. WMBM, the first black-owned and operated station in South Florida, is one of the first radio stations to stream its broadcast via the internet. WMBM also publishes a quarterly nationally distributed magazine and an annual directory of black-owned and supported businesses.

I want to extend my warmest congratulations to Bishop Curry and his staff for doing such an important job so well, and my best wishes for another outstanding decade in broadcasting.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity, and also Democratic Leader Pelosi, for one more hour, one more week for the Democratic 30-something Working Group.

As you know, over a period of time, from the 108th Congress now to the 109th Congress, we have been coming to the floor sharing information, not only with Members of the House and the other body, but also with the present administration in the White House and with the American people about what is happening for America and what is happening to America.

I must say that it is discouraging to hear some of the things that are coming from the majority side and also coming mainly from the White House on Social Security. And we come to the floor week after week to give voice to those Americans that are educating themselves through the survivor benefits, through Social Security, and also those Americans that are 20, 30, 40, and 50-something that are looking for Social Security to be there for them when they retire; and to make sure that they can get the maximum benefit, especially for those that are in their 50s and 40s, as they start to think about retirement, making sure that Social Security is there for them when they are eligible.

I must say that during the break, as you know, we were on the Presidents' break for some time. And many House Democrats, and some enlightened Republicans, I must add, went back home and started asking their constituents how they felt about Social Security. And many of them came back with positive responses. In fact, they want the maximum benefits out of Social Security, and they want to make sure that it is not privatized. And that was overwhelmingly the message during the Presidents' break. It is not what I am saying; it is what the press reports are saying, either via print or TV media.

And the House Democrats have been out in America and united about opposing the privatization, in opposition to the privatization of Social Security. And over the past 2 weeks, 160 House

Democrats have held over 300 townhall meetings, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make sure that that is definitely a note. Not only with the Members, the Members note that that is the case, but to make sure that the American people that we are here to serve understand that we are trying to do all we can.

And in the minority, I must say, here in this House, I want to remind the majority party that if we had the power to call a committee meeting, if we had the power to look into things that may be questionable as it relates to some of the decisions that are being made and some of the abuse of power that is taking place on the executive branch end, then we will have better accountability.

But as it relates to Social Security, we are fighting the good fight. We are working with what we have to go out to the American people to let them know what is going on here under the dome.

Once again, 160 Democratic House Members have gone out and had over 300 townhall meetings in their districts and around their States. And I think that is so very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, we have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) here, who co- chairs this 30-something Working Group with me, who I must say that it is just a pleasure being here with the gentleman from Ohio just one more week. I am looking forward as we continue to hit the road and share the information about Social Security and why it is important to many young people throughout the United States of America. But it is just once again a pleasure to share this hour with him.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to please repeat that.

Something

Well, I can tell my colleague that I am at a loss for words when it comes down to all the Federal jet fuel that has been burned on the U.S. taxpayers' dollars on the flying around the country with no plan and talking about privatization of Social Security.

There are millions of Americans that are benefactors of Social Security. We cannot break our promise to them. For anyone to go and say we will privatize and everything will be fine, the evidence, which we will talk about later on in this hour, is leaning towards benefits being cut as it relates to the privatization. We will be talking about that a little later on.

I am glad to have my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who was here with us in the past. She had a townhall meeting, a couple of them I think in her district, and so I will now yield to her.

I want to be able to share with my colleagues here, and our other colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that this is important. As I explained earlier in this hour, maybe 5 or 6 minutes ago, we do not have the power within this institution, within the House to be able to agenda committee meetings, or agenda meetings or inquiries, or whatever the case may be, although we look forward to that day. Do not get me wrong, I look forward to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) one day becoming Speaker Pelosi. Because some of the things we talk about here on this floor we want to be able to use the power of this House to be able to make things right on behalf of the American people.

Now, we are not just talking about Democratic American people. We are

talking about Republican American people, Libertarian, what have you, the Green Party, Democrats, on and on and on. We are talking about the American people in general. But I wanted to take about 4 minutes sharing about what happens when we move in haste.

The President wants us to move in haste. The majority party wants us to move in haste. The majority of the other body wants us to move as though there is some sort of Federal emergency. But there is not a Federal emergency. Social Security will be here. It will not collapse tomorrow or the next day or 10 years from now or even 20 years from now, thanks to the Democratic Speaker and the Republican President Ronald Reagan making sure that Social Security was sound.

I can see the gentleman from Ohio is right there. He is ready. But let me just make my point. I am not giving a locker-room speech; I am just letting our colleagues know that there is not a Federal emergency as relates to Social Security.

Now, here on this floor, and I pointed this out a couple of weeks ago and I want to point it out again, because maybe some of the Members that are watching us now might have missed it. During the Medicare debate here on this floor, when we were locked in this Chamber, well, I would not say locked, I do not want to sensationalize it, we were held here in this Chamber and the vote board was open for over an hour and some change, maybe getting close to 2 hours while the majority side went around twisting arms.

And here, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend some of my colleagues on the majority side that stood on behalf of their constituents but had to break because there were a lot of arms being twisted on the other side.

During the Medicare debate as relates to prescription drugs, the majority hid the true costs that it would cost to deal with prescription drugs. First they said it will only cost $350 billion. That is a lot of money. We were all taken aback by that because that is borrowed money. That is money on a high-interest credit card. That is money that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) talked about earlier, about knocking on the bank of China, saying, Please buy more of our debt.

Then as we move down the road a little bit, it moved up to $400 billion. This is not $4, not $400,000, this is not even $400 million, it was $400 billion. After the debate, the cost jumped up to more than $530 billion. But still that was not enough because when we move in haste, we make mistakes. It is important that we move in a way that not only Members can pay very close attention to what is going on, and that Members will have an opportunity to analyze plans and legislation. And I must add, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) knows, we do not have a plan from the President or the majority, and I will talk about that later. Now just before we left, just a week before the President's District Work Period, the cost went to $724 billion. Where are we headed? This is borrowed money.

We have that going on, let alone the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are about to have an $80 billion supplemental. The majority side here in the House would like for the American people to believe that there is a Federal emergency and Social Security will collapse if we do not act now.

I will tell Members we have a lot on our plate right now. Members heard the gentlewoman from Florida talk about the fact that she will be 84 and still look the same in the future. I am making fun of it, but this is a very serious situation.

I had this on my chart the last time we were here on the floor but I thought I would blow it up because some of the Members I saw said I want a copy of that. I want to make sure Members can see it. There are people running around saying where is the Democratic plan? Our plan is already institutionalized in Social Security. The benefits that people are receiving, the survivor benefits Americans are receiving, that third rail when the Enrons of the world go south on America workers that have been paying into a retirement plan, Social Security is the safety net. And Democrats, our position, is making sure not that we have a Democratic plan, shoring up and making sure even beyond those years far out that Social Security is here for a long time, a bipartisan plan between Democrats and Republicans, and that is what the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip, are talking about constantly.

In 1998, President Bush was quoted as saying that he wanted to privatize Social Security as a solution to the financial problems. Chairman Greenspan on the House and on the Senate side said privatization alone will not solve or will not resolve the issue of Social Security. As a matter of fact, if they were to deal with that, then they would have to have tax increases and also cutbacks in traditional programs.

In 2000, during his campaign, Governor Bush basically said he wanted to privatize Social Security. Then in 2001, now President Bush appointed a commission to develop a privatization plan for him.

In December 2001, they followed their charge, and if you were on that commission, you would have had to have made previous statements that you were in favor of privatization, so of course you are going to get recommendations from this commission.

In 2001, the commission gave the President three options for privatization of Social Security.

From December of 2001 through 2004 when the President came here and walked down and spoke in front of us, he was silent on the issue of privatization. Absolutely nothing. No statements, nothing. Did not talk about it. And now in 2004, while running for reelection, there was some mention but no plan. No plan came about after the three options. Members would assume the plan would come the year after, nothing.

Then days after the 2004 election he thought he had the political clout to be able to privatize Social Security. That did not happen. January of this year while at the White House, once again he talked about it and said there is a plan. Now the budget was submitted at the beginning of February, no privatization plan was included. When I say the President said nothing, he is saying nothing because he is not putting forth a plan. Now press accounts say it is not clear if the President is going to offer a plan this year.

Now for all the American people that are sitting at home watching us now and for all those individuals concerned about their benefits, I want to let you know right now it is important that you call your Member of Congress, it is important that your Member of Congress pay very close attention to this.

In closing, I want to let the Members on the majority side, for those that are not with the President, and I must add there are some, there are some from my State, that I commend for their courage and for their standing up to the majority and the President saying they will not sell out their constituents on a hasty plan saying we have to move it through.

Remember I talked about the Medicare issue and how that ended up going all of the way to $724 billion from $350 billion.

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

The gentleman is correct.

I literally could not wait to get here tonight, even though we are here after supper and many of our Members are probably cracking their toes now getting ready to go to bed. But I will tell you this, that it is important. This is so important, not only do I have this notebook, but I have two other notebooks on this issue. This is not, as far as I am concerned, an attack on a Democratic program. This is an attack on the American people. It is our responsibility to

make sure that we inform the American people what is going on. Once again, I am not saying that the President is not telling the truth. I am not saying that the majority side is not telling the truth. I am just saying they are inaccurate as it relates to the facts. It is important that we share these facts.

I just wanted to share with the gentlewoman from Florida when she shared that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member who is a respected Member of this House and has been here for a very long time on the Committee on Financial Services as the majority side and the chairman of the committee and he could not answer the question if he would have voted yes or no.

Forty-eight million Americans receive Social Security. Forty-eight million. Not 4, not 48, not 4,800, not 48,000; 48 million Americans. These retirees and 33 million retired Americans that are already retired receive this information. It is not the Kendrick Meek report.

No, I have not. I was on my way. Seniors who are living in poverty, that are receiving the benefits, 48 percent of those individuals, of the 43 million, receive Social Security.

Forty-eight percent of the 43 million.

No, I am not okay.

But that is the reason why we are here. People are asking for the Democratic plan. I am asking where is the President's plan? Where is the majority plan? I do not want to go back to 1978 again. We are still talking about philosophy, but if I can just for a second, I have said this and I will say it again verbatim, for the last 3 weeks we have talked about Social Security. Democrats want to strengthen Social Security without slashing benefits that Americans have earned. Private accounts makes Social Security's challenge worse, makes the challenge worse, the private accounts do, we will talk about that in a minute and we have been talking about that, as far as massive benefit cuts and it will increase the national debt. Already in the projection, $427 billion. Who is counting? I am.

That is not even the war. So we are saying, not the Democratic plan, that we know all and we know best. We are not even advocating that. It is the majority side in this House that is saying, oh, we can figure it out because we have the majority and we have stacked all the committees and we can get it through the committee and we can get it to the floor, and if we have to do a Medicare move again, keeping the voting board open for over an hour while we walk around here and put pressure on individuals that have already made a sound decision on how they are going to vote, then we are going to do everything we can as Democrats.

I commend our leadership, need it be in the Committee on Ways and Means, need it be in the Committee on Financial Services, need it be our Democratic leader the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), all the way to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and our Democratic Caucus, and also the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) who is our Vice Chair, to let the American people know that this will not happen and that with the President and with the majority side, they are talking about theory, not a plan. And so our plan is to make sure that we do not make life worse for people under 55. Even the President said, if you are over 55, you don't have anything to worry about. This is the same President, with all due respect to my Commander in Chief, that said it would only be $350 billion for Medicare prescription drugs and now we are way up to $724 billion. I am not saying he is not telling the American people the truth, I am just saying that it is inaccurate information. And inaccurate information, when people feel that they have the power to do whatever they want to do, is wrong.

That is why it is important that we take this time out and that is the reason I commend my Democratic colleagues that are here saying, no, having over 300 town hall meetings, and I commend my Republican colleagues, in the minority in the majority, that are saying, no, Mr. President, who I campaigned for, I am not with you on this one. So we want to make sure. That is the reason why we do not have a plan yet, because there is no real plan. I would much rather the President say ``thank you'' and just move on to another issue because we have a war that is going on right now. Until we are ready to work in a bipartisan way, we should not approach Social Security, until we sit down at the table and to be able to hear both sides and that we can move together. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) would be at the White House right now as ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means if we were hammering out a real bipartisan plan.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) would be at the White House right now as we speak hammering out a real bipartisan plan. Leader Pelosi, when she goes to meet and you know the American people at least once a week, they come together, majority and minority and the leaders come together at the White House, if she were included in that process of hammering out a Social Security plan, maybe, just maybe the American people will benefit. But that is not the case.

I am going to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, and I hope she will explain at least some of the charts that she has there to be able to share what we are getting ourselves into if we allow the majority side to carry us down, not a yellow brick road but some other color brick road in making Social Security solvent for years and years and years to come.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say the list is endless for those who are opposed to the President's philosophy and the majority side's philosophy on this. I mean, it is not just House Democrats. It is not just the Democrats of the other body. It is not just Democrats that are out there hopefully wanting to be President one day. I mean, we have a number of individuals.

I just want to name a few while we are here to let them know that we are paying attention to what they are doing. Along with the 300 townhall meetings that House Democrats had, we had a number of other groups that were out there and still out there doing good things and sharing with the American people. I just want to start off with an organization that is out there of retirees, the AARP. They are opposed to the President's plan. And to be a member of the AARP, one has to be kind of middle-aged, I must add. I have been elected a long time. I am not going to call anyone old. But let me tell my colleagues this: one has to be at least middle-aged.

Mr. Speaker, one has to be at least middle-aged, and one would have to have experienced life. So they are opposed to this plan, this philosophy of a plan. Nothing is concrete, but what they have heard thus far as it relates to privatization of Social Security they have a problem with. So does the A. Phillip Randolph Institute. So does the African American Ministers' Project. So does the Alliance for Retired Americans. So does the American Association of University Women; American Baptist Churches, USA; the AFL-CIO; the Association of Community Organizations for Reform. Also we have the Campaign for America's Future, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for Economic Policy and Research, Children's Defense Fund, Coalition on Human Needs.

I mean, I can go on and on and on of these groups, and I have pages and pages and pages. Older Women's League. The ``wiser women's league,'' let us put it that way.

But all of these groups, the League of Rural Voters, I have pages upon pages, and they would fall on the floor if they were not in this binder, of groups that have said it is not a plan; but from what we hear and from the individuals that are saying that they are trying to serve up something to young people, trying to get them to believe that it is cool, that it is okay to gamble on their retirement, they do not agree with it.

A. Phillip Randolph Institute.

African American Episcopal Church.

African American Ministers' Project.

Alliance for Retired Americans.

American Association of University Women.

American Baptist Churches, USA.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I guess as we really start to look at this and as we wrap up in the next 3 or 4 minutes, I just want to say tomorrow one of those groups that I did not mention, Rock the Vote, will be having a townhall meeting with some Democratic Senators and will also have a college campus tour as they start to go around and talk about this issue, and Republican Senators that have spoken out against this.

And I must add that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I join, in the single digits, I must add, members of the Florida delegation in this House that are opposing the President's philosophy at this time, rightfully so, because their constituents are not with them on this. And that is the way democracy is supposed to work.

We are not up here to fly up here every week and walk around with congressional pins on and showing our card, walking in and out of this Capitol, and saying that we are here to represent ourselves. We are here to represent the people that have sent us here. And believe me, if I were walking around here saying I support the President's philosophy and the majority's philosophy, my constituents, and the gentlewoman from Florida knows them well, would be up in arms. So I am a representation of what they voted for. So that is the reason why we are here.

I want to just add a few more things, and then I will yield to my colleagues to make closing comments. I must say I want to share with the American people again that 48 million Americans are receiving benefits of Social Security; 33 million are retirees already. That is the AARP group, and the AARP is against this. We also have seniors that would be in poverty if it were not for the 48 percent of those are within the 48 million. The average monthly benefit is $955. And Social Security will be solvent, will be there at what we see at present levels for the next 47 years-and-some-change.

So I just want to make sure that people understand there is an issue, but there is not a crisis. There is a concern, but it is not an emergency. So it is important that we realize we have a war going on in Iraq, as a matter of fact, two of them, in Afghanistan. We have this other little thing that we are calling, which is a big issue, $724 billion in the prescription drug plan, and then we also have, and I must add, this supplemental. We have an $80 billion supplemental that is coming before us, and the Department of Homeland Security to protect the homeland is only $40 billion. So when we look at it in the big scheme of things, sheriffs, mayors, elected officials on the local level, they are looking for the dollars to come down, and they can see where they fall as it relates to receiving their fair share of protecting the home front.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure coming to the floor. We want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and we appreciate the opportunity to address the House.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to be before the House of Representatives to speak directly to our colleagues. I think it is important for us to remember that in this democracy of ours it is important that we share good information and accurate information on the issues that are being debated here in this Chamber and in the capital city, and I think it is also important for us to remember that many Americans counts on us to represent them in a way that is an honorable way, a way that will give them good information so when they stand in time of judgment on who their leadership will be here in Washington, D.C., that they can make a sound decision.

There have been a lot of things that have been going on in the last couple of weeks. We have heard reference by other Members on both sides of the aisle to the President's budget and also to the President's State of the Union, but we also have a great deal of responsibility to the American people to make sure that we represent this branch of the government, which is the legislative branch.

This is our 30-something Hour that has been designated by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader. This is now going on our third year of putting voice to many of the issues that are not only facing young people in America but also facing their parents and their grandparents. We try to make the direct connection between those that are trying to help themselves, that go to work every day, go to school every day, to those parents that know what it means to punch in and punch out every day to supply the necessary resources for their family to have a better opportunity than what they have had; all the way to the grandparents that, of course, their hope and prayer is to make sure that their grandchildren and their children are able to provide for future generations.

And so this brings us to Social Security, and in the 30-something Hour I am so glad to be here once again with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), whom I admire quite a bit, who serves with me on the Committee on Armed Services.

I just want to briefly say, as it relates to Social Security, when people think of Social Security they think of silver and blue hair. That is not necessarily what Social Security is all about. There are millions of Americans, I must add, that count on that Social Security promise that they were made in their years of working and providing for this great country of ours. And I must say that there are 48 million people that are receiving benefits, and they are not all over the age of 60, and they are not over the age of 55. They go all the way down into the younger years, and 17 percent of our young people are benefactors of survivor benefits of Social Security.

Also, when we look at it, there are 33 million retirees that are receiving Social Security, and we also have seniors that are looking at an average of $955 from their Social Security benefits every month.

So when we talk about Social Security, we are talking about the real backbone, the real backbone of what we do and what we are all about here in the U.S. Congress in providing the leadership to make sure that it is solvent. We do know that it will be solvent for another 47 years, and we even know that after that period, 80 percent of the benefits that are being paid out now will still be able to be paid out. So the fact that there is a three-alarm fire on Social Security, that is not necessarily the case.

But to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), it is just such a pleasure. I was really looking forward to this. Last week when we left, I just could not wait until Tuesday night when we could get back in this Chamber again and share very good information with our colleagues and hopefully continue to stay in the fight to make sure that Social Security is here not only now but also for future generations.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what plan?

Mr. Speaker, I mean, we need to make sure the American people understand there is no plan. There is no plan. We said last week that I have not received a bound copy from the President's office or from the majority about a plan on Social Security. There is no plan. So we need to make sure that people understand. I mean, people can talk concepts and philosophy all day; but it is important that once we start talking about a plan, then we can have a true debate, especially if it is a plan from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans.

And the last time we dealt with this, Mr. Speaker, before our time here in the Congress, Democrats were in control and worked with Ronald Reagan, God bless his soul, in coming up and saving Social Security. And it was a true crisis then. They had to act right then. They did not have an opportunity to play around and dance around a tree and do the old Potomac two-step with the American people. They made it happen and they made it solvent, and that is the reason why beneficiaries, young and old, are able to celebrate that here today. But right now I just want to make sure that people understand, because I had an opportunity to check the different reports that are around. We get the Congressional Daily a.m. and the p.m. and the Congressional Quarterly, and there are a lot of publications that are around.

I can tell you that with administration, this is not about the President; this is about a philosophy that is on the majority side to privatize Social Security. That is what it is all about.

It started back in 1978 with the President. In 2000 he said he was very adamant about wanting to privatize Social Security. Then in 2001 the President appointed a commission to develop a privatization plan for him. Then in December of 2001 the commission gave the President three options to privatize Social Security. In December 2001. Silence. Nothing.

The President, you would have thought he would run to the Hill with the bill. Still nothing. Still no plan produced. In 2004, running for reelection, the President again said he was adamant about private accounts and a solution for Social Security. Then days after the 2004 election he said he has the ``political capital'' to come to the Hill and make it happen. Still no plan. I just think it is important for us to share this with folks.

Then the budget that was just submitted that we are all talking about, Democrats and Republicans, because there are a lot of good things in there, it is all about our principles and our values here in this Chamber; what we believe is important to the American people. Still no mention, still no plan, still no numbers on his privatization plan for Social Security.

There are now a number of press accounts saying there may very well be no plan for this year. So when we start with the President flying around burning all kinds of Federal jet fuel, taxpayers' money, talking about his philosophy, Social Security is such a deep issue from young to old that we cannot walk around and start talking about, ``well, we think'' and ``we believe,'' because the Congress, I hope, will not go for it.

So I just want to make sure. I know the gentleman is leading up to that. In some instances they say, ``Let's put the cookie on the bottom shelf so everyone can reach it and understand that there is no plan.'' So when folks start talking about Democrats, saying ``Where is your plan,'' there is not a plan out there now.

Our plan is to make sure we pay for every dollar we spend or someone may borrow to make the deficit greater, to be able to pay it back. It is not a Federal emergency right now to protect Social Security.

So I think it is important. I think this chart is good. I apologize, but this is something I wanted to say.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is just so very important to the American people, and also Members of Congress. I put a great deal of responsibility on Members of Congress.

I do not take great pleasure, even though I am honored to serve in this institution of the U.S. Congress, elected by my constituents, representing not only my district but the State of Florida, but we are U.S. Members of this great House.

I must say that we have to make sure that we frame this correctly, that we are in the minority. The Democrats are in the minority in the House and have been during the time of that great dive that we see on that chart that the gentleman just illustrated to the Members of the House.

We have a great deal of responsibility. We are serving in the House, in the legislative branch, that is overseeing, or watching, I should say, the largest deficit in the history of the Republic. Not once before was it like this. This is the largest deficit in the history of the Republic.

Can the gentleman put the chart back up on ``backsliding into the deficit ditch?'' I think this is important, because I think that nose- dive, you can see in the blue you have President Bush-1. You have the green, Bill Clinton and the Democratic House and other body that did what it took when the going was tough to say that we wanted to bring about surpluses.

I will tell you in this House, I believe there were only five or six Republicans that joined the Democratic majority in passing that budget that took us into a surplus. One of the main themes was making sure that we could provide and keep the Social Security Trust Fund in good shape. We made the tough decisions. Back when President Reagan and this House, Democratic House, I must add, at that time, did what it took to make sure that Social Security was there for those that are receiving checks now and benefits now from Social Security, even survivors, they did what they had to do.

Guess what? Two-thirds of the Democrats in this House voted in the affirmative to make the right decision to make sure that the guarantee we told the American people we would provide, that we did. I am proud of those Members and individuals that made that vote.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am saying all of that to say we have to work together. You cannot come to the Hill with a plan and say ``It is our plan; and, guess what, if you do not like it, so what?''

This is Social Security. The campaign is over. For folks who did not get the news flash, our colleagues, the campaign is over. The signs are down, the commercials are no longer on television, and it is important that we actually work towards what the American people would like for us to work towards: bipartisanship.

I will tell the gentleman what is also important in this debate: If there was a Democratic majority here in this House and a Democratic majority in the other body across the hall and there was a Democrat in the White House, guess what? Democrats could not pass a plan by themselves without Republican input. Because do you know something? When Mrs. Johnson goes to that mailbox counting on that Social Security check to be there, and when that 21-year-old young man or young woman that has a benefit from their father, who worked his entire life and was cheated on his job because the pension plan was raided and Social Security was the only thing there, his only financial legacy is that benefit to his child in Social Security. You cannot play around with that.

You cannot be a Democrat or Republican or an independent when it comes down to that. You have to be an American, and you have to come clean with the American people.

There is one other thing the gentleman mentioned that I think is very, very important and that we definitely need to highlight and illuminate as much as we can. What we tell the American people is important, and I will say to the Members that are watching us now, I am not going to go back to ancient-time double-digit years. I did not have to run over to the

Library of Congress to look this up. This was just within the last 12 months.

During the Medicare debate that took place right here on this floor, where the clock was held until 4 a.m. in the morning, arms were being twisted, Members were trying to make the right decision but were not allowed to, I must say here on this side of the aisle, Democrats stood firm, because the Medicare prescription drug plan was important to those that put it on the line for this country and allowed you and me to have an America that we can be part of and represent.

During the Medicare debate, the other side, the majority side, the Republican side, said that the true costs of the Medicare prescription drug plan, what the administration said and the majority embraced, that the bill would only cost $350 billion. I remember that just as clear as my daughter going to school for the first day. I can remember that number because it was a number that was highly suspect because there was just no way in the world that you can satisfy pharmaceutical companies and provide a benefit to the American people.

Now, that is what makes me very concerned about this Social Security plan or, I'm sorry, not plan, but concept, that folks are talking about around here on the majority side, saying that there is a 3-alarm fire.

We were originally told $350 billion. Then it slowly moved up after someone got fired in one of the budget offices and said, well, I do not know. This fell behind the copier. We did not necessarily get this page. There is a page 3 to the 3-page document or 2-page documents that you received. It slowly moved up to $400 billion. That is a lot of money, $400 billion.

Then sure enough after the debate, we returned back here after the campaign and the signs went down, and then someone lo and behold said, you know, the true cost, the really true cost of the prescription drug plan that was put forth by the administration, it started off at $350 billion. This is real money. This is not chump change. It started off at $350 billion. The true cost is $530 billion. It stops there. What are we going to hear in another couple months? $700 billion?

Like my mother used to say, money does not grow on trees. The gentleman just mentioned China. I am not upset with China for making an investment in our country; but, you know something, I have a problem if they ask to cash in, because we will be in trouble. They are backed by U.S. bonds and what-have-you; but we are going to go through some real financial issues, and we are now.

So when we talk about Social Security, I know the reason why, I am sorry. I stopped at $530 billion. I am sorry. The true cost, since this continues to go up, this is the fourth number that has now come in, is $724 billion. It is continuing to inch up.

So what we are hearing now may well be the message that we are being told by the majority in this House and by the administration over on Pennsylvania Avenue right down the street from this Capitol building, what we want to hear, telling people over 55 they do not have anything to worry about. Do not worry. You can go to sleep. It is those folks 50 and below that may have some concerns as it relates to privatization accounts and cutting benefits.

But, you know something, this is America and we should not and we will not as far as we are Members here, and I stand firmly with our Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and not budging and saying we are not playing generational warfare. One thing about grandparents I can tell you, I have learned a lot about them and I have children and all, they will turn on you when it comes down to those kids. But they will not turn on the financial future of their grandchildren and children's retirement. They will not. And this administration and the majority is going to be up for a rude awakening when it comes to judgment time in 2006 if they continue to play around with the Social Security and the security of American families and their retirement.

So I do not think that we are wasting our time, not a bit, by coming to the floor on a 30-something Working Group to say not only are we speaking and giving some voice that people care about, and I know the gentleman has some e-mails that he will read later on. This is serious business.

One other thing. I flew back to my district. When you go back to your district and you see your constituents and they say, please do not allow the Congress or the administration to cut my benefits I worked for for my entire life. We have watched veterans go through it. We have watched the copayments go up for veterans. Guess what? At the VA they do not ask you your party affiliation. They just tell you that your copayment has gone up and that your wait time has gone up to see the ophthalmologist or whomever you may want to see at the VA.

But when you come down to 48 million Americans that what they were told and promised what would be at the end of the rainbow as it relates to their hard work over the years and that people who have died, have passed on, gone on to heaven, knowing that their children will receive their death benefits, we cannot break that deal. And we cannot sit idly by and watch them broken.

I want to commend here in this House and in the other body and those that are willing to leader up enough to tell their constituents, I am not on this philosophy that the administration, the majority side, is on in this House of saying that there is a 3-alarm fire. Now we have to privatize Social Security that will bring $940 billion-plus to Wall Street. I am with the American families.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman, those are the kinds of values that we talk about as it relates to our communities and our neighborhoods and our families. That is what it is all about. Those are true American family values.

Like I said, I have kids and I watch grandma. They push me aside and say, I am on their side, and say, we are against you; and they spoil them and then they say, now you take them home. But as it relates to the financial viability of the bloodline of the family, grandparents and even parents, they do not say, I have mine, get yours, son. I am 56; you are 30. Good luck. They do not say, well, I have all my benefits, but I do not know about yours.

And guess what, I want to make sure that people understand because sometimes, yes, the campaign is over; but in our democracy, there will be other elections. And people need to take into account that sometimes, not from what you receive in the mail, not the phone call which you receive, not someone coming to tell you where you should stand on a particular candidate because he is our guy or our gal. It is what that individual has done or what that individual will do as an elected Member of this Congress as it relates to what is happening in my family economically.

I have to make sure that my daughter, if someone is receiving benefits now and they are called to glory, they have to make sure that their daughter is going to be able to receive their benefits; and Social Security is pretty much all they have. It is the guarantee. It is not the Enron plan. It is not some of these companies that are going belly up and then you see folks crying on television saying, I paid in

for years and years on that pension plan. So it is important that people understand.

I just want to say it kind of hits home here in the Congress today; two of our colleagues said that they went to school on the survivor benefits. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who is the ranking member on the Select Committee on Homeland Security. They talked about growing up where they lived and if it was not for Social Security, they would not have been educated. And there are stories like that throughout America. We talked about a few of those last week, and we will continue to talk about those stories.

We are here to say if we want to make sure that Social Security is solvent beyond the 47 years, it is going to be able to provide 100 percent benefits that it is providing now, then let us have bipartisanship.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, said this past week on one of the Sunday shows that Social Security screams of bipartisanship and that it demands bipartisan input, and that is what we have to have. It cannot be Democrats against Republicans or Republicans against Democrats because, guess what, the majority in this House right now as it stands and as it has been for double-digit years, 10 years or so, set the agenda, set what comes to the floor, talks about what legislation will move and what legislation will not move. It sets the agenda on what amendments will come to the floor. It sets who the committee chairpersons will be. It sets pretty much when we come to Washington and when we do not come to Washington. And if the majority said, there is no session this week of the House, then there will be no session of the House.

So I must make sure that we remind our colleagues of the power that they have, the power we have to make the right decision or the American people will make it for them. So those are true American values that the gentleman has outlined.

The gentleman is sharper than he thinks.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has an issue of concern, I just want to say that it is important that the American people understand that Social Security is not a program for the poor. Social Security is a program for everyone in America. It does not matter if you started off with a small business, a hammer and two nails, and you became the largest business in your community. If you are paying in your contributions to Social Security, you are going to receive a benefit from it.

What is important is that people understand that this is not, and when we say Social Security program, I want to make sure people understand, this is for everyone. This is also dealing with survivors, and so many of them are helping themselves through the contribution of their parents, and many of them are no longer with us. So this is the only real legacy that they have, financial legacy, to be able to move on their aspirations.

One thing that I must say that we are saying on this side of the aisle, and I think the majority needs to take some responsibility for this, too, you mentioned how can you say you are conservative, meanwhile you are seeing a nose-dive there at 450 with a ``t'' trillion, to 425 trillion, I mean down, nose-dive. How in the world can you say that you are a conservative? Now when we look at it, we know that.

Our colleagues, some that put it on the line literally for us to go up to the 236, it was a price to pay.

Once again, there is no plan. It is almost like saying I want to build a house but we do not have a blueprint, but we are going to build it and we are going to build it on philosophy and we are going to build it on what we may put out as guiding principles.

I do not know if you heard us a little earlier, but at the top of this hour we talked about the majority side are saying, well, you are saying that we need to do something about Social Security, but where is your plan? The same thing, where is their plan? I mean, the President came into this Chamber there at that podium and said there was a state of emergency, urgency, about dealing with Social Security.

This is not the Weiner-Ryan-Meek report saying that Social Security will be solvent for years. They made the tough decisions back when Reagan and Tip O'Neill was running this House, this House and even the leadership in the other body. So it is important that we come clean with the American people.

If we can, I know that we have some e-mails that some folks sent to us, but we have to make sure that we are asking that the American people and also that Members of Congress are even asking some of the tough questions of the administration.

I want to commend especially some of our colleagues on the other side that have said I am not comfortable with this guiding principle thing; I am not comfortable with the fact that people may lose benefits or will lose benefits under these private accounts.

And I do not believe that I can support it.

Now, I hope that their back is strong, because I can tell those on the majority side that that is the same debate we had with the Medicare vote. The gentleman from New York was here on the floor. He saw that debate. We all have constituents, and now we are up to 740-something billion dollars, starting from 350.

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleague from Ohio to get to those e-mails. I want to make sure we talk about if someone starts in a company with a hammer and two nails, and then works for that company, not own that company, but that paid into Social Security, and maybe became the foreman or forewoman or whatever it may be, the supervisor, that that individual is counting on one thing. They may not be able to count on the company pension plan, but they can count on Social Security being there for them. Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, what have you, it is there. And that is what it is intended for.

If my colleague from Ohio could, so we can let some of the folks know that our e-mails, of course we cannot bring in the reams of paper and e-mails, and I am not being funny, I am just saying that I want to commend those that have e-mailed in and voiced their opinions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their time and for being allowed to address the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his comments, and I am very excited about the fact that some Members of the Congress are watching out for our veterans, making sure our veterans are receiving what they deserve.

We talk about silver and blue hair once again, but there are a number of veterans that were in the first Gulf War, in Korea, even some in Grenada, definitely in Vietnam and World War II, and other conflicts that we have been involved in over the years; and it is important they receive the care they need not only at our veterans hospitals but also because these veterans were told when they signed up and they went into harm's way on behalf of this country, on the philosophy of our leadership and this Congress, that we would provide those kind of benefits.

That is the reason why in the President's budget, as we heard in the last hour where we said how can we talk about Social Security and not talk about the budget, that it is important that we realize that this budget is deplorable as it relates to keeping our promise to our veterans and to our young veterans. We have a lot of young veterans out there that are trying to raise families and dealing with real issues. Some are on 50 percent benefits, some are on 100 percent benefits because they laid it down for this country, Democrats and Republicans.

I will tell you once again, when you see the land of milk and honey, when it comes down to the top 1 percent and what they get and the promise that is kept to them by this administration and by the majority side, it is really night and day. If you are in the top 1 percent, you are in good shape right now. You are receiving every tax cut that you could possibly get at this particular time, and I am pretty sure there are some Members of this body that would have some other great ideas for you. But what happens to that individual that works every day? What happens to that individual that puts it on the line every day?

We are talking about Iraq Watch, and this is the hour that usually our colleagues come to the floor to talk about Iraq. I just recently returned with a bipartisan group going to Iraq and Afghanistan to visit our troops and also to visit some of the civilians that are over there. I will tell you that news reports are not even covering half of what is happening there. Tomorrow we will have the opportunity on the Committee on Armed Services to hear from Secretary Rumsfeld. We will have an opportunity to hear the administration's vision as it relates to Iraq, and also to talk about this budget in the Department of Defense. But it is important that we have past statements and hopefully not to say that we want to have the Secretary responding to misstatements or anything of that nature, but we want to make sure that we are giving voice to those future veterans and we are giving voice to the troops that are over there in harm's way right now. There are individuals,

and God bless them, they want to do and they are doing the right thing that they are being told to do. But we just had the Iraqi elections. New elections are going to be coming up in December. Hopefully the Iraqis will be ready or close to being ready for taking responsibility for their country and for the security of their country.

Mr. Chairman, it is very hard for me to respond to what the chairman just shared with us because basically if we do not pass this amendment of striking this 101 section, we might as well just take all the language in 101 and say, if you are being persecuted or if you are being raped as a woman or you are being abused as a child, do not come to America because that is basically what this amendment is saying.

They were raising the bar beyond the capabilities of the individuals that are fleeing persecution. They are running for their lives literally, and many of these individuals are incarcerated. And where are the commercials? Where are the media reports of how lax our asylum laws are here in the United States? Because they are not. Where are the law enforcement agencies? Why are they not knocking down the doors in the halls of Congress saying, we really have to tighten up those asylum laws because they are too weak now? Where are they?

We are following the people who have focused on this the most, the 9/ 11 Commission, and what they are asking for is for us to review and make sure we have good asylum laws in place. We are not saying it is bad. We are not saying it is good. I commend my colleagues who are looking at this, but moving in haste and having this manager's amendment before the Congress and no one has seen it. All of the agencies, all of the religious organizations that are helping these individuals that we are trying to deal with now are saying that they support the Nadler/Meek/Jackson-Lee amendment.

I urge the Members to please support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your comments and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his leadership.